C-29/71

Avis juridique important | 61971J0029 Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 1972. - Luigi Vellozzi v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 29-71. European Court reports 1972 Page 00513 Danish special edition Page 00133 Portuguese special edition Page 00177 Summary Parties Subject of the case Grounds Decision on costs Operative part Keywords ++++ OFFICIALS - INVALIDITY - DETERMINATION - CRITERIA ( STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ANNEX VIII, ARTICLE 13 ) Summary THE EXISTENCE OF AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CAUSING TOTAL OR PARTIAL PERMANENT INVALIDITY OF THE OFFICIAL AND GIVING HIM THE RIGHT TO BENEFIT UNDER ARTICLE 73 OR ARTICLE 78 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AS THE CASE MAY BE, MUST APPEAR CLEARLY AND PRECISELY FROM THE RELEVANT CONCLUSIONS OF THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 13 OF ANNEX VIII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS . Parties IN CASE 29/71 LUIGI VELLOZZI, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, RESIDING IN BRUSSELS, REPRESENTED BY EMILE DRAPPIER, ADVOCATE AT THE BRUSSELS BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT, 34 B/4 RUE PHILIPPE-II, APPLICANT, V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PIERRE LAMOUREUX, ACTING AS AGENT WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER, EMILE REUTER, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT, Subject of the case APPLICATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS TO BE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT, Grounds BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 9 JUNE 1971 THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT AN ACTION SEEKING THE ANNULMENT OF THE IMPLIED REJECTION BY THE COMMISSION OF HIS COMPLAINT OF 12 FEBRUARY 1971 WHEREBY HE SOUGHT TO BE GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF ARTICLE 73 ( 2 ) ( C ) AND ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS . 2 THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE CONVENED IN 1968 PURSUANT TO THE THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 59 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ADMITTED THAT HE WAS SUFFERING PARTIAL PERMANENT INVALIDITY, THE DEGREE OF WHICH REMAINED TO BE DETERMINED . 3 THEREFORE HE ASKED THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THAT DEGREE IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BENEFIT UNDER ARTICLE 73 ( 2 ) ( C ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH ( 3 ) OF THAT ARTICLE TO REIMBURSE TO HIM ALL THE MEDICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL EXPENSES INCURRED BECAUSE OF THIS INVALIDITY . 4 IN 1971 THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY SET UP A NEW INVALIDITY COMMITTEE TO WHICH IT ASSIGNED THE DUTY NOT ONLY OF RULING AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF TOTAL PERMANENT INVALIDITY BUT ALSO EXAMINING WHETHER THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE SUFFERING FROM PARTIAL PERMANENT INVALIDITY CAUSED BY THE WORKING CONDITIONS AND, IF THIS WAS SO, TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF INVALIDITY . 5 THIS COMMITTEE WAS FURTHER GIVEN THE TASK OF EXAMINING WHETHER THE MEDICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL EXPENSES FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT WAS SOUGHT SHOULD BE REGARDED AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE . 6 THE APPLICANT REFUSED TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE OR TO ALLOW HIS MEDICAL FILE TO BE SENT TO IT BY THE DEPARTMENTS OF HIS INSTITUTION . 7 IN SUPPORT OF THIS REFUSAL HE RAISED THE ALLEGEDLY AMBIGUOUS NATURE OF THE DUTY ASSIGNED TO THE COMMISSION AND SOUGHT " ACTUAL ADMISSION OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE OF 5 DECEMBER 1968 ". 8 THE EXISTENCE OF AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CAUSING TOTAL OR PARTIAL PERMANENT INVALIDITY OF THE OFFICIAL AND GIVING HIM THE RIGHT TO BENEFIT UNDER ARTICLE 73 OR ARTICLE 78 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AS THE CASE MAY BE MUST APPEAR CLEARLY AND PRECISELY FROM THE RELEVANT CONCLUSIONS OF THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 13 OF ANNEX VIII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS . 9 IN THIS CASE THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE CONVENED IN 1968 STATED IN ITS REPORT THAT THE APPLICANT SUFFERED FROM ASTHMATIC OR RELATED BRONCHITIS CAUSED LARGELY BY THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH HE HAD WORKED IN THE OFFSET WORKROOM OF THE PUBLICATIONS OFFICE . 10 AT THE SAME TIME IT FOUND THAT THERE WAS AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE ASTHMATIC CONDITION WHICH HAD BEEN FOUND BY SEVERAL DOCTORS PREVIOUSLY, CAUSED IN ALL PROBABILITY BY THE FACT THAT SINCE FEBRUARY 1968 THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT . 11 IT CONCLUDED THAT " THE STATE OF HEALTH OF MR VELLOZZI DOES NOT PREVENT HIM FROM WORKING BUT URGENTLY REQUIRES THAT THE WORK SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT IN A PLACE SHELTERED FROM THE ELEMENTS AND IN AN ATMOSPHERE FREE FROM ANY SUBSTANCE WHICH MIGHT IRRITATE THE RESPIRATORY ORGANS ". 12 THUS WHILST THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE SET UP IN 1968 ADMITTED THAT THE APPLICANT WAS SUFFERING FROM A FORM OF BRONCHITIS IT NEVERTHELESS DID NOT CONCLUDE THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ENTAILING PARTIAL PERMANENT INVALIDITY . 13 THE FORCE OF THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH IT REACHED AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE APPLICANT' S PARTIAL PERMANENT INVALIDITY ARE WEAKENED BY THE FACT THAT ACCORDING TO THE REPORT OF 5 DECEMBER 1968 MR VELLOZZI' S LACK OF COOPERATION PREVENTED THE COMMISSION FROM UNDERTAKING ALL THE MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS WHICH IT CONTEMPLATED . 14 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICANT CANNOT RELY ON SUCH A REPORT TO ARGUE THAT THE INVALIDITY COMMITTEE SET UP IN 1968 ADMITTED THAT HE WAS SUFFERING PARTIAL PERMANENT INVALIDITY OR THAT THE NEW INVALIDITY COMMITTEE SHOULD MERELY DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF THIS INVALIDITY AND THE MEDICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL EXPENSES TO BE REIMBURSED UNDER ARTICLE 73 ( 3 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS . 15 ON THE CONTRARY THE REPORT OF 5 DECEMBER 1968 JUSTIFIES THE SETTING UP OF A NEW INVALIDITY COMMITTEE WITH THE DUTY INTER ALIA OF DECIDING THE CAUSES OF THE APPLICANT' S ALLEGED INVALIDITY . 16 FOR THESE REASONS THE APPLICATION IS REJECTED . Decision on costs UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . 18 THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HIS SUBMISSIONS . 19 HOWEVER, UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES, INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS . Operative part THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ) HEREBY : 1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION; 2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .