Order — ECLI:EU:F:2013:79
Date: 2013-06-18
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary 1. Officials — Reimbursement of expenses — Daily subsistence allowance — Conditions for granting — Cumulative nature (Staff Regulations, Art. 20; Annex VII, Art. 10) 2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Unreasonable or vexatious costs imposed on the Civil Service Tribunal by an application of an official which constitutes an abuse of process (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 94) 1. Payment of the daily subsistence allowance is conditional upon the official having actually changed his place of residence so as to comply with the residence obligation set out in Article 20 of the Staff Regulations, and upon the official having been put to expense or inconvenience by the need to travel or move to his place of assignment. As those two conditions are cumulative, the daily subsistence allowance is not payable to an official who cannot demonstrate that he has been put to such expense or inconvenience. (see para. 27) See: 5 February 1987, 280/85 Mouzourakis v Parliament, paras 9 and 12 10 July 1992, T‑63/91 Benzler v Commission, paras 20 and 21 2. Under Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, if the Tribunal has incurred avoidable costs, in particular where the action is manifestly an abuse of process, it may order the party who caused such costs to be incurred to refund them in whole or in part, but the amount of that refund may not exceed EUR 2 000. It is appropriate to exercise that power in the case of an application which is manifestly unfounded and an abuse of process, concerning a decision taken more than nine and a half years previously which had already been annulled by the General Court, and where the applicant had opted for the contentious procedure for no good reason. (see paras 45-46) See: 14 September 2011, T‑236/02 Marcuccio v Commission, on appeal to the Court of Justice under Case C‑617/11 P