IRREGULARITY ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION .
HOWEVER THESE PROVISIONS MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE PERSON CONCERNED TO OBJECT TO THE FORMATION OF AN INVALIDITY COMMITTEE, PARTICULARLY BY REFUSING TO APPOINT A DOCTOR OF HIS OWN CHOICE . IF IT WERE OTHERWISE, AN OFFICIAL UNFIT FOR WORK WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO OBSTRUCT THE INSTITUTION IN ITS RIGHT AND DUTY TO RETIRE HIM AND TO FILL THE POST WHICH HE OCCUPIES .
MOREOVER IT ALSO FOLLOWS FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL DUTY OF LOYALTY AND CO-OPERATION WHICH ALL OFFICIALS OWE TO THE AUTHORITY TO WHICH THEY BELONG THAT THE ABOVEMENTIONED POWER TO APPOINT A DOCTOR AT THE SAME TIME CONSTITUTES A DUTY .
TAKEN TOGETHER, THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INSTITUTION HAS THE POWER, IF NECESSARY, TO REMEDY THE FAILURE OF THE PERSON CONCERNED TO APPOINT A DOCTOR, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE SETTING UP AND FUNCTIONING OF AN INVALIDITY COMMITTEE, PROVIDED THAT ANY ELEMENT OF AN ARBITRARY NATURE IS AVOIDED AND THAT THE OFFICIAL'S INTERESTS ARE NOT UNNECESSARILY HARMED .
P.449
IN THE PRESENT CASE, NEITHER THE DEFENDANT NOR THE OTHER AUTHORITIES WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN SETTING UP THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE HAVE FAILED TO OBSERVE THIS REQUIREMENT .
BASICALLY, THE DECISION TO ENTRUST THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SECOND DOCTOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE LUXEMBOURG MEDICAL COUNCIL, AN IMPARTIAL AND EXPERT AUTHORITY, APPEARS REASONABLE .
MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE INCLUDED TWO OF THE APPLICANT'S FORMER PRIVATE DOCTORS DOES NOT RENDER ITS COMPOSITION IRREGULAR .
ON THE CONTRARY, IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT ARTICLE 7 OF ANNEX II TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS EMPOWERS THE PERSON CONCERNED TO APPOINT A DOCTOR HIMSELF, CLEARLY PRESUPPOSING THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED WILL CHOOSE A PERSON IN WHOM HE HAS CONFIDENCE, AND THEREFORE IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY BE ONE OF HIS PRIVATE DOCTORS .
IT FOLLOWS FROM THESE CONSIDERATIONS AS A WHOLE THAT THE PRESENT COMPLAINT MUST BE REJECTED .
3 . THE APPLICANT'S SECOND COMPLAINT
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT, OWING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF TWO OF HIS PRIVATE DOCTORS, HE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT GRANTED HIM BY ARTICLE 9 OF ANNEX II TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS, THAT IS TO SAY, OF SUBMITTING TO THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE ANY REPORTS OR CERTIFICATES FROM HIS REGULAR DOCTOR .
THIS COMPLAINT IS UNFOUNDED .
IN FACT, IN SUCH CASES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED MAY AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED POWER BY REQUESTING THE PRIVATE DOCTORS IN QUESTION TO LODGE WITH THE COMMITTEE THE REPORTS OR CERTIFICATES IN QUESTION . IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THE PRESENT COMPLAINT .
IN FACT HIS ATTITUDE WAS TANTAMOUNT TO PROHIBITING DR PIERRE STEIN AND DR ROGER WELTER ACTING IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED MANNER AND MANIFESTED HIS INTENTION NOT TO CO-OPERATE IN ANY WAY IN THE WORK OF THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE .
4 . THE APPLICANT'S THIRD COMPLAINT
( A ) THE APPLICANT SEES ANOTHER IRREGULARITY