Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link

2. Officials – Organisation of departments – Posting of staff – Discretion of the administration – Limits – Interest of the service – Respect for the principle of equivalence of posts – Judicial review – Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 7)

3. Officials – Administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its servants – Scope – Limits

4. Officials – Social security – Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases – Establishment of the occupational origin of the disease – Procedure – Handing over of all relevant documents to the doctor(s) appointed by the institutions – No full enquiry as provided for in Article 17(2) of the Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of occupational disease – Irregularity

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Arts 17(2) and 19)

5. Officials – Social security – Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases – Establishment of the occupational origin of the disease – Procedure – Access by the official to documents in the medical file – Indirect access

(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 17)

6. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Service-related fault – Incorrect interpretation of a provision of the Staff Regulations not in itself a service-related fault – Negligent conduct towards an official in breach of the duty to have regard for his welfare – Service-related fault

7. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Procedural requirements – Summary of the pleas in law relied upon – Similar requirements for submissions in support of a plea in law – Complaints not set out in the application – Catch-all reference to the annexes – Inadmissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1))

8. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Damage – Compensation – Late adoption of a decision recognising the occupational origin of an official’s disease and establishing his invalidity rate – Right to compensatory interest on capital as provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations – Period for the payment of interest

(EC Treaty, Art. 179 (now Art. 236 EC); Staff Regulations, Art. 73)

9. Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Damage suffered by the spouse as a result of the official’s occupational disease – No liability

1. The Community can only be held liable for damages if a number of conditions are satisfied as regards the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, the actual harm suffered, and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered.

(see para. 52)

See: C-136/92 P Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others [1994] ECR I-1981, para. 42; T-165/95 Lucaccioni v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-203 and II-627, para. 56

2. The institutions have wide discretion to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks, on condition, however, that the staff are assigned in the interests of the service and in conformity with the principle of assignment to an equivalent post.

Furthermore, any problems which might be caused to his former department by the departure of an official and the benefit to his new department which might be obtained from his reassignment are considerations which are governed by the broad discretion which the institutions have to organise their departments. Consequently, the Court’s review must be confined to ascertaining whether the appointing authority kept within limits which are not open to criticism and did not misuse its discretion.

(see paras 86-87)

See: T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, paras 87 and 92, and the case-law cited

3. The administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its servants reflects the balance of reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between the official authority and the civil servants. A particular consequence of this duty is that when the official authority takes a decision concerning the situation of an official it should take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision and that when doing so it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned.

(see para. 125)

See: 321/85 Schwiering v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3199, para. 18; T-133/89 Burban v Parliament [1990] ECR II-245, para. 27; T-33/89 and T-74/89 Blackman v Parliament [1993] ECR II-249, para. 96

4. For a Medical Committee validly to issue a medical opinion, it must be in a position to have notice of all documents which may be useful for its assessments. This argument may be applied, by analogy, to the findings issued by the doctor(s) appointed by the institutions referred to in Article 19 of the Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of occupational disease.

Thus, where no full enquiry as provided for in Article 17(2) of the Rules has been carried out in order to obtain all the particulars necessary to determine the nature of the disease, whether it has resulted from the official’s occupation and the circumstances in which it arose, the doctor appointed by the institution is not in a valid position to issue his findings.

It follows that the institution behaves improperly in not drawing up an enquiry report in accordance with the requirements of that article on the basis of a full and objective examination of the circumstances.

(see paras 126, 132-134)

See: T-187/95 R v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-253 and II-729, para. 49; T-27/98 Nardone v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-267 and II-1293, para. 68

5. In the context of a procedure for the recognition of the occupational origin of a disease, observance of the rights of the official is ensured, having regard to the particular nature of the documents in question, by the possibility for him to acquaint himself with the particulars in the file prepared by the appointing authority by the interposition of the doctor of his choice and to appoint a doctor to defend his interests within the Medical Committee. By providing for indirect access to documents of a medical nature through the interposition of a medical examiner appointed by the official, the rules reconcile the rights of the official with the requirements of medical confidentiality.

(see para. 137)

See: 140/86 Strack v Commission [1987] ECR 3939, para. 12; C-283/90 P Vidrányi v Commission [1991] ECR I-4339, para. 23; T-154/89 Vidrányi v Commission [1990] ECR II-445, para. 34

6. As a rule, the adoption by the administration of an incorrect interpretation of a provision of the Staff Regulations does not in itself constitute a service-related fault.

However, the adoption, in respect of an official who has lodged objections to the conduct of a procedure for establishing the occupational origin of a disease, of a negligent course of action involving the communication of inaccurate or contradictory information, in breach of the duty to have regard for his welfare, does constitute a wrongful act.

(see paras 142, 149)

See: 79/71 Heinemann v Commission [1972] ECR 579, para. 11; T-94/92 X v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-149 and II-481, para. 52

7. Under the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance the application initiating the proceedings must contain a summary of the pleas in law relied on. Since that requirement is mandatory, the issue of compliance with it may be raised by the Court of First Instance of its own motion. The summary of the pleas relied on must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. Similar requirements are called for where a submission is made in support of a plea in law. Moreover, it is not for the Court to seek and identify in the annexes the pleas and arguments on which it may consider the action to be based, since the annexes have a purely evidential and instrumental function.

(see para. 151)

See: T-231/99 Joynson v Commission [2002] ECR II-2085, para. 154 and the case-law cited

8. Where the decision recognising that an official’s disease is occupational in origin and fixing his rate of invalidity is adopted late, owing to irregularities or negligence attributable to the institution in question, the official concerned may claim, by way of damages under the general system of non-contractual liability applicable in the context of Article 179 of the EC Treaty (now Article 236 EC), default interest on the lump sum to which he is entitled, under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations for the period between the date on which the institution should reasonably have been in a position to adopt the decision recognising his occupational disease if it had acted with all due diligence and the date on which the lump sum is paid.

(see para. 188)

See: T-300/97 Latino v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-259 and II-1263, para. 99

9. A claim by the spouse of an official with an occupational disease for compensation for harm which results from the injury suffered by the official but which does not constitute part of the harm for which the institution can be held liable in its capacity as employer must be dismissed.

(see paras 210, 212)

See: 169/83 and 136/84 Leussink and Brummelhuis v Commission [1986] ECR 2801, para. 22