EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :99 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Ch amber)
14 September 2010
Case F-79/09
AE
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Officials — Social security — Occupational sickness and accident insurance — 
Article 73 o f the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of a di sease — 
Hypersensitivity to electro-magnetic fields)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in w hich A E seeks a nnulment of the 
Commission’s decision o f 15 December 2008 r efusing to recognise his me dical condition 
as an occupational disease, and annulment of the Commission’s decision r ejecting his 
complaint against th at decision, together with a n order th at th e C ommission p ay 
EUR 12 000 i n compe nsation f or th e non -material da mage which he considers he 
suffered.
Held: The Commission is ordered to pay the sum of EUR 2 000. The remainder of the claims in 
the action ar e dismissed. The Commission i s ordered to bear its own costs and pay a 
quarter of the applicant’s. The applicant is ordered to bear th ree q uarters of his own 
costs.
Summ ary
1. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — 
Medical Comm ittee — Appointment of doctors
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73 ; Ru les o n the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of 
occupational disease, Art. 22)
2. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — 
Expert medical report — Refusal by one of the members of the Medical Comm ittee to sign the report
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73)
3. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — 
Expert medical report — Medical Comm ittee’s discretion
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73 ; Ru les o n the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of 
occupational disease, Art. 23)
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :99SUMM ARY—CASEF-79/09
AEvCOMM ISSION
4. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — 
Establishing wh ether a d isease results from a n official’s occupation
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73 ; Ru les o n the insurance of officials against the risk of accident and of 
occupational disease, Art. 3)
5. Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — 
Occupational disease — Definition
(Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risks of accident and of occupational disease, 
Art. 3(2))
6. European Union law — Principles — Duty to act within a r easonable time — Infringement in an 
administrative procedure — Effects
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Eu ropean Union, Art. 41(1))
7. European U nion l aw — Principles — Duty t o a ct w ithin a r easonable t ime — 
Administrative procedure — Criteria for assess ment
1. The Common r ules on th e insurance of officials of the European Union a gainst the risk of accident 
and of occupational disease do no t lay down any particular specialisation r equirements for mem bers of 
the M edical Committee a nd allow b oth th e official concerned and th e ad ministration c omplete 
freedom to choose th eir doctor. Admittedly, Article 22 o f the new Rules on i nsurance which came 
into force on 1 January 2006 r equires the th ird d octor to have ‘expertise in assessing and treating 
bodily injury’. However, that provision g overns on ly the appointment of the third d octor and therefore 
does no t ad versely affect either the official’s right to appoint, completely freely, a d octor whom h e 
trusts, or th e ad ministration’s freedom t o choose th e doctor representing it in th e M edical 
Committee.
The Rules on i nsurance also do no t lay down any right to object to th e doctors appointed to sit in a 
Medical Committee, the official’s rights being protected by the presence of his trusted doctor and by a 
doctor appointed with th e agreeme nt of the latter.
(see paras 51, 54)
See:
186/80 S uss v C omm ission [1981 ] ECR 2041 , paras 9 to 11
2. The report by the Medical Committee is no t vitiated by a f ormal defect because on e of its mem bers 
refused to sign it, provided th at it is established th at the mem ber who declined to sign had th e 
opportunity to put his point of view to the other two mem bers.
(see para. 56)
See:
T-31/89 S abbatucci v P arliament [1990 ] ECR II- 265, summary publication, para. 2; T-20/00 OP Comm ission v 
Camacho-Fernandes [ 2003 ] ECR-SC I-A-75 a nd II-405, paras 47 a nd 48
3. The duty of the M edical Committee p rovided for in A rticle 23 o f the Common r ules on th e 
insurance of officials of the European Union a gainst the risk of accident and of occupational disease 
to assess me dical questions entirely objectively and independently requires, first, th at the Committee 
has available to it all th e information it might n eed and, second, that it has full discretionary power. 
The me dical assessments, properly speaking, made by the M edical Committee, must be regarded as 
definitive w here th ey have b een issued under proper conditions. The Court on ly has the power to
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :99 3SUMM ARY—CASEF-79/09
AEvCOMM ISSION
 ascertain, first, whether the Committee w as constituted and functioned properly and, second, whether 
its opinion is lawful, in particular w hether it contains a s tatement of reasons allowing an assessment to 
be made of the considerations on w hich it is based, and whether it establishes a c omprehensible link 
between th e me dical findings it contains and the conclusions reached. Wh ere the Medical Committee 
is required to answer complex me dical questions relating to a di fficult dia gnosis or to th e causal link 
between th e disorder from w hich th e official concerned is suffering and the pe rformance of his duties 
with a C ommunity institution, it must indicate in its opinion th e factors in th e file on w hich it has 
relied and, in th e eve nt of significant discrepancy, its reasons for departing from c ertain relevant 
medical reports dra wn up at an earlier stage which were more favourable to the official.
(see paras 64-65)
See:
T-300/97 L atino v C omm ission [1999 ] ECR-SC I- A-259 a nd II-1263 , paras 41 a nd 78; T-27/98 N ardone v 
Comm ission [1999 ] ECR-SC I- A-267 a nd II-1293 , paras 30, 68 a nd 87; T-145/01 L atino v C omm ission [2003 ] 
ECR-SC I-A-59 a nd II-337, para. 47
F-39/05 B eau v C omm ission [2006 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-51 a nd II-A-1-175, para. 35
4. Under Article 3(2) of the Common rules on th e insurance of officials of the European Union a gainst 
the risk of accident and of occupational disease, where the disorder in question is no t in the European 
schedule of occupational diseases annexed to Commission R ecomme ndation 90 /326, it is for th e 
official in question t o establish with sufficient certainty th at the origin of his disorder lies in th e 
performance of his duties or occurred during th e pe rformance of his duties within th e U nion 
institutions. That is why, where th ere is any doubt about that origin, the compe tent authority is 
entitled to refuse to accept the occupational origin of the disease, since there is no r ule or principle 
that the official should have th e benefit of the doubt.
(see para. 82)
See:
C-180/03 P Latino v C omm ission [2004 ] ECR I-1587 , paras 36 t o 39
5. In complex situations where th e origin of an official’s disease lies in a n umber of causes, both 
occupational and extra-occupational, and physical or psychological, which have e ach contributed to 
the developme nt of that disease, it is for the M edical Committee to ascertain whether the official’s 
performance of his duties in the service of the Union’s institutions has a dir ect link with his disease, for 
example, as a t rigger for that disease. In such cases, it is no t required, for the disease to be recognised 
as having an occupational origin, that it should have its sole, basic, preponderant or predominant cause 
in the performance of duties.
(see para. 83)
See:
T-4/96 S v C ourt of Justice [1997 ] ECR II- 1125 , paras 79 a nd 80
6. Compliance with th e reasonable time r equirement in th e conduct of ad ministrative p rocedures 
constitutes a g eneral principle of Union law w hose observance the Courts of the Union e nsure and 
which is laid d own as a c omponent of the right to sound ad ministration b y Article 41(1) of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
4 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :99SUMM ARY—CASEF-79/09
AEvCOMM ISSION
However, infringement of the reasonable time p rinciple does no t, as a g eneral rule, justify th e 
annulment of a d ecision taken as the culmination o f an ad ministrative p rocedure. It is on ly where the 
passing of an excessive pe riod is likely to affect the content itself of the decision ad opted as the 
culmination o f the ad ministrative p rocedure th at failure to observe th e reasonable time p rinciple 
affects th e validity of th e ad ministrative p rocedure. Any excessive pe riod taken to process a n 
application f or recognition o f the occupational origin of a di sease cannot, th erefore, as a r ule, affect 
the content itself of the opinion ad opted by th e M edical Committee o r that of the final decision 
adopted by the institution. Such a pe riod cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, alter the Medical 
Committee’s assessment of whether or no t a di sease is occupational in origin. The m ain practical 
consequence of the Civil Service Tribunal’s annulment of a d ecision t aken in th e light of the Medical 
Committee’s assessment would be counterproductive in th at it would prolong th e procedure still 
further on th e ground that it had already gone on t oo long.
However, the Union c ourts have th e power of their own m otion t o order the ad ministration t o pay 
compe nsation w here a r easonable time h as been exceeded, since such compe nsation r epresents the 
best form o f reparation f or an official, provided th at the parties have b een given an opportunity to 
submit their observations on th at solution.
(see paras 99-101, 104 )
See:
C-39/00 P SGA v C omm ission [2000 ] ECR I- 11201 , para. 44; C-197/09 R X-II M v E MEA [2009 ] ECR I- 12033 , 
para. 41
T-67/01 J CB Service v C omm ission [2004 ] ECR II-49, paras 36 a nd 40 a nd th e case-law cited th erein; T-394/03 
Angeletti v C omm ission [2006 ] ECR-SC I-A-2-95 a nd II-A-2-441, paras 162 t o 167
judgment of 12 May 2010 i n T-491/08 P Bui V an v C omm ission, para. 88
F-33/08 V v C omm ission [2009 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-403 a nd II-A-1-2159 , para. 211, on a ppeal before the General Court 
of the European Union, Case T-510/99 P
7. The reasonableness of the duration o f an ad ministrative procedure must be appraised in the light of 
the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, its context, th e various procedural stages 
followed by the institution, the conduct of the parties in th e course of the procedure, the complexity 
of the case and its importance for the various parties involved.
(see para. 105 )
See:
C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v C omm ission [1998 ] ECR I-8417 , para. 29; C-385/07 P D er Grüne Punkt - Duales 
System D eutschland v C omm ission [2009 ] ECR I-6155 , paras 182 t o 188
T-213/95 a nd T-18/96 S CK and FNK v C omm ission [1997 ] ECR II- 1739 , para. 55