AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT PROVISION AND , IF APPROPRIATE , SHOULD HAVE ACCORDED HIM THE PENSION RATE WHICH HE WAS SEEKING . SUCH A PROCEDURE WAS ALL THE MORE NECESSARY IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE IT IS CLEAR FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COUNCIL ITSELF THAT , AT THIS STAGE , THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE HAD NOT YET CONSIDERED THE CAUSE OF THE INVALIDITY .
16 BOTH PARTIES HAVE RELIED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS ON THE SUBSEQUENT REPORTS OF THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE DATED 21 DECEMBER 1981 AND 25 JANUARY 1982 . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS APPROPRIATE TO EXAMINE WHETHER THOSE REPORTS VALIDATE THE CONTESTED COUNCIL DECISION BY PROVIDING SUFFICIENT LEGAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT ' S INVALIDITY DID NOT IN FACT ARISE FROM AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 78 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
17 THAT QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE . WHILST THE REPORT DATED 21 DECEMBER 1981 DOES NOT USE THE TERM ' ' OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ' ' , IT DOES RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WORK OR WORKING CONDITIONS AND THE DETERIORATION IN THE APPLICANT ' S STATE OF HEALTH , AS DOES , MOREOVER , THE FIRST VERSION OF THE REPORT OF 25 JANUARY 1982 . ALTHOUGH , ON THE OTHER HAND , THE DEFINITIVE VERSION OF THE LATTER REPORT INDICATES THAT TWO DOCTORS , THAT IS TO SAY A MAJORITY , CONCLUDED THAT THE APPLICANT ' S INVALIDITY DID NOT RESULT FROM AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE , IT REMAINS TO BE SAID THAT THAT VERSION CONTAINS NO REASONS ENABLING THE READER TO ASSESS THE CONSIDERATIONS ON WHICH THAT CONCLUSION WAS BASED NOR ANY EXPLANATION AS TO THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THAT CONCLUSION AND THE CONCLUSION SET OUT IN THE SECOND REPORT AND IN THE FIRST VERSION OF THE THIRD REPORT .
18 FURTHERMORE , THE FACT THAT IN THE SECOND VERSION OF THE LATTER REPORT ONE OF THE DOCTORS REFERS , IN A DISSENTING OPINION , TO THE LIST OF RECOGNIZED OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES , WHICH IS NOT PERTINENT TO THIS CASE , GIVES RISE TO DOUBT WHETHER THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE HAD A SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR IDEA OF ITS FUNCTION , ALL THE MORE SO SINCE THE COUNCIL ITSELF HAS STATED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE MERELY RECEIVED AN UNOFFICIAL REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND THAT IT WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO DECIDE UPON THE EXISTENCE OF AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE .
19 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL , DATED 13 JULY 1981 , REJECTING THE APPLICANT ' S COMPLAINT , IS TAINTED BY PROCEDURAL ILLEGALITY AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE ANNULLED .
20 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COUNCIL MUST , BEFORE COMING TO A DECISION , REFER THE MATTER ONCE MORE TO THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE , WHICH MUST VERIFY WHETHER THE APPLICANT ' S PATHOLOGICAL CONDITION HAS A SUFFICIENTLY DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH A SPECIFIC AND NORMAL RISK INHERENT IN THE DUTIES WHICH HE