JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Single Judge)

17 December 2015

Case F‑134/14

T

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Social security — Occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Causal link — Claim for damages for the non-material harm suffered as a result of the time taken by the institution to acknowledge the occupational origin of the disease — Obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time — Non-material damage)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which T seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 August 2014, confirming the decision of 3 February 2014 granting only part of her claim for damages for non-material harm arising from the failure to act within a reasonable time in the procedure for recognition of an occupational disease initiated under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), and, second, compensation for the non-material harm she considers she has suffered.

Held:      The European Commission is ordered to pay T the amount of EUR 5 000. The remainder of the action is dismissed. The European Commission is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by T.

Summary

1.      Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Medical Committee — Obligation to act within a reasonable time — Infringement — Ascribable to the administration — Exception

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease)

2.      Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Damage — Causal link — Non-material harm arising from the institution’s failure to act within a reasonable time in a procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Existence of that harm or of a causal link able to be inferred from the circumstances and nature of the institution’s error

(Art. 340 TFEU)

1.      Compliance with the reasonable time requirement in the conduct of administrative procedures constitutes a general principle of Union law whose observance the Courts ensure and which is laid down as a component of the right to sound administration by Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

In that regard, the institution concerned is responsible for the speed at which the doctors whom it appoints work, as well as that of the Medical Committee responsible for issuing findings as provided for in the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease.

However, in so far as it is established that a delay in the proceedings of a Medical Committee is ascribable to the dilatory or even obstructive conduct of the official or of the doctor he has appointed, the institution must not be held responsible for that delay.

(see paras 68-70)

See:

Judgment of 11 April 2006 in Angeletti v Commission, T‑394/03, EU:T:2006:111, paras 152, 154 and 162

Judgment of 1 July 2010 in Füller-Tomlinson v Parliament, F‑97/08, EU:F:2010:73, para. 167

2.      As regards non-material harm suffered as a result of the institution’s infringement of the principle that it must act within a reasonable time in a procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease, the official concerned does not have to prove the existence of non-material harm or of a causal link, as these may be inferred from the circumstances and from the nature of the error that has been established. Thus, it is common ground that the feeling of injustice and distress caused by the fact that an individual is required to undergo an administrative procedure, and then judicial proceedings, in order to secure recognition of his rights constitutes harm that can be inferred from the mere fact that the administration acted unlawfully.

(see paras 80, 81)

See:

Judgment of 11 April 2006 in Angeletti v Commission, EU:T:2006:111, para. 167