Staff case summary

Staff case summary

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