CELEX: 62006FJ0041
Language: en
Date: 2008-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008.#Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission.#Case F-41/06.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL 
      (First Chamber)
      4 November 2008 
      Case F-41/06
      Luigi Marcuccio
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Civil service – Officials – Social security – Insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease – Invalidity – Retirement on the ground of invalidity – Statement of reasons – Annulment)
      Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks, first, annulment of the Commission decision by which
         he was retired on grounds of invalidity and of a series of measures connected to that decision and, secondly, an order for
         the Commission to pay him damages.
      
      Held: The Commission decision of 30 May 2005 by which the applicant was retired on grounds of invalidity is annulled. The Commission
         is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The Commission is to bear
         its own costs and to pay two thirds of the applicant’s costs. The applicant is to bear one third of his own costs.
      
      Summary
      Officials – Invalidity – Invalidity Committee – Opinions – Obligation to state reasons – Purpose
      (Staff Regulations, Arts 25, 53 and 78, first para.)
      The provisions relating to the Invalidity Committee are designed to confer upon medical experts the task of definitively appraising
         all medical questions. Judicial review may not extend to medical appraisals properly so-called, which must be considered definitive,
         provided that the conditions in which they are made are not irregular. On the other hand, judicial review may extend to questions
         concerning the proper constitution and functioning of those committees, and also the regularity of the opinions which they
         issue. From that point of view, the Community judicature has jurisdiction to examine whether the opinion contains a statement
         of reasons enabling the reader to assess the considerations on which the conclusions which it contains were based and whether
         it establishes a comprehensible link between its medical findings and the conclusions reached by the committee.
      
      An opinion of an Invalidity Committee which is confined purely and simply to stating its findings and, at the same time, concluding
         that the official is suffering from total invalidity preventing him from performing his duties manifestly contains no statement
         of reasons. The mere mention, in the Invalidity Committee’s record, that the official apparently suffered from an anxio-depressive
         syndrome does not enable the Community judicature to be aware of and to review the considerations on which the conclusions
         which it contains were based and if it has established a comprehensible link between the medical findings contained in it
         and the conclusions at which the Committee arrived. An anxio-depressive syndrome may manifest itself in very different ways
         and to very different degrees and does not mean that the person suffering from it must necessarily be regarded as suffering
         from total permanent invalidity preventing him from performing the duties corresponding to a post in his function group.
      
      (see paras 64, 65, 67)
      See:
      277/84 Jänsch v Commission [1987] ECR 4923, para. 15
      
      T-165/89 Plug v Commission [1992] ECR II‑367, para. 75; T-27/98 Nardone v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑267 and II‑1293, para. 87