Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:258
Date: 2025-04-10
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-238/24 – 1 
Case C-238/24 [Tartisai] i 
Summary of request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
2 April 2024 
Referring court: 
Consiglio di Stato (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
2 April 2024 
Appellant: 
NR 
Respondents: 
Ministero della Difesa 
Comando Generale dell’Arma dei Carabinieri 
Comando Generale Carabinieri – Centro Nazionale 
Amministrativo – Chieti 
Centro Amministrativo d’Intendenza Interforze del Contingente 
delle Forze Armate Italiane in Afghanistan 
Centro Nazionale Amministrativo dell’Arma dei Carabinieri 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
1 The appellant asks the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), on appeal, to reverse 
a judgment of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Regional 
Administrative Court, Piedmont) (‘the TAR’), which had dismissed his action 
against an administrative decision to recover certain allowances received by the 
appellant for a mission abroad. 
 
i The name of the present case is fictitious. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-238/24 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 7(3) of the decision of the Council of the European 
Union 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
(1) What is the correct interpretation of Article 7(3) of Council 
Decision 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010, that is to say, was the intention behind 
that provision to provide that allowances paid by a Member State were to be 
received cumulatively with those granted by EUPOL? 
(2) In the event that that interpretation leads to the conclusion that the 
allowances described above can be received cumulatively, according to the 
interpretation provided by the Court referred to above, does Article 7(3) of 
Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010 preclude a national rule, such 
as the rule resulting from the provisions of Article 3(1) of legge n. 108/2009 
(Law No 108/2009), in so far as it provides that ‘… the staff involved in the 
international missions referred to in this law shall be paid, after tax and social 
security deductions, throughout the period, in addition to salary or pay and other 
fixed and continuous allowances, the mission allowance provided for by regio 
decreto n. 941 (Royal Decree No 941) of 3 June 1926, … less any allowances and 
contributions paid on the same basis directly to the persons concerned by 
international bodies’, and by Article 1(b) of Royal Decree No 941 of 3 June 1926 
and Article 3 of legge n. 642 (Law No 642) of 8 July 1961 and Article 4(1)(a) of 
legge n. 838 (Law No 838) of 27 December 1973, the purpose of that rule being to 
prohibit the cumulation of allowances? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Council Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP of 30 May 2007 on the establishment of the 
European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN). 
Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010 on the European Union Police 
Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN), which extended the mission 
from 31 May 2010 until 31 May 2013. Article 7(3) concerns the rules governing 
the pay conditions applied to staff: 
English language version: ‘Each Member State or EU institution shall bear the 
costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses to and 
from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage, and allowances, other 
than applicable per diems as well as hardship and risk allowances’. 
Italian language version: ‘Ciascuno Stato membro o istituzione dell’UE sostiene i 
costi connessi con ogni membro del personale da esso distaccato, incluse le spese 
di viaggio per e dal luogo di schieramento, gli stipendi, la copertura sanitaria, le 
TARTISAI 
 
3 
indennità, diverse da quelle giornaliere, le indennità di sede disagiata e di rischio 
applicabili’. 
Articles 2, 19, 21, 23, 24, 28 and 40 TEU. 
Articles 263, 275 and 342 TFEU. 
Regulation No 1/1958. 
Judgments of the Court in Cases C-296/95, C-437/97, C-161/06, C-511/08 
and C-455/14 and the case-law cited in those judgments. 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
Regio decreto n. 941 (Royal Decree No 941) of 3 June 1926 governing, in 
particular, allowances for missions abroad 
Legge n. 642 (Law No 642) of 8 July 1961 
Legge n. 838 (Law No 838) of 27 December 1973, in particular, Article 4(1)(a) 
Decreto-legge del 30 dicembre 2005, n. 273, convertito in legge 23 febbraio 2006, 
n. 51 (Decree-Law No 273 of 30 December 2005, converted into Law No 51 
of 23 February 2006), in particular, Article 39(21)(39), which establishes that the 
provisions described above are to be interpreted as meaning that the pay terms 
provided for therein are of an ancillary nature and are made available in order to 
compensate for the hardship and risks associated with the job, the obligations to 
remain on call and to be available to work at inconvenient times, and to substitute 
overtime pay. 
Legge n. 108 (Law No 108) of 3 August 2009 on the extension of Italian 
participation in international missions, in particular Article 3(1), which provides 
that the staff involved in the international missions referred to in that law are to be 
paid, after tax and social security deductions, throughout the period, in addition to 
salary or pay and other fixed and continuous allowances, the mission allowance 
provided for by Royal Decree No 941 of 3 June 1926, less any allowances and 
contributions paid on the same basis directly to the persons concerned by 
international bodies. 
Legge n. 145 – Disposizioni concernenti la partecipazione dell’Italia alle missioni 
internazionali (Law No 145 – Provisions concerning Italy’s participation in 
international missions) of 21 July 2016 
Judgments of the Council of State 
Council of State, Section II, No 140/2022 and No 139/2022: 1) the allowance for 
missions abroad is all-encompassing, compensating in cash for the hardship, risks 
and constraints connected with the particular job concerned, and 2) the legislature 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-238/24 
 
4  
intervened, by introducing a clear legislative provision (Law No 108 
of 3 August 2009), which provided for the deduction of allowances paid by 
international bodies, precisely in order to prevent the staff in question from being 
overpaid and otherwise being compensated twice for the same type of hardship. 
Council of State, Section IV, No 6374/2018; Section II, No 309/2023, 
No 4809/2022, No 4654/2022; Section IV, No 2407/2020; Section I, 
No 482/2022: the broad and all-encompassing reference to job-related hardship 
and risks precludes the conclusion that the allowance for missions abroad is 
different in nature from that of the ‘per diem, hardship and risk allowance’. It 
follows that receipt of that ‘per diem, hardship and risk allowance’ absorbs and 
excludes entitlement to the allowance for missions abroad. 
Council of Section IV, No 2407/2020: all the successive legislative provisions 
from 2008 to 2016 provide that any allowances or contributions paid, on the same 
basis, directly to the persons concerned by international bodies, must be deducted 
from the amount of the allowance in question. The expression ‘on the same basis’ 
refers to the objective fact that work is extended abroad. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
2 The appellant, belonging to the Arma dei Carabinieri police force, took part, in 
June 2011, in the international mission referred to as ‘EUPOL’ (European Police 
Mission in Afghanistan). He was paid, at national level, a per diem (daily) 
allowance provided for in Article 3 of Law No 108/2009 and also received three 
types of ‘allowance’ from the EU mission structure, known respectively as ‘per 
diem allowance’, ‘hardship allowance’ and ‘risk allowance’. In March 2012, the 
administration took steps to recover from the appellant amounts he had received 
as a mission allowance under Royal Decree No 941/1926, in application of 
Law No 108/2009, which provides that any sums paid on the same basis directly 
by international bodies should be deducted from the mission allowance to be paid 
to the participant in international missions. 
3 The amount to be recovered was assessed by the administration at 
EUR 25 131.80, in a decision of 3 December 2020, contested at first instance 
before the TAR. 
4 In particular, the appellant claimed that the EUPOL document of 11 August 2011, 
in its description of the pay conditions applying to staff assigned to the mission, 
had provided that each Member State was to bear the costs of seconded staff, 
including travel expenses, medical coverage, other than applicable ‘per diems as 
well as hardship and risk allowances’ (‘Each Member State or EU Institution shall 
bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including travel expenses 
to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage and allowances, 
other than applicable per diems as well as hardship and risk allowances’). 
TARTISAI 
 
5 
5 The appellant argues that the rule, derived from EU law, was binding and took 
precedence over any conflicting national provisions; according to the appellant, 
this means that he ought to receive the allowances paid by the Member State and 
those provided for under Italian law. 
6 The TAR dismissed the action, taking the view, specifically with regard to the 
question of him receiving the allowance cumulatively, that the appellant’s 
argument stems from an incorrect translation of the mission regulations, namely 
the expression ‘other than applicable per diems as well as hardship and risk 
allowances’ which, according to the appellant, means ‘besides applicable per 
diems as well as hardship and risk allowances’ and which, on the contrary, 
according to the TAR, means ‘apart from applicable per diems as well as hardship 
and risk allowances’. 
7 Since it took the view that there was no contradiction between the national 
legislation and the mission regulations, the TAR applied the principles laid down 
in national case-law concerning allowances for missions abroad and, taking the 
view that the cumulation of those allowances with those provided in parallel for 
missions covered by the European Union was therefore inadmissible, it upheld the 
application solely in respect of the appellant’s claim for expenses for meals, but 
dismissed the remainder of the application. 
8 The appellant lodged an appeal against the decision at first instance before the 
Council of State. 
9 In the first place, he points out that, in order to determine which allowances 
should have been awarded to EUPOL staff seconded to Afghanistan, the legally 
relevant contractual document is the document originating from the European 
Union called ‘Annex 1 – European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL 
Afghanistan) – Advertisement for EU seconded/contracted staff members’, a 
sworn translation of which, with regard to the part dealing with the administrative 
conditions applying to seconded staff, had already been produced at first instance. 
10 He claims that the TAR’s interpretation of the expression ‘other than’ in English 
is incorrect, in so far as the sworn translation that he filed indicates that the 
expression ‘other than applicable per diems as well as hardship and risk 
allowances’ means ‘besides applicable per diems as well as hardship and risk 
allowances’ and not ‘apart from applicable per diems as well as hardship and risk 
allowances’, as held by the TAR. 
11 In addition, he argues that, in a letter of 11 August 2011, the legal adviser to the 
Head of Mission of EUPOL-A had stated that the rule under EU law on 
allowances applicable to seconded staff of the EUPOL-A mission was Article 7 of 
Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP, the text of which had been reproduced in its entirety 
in Article 7 of Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP, which is binding on the Member 
States. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-238/24 
 
6  
12 That provision had laid down that Member States were to bear various types of 
costs related to the mission and pay the allowances provided for by each State for 
missions abroad, besides those applicable by the European Union, which would be 
covered by the EUPOL-Afghanistan Mission. 
13 Consequently, Italy, as a Member State, was required to pay the mission 
allowance provided for by Royal Decree No 941/1926, whereas the European 
Union allowances would be paid autonomously, since they were provided for by a 
Joint Action. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
14 Contrary to what emerges from the official Italian text, the appellant, basing his 
argument on the English language version of Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP 
of 18 May 2010, translates Article 7(3) as follows: ‘Ciascuno Stato membro o 
istituzione dell’UE sostiene i costi connessi con ogni membro del personale da 
esso distaccato, incluse le spese di viaggio per e dal luogo di schieramento, gli 
stipendi, la copertura sanitaria, le indennità, oltre che quelle giornaliere, le 
indennità di sede disagiata e di rischio applicabili’ (‘Each Member State or EU 
institution shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including 
travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage, 
and allowances, besides applicable per diems as well as hardship and risk 
allowances’). On that basis, he concludes that the Member States must pay their 
allowances in addition to those paid by the international body. 
15 In support of his argument, the appellant produces the EUPOL note 
of 8 November 2011, in which the legal adviser to the Head of Mission of EUPOL 
writes to the Italian military administration as follows: ‘Each Member State or EU 
institution shall bear the costs related to any of the staff seconded by it, including 
travel expenses to and from the place of deployment, salaries, medical coverage, 
and allowances, other than applicable per diems as well as hardship and risk 
allowances. Consequently, the per diems, hardship and risk allowances are 
mission internal issues and independent from the seconding nations’. The second 
sentence seems to corroborate the translation proposed by the appellant, but is at 
odds with the English language version of the provision in question, which does 
not appear to be fully aligned with the Italian, French and Spanish versions. 
16 Arriving at the opposite conclusion, the TAR – basing its conclusion on the Italian 
language version, from which it can be inferred that, unlike those to be paid by 
international bodies, the allowances to be paid by the Member States are those 
provided for under national laws – concludes that the national legislation rightly 
prohibits such allowances being payable cumulatively with those paid by 
international bodies. 
TARTISAI 
 
7 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
17 Under both national law and the settled case-law of the Council of State, the 
recovery ordered by the administration is lawful. 
18 However, according to the referring court, there is uncertainty as to the meaning 
to be given to the expression ‘other than’ in the English version of Article 7(3) of 
the decision of the Council of the European Union 2010/279/CFSP 
of 18 May 2010. 
19 In the French version, the expression used is ‘à l’exclusion des’, which 
corresponds exactly to the Italian version ‘diverse da’. The Larousse French-
English dictionary states as an English translation of ‘à l’exclusion de’ the 
expressions ‘apart from, with the exception of’. In that sense, the purpose of the 
expression is to exclude all that follows. 
20 By contrast, the English expression ‘other than’ has several meanings, at least two 
of which may be used in the relevant sentence: (i) other than – besides, in addition 
to; (ii) other than – except, excluding. 
21 In the present case, the appellant – instead of using the Italian version, which is 
unambiguous, of the decision at issue – used the English version, on the basis of 
which he puts forward a translation which has regard for only one of the possible 
meanings of the expression ‘other than’ (namely: besides, in addition to). 
22 The question therefore arises as to the precise meaning of Article 7(3) of the 
decision at issue, that is to say, whether or not it intended to provide that 
allowances paid by a Member State could be received cumulatively with those 
granted by EUPOL. While the Italian version leaves no doubt that receiving the 
allowances cumulatively is not permissible, the English version appears to be 
ambiguous, given that the expression ‘other than’ has several meanings. 
23 Regulation No 1/1958 enshrines the principle of multilingualism and equality of 
the official languages of the European Union. This is based on the fundamental 
principle of legal certainty, which requires that EU legislation must allow those 
concerned to acquaint themselves with the precise extent of the obligations it 
imposes upon them, which may be guaranteed only by the proper publication of 
that legislation in the official language of those to whom it applies (judgment in 
Case C-161/06). Where a legislative provision has the same meaning in a number 
of official languages and (due to a grammatical error or even the inevitable 
diversity of terminology) a different meaning in one or more of the others, there is 
no official comparative language that prevails. Indeed, the Court expressly 
excluded the prevalence of one language version over others (judgment in 
Case C-296/95). 
24 Thus, where there is divergence in the interpretation of a multilingual text, the text 
of a provision must be interpreted in the light of the texts drawn up in other 
official languages. Furthermore, the Court has held that, where a provision of EU 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-238/24 
 
8  
law is open to several interpretations, preference must be given to that 
interpretation which ensures that the provision retains its effectiveness and the 
provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general 
scheme of the rules of which it forms part (judgment in Case C-437/97). 
25 It is therefore necessary for the Court to intervene in order to clarify the exact 
meaning of the provision in question. 
26 Finally, as regards the Court’s jurisdiction to rule on this reference for a 
preliminary ruling, the referring court observes, in the first place, that, under 
Article 24 TEU, the Court does not have jurisdiction with respect to matters of 
common foreign and security policy (CFSP), with the exception of its jurisdiction 
to monitor compliance with Article 40 TEU and to review the legality of certain 
decisions, as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 275 TFEU. Under 
Article 275 TFEU, the Court does not have jurisdiction with respect to the 
provisions relating to the CFSP, nor with respect to acts adopted on the basis of 
those provisions. However, the Court is to have jurisdiction to monitor 
compliance with Article 40 TEU and to rule on proceedings, brought in 
accordance with the conditions laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 
TFEU, reviewing the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures 
against natural or legal persons adopted by the Council on the basis of Chapter 2 
of Title V TEU. 
27 On the basis of the exceptions described in Article 275 TFEU, the Court defined 
the scope of its jurisdiction under the CFSP in the judgment in Case C-455/14, 
ruling as follows: ‘In the present case, the contested decisions are admittedly set in 
the context of the CFSP … . However, such a circumstance does not necessarily 
lead to the jurisdiction of the EU judicature being excluded … . While the 
decisions adopted by the competent authorities of that mission relating to the 
allocation of the human resources assigned to it by the Member States and the EU 
institutions for the purpose of performing activities undertaken at theatre level 
have an operational aspect falling within the CFSP, they also constitute, by their 
very essence, acts of staff management, just like all similar decisions adopted by 
the EU institutions in the exercise of their competences. In those circumstances, 
the scope of the limitation, by way of derogation, on the Court’s jurisdiction, 
which is laid down in the final sentence of the second subparagraph of 
Article 24(1) TEU and in the first paragraph of Article 275 TFEU, cannot be 
considered to be so extensive as to exclude the jurisdiction of the EU judicature to 
review acts of staff management relating to staff members seconded by the 
Member States the purpose of which is to meet the needs of that mission at theatre 
level, when the EU judicature has, in any event, jurisdiction to review such acts 
where they concern staff members seconded by the EU institutions … . In the 
present case, it should be observed that the contested decisions … constitute acts 
of staff management whose purpose is the redeployment of members of the 
mission at theatre level … . Accordingly, those decisions, although adopted in the 
context of the CFSP … fall within the jurisdiction of the EU judicature under the 
general provisions of the FEU Treaty referred to ….’ 
TARTISAI 
 
9 
28 Thus, the referring court takes the view that, a fortiori, the general jurisdiction of 
the Court to rule on the interpretation of acts of the European Union governing 
aspects of the economic management of staff assigned to missions may not be 
disregarded.