CELEX: 62008FJ0018
Public service
Officials
Recovery of undue payment

Officials – Recovery of undue payments – Conditions
(Staff Regulations, Art. 85; Annex VII, Art. 1(3))
It is clear from the first paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations that, for a sum paid without justification to
be recovered, evidence must be produced to show that the recipient was actually aware that there was no due reason for the
payment or that the fact of the overpayment was patently such that he could not have been unaware of it. In the absence of
evidence that he was aware that there was no due reason for the payment, the circumstances in which the payment was made must
be examined in order to determine whether the overpayment was patently evident.
The phrase ‘patently such’ relating to overpayment within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations
does not mean that an official who receives undue payments need make no effort to reflect or check but rather that recovery
is due where the error is one which does not escape the notice of an official exercising ordinary care.
Simply reading the provisions of Article 1(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations informs any official, even without legal
training, that he is entitled to the household allowance only if his spouse’s professional income does not exceed a certain
threshold. Furthermore, an official in a position of authority, who has considerable seniority and experience, cannot fail
to be aware of the consequences of exceeding the ceiling referred to in Article 1(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
The fact that he has duly forwarded documentary evidence of his spouse’s professional income to the administration every year
does not relieve the official of the need to determine for himself whether that income exceeds the ceiling referred to in
Article 1(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations . In any event, the administration’s mistake or negligence does not affect
the application of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, which in fact presupposes that the administration has made a mistake
in making the irregular payment. It is not a question of whether or not the error was patent to the administration, but whether
it should have been so to the recipient. Since the applicant, like any official, has a personal interest in checking the payments
made to him every month, his situation cannot be compared to that of an administration responsible for the payment of thousands
of salaries and allowances of all kinds.
(see paras 29-31, 34, 36, 39, 40)
See:
71/72
Kuhl
v
Council
[1973] ECR 705, para. 11; 252/78
Broe
v
Commission
[1979] ECR 2393, paras 11 and 13; 142/78
Berghmans
v
Commission
[1979] ECR 3125, para. 9
T-111/89
Scheiber
v
Council
[1990] ECR II‑429, para. 43; T-107/92
White
v
Commission
[1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑41 and II‑143, point 38; T‑38/93
Stahlschmidt
v
Parliament
[1994] ECR-SC I‑A‑65 and II‑227, para. 23; T-205/01
Ronsse
v
Commission
[2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑211 and II‑1065, paras 47 to 49; T-180/02 and T-113/03
Gouvras
v
Commission
[2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑225 and II‑987, para. 76