JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

13 December 2000

Joined Cases T-110/99 and T-260/99

F

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Absences — Production of medical certificates — Failure by the person concerned to attend for medical checkups — Sick leave deducted from annual leave entitlement — Action for annulment — Claims for compensation’

Full text in French II-1333

Application for:

annulment of three decisions of the Parliament deducting from the applicant's annual leave entitlement absences on account of sickness regarded as irregular and a claim for compensation for the nonmaterial damage allegedly resulting from those decisions and from the conduct of the Parliament.

Held:

the application for annulment in Case T-110/99, in so far as it is directed against the decision of 28 January 1999, is dismissed as inadmissible. The decisions of 16 September 1998 and 22 April 1999 are annulled. The claims for compensation are rejected. The Parliament is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the applicant. The applicant is ordered to bear one half of her own costs.

Summary

The precise classification of a letter is a matter for the Court alone and not for the parties. An official's letter which clearly seeks an amicable settlement of the official's complaints or a letter which clearly expresses the applicant's intention to challenge a decision adversely affecting him constitutes a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. A letter in which the author does no more than, first, request the defendant institution to specify the administrative decision on the basis of which annual leave was deducted and, secondly, claim that he has not so far received any information or decision from the competent authority cannot be classified as a complaint, within the meaning of that provision, even if it is described by the author as ‘an appeal pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations’. (see paras 43, 45-46) See: T-108/99 Reggimenti v Parliament [1999] ECRSC I-A-243 and II-1205. para. 27

Absence is deducted from annual leave on the assumption that the irregularity of such absence has been duly established. In that regard, the administration can deny the validity of a medical certificate and conclude that the absence of the official concerned is unauthorised only where it has previously required him, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations, to undergo a medical examination. Although it is true that the duty of the Community institutions to arrange a medical examination necessarily has as its corollary a duty on the part of the officials concerned, if Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations are not to be rendered ineffective, to undergo such examinations or to submit certificates showing with sufficient clarity and beyond all argument that he was unable to travel for that purpose, any failure by the official to comply with that duty cannot, of itself, enable the institution to reverse the presumption which attaches to medical certificates duly produced that absences on account of sickness are regular. On the other hand, such a failure may, in some circumstances, be the subject of disciplinary proceedings brought on the basis of Title VI of the Staff Regulations which Article 60 of the Staff Regulations expressly reserves. (see paras 66, 67, 69-71) See: T-130/96 Aquilino v Council [1998] ECRSC I-A-351 and II-1017, paras 71, 73 and 83

Where an official brings an action seeking both the annulment of an act of the administration and compensation for the damage which he considers himself to have suffered as a result of that act, the claims are closely linked with each other and, consequently, the inadmissibility of the claim for annulment entails the inadmissibility of the claim for compensation. (see para. 82) See: T-72/92 Benzler v Commission [1993] ECR II-347, paras 21 and 22