Opinion of Mr Advocate General

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The applicant, Giorgio Bernardi, who was born in 1937, worked from 10 October 1966 as a translator in the Italian Translation Division of the European Parliament, where he was promoted to Grade LA 5 on 1 April 1975.

2. However, before the matter was referred to the Invalidity Committee, Mr Bernardi, by letter of 27 March 1979, accompanied by two medical certificates issued by Dr Castrica (Rome) and Dr Conraux (Strasbourg), had requested that the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease (the Rules), issued under Article 73 (1) of the Staff Regulations, be applied in his case. He claimed to have been suffering for some time from chronic laryngopharyngitis associated with clear atrophy of the rhinopharynx, which is incurable, and frequent bouts of dysphonia. According to the medical certificate issued by Dr Castrica, the illness was due to environmental factors and to the conditions under which Mr Bernardi carried out his work.

3. Mr Bernardi therefore brought this action contesting the decision of 10 November 1983 and any other implied, related and/or consequential measure, in particular the abovementioned decision of 10 November 1983 confirming the decision of 4 October 1983.

4. Parliament claims that the application should be dismissed on the grounds that it is partially inadmissible and, what is more, unfounded.

5. I shall not detain you long on the question of inadmissibility. Parliament correctly points out that the Court's jurisdiction in disputes between a Community institution and one of its servants extends to the legality of an act adversely affecting such a person, in the words of Article 91 (1) of the Staff Regulations, which states that in disputes of a financial character the Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction. The Court may therefore, if it sees fit, order compensation to be paid for damage sustained by a Community servant as a result of an act or an omission detrimental to his rights, which is unlawful and imputable to the institution which he serves.

6. Let us turn to the substance of the case.

7. How is the draft decision referred to in Article 21 of the Rules to be classified?

8. As to the subsequent procedure, it appears to me to have been beyond reproach. The Medical Committee was properly constituted and functioned properly. Dr Fidotti, and even Dr Castrica, who was not a member of the Committee, had every opportunity to make their views known to it. Nearly 18 months elapsed between the first provisional report (29 December 1981) and the final report (3 June 1983) of the Committee. That was mainly due to Dr Fidotti, who used the time in order to try to persuade his colleagues. He did not succeed. His refusal to sign the final document does not affect its validity. Lastly, no objection can be raised against the decision of 4 October 1983, which was taken by an authority to which power had been duly delegated for that purpose.

9. I therefore propose that the Court should dismiss Mr Bernardi's application. As regards the costs, I propose that the Court should apply the first subparagraph of Article 69 (2) and Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure.

1 Translated from the French.