Judgment No. 4118
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the findings of the Medical Committee according to which his invalidity is not of occupational origin.
medical board; service-incurred; invalidity; complaint dismissed
With respect to the claims directed against the “decision” of the Medical Committee [...], the Tribunal notes at the outset that they are manifestly irreceivable, inasmuch as the alleged decision is only an opinion amounting to a preparatory step which, as such,cannot be appealed. The only act adversely affecting the complainant is the administrative decision taken in light of that opinion, namely, in this case, the decision of the President of the Office [...]. Thus, as the complainant himself appears to admit in his rejoinder, it is that decision that he should have challenged, if he considered that he had grounds to do so, and not the opinion of the Medical Committee [...].
final decision; internal procedure; step in the procedure
Even if the Tribunal were to accept to regard the claims in question as being directed against the [...] decision of 12 July 2007, they would still be irreceivable, since they would be time-barred. Indeed, it has been established that the complainant did not impugn the said decision before the Tribunal within the period of ninety days provided for in Article VII, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute. The decision therefore became final, and the complainant could no longer seek to challenge it in his request of 30 April 2015, almost eight years later. As a result, on this issue, the implied decision of the President of the Office to reject that request must be considered as purely confirmatory of the earlier decision of 12 July 2007. As such, it could not set off a new time limit for an appeal by the complainant (see, for example, Judgments 698, consideration 7, 1304, consideration 5, 2449, consideration 9, or 3002, consideration 12).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 698, 1304, 2449, 3002
confirmatory decision; implied decision; receivability of the complaint; time limit; new time limit; time bar
The Tribunal’s case law does allow a staff member concerned by an administrative decision which has become final to ask internal bodies for its review if some new and unforeseeable fact of decisive importance has occurred since the decision was taken, or if she or he is relying on facts or evidence of decisive importance of which she or he was not and could not have been aware before the decision was taken (see Judgments 676, consideration 1, 2203, consideration 7, 2722, consideration 4, 3002, [...] consideration 14, or 3140, consideration 4).
ILOAT Judgment(s): 676, 2203, 2722, 3002, 3140
new fact on which the party was unable to rely in the original proceedings; late appeal
Regarding the request for disclosure of the files of the Medical Committee, the Tribunal recalls that, under its case law, the right to transparency as well as the general principle of an individual’s right to access personal data concerning her or him mean that a staff member must be allowed full and unfettered access to her or his medical file and be provided with copies of the full file when requested (paying the associated costs as necessary) (see Judgments 3120, consideration 7, or 3994, consideration 10). According to the same case law, the only situation in which this rule does not apply is where specific circumstances temporarily prevent such access [...].
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3120, 3994
disclosure of evidence; medical records
The Tribunal notes that, according to the latest correspondence submitted by the parties, the Office did ultimately provide the complainant with a copy of his medical file including, in particular, the [...] report of Dr V. However, the complainant is still not satisfied on this point, as he asserts that the file that was provided to him is incomplete and its contents unlawful. But in any case, that claim, made after the close of the written proceedings, cannot be considered by the Tribunal in the context of the present judgment.
evidence; closure of written proceedings