The facts of the case and the procedure may be summarized as follows:

The appointing authority did not reply within two months and the applicant brought the present application which was lodged at the Coust Registry on 9 June 1971.

In his application the applicant, relying on a fresh medical report, states that the degree of invalidity from which he suffers is 30 % and seeks inter alia the convening of an Invalidity Committee which would determine the degree of invalidity on the basis of information supplied by both parties.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The defendant contends that the Court should:

The submissions and arguments of the parties may be summarized as follows:

The applicant recalls that when he was engaged by the Commission he underwent a medical examination confirming that he was in perfect health and that he became ill after working in a basement room with poor ventilation where he had to use solvents to clean the machines. The Invalidity Committee which was set up in 1968 because of the numerous occasions on which he had had sick leave since 1964, was given the duty of determing whether the applicant suffered from total permanent invalidity preventing him from carrying out his duties altogether in view of the possible application of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. The Committee answered this question in the negative. Nevertheless in its report it confirmed the existence of spasmodic bronchitis and stated that without saying that they are the sole cause, it may in all fairness be accepted that the conditions in which Mr Vellozzi worked for eight years are largely the cause of his bronchitis.

It follows from this report that whilst the applicant does not suffer from total permanent invalidity which he has never indeed claimed, he does nevertheless suffer from occupational disease and that only the consequent degree of invalidity has not been determined because this was not within the terms of reference given to the Invalidity Committee. The applicant was therefore justified in asking, first in his complaint of 12 February 1971 and subsequently in these proceedings that the appointing authority should determine the degree of invalidity and allow him to benefit under Article 73 (2) (c) of the Staff Regulations.

The defendant states that according to the report of the Invalidity Committee, from which the applicant merely cited a few selected extracts in support of his conclusion whilst failing to produce it before the Court, although he did produce it in the annex to his complaint of 12 February 1971, Mr Vellozzi at the time of the examination only showed slight symptoms of bronchitis contrary to previous findings by other doctors.

The Commission further states that the appointing authority initiated the necessary procedure to determine the rights claimed by the applicant in his action thus making the action superfluous. The applicant's refusal to go before the Invalidity Committee makes it impossible for the appointing authority to meet any claims he may have. The applicant had thus adopted an attitude which denies his case both as to the subject-matter and cause of action and which, considered together with the measures taken by the Commission, has the effect of destroying the subject-matter of the action and depriving the applicant of any legal interest in taking proceedings.

The applicant alleges that these conclusions are ill-founded, stating that the main purpose of the action is to obtain an admission of the existence of occupational disease on the basis of the report of the Invalidity Committee of 1968 and accordingly the application of Article 73 (2) (c) of the Staff Regulations in his favour after the degree of invalidity caused by the disease has been determined. On the other hand the fact that the most recent Invalidity Committee has been given the duty of determining whether he is suffering total permanent invalidity shows that the defendant has not yet admitted the existence of such a disease. Thus the duty assigned to the Committee is outside the scope of the complaint of 12 February 1971 and of the present action so that the action is not without cause and subject-matter.

The defendant insists that the applicant willfully fails to submit to the appropriate procedure to assess his possible rights. In this respect it emphasizes that apart from the applicant's rejection of the invitation to attend the meeting of the Invalidity Committee, he also refused to authorize his medical file to be sent to this Committee.

In addition, in support of his case, the applicant merely took one sentence from the report of the Invalidity Committee of 1968 removing it from context and not indicating in any way what he considers the term occupational disease to mean.

The rules provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations have not yet been adopted. Nevertheless in accordance with national laws relating to the public service and the position adopted by the Commission in its recommendations of 23 July 1962 and 20 July 1966 it would be reasonable to accept that: the term occupational disease refers to any disease or injury which arose in the course of and by reason of the performance of duties in the service of the European Communities where it is established that the performance of those duties was the principal or the predominant cause of the disease or of the aggravation of a pre-existing disease.

The definition used in the report of the Invalidity Committee of 1968 is subtly worded and seems to show that the Committee did not think it possible to state that the working conditions were the sole or main cause of the disease and, moreover, it had not been given this duty at the time. The attitude of the Invalidity Committee therefore seems to justify the prudence of the administration and would therefore justify fresh examination by an Invalidity Committee entrusted with the duty of deciding inter alia whether the origin of the disease is occupational or not. Moreover the report of the Invalidity Committee of 1968 shows that examination revealed only slight symptoms of bronchitis contrary to earlier findings by various doctors. The question may therefore be legitimately raised whether the declared improvement has continued to the point where there is now no longer any disease.

Thus a new medical examination of the applicant as well as the examination of his medical file appears necessary. These examinations, in particular that of his medical file, would also enable it to be decided which medical and pharmaceutical expenses might be attributable to any disease admitted as being occupational.

In addition the applicant 's refusal to authorize his medical file to be sent to the Invalidity Committee is in no way justified by Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and Article 9 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations. The former provision only applies to the personal file of the official; the latter provides solely that the proceedings of the Committee shall be secret which precisely ensures respect of the principle of medical secrecy by the Invalidity Committee when it has to consult the medical file of the party concerned in order to form a proper opinion on the case.

Finally the applicant had no right to challenge the appointment of the Invalidity Committee and to refuse to submit to examination by it since the conditions for the application of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations were complied with in this case.