CELEX: 61981CJ0056
Official on secondment
Reimbursement of expenses

1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 11 MARCH 1981 MRS COLETTE NOVI , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , BROUGHT AN ACTION SEEKING AN ORDER THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD REIMBURSE HER THE SUM OF BFR 220 205 , REPRESENTING THE EXPENSES SHE HAD INCURRED FOR MOVING HER FURNITURE INTO STORE , STORING IT AND BRINGING IT BACK AGAIN .
2 BETWEEN 1 APRIL 1972 AND 1 NOVEMBER 1979 THE APPLICANT WAS FIRST GRANTED LEAVE ON PERSONAL GROUNDS AND THEN , WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO 1 APRIL 1972 , SECONDED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE TO A POST AS ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANT TO THE CONTROLEUR DELEGUE OF THE EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND IN YAOUNDE ( CAMEROON ). THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY MRS NOVI WITH THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR COOPERATION FOR THE PURPOSE DID NOT PERMIT HER TO TAKE HER OWN FURNITURE BUT PROVIDED INTER ALIA FOR PAYMENT OF INSTALLATION AND RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCES AS WELL AS FREE FURNISHED ACCOMMODATION . BECAUSE OF HER SECONDMENT THE APPLICANT TERMINATED HER LEASE IN BRUSSELS AND PUT HER FURNITURE INTO STORE .
3 THE APPLICANT RELIES ON ARTICLE 38 ( D ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS ACCORDING TO WHICH AN OFFICIAL ON SECONDMENT IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF ALL ADDITIONAL EXPENSES ENTAILED BY HIS SECONDMENT .
4 SHE CLAIMS THAT INASMUCH AS AN OFFICIAL ' S SECONDMENT ENTAILS THE TRANSFER OF HIS RESIDENCE TO HIS NEW PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT , HIS FURNITURE MUST NORMALLY BE MOVED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INSTITUTION . SINCE THE APPLICANT ' S FAMILY CENTRE OF INTEREST IS IN THE VAR ( FRANCE ) SHE CEASED TO HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH BRUSSELS ON HER SECONDMENT AND ACCORDINGLY CEASED TO HAVE ANY REASON TO     MAINTAIN ACCOMMODATION THERE . AS SHE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO TAKE HER FURNITURE TO YAOUNDE THE ONLY REASONABLE SOLUTION WAS THEREFORE TO TERMINATE THE LEASE OF THE ACCOMMODATION SHE OCCUPIED IN BRUSSELS , PUT HER FURNITURE INTO STORE AND THEREBY REDUCE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE EXPENSE ENTAILED BY HER SECONDMENT . SHE CLAIMS THAT THOSE CHARGES ARE NOT COVERED BY THE INSTALLATION AND RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCES WHICH ARE INTENDED TO COVER , IN PARTICULAR , THE COST OF LOCAL PURCHASES AND RESETTLEMENT ON TERMINATION OF THE SECONDMENT AND ARE THEREFORE SEPARATE FROM THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN ORDER TO KEEP HER FURNITURE IN BRUSSELS FOR THE DURATION OF THE SECONDMENT . FURTHERMORE , THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT WHEN SHE WAS EMPLOYED IN BRUSSELS WAS WITHDRAWN FOR THAT PERIOD .
5 IN RESPONSE TO THOSE SUBMISSIONS IT MUST BE NOTED THAT ARTICLE 38 ( D ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS DOES NOT COMPEL THE ADMINISTRATION TO REIMBURSE ALL EXPENSES CAUSED BY ANY DECISION , HOWEVER REASONABLE IT MAY BE , WHICH MAY BE TAKEN BY AN OFFICIAL IN CONNECTION WITH HIS SECONDMENT , BUT SOLELY THOSE EXPENSES WHICH MAY BE DESCRIBED AS ADDITIONAL EXPENSES ENTAILED BY THE SECONDMENT ITSELF .
6 SINCE UNDER THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR COOPERATION SHE WAS GIVEN FURNISHED ACCOMMODATION WHICH WAS PLACED AT HER DISPOSAL FREE OF CHARGE IN YAOUNDE , IN ADDITION TO THE FLAT-RATE INSTALLATION AND RESETTLEMENT ALLOWANCES , THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES ENTAILED BY THE TRANSFER OF HER RESIDENCE AS A RESULT OF HER SECONDMENT HAVE BEEN FULLY COMPENSATED FOR .
7 THE EXPENSES ARISING AS A RESULT OF AN OFFICIAL ' S DECISION TO RETAIN A FLAT AT HIS PREVIOUS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT CERTAINLY CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS ADDITIONAL EXPENSES ENTAILED BY HIS SECONDMENT ; A FORTIORI THE COST OF FURNITURE STORAGE RESULTING FROM HIS DECISION TO SAVE PAYING RENT FOR THAT FLAT CANNOT BE SO DESCRIBED . THE FACT THAT THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE TO WHICH THAT OFFICIAL WAS ENTITLED DURING HIS PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT WAS WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED BY OTHER ALLOWANCES FOR OVERSEAS SERVICE DOES NOT ALTER THAT CONCLUSION IN ANY WAY SINCE THE AFOREMENTIONED ALLOWANCE WAS NOT INTENDED TO COVER THE OFFICIAL ' S ACCOMMODATION COST .
8 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .
Decision on costs
9 ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
10 HOWEVER , ARTICLE 70 PROVIDES THAT , IN PROCEEDINGS BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES , THE INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;
2 . ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .