C-189/82

In Case 189/82

1 . Georgette SEI NGRY, NÉE SEILER, widow of René Seingry, formerly an official of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Communities;

2. FLORENCE SEINGRY, adult daughter of René Seingry;

3. GEORGES-FRANCIS SEINGRY, adult son of René Seingry; I — Language of the Case: French.

JUDGMENT OF 26. 1. 1984 — CASE 189/82

all residing in Brussels, represented by Edmond Lebrun of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tony Biever, 83 Boulevard Grande-Duchesse-Charlotte, applicants,

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decisions of the Secretary General of the Council, notified to the applicants by letters of 19 October 1981 and 14 May 1982, refusing to recognize that the disease of which R. Seingry died was occupational in origin,

T H E C O U R T (First Chamber)

composed of: T. Koopmans, President of Chamber, A. O'Keeffe and G. Bosco, Judges,

Advocate General: S. Rozès Registrar: J. A. Pompe, Deputy Registrar

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Officials of the European Communities companies which have intervened in this against the Risk of Accident and of dispute. According to Article 1 (1), the Occupational Disease (hereinafter re- object of the insurance is to "cover ferred to as "the Joint Rules"), defining the pecuniary consequences of the the conditions under which officials are obligations which the Communities insured against those risks. undertake under the Staff Regulations in relation to accidents and occupational diseases suffered by the persons to whom Article 3 of the Joint Rules recognizes the provisions of Article 73 of the Staff two types of occupational disease. Regulations apply . . . as well as the rules According to Article 3 (1), the concept adopted pursuant to that article." covers first all diseases contained in the "European List of Occupational Diseases" annexed to the Commission's recommendation of 23 July 1962 (Journal B — Summary of the facts Officiel 80 óf 31. 8. 1962, p. 2191). Secondly, according to Article 3 (2) : René Seingry, an official from 1954 and Director of the Private Office of the "Any disease or aggravation of a pre- Secretary General of the Council from existing disease not included in the list 1958, died on 23 July 1979 at his place referred to in paragraph (1) shall also be of work. The probable cause of death considered an occupational disease if it is was myocardial infarction, that is to say sufficiently established that such disease an infarct of the muscular part of the or aggravation arose in the course of or heart. It is common ground that that in connection with the performance by disease is not contained in the European the official of his duties with the List of Occupational Diseases. Communities."

of 12 to 15 hours and frequently lie had of the Council consulted a Dr Simons. to work at night, either at the office or He drew up a report dated 4 April 1980 at home, even at weekends; in which he concluded that "in general, infarction is not recognized as an occu- pational disease". Dr Simons reached that conclusion after himself consulting The responsibilities of the Director of Professor Denolin, a cardiologist. In the Secretary General's Private Office, relation to the individual case of Mr which Mr Seingry carried out for 21 Seingry, Professor Denolin made inter years, also included duties as Head of alia the following remarks: Protocol and responsibility for the press office, which exposed him to a multitude of daily worries; "Apart from electrocardiograms made between 1961 and 1978, which were all within normal limits, this patient's Frequent travelling connected with his medical file is particularly meagre. There duties (sessions in Luxembourg and is no information on the precise circum- Strasbourg, European Council meetings stances of the death; . , . in the various capitals, missions to certain African, Caribbean and Pacific countries) gave rise to additional fatigue and stress; The electrocardiograms have always been unremarkable and we have no clinical or biological information after Mr Seingry often had to replace the 1969. The patient was a heavy smoker Secretary General at official ceremonies until a short time ago. In particular, we and diplomatic functions; have no information on the development of his heart condition in recent years.

At the request of the dependants on 10 decision, the Secretary General of the July 1980, the Council then decided to Council on 14 May 1982 informed them consult the Medical Committee provided that the complaint must be rejected. for in Article 23 of the Joint Rules. The report of that committee, dated 17 September 1981, states inter alia that the pathogenesis of coronary disease involves a number of factors, including in par- C •—· Procedure ticular high blood pressure, nicotinism and an excessive level of cholesterol in the blood. According to the committee, all those factors, including the nicotinism By application lodged at the Court (40 cigarettes a day) applied in the case Registry on 28 July 1982, the applicants, of Mr Seingry. The Medical Committee the late Mr Seingry's dependants, reached the following conclusion: requested the annulment of the Council's refusal to acknowledge that Mr Seingry's death was caused by an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 "It appears that the particularly exacting of the Staff Regulations. working life led by Mr Seingry may have been a factor which aggravated his coronary disease, but there are in his case other significant risk factors, By application lodged at the Court especially the nicotinism. In our opinion, Registry on 11 November 1982, the this cannot be regarded as an occu- insurance company SA Royale Belge, pational disease in the strict sense. acting on its own behalf and as agent of Indeed, the factor of Occupational stress' 14 other insurance companies, applied is only one of the components of the under the second paragraph of Article 37 pathogenesis and, as Dr Denolin has of the Statute of the Court to intervene stated, it may be questioned whether in this action in support of the there was not, in addition to the conclusions of the defendant. That demanding nature of his duties at work, application was made in accordance with an element of perfectionism and hyper- Article 93 of the Rules of Procedure. By activity inherent in his psychology." order of 10 March 1983, the Court (First Chamber) allowed the application to intervene.

The applicants claim that the Court should : Ill — Submissions and argu- 1. Declare the application admissible and m e n t s of the p a r t i e s in the well founded; written procedure 2. (a) Annul the decision notified by letter of 19 October 1981 refusing to recognize the disease of In their application, the applicants R. Seingry as an occupational adduce a single submission relating to disease; (a) infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular of the second paragraph (b) annul the decision notified by of Article 25 and Article 73; (b) in- letter of 14 May 1982, rejecting fringement of the Joint Rules, par- their complaint of 18 January ticularly Article 3 (2) thereof; and 1982; (c) breach of rules and general principles of law, especially the principal that every (c) declare that the disease of which administrative measure must be based on R. Seingry died was an occup- grounds permissible in law, that is to say, ational disease; relevant and not vitiated by errors of fact or of law, or both. (d) order the defendant to pay them the benefits provided for by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations In support of that submission, the in the event of death as a result of applicants observe first that Article 3 (2) an occupational disease; of the Joint Rules expressly provides that any aggravation of a pre-existing disease 3. Order the defendant to pay the costs. is to be considered an occupational disease if such aggravation arose in the The Council of the European Com- course of or in connection with the per- munities, the defendant, claims that the formance by the official of his duties Court should: with the Communities. Next, they 1. Dismiss the claims of the applicants as comment that the report of the Medical unfounded; Committee of 17 September 1981, on which the contested decisions are based, 2. Order the applicants to pay the costs, concluded at least that Mr Seingry's in so far as they are not to be borne working conditions and pressure of work by the defendant by virtue of the had aggravated the coronary disease provisions of Articles 70 and 95 (2) of which caused his death. However, the the Rules of Procedure. Medical Committee concluded that in this particular case, there was no occu- The intervener claims that the Court pational disease "in the strict sense". should: According to the applicants, the Com- mittee had wrongly applied a restrictive 1. Accept the conclusions of the Council interpretation of the concept of occu- of the European Communities that pational disease, thus forgetting that in

the framework of the Joint Rules that stated that Mr Seingry's "particularly concept has in fact a wide application, exacting working life . . . may have been" since it also covers aggravation of a pre- an aggravating factor. According to the existing disease. Council, such a finding involves only the possibility that that factor was one of the causes of the disease which caused Mr Seingry's death. Indeed, although it cannot be denied that a strenuous On those grounds, the applicants working life constitutes a risk factor, it is consider that the contested decisions equally true that such risks are aggra- either erroneously interpreted the vated by the personal life-style and conclusions of the Medical Committee's character of the person concerned. In report or disregarded the provision that regard, the Medical Committee contained in Article 3 (2) of the Joint found that several other factors, in Rules. In the alternative, they claim that particular nicotinism, gave rise to Mr the contested decisions do not state the Seingry's disease. In those circumstances, grounds on which they are based, as it has not been sufficiently established required by the second paragraph of that Mr Seingry's disease or its aggra- Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. In vation arose in the course of or in that connection, the applicants refer to connection with the performance of his the uncertainty as to the ground relied duties with the Council. upon. The statement of the grounds upon which the contested decisions were based does not make the Council's attitude clear. Indeed, it is not sufficiently clear whether the Council According to the Council, there is no does not recognize that Mr Seingry's reason to think that the Medical working conditions and pressure of work Committee clearly failed to have regard aggravated the disease which caused his to the provision contained in Article 3 death or whether in fact the Council (2) of the Joint Rules. Nor was there any denies that the aggravation of a pre- infringement of the second paragraph of existing disease may be an occupational Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. The disease within the meaning of the Joint Council considers that the contested rules. decision, if reference is made to the medical reports annexed thereto, in particular the decision of 14 May 1982, are clear and contain an adequate statement of the grounds on which they The Council of the European Com- are based. munities, the defendant, stresses first that the questions relating to the causes of a disease or of its aggravation are clearly medical questions. It adds that Dr Simons, the doctor appointed by the In their rejoinder, the applicants observe institution, has stated that infarction is that, even if the questions relating to the not recognized as an occupational causes of a disease or its aggravation are disease. Next, the Council observes that medical matters, questions concerning the Medical Committee did not, as the the concept of "occupational disease" or applicants seem to suggest, conclude that the correct interpretation of the Mr Seingry's working conditions and conclusions of the Medical Committee pressure of work had aggravated a pre- are questions of law. In that connection, existing disease: the Committee merely they again submit that the Medical

Committee's interpretation of the of a pre-existing disease not contained in concept of "occupational disease" was the European List may be regarded as an too narrow. Having found that Mr occupational disease. In that judgment Seingry's working conditions and press- the Court stated inter alia that it must ure of work aggravated his coronary be sufficiently established that "the disease, the Committee erroneously applicant's pathological condition has a considered, in view of the law applicable, sufficiently direct relationsship with a that aggravation of a pre-existing disease specific and normal risk inherent in the was not an occupational disease. duties which he performed." Next, the According to the applicants, it is of no intervener refers to Recommendation No consequence that the pathogenesis of 66/462, adopted by the Commission on coronary disease involves a number of 26 July 1966 (Journal Officiel 147, p. factors and that several factors did 2696), which defined the occupational actually apply in Mr Seingry's case, since diseases not contained in the European such a finding does not affect the fact List as diseases "of which the risk is that Mr Seingry's exacting working life inherent in the work carried out and to was an aggravating factor. which certain workers are exposed to a greater degree than the population as a whole". Finally, the intervener refers to the opinion of Mr Advocate General Roemer in Case 29/71 (judgment of 15 July 1972, Vellozziv Commission, [1972] In its rejoinder, the Council concedes ECR 513 at p. 523), stating that: that the concept of "occupational "Occupational diseases . . . are those . . . disease" is a legal one. However, in where it is established that the per- order to qualify as an occupational formance of those duties was the disease, a disease must not only have principal or the predominant cause of the arisen in the course of or in connection disease or of the aggravation of an with the performance of duties with the existing disease." According to the institution, but it must also be established intervener, it follows from the above- that the performance of those duties mentioned quotations that the Council caused the disease or the aggravation of was right to refuse to acknowledge that a pre-existing disease. In this case, it has Mr Seingry's disease was of occupational not been sufficiently established that Mr origin. Seingry's working life was actually a factor aggravating his heart disease. Consequently, the defendant maintains that the contested decisions were based on sound reasoning.

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 28 July 1982, Georgette Seingry, née Seiler, widow of René Seingry, in his lifetime an official in the Secretariat of the Council of the European Communities, Florence Seingry and Georges-Francis Seingry, adult daughter and son respectively of René Seingry, brought a claim for the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Council of 19 October 1981 refusing to recognize the disease which caused the death of René Seingry as an occupational disease, and of the decision of the Secretary General of the Council of 14 May 1982 rejecting their complaint. The applicants also claim that the Court should acknowledge that the disease in question was an occupational disease and should order the defendant to pay to them the benefits provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials in the event of the death of an official as a result of an occupational disease.

2 In support of their claims, the applicants submit that René Seingry, an official of the Communities from 1954 and Director of the Private Office of the Secretary General of the Council from 1958, died at his place of work on 23 July 1979 as a result of myocardial infarction. They claim that the heart disease arose in the course of the performance of duties with the Council and must therefore be described as an occupational disease within the meaning of

SEILER v COUNCIL

Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, particularly as the deceased official had already had a previous heart attack in 1977 after a prolonged period of overwork.

JUDGMENT OF 26. 1. 1984 — CASE 189/82

8 The Secretary General then consulted the doctor appointed by the Council, who reached the conclusion that "in general, infarction is not recognized as an occupational disease".

9 It may be seen from the papers before the Court that the doctor consulted had himself obtained the opinion of Professor Denolin, a specialist in cardiology, whose comments, on examining René Seingry's medical file, included the following:

". . . we have no information of the development of his heart condition in recent years.

On the basis of such an inadequate file, it is impossible to reach a conclusion as to the possible role of occupational stress in the development of the illness and the circumstances of death. But is is possible to point to at least one factor giving rise to a major risk: the serious nicotinism resulting from cigarette smoking".

io The applicants requested that the Medical Committee be consulted, and the Secretary General decided to appoint such a committee. The documents supplied to the Court show that the committee was asked to "express its view as to whether the disease which caused the death of René Seingry should be regarded as having been caused by his occupation".

14 According to the defendant, the Medical Committee by no means failed to appreciate the scope of the concept of occupational disease as defined by the Joint Rules. On the contrary, it was in application of that definition that the Committee, after a detailed examination of the case, showed that it was not an occupational disease, in view of the fact that, apart from Mr Seingry's working life, several other factors contributed to his death.

15 It should be pointed out first that it is not for the Court to decide whether or not in an individual case an official has been affected by an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. However, the Court has jurisdiction to annul any decision taken by the appointing authority in application of that provision if it is vitiated by illegality inasmuch as it is based on an irrelevant conclusion reached by a medical committee.

JUDGMENT OF 26. 1. 1984 — CASE 189/82

That would be the case if the Medical Committee adopted an erroneous view of the concept of "occupational disease" or if its report did not establish a comprehensible link between the medical findings which it contains and the conclusions which it draws.

i6 In that regard, the applicants are justified in their contentions that the Medical Committee addressed itself to the question whether a coronary disease can constitute an occupational disease and failed to examine whether the aggravation of the coronary disease which occurred in this case might be regarded as the aggravation of a pre-existing disease which arose in the course of the performance by the official of his duties, within the meaning of the provisions applicable. Indeed, such an examination cannot be found either in the report of the Medical Committee or in the earlier medical opinions.

22 It will be for the appointing authority, before taking a decision, to repeat the procedure provided for in Article 29 et seq. of the Joint Rules and refer the matter once again to the Medical Committee, whose task it will be to examine whether or not the cardiac failure which caused the death of Mr Seingiy was an aggravation of a pre-existing disease and, if so, whether it is sufficiently established that such aggravation arose in the course of or in connection with the performance by the deceased official of his duties.

Costs

23 According to Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the successful party's pleading. Since the Council has failed in its submissions, it must be ordered to pay the costs, apart from those of the intervener which must be borne by the intervener.

On those grounds,

T H E C O U R T (First Chamber)

hereby:

For the Registrar H. A. Rühi T. Koopmans Principal Administrator President of the First Chamber

O P I N I O N OF MRS ADVOCATE GENERAL ROZÈS DELIVERED O N 24 NOVEMBER 1983 1

Mr President, René Seingry, and their two children, Members of the Court, Florence and Georges-Francis, for the annulment of a decision refusing to recognize the disease of her late husband This is an application lodged by Mrs and their father respectively as an occu- Georgette Seingry (née Seiler), widow of pational disease. i — Translated from the French.