Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2013:173
Date: 2013-11-07
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary 1. Officials — Pensions — Correction coefficient — Correction coefficient for the retired official’s country of main residence — Concept of main residence — Conditions under which applicable — Administration’s circumscribed powers — Judicial review — Scope (Staff Regulations, Annex XIII, Art. 20) 2. Officials — Pensions — Correction coefficient — Correction coefficient for the retired person’s country of main residence — Burden of proof on the retired official — Means of proof (Staff Regulations, Annex XIII, Art. 20) 3. Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Annual verification of main residence of retired officials receiving a correction coefficient over 100 — Infringement — None 1. In order for the place where a retired official lives to be classified not just as his residence but also as his main residence within the meaning of Article 20 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, the various elements of the concept of residence, that is to say, the actual fact of residing at the location in question, conferring on it the nature of an actual residence, the development of normal social relations and the incurring of expenditure with the intention that living in that location should be of a lasting, continuous character, must be ascribed considerable importance. The provisions of Article 20 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations do not allow the administration any discretion as to whether or not to grant the application of correction coefficients, but confers on it circumscribed powers, in so far as the mandatory wording of those provisions makes it clear that the administration is bound to grant the advantage in question if it finds that the conditions laid down by those provisions are satisfied. Consequently, the Courts of the Union have a full power of review when examining both the facts relied on by the administration and how the administration characterised them, for the purpose of determining whether the conditions for the grant of the application of a specific correction coefficient were fulfilled. (see paras 40-41) See: 27 September 2006, T‑416/04 Kontouli v Council, paras 74 and 75 8 April 2008, F‑134/06 Bordini v Commission, para. 89 2. The burden of proving his main place of residence lies with the retired official, and the competent institution, when assessing the evidence provided in that respect and, where necessary, carrying out checks, must avoid abuses of that provision. In order to prove his main residence, the official concerned may refer to all the factual circumstances which constitute that residence and provide any evidence he deems appropriate. (see paras 42-43) See: 4 June 2003, T‑124/01 and T‑320/01 Del Vaglio v Commission, para. 75 4 May 2010, F‑100/08 Petrilli v Commission, para. 33 and the case-law cited therein 3. The right to claim the protection of legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of EU law, extends to any individual who is in a situation from which it is clear that, in giving him specific, unconditional and consistent assurances, coming from authorised and reliable sources, the administration has led him to entertain reasonable expectations. Furthermore, those assurances must be in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations and with generally applicable legal rules. A monitoring system which requires retired officials receiving a correction coefficient over 100 to complete a declaration every year in order to check whether, during the previous calendar year, they kept their main residence in the country for which the correction coefficient was granted and whether the grant of that correction coefficient was justified for that calendar year cannot, by definition, lead them to entertain reasonable expectations that they will retain the correction coefficient. (see paras 85-87) See: 13 April 2011, F‑73/09 Sukup v Commission, para. 89