Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:197
Date: 2003-07-09
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Refund of expenses;Interpretation of provisions of the Staff Regulations
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY — CASE T-22/01 
Held: The Commission's decision of 24 March 2000 making 
three 'supplementary amendments' to mission expense 
accounts and charging to the applicant the sums 
overclaimed is annulled inasmuch as it charges to the 
applicant, for the mission to the Hague of 12 to 18 
September 1999, a sum overclaimed in respect of air 
travel costs of BEF 1 921 instead of BEF 1 291. The 
defendant is ordered to repay to the applicant the sum of 
EUR 15.62 together with interest to run from 26 June 
2000, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for 
principal refinancing operations applicable for the period 
in question, increased by two points. The remainder of the 
application is dismissed. The defendant is ordered to bear 
its own costs and to pay one sixth of those incurred by the 
applicant. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Mission expenses - Commission Guide 
to Missions - Air travel - Type of ticket that may be reimbursed 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 12(2), first subpara.) 
2. Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Mission expenses - Internal directive 
of an institution on the application of the Staff Regulations - Legal effects 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 71; Annex VII, Arts 11 to 13) 
3. Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Mission expenses - Commission Guide 
to Missions - Air travel - Permitted exceptions concerning the type of ticket that 
can be reimbursed 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 12(2), second and third subparas; Commission 
Guide to Missions, Section III. 3) 
I-A - 178 
EFTHYMIOU v COMMISSION 
4. Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Mission expenses - Commission Guide 
to Missions - Air travel - Body authorised to allow exceptions concerning the type 
of ticket that can be reimbursed 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 71; Commission Guide to Missions, Section III.3) 
5. Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements -
Statement of the subject-matter of the proceedings - Summary of the pleas in law 
relied upon - Similar requirements for submissions in support of a plea in law 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First 
Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) 
1. It is apparent from Article 12(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that where 
travel by air is authorised, an official will, unless the appointing authority decides 
differently, be entitled to reimbursement of his travel costs on the basis of the tariff 
charged for 'the class immediately below luxury class, or first class', which means 
that the class immediately below the best class actually offered on the market for the 
journey in question must be taken into consideration. 
(see para. 50) 
2. The Commission's Guide to Missions, adopted by internal administrative decision 
pursuant to Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 11 to 13 of Annex VII 
to the Staff Regulations, is an internal directive and must therefore be regarded as 
a rule of practice which the administration imposes on itself and from which it may 
not depart without specifying the reasons which have led it to do so, since otherwise 
the principle of equal treatment would be infringed. In fact there is nothing in 
I-A - 179 
SUMMARY - CASE T-22/01 
principle to prevent the appointing authority from drawing up rules by means of an 
internal decision of general effect, to govern the exercise of the discretion conferred 
on it by the Staff Regulations. 
(see paras 53-54) 
See: T-2/90 Ferreira de Freitas v Commission [1991] ECR II-103, para. 61, and the 
case-law cited; T-100/96 Vicente-Nuñez v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-591 and 
II-1779, para. 67 
3. The combined provisions of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 12(2) 
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of Article 2 of the rules adopted by 
agreement between the institutions laying down the conditions for the reimbursement 
of travel expenses in respect of missions carried out under particularly tiring 
conditions, referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Annex VII to 
the Staff Regulations, describe exhaustively the circumstances in which an exception 
from the rule of reimbursement on the basis of 'the class immediately below luxury 
class, or first class' may be allowed for air travel. Therefore, the terms 'derogations 
from the rules set out above' in Section III.3 of the Commission's Guide to Missions 
relate only to authorisation for business class or first class in the specific 
circumstances described in Section III.3, on the basis of the Staff Regulations and 
the common rules in force. 
(see paras 60, 63) 
4. Section III.3 of the Commission's Guide to Missions, relating to air travel, must 
be interpreted as meaning that the exceptions envisaged by the terms 'derogations 
from the rules set out above' must be approved not just by the person authorising 
the mission, but also by the administration. The approval of the person authorising 
the mission is merely intended to confirm, in the circumstances of each individual 
case, that the exception is in the interests of the service, although the latter must be 
reconciled with the need for balanced management of the resources made available 
I-A - 180 
EFTHYMIOU v COMMISSION 
to the institution, and with the need to ensure equal treatment of officials within the 
same institution; it is for the administration of that institution to check and ensure 
that those conditions are satisfied. 
(see paras 64, 68) 
5. Under Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1) (c) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application must state the 
subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which it is 
based; an infringement of those provisions constitutes an absolute bar to proceeding 
with a case, which the Court may consider at any time of its own motion in 
accordance with Article 113 of those Rules. The information given must be 
sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the 
Court to give a ruling, if necessary without other supporting information. In order 
to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice it is necessary, 
for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on 
are indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the text of the 
application itself. Similar requirements are called for where a submission is made 
in support of a plea in law. 
(see paras 86-87) 
See: T-128/96 Lebedef v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-629 and II-1679, paras 24 and 
25; T-352/94M) Och Domsjö v Commission [19981 ECR II-1989, paras 333 and 334; 
T-129/98 Sabbioni v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-223 and II-1139, para. 92; 
T-131/99 Shaw and Falla v Commission [2002] ECR II-2023, para. 71 
I - A - 181