Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2013:202
Date: 2013-12-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

Summary Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Conditions for granting — Actual maintenance — Administration’s circumscribed powers (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 2) Article 2(3) and (5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations concern cases where entitlement to the dependent child allowance for an official’s child arises automatically by reason of the fact that it is presumed in those provisions that the child referred to in them is, solely on account of his being a minor, a student, a sick person or an invalid, in fact dependent on the official. It does not follow, however, that the institution is exempt from the obligation to verify that the condition of actual maintenance of the child by the official, laid down in Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, is satisfied. It is only if this condition is fulfilled that it can be considered that the powers of the appointing authority are circumscribed, in the three cases referred to in Article 2(3)(a) and (b) and Article 2(5) of that annex. A minor child cannot be regarded as dependent on the official concerned or give rise to entitlement to dependent child allowance when another person, public or private, fully provides for his actual maintenance. (see paras 39-41) See: 28 November 1991, C‑132/90 P Schwedler v Parliament, paras 19 to 24; 7 May 1992, C‑70/91 P Council v Brems, para. 5 11 July 2000, T‑134/99 Skrzypek v Commission, para. 66