1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 10 SEPTEMBER 1980 BENOIT SUSS , A RETIRED OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , BROUGHT AN ACTION CLAIMING ON THE ONE HAND A DECLARATION THAT THE DOCTOR APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE 23 OF THE RULES , ADOPTED UNDER ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS , ON THE INSURANCE OF OFFICIALS AGAINST THE RISK OF ACCIDENT , ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE RULES ' ' ), FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE DEGREE OF THE APPLICANT ' S PERMANENT INVALIDITY , AND ON THE OTHER HAND CHARGING THE COMMISSION WITH DELAY IN AWARDING THE INVALIDITY ALLOWANCE AND THUS CLAIMING DEFAULT INTEREST . IN THE REPLY THE APPLICANT ' S FURTHER CLAIMS COVERED THE METHOD OF PAYMENT OF THE FEES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE AND THE PRODUCTION TO HIM OF THE OPINION OF THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE IN RELATION TO HIS RETIREMENT .
2 THE APPLICANT , WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN ASSAULT IN MAY 1977 AND WAS PLACED ON INVALIDITY PENSION AS FROM 1 DECEMBER 1979 , WAS EXAMINED IN JUNE 1978 BY THE DOCTOR APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 19 OF THE RULES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSAULT . THAT DOCTOR WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION COLLECTIVELY INSURED ITS STAFF . BECAUSE THE INJURIES HAD NOT CONSOLIDATED THE SAID DOCTOR DECIDED TO RE-EXAMINE THE APPLICANT A YEAR LATER AND ASKED THE PRACTITIONER WHO HAD EXAMINED HIM WHILE IN HOSPITAL TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL EXAMINATION . THE REPORT OF THAT EXAMINATION WAS NOT FORWARDED UNTIL 26 APRIL 1979 . IN NOVEMBER 1978 THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR A PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE PURSUANT TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 20 OF THE RULES .
3 AFTER RECEIVING THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS INJURIES THE DOCTOR APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION RE-EXAMINED THE APPLICANT ON 18 MAY 1979 AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL PERMANENT PARTIAL INVALIDITY AT 34% WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY INCREASED TO 37% . ON THAT BASIS THE COMMISSION MADE A DRAFT DECISION WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT IN JULY 1979 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 21 OF THE RULES . THE APPLICANT OBJECTED TO THAT DRAFT AND REQUESTED AN OPINION FROM THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 23 AND THE COMMISSION THEN APPOINTED THE DOCTOR WHOM IT HAD ALREADY APPOINTED UNDER ARTICLE 19 , TO BE A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE . THE COMMISSION WROTE TO THE DOCTOR APPOINTED BY THE APPLICANT SAYING THAT THE COMMISSION ' S DOCTOR WOULD INFORM HIM OF THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR THE PAYMENT OF HIS FEES .
4 IN NOVEMBER 1979 THE COMMISSION PAID THE APPLICANT A PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF A RATE OF 25% . AFTER THE PRESENT ACTION WAS BROUGHT THE COMMISSION PAID HIM AN ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE OF 12% , WHICH BROUGHT THE PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE TO THE SAME AMOUNT AS THAT PROPOSED TO THE APPLICANT IN THE DRAFT DECISION .
5 DURING THE COURSE OF THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE THE APPLICANT MADE AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES WITH A VIEW TO THE REPLACEMENT OF THE DOCTOR APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION . BY ORDER OF 3 NOVEMBER 1980 THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT DISMISSED THAT APPLICATION ON THE TWOFOLD GROUND THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NOT SUCCEEDED IN PROVING THAT THERE WAS ANY IMPENDING DAMAGE AND THAT THERE WAS NO URGENT REQUIREMENT FOR ACTION TO BE TAKEN AT THAT STAGE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING AN ACTION AGAINST ANY DECISION TAKEN BY THE INSTITUTION ON THE BASIS OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE ' S REPORT . THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES ALSO ASKED FOR THE OPINION OF THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE TO BE FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT . THE ORDER DISMISSED THAT CLAIM AS BEING IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE . THE COMPOSITION OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE
6 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT THE DOCTOR APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE ON THE GROUND THAT HIS APPOINTMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION AND CONTRARY TO THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE ON THE DOUBLE GROUND THAT IT WAS HE WHO DRAFTED THE REPORT CHALLENGED BY THE APPLICANT AND THAT HE IS THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF , OR , AT LEAST , THE DOCTOR APPROVED BY , THE INSURANCE COMPANY . ON THE LATTER ISSUE THE COMMISSION EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY AS TO THE LIST OF DOCTORS TO WHOM THE EXAMINATIONS PROVIDED FOR BY THE RULES MIGHT BE ENTRUSTED .
7 THE RULES MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS DETERMINE THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING CASES WHICH MAY ARISE IN APPLYING THE SCHEME OF INSURANCE AGAINST THE RISK OF ACCIDENT AND OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AS FOLLOWS : ' ' ARTICLE 19 DECISIONS RECOGNIZING THE ACCIDENTAL CAUSE OF AN OCCURRENCE INCLUDING A DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE OCCURRENCE IS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO OCCUPATIONAL OR NON-OCCUPATIONAL RISKS , OR DECISIONS RECOGNIZING THE OCCUPATIONAL NATURE OF A DISEASE AND ASSESSING THE DEGREE OF PERMANENT INVALIDITY SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 21 : - ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS OF THE DOCTOR(S ) APPOINTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS ; AND - WHERE THE OFFICIAL SO REQUESTS , AFTER CONSULTING THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 23 . ARTICLE 23 ( 1 ) THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIST OF THREE DOCTORS : - ONE APPOINTED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ; - ONE APPOINTED BY THE OFFICIAL CONCERNED OR THOSE ENTITLED UNDER HIM ; - ONE APPOINTED BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FIRST TWO DOCTORS . WHERE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THE THIRD DOCTOR WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FOLLOWING APPOINTMENT OF THE SECOND DOCTOR , THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES SHALL APPOINT THE THIRD DOCTOR AT THE REQUEST OF EITHER PARTY . ON COMPLETING ITS PROCEEDING , THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE SHALL SET OUT ITS OPINION IN A REPORT TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND TO THE OFFICIAL OR THOSE ENTITLED UNDER HIM . ' '
8 AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY STRESSED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 21 MAY 1981 ( CASE 156/80 , MORBELLI ( 1981 ) ECR 1357 ) THE RULES ARE INTENDED TO ALLOW OFFICIALS TO BE EXAMINED TWICE , FIRST BY DOCTORS ENJOYING THE CONFIDENCE OF THE INSTITUTION AND , IN THE EVENT OF DISAGREEMENT , BY A MEDICAL COMMITTEE TO WHICH BOTH PARTIES APPOINT A DOCTOR ENJOYING THEIR CONFIDENCE .
9 THE RULES PROVIDE NO RIGHT OF OBJECTION TO AN APPOINTMENT BECAUSE AS FAR AS OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED THEIR INTERESTS ARE SAFEGUARDED BY THE PRESENCE ON THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE OF A MEMBER ENJOYING THEIR CONFIDENCE AND BY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DOCTOR ENJOYING THE CONFIDENCE OF THE OFFICIAL AND THE MEMBER APPOINTED BY THE INSTITUTION .
10 FOR THE SAME REASON THE INSTITUTION CANNOT BE DENIED THE FREEDOM TO APPOINT THE DOCTOR WHOM IT DESIGNATED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 19 OF THE RULES AND WHO , AS SUCH , HAS ALREADY BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE STATE OF HEALTH OF THE OFFICIAL . IN THE SAME WAY MOREOVER THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THE OFFICIAL FROM APPOINTING A DOCTOR WHO HAS ALREADY AT THE OFFICIAL ' S REQUEST ISSUED CERTIFICATES IN RELATION TO THE DISABILITY IN QUESTION .
11 FURTHER , IT IS NECESSARY TO STRESS THAT THE APPOINTMENT BY THE COMMISSION OF A MEDICAL OFFICER WHO IS ALSO APPROVED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY , WHILST BEING IN THE INTERESTS OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE COMMISSION , CAN IN NO WAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF THE OFFICIAL .
12 IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE MUST BE REJECTED . THE CLAIM FOR DEFAULT INTEREST
13 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT INTEREST CALCULATED AS FROM THE CONSOLIDATION OF EACH OF THE INJURIES SHOULD BE PAID ON THE ALLOWANCE . IN THAT RESPECT HE ALLEGES THAT THE COURSE OF THE PROCEDURE DETERMINING THE RATE OF PERMANENT PARTIAL INVALIDITY HAS BEEN UNDULY LONG AND THAT THE COMMISSION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS BECAUSE OF THE CONDUCT OF THE DOCTOR WHOM IT APPOINTED . HE OUGHT TO HAVE PURSUED THE CASE SO AS TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE VARIOUS INJURIES AS AND WHEN IT OCCURRED . ON THE CONTRARY THE DOCTOR DECIDED TO POSTPONE HIS FINAL EXAMINATION TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND DELEGATED SPECIALIST EXAMINATIONS TO ANOTHER DOCTOR WHO , IT IS ALLEGED , MADE HIS REPORT AFTER CONSIDERABLE DELAY . IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE WAY IN WHICH THE CASE WAS PURSUED WAS ALSO OPEN TO CRITICISM INASMUCH AS THE APPLICANT HAD TO GO TO DOCTORS NOMINATED BY THE DOCTOR APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION AND THOSE EXAMINATIONS WERE INCOMPLETE , THUS FORCING THE APPLICANT TO ARRANGE AT A LATER DATE FOR FURTHER EXAMINATIONS ON HIS OWN ACCOUNT .
14 IT SHOULD BE STRESSED FIRST OF ALL THAT ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 20 OF THE RULES IN QUESTION ' ' THE DECISION DEFINING THE DEGREE OF INVALIDITY SHALL BE TAKEN AFTER THE OFFICIAL ' S INJURIES HAVE CONSOLIDATED ' ' , AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THEREOF PROVIDES THAT ' ' WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE THE DEGREE OF INVALIDITY AFTER MEDICAL TREATMENT IS TERMINATED , THE FINDINGS OF THE DOCTOR(S ) REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 19 OR , WHERE APPROPRIATE , THE REPORT OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 23 MUST SPECIFY A DEADLINE FOR REVIEWING THE OFFICIAL ' S CASE . ' '
15 IT FOLLOWS FROM THOSE PROVISIONS THAT ENTITLEMENT TO PAYMENT OF THE INVALIDITY ALLOWANCE DOES NOT ARISE AS AND WHEN EACH OF THE INJURIES HAS CONSOLIDATED BUT ONLY WHEN ALL THE INJURIES HAVE CONSOLIDATED . IT IS FOR THAT VERY REASON THAT THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE AFORESAID ARTICLE GIVES A RIGHT TO A PROVISIONAL ALLOWANCE .
16 IT IS FURTHER APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THAT UNDER THE INSURANCE PROVIDED FOR BY THE STAFF REGULATIONS THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE IN THE EVENT OF INVALIDITY IS IN THE NATURE OF A FLAT-RATE AWARD ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF THE LASTING EFFECTS OF AN ACCIDENT . INTEREST MAY THUS BE CLAIMED ONLY WHERE THE PERSON ENTITLED TO THAT AWARD IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT PAYMENT THEREOF WAS IMPROPERLY DELAYED BY THE ADMINISTRATION .
17 THAT IS NOT SO IN THE PRESENT CASE . THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES PRODUCED REVEAL THE CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING THE DATE WHEN THE APPLICANT ' S INJURIES CONSOLIDATED AND THEREFORE JUSTIFY THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION ' S MEDICAL OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE APPLICANT A YEAR AFTER THE FIRST EXAMINATION . MOREOVER , THE APPLICANT DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE CHALLENGED THAT DECISION AT THE TIME . THE REPORT SOUGHT FROM THE DOCTOR WHO HAD EXAMINED THE APPLICANT WHEN HE WAS IN HOSPITAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION ' S MEDICAL OFFICER BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THAT PERIOD OF ONE YEAR . AFTER RE-EXAMINING THE APPLICANT THE DOCTOR GAVE HIS FINAL REPORT TO THE COMMISSION WHICH , ALSO WITHOUT DELAY , ADOPTED A DRAFT DECISION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 21 OF THE RULES .
18 THE COURT MUST , THEREFORE , FIND THAT THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST MUST ALSO BE DISMISSED . ADDITIONAL CLAIMS MADE IN THE REPLY
19 THE CLAIM FOR PRODUCTION OF THE OPINION OF THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE RELATES , ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN , NOT TO THE OPINION PROPERLY SO CALLED , WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT , BUT TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE . IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE FILE THAT THE REPORT IS AVAILABLE TO THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE AND THAT THE REASON FOR THE CLAIM IS THE APPLICANT ' S WISH TO BE IN A POSITION TO CHALLENGE , IF NECESSARY BY LEGAL ACTION , HIS RETIREMENT ON INVALIDITY PENSION . HAVING REGARD TO THE DELAY IN MAKING THAT CLAIM AND THE FACT THAT IT HAS NO CONNEXION WITH THE OTHER CLAIMS IN THE PRESENT ACTION IT MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
20 AS REGARDS THE CLAIM IN RELATION TO THE FEES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE MEDICAL COMMITTEE , THE APPLICANT DESCRIBES THE LETTER IN WHICH THE COMMISSION INVITED THE APPLICANT ' S DOCTOR TO APPLY FOR SETTLEMENT OF HIS FEES TO THE DOCTOR APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION WHO WAS AT THE SAME TIME THE INSURERS ' MEDICAL OFFICER , AS ' ' INTOLERABLY AMBIGUOUS ' ' . IN WRITING THIS LETTER , IT IS SAID , THE COMMISSION GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS FOR THE INSURERS TO SETTLE THE FEES . THE COMMISSION OUGHT THEREFORE TO HAVE NAMED ITS OWN DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT .
21 EVEN IF THAT CLAIM HAD NOT BEEN LATE IT WOULD IN ANY EVENT HAVE LOST ITS PURPOSE AFTER THE COMMISSION ' S REJOINDER IN WHICH IT CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE INSTITUTION PAYS THE FEES DIRECTLY .