At Generation 2004, we are seeing an increasing number of colleagues facing invalidity procedures, including colleagues at a relatively young age. Against this background, the recent judgment from 10 June 2026 (Case T-204/25, IQ v European Defence Agency) of the General Court of the European Union is particularly important. It clarifies when an administration may refuse to open an invalidity procedure and, importantly, confirms that a request cannot simply be considered “abusive” because it is made after a long period of sick leave or close to the end of a contract.
The right to have the procedure opened
The case concerned a Temporary Agent who requested the opening of an invalidity procedure. The European Defence Agency (EDA) refused the request, considering that it was abusive.
The General Court annulled both the original decision and the decision rejecting the complaint.
The Court recalled that, where the statutory conditions are fulfilled, the competent authority is required to open the invalidity procedure. It can refuse only where there is a genuine abuse of rights.
Importantly, the administration must provide concrete evidence of such abuse.
Twelve months of sick leave is not a deadline for staff
One of the most important points of the judgment concerns the 12-month period of accumulated sick leave over three years.
The Court clarified that this period, which may allow the administration to refer a staff member to the Invalidity Committee on its own initiative, does not constitute a deadline for a staff member to request the opening of an invalidity procedure.
There is no statutory provision establishing a maximum period within which a staff member must make such a request.
Therefore, the mere fact that a colleague submits a request:
- after more than 12 months of sick leave; or
- when their fixed-term contract is approaching its expiry
does not, by itself, constitute an abuse of rights.
The administration must prove genuine abuse
The Court set a high threshold for establishing abuse.
The administration must demonstrate objective circumstances showing that the purpose of the rules has not been respected and that the staff member deliberately sought to obtain an advantage by artificially creating the conditions required to benefit from the procedure.
In particular, the administration must provide concrete evidence that the staff member intentionally delayed the request, despite having no legitimate reason to expect an improvement in their health.
A request made late in the employment relationship is therefore not automatically suspicious or abusive.
Professional origin can be raised later
The Court also clarified another important point.
The fact that a staff member raises the possible professional origin of their illness for the first time during the complaint procedure does not, in itself, indicate abuse.
The question of professional origin can be raised together with the request to open the invalidity procedure or even at a later stage.
What does this mean for staff?
This judgment is relevant to all staff members who may face an invalidity procedure and is particularly important for Temporary Agents who may also be dealing with uncertainty about their employment situation.
It confirms that staff should not be discouraged from requesting an invalidity procedure simply because:
- they have already been on sick leave for a long period;
- their contract is approaching its end; or
- they did not immediately raise the issue of the professional origin of their illness.
The administration must examine the individual circumstances and cannot rely on assumptions or timing alone to refuse access to the procedure. The fact that a request is made late does not, by itself, make it abusive.
The judgment therefore provides an important safeguard for staff: where the statutory conditions are fulfilled, the administration must open the invalidity procedure unless it can demonstrate a genuine and properly established abuse of rights.
Generation 2004: an important protection for colleagues
Generation 2004 welcomes this judgment, particularly because invalidity procedures can have profound consequences for a colleague’s career, financial security, and future.
We are particularly concerned by the increasing number of invalidity cases, including among younger colleagues. In such circumstances, staff must be able to rely on clear rules and fair procedures rather than face additional barriers when seeking to have their situation properly assessed.
The Court’s judgment is an important reminder that staff rights must be protected throughout the invalidity process, regardless of the category or type of contract under which a colleague is employed.
If you are considering requesting an invalidity procedure, are facing prolonged sick leave, or have questions about the professional origin of an illness or your rights as a staff member, do not hesitate to contact Generation 2004. We can help you understand the applicable rules and your procedural rights.
toolTips('.classtoolTips34','A new Procedural Handbook for Invalidity Committees was published 25.11.2022 de [1] | en [2] | fr [3]
See also Special Report No 3/2003 on the invalidity pensions scheme of the European institutions, together with the institutions’ replies [4]
See also Staff Matters - Corporate - Invalidity [5] (Home [6]>Staff Matters [7]>Health [8]>Specific events [9]>Invalidity) and the calculation of the allowance [10].
Under certain circumstanaces you can work elsewhere while in receipt of an invalidity allowance:
\'Persons in receipt of an invalidity allowance may not engage in gainful employment without the prior authorisation of the Appointing Authority. Any income from such gainful employment which, in combination with the invalidity allowance, exceeds the final total remuneration received while in active service as determined on the basis of the salary scale in force on the first day of the month in which the allowance is to be paid shall be deducted from the invalidity allowance.\' staff regulations, VIII Pension scheme [11], Article 13(2)
');