X . ' S ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS AND HIS INSECURITY AT WORK ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS STATE OF HEALTH . THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY INTERCURRENT DISORDER .
MOREOVER , SINCE JULY 1981 HE HAS BEEN GIVEN NO MORE WORK ; NO FURTHER PERIODIC REPORTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON HIM . . . OWING TO THIS INACTIVITY HIS NERVOUS STATE HAS SERIOUSLY DETERIORATED . '
9 IN REPLY TO A REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE QUESTION INTER ALIA WHETHER ANY CONCOMITANT EXTERNAL OR PERSONAL FACTORS COULD BE DISCERNED IN MR X . ' S ILLNESS , DR DURET-COSYNS STATED IN A LETTER DATED 18 DECEMBER THAT :
' ( 1 ) THE 100% TOTAL INVALIDITY CORRESPONDS , IN MY OPINION , TO MR X . ' S INCURABLE MENTAL ILLNESS RESULTING FROM THE PROLONGED , STRESSFUL AND DISCOURAGING PROFESSIONAL INSECURITY TO WHICH HE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED AND FROM THE TOTAL FORCED INACTIVITY WHICH HAS BROUGHT ABOUT A PROCESS OF NEUROTIC AGGRAVATION WHICH IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS IN A MAN OF HIS AGE .
( 2)I DO NOT THINK THAT ANY CONCOMITANT EXTERNAL OR PERSONAL FACTORS CAN INTERVENE IN THE 100% TOTAL INVALIDITY . NO FACTOR OF THAT KIND APPEARS EITHER IN HIS MEDICAL FILE , AS WAS CLEARLY STATED AT PAGE 2 OF MY REPORT , OR IN THE EXTREMELY THOROUGH EXAMINATION WHICH I GAVE THE PERSON CONCERNED . . . ' .
10 AFTER RECEIVING THAT REPLY , THE COMMISSION INFORMED MR X . ON 1 JULY 1983 THAT ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WOULD BE APPLIED TO HIM OWING TO THE OCCUPATIONAL ORIGIN OF HIS ILLNESS AND THAT THE LUMP SUM PROVIDED FOR IN THAT ARTICLE AMOUNTED IN HIS CASE TO BFR 4 352 040 . THAT SUM WAS PAID TO MR X . ON 23 AUGUST 1983 . BY A LETTER DATED 30 NOVEMBER 1983 THE COMMISSION REQUESTED THE DEFENDANT TO REIMBURSE THAT AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COLLECTIVE INSURANCE POLICY ; THAT REQUEST WAS REJECTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN A LETTER DATED 13 DECEMBER 1983 .
11 THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS CANNOT BE SAID TO EXIST UNLESS TWO CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED : FIRST , IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE DISEASE IN QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY CAUSED BY THE OCCUPATION OF THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED ; SECONDLY , IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE RISK OF CONTRACTING THE DISEASE IS INHERENT IN THE OCCUPATIONAL ACTIVITY OF THE PERSON CONCERNED INASMUCH AS THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES MUST SPECIFICALLY EXPOSE HIM TO THAT RISK . IN ORDER FOR A DISEASE TO BE CLASSIFIED AS AN ' OCCUPATIONAL ' DISEASE , IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY AT ALL EVENTS FOR THE DUTIES PERFORMED BY THE OFFICIAL TO PRESENT THE RISK OF A SPECIFIC DISEASE DUE TO AN ABNORMALLY PATHOGENIC ENVIRONMENT .
12 IN THE DEFENDANT ' S VIEW , THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION ' OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ' IS CONFIRMED BY ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF