JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

23 January 2014

Case T‑174/13 P

European Commission

v

BO

(Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Social security — Reimbursement of transport costs — Transport costs incurred for linguistic reasons — Article 19(2) of the Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities — Point 2.5 of Chapter 12 of Title II of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical costs)

Appeal:      against the judgment delivered by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) on 15 January 2013 in Case F‑27/11 BO v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. The European Commission is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by BO in the context of the present proceedings.

Summary

Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Transport costs incurred for linguistic reasons — Reimbursement — Not included — Reimbursement of transport costs associated with medical treatment requiring the use of a language in which the person receiving the treatment is fluent — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 19)

It follows from Article 19 of the Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities and from point 2.5 of Chapter 12 of Title II of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical costs that the payment of medical expenses by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the institutions of the European Union does not create a subsequent entitlement to the payment of corresponding transport costs.

Consequently, where transport costs appear to have been incurred as a result of a choice — albeit in accordance with the principle of freedom to choose practitioners provided for in Article 19 of those Joint rules — reflecting the preference of the beneficiary under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme to use the services of a practitioner or a treatment in a language in which they are fluent, whereas the language in question is not an integral component of the treatment and the care required is accessible at the beneficiary’s place of residence or employment, the exclusively linguistic grounds which governed the choice of practitioner preclude the payment of corresponding transport or accompanying adult’s costs.

The same is not true, however, where transport costs are not incurred for reasons of personal choice, but are essential to enable the beneficiary to follow a course of treatment or receive care which is not accessible at his place of residence or employment, provided that the language in which the treatment or care in question is administered constitutes an essential condition for it. That applies where the use of a language spoken by the beneficiary is integral to and indissociably associated with the treatment itself, particularly in the context of child psychotherapy.

(see paras 37-41)