Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:211
Date: 2002-09-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Foreign residence allowance;Correspondence between the action and the complaint
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-127/00 
Summary 
1. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Subject-matter — 
Consistency between the complaint and the action — Grievance not included in the 
complaint — Matter of public policy raised by the Court of its own motion 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113; Staff Regulations, Arts 
90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions of grant -
Work done for another State or for an international organisation - Meaning -
Requirement of a direct legal relationship between the official concerned and the 
State or organisation - Work done for an institution but as an employee of a 
temporary employment agency — Excluded 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1) (a)) 
1. The purpose of the procedure prior to bringing an action is to facilitate the 
amicable settlement of disputes arising between officials or other servants and the 
administration. To enable such a procedure to attain its objective, the appointing 
authority must be in a position to know sufficiently precisely the criticisms made by 
those concerned against the contested decision. 
It follows that any ground of challenge which was not relied on in the complaint 
prior to action, even though the official concerned was given the opportunity to put 
it forward, must be rejected as inadmissible. In so far as that question of 
admissibility has not been raised by the defendant, the Court may consider it of its 
own motion under Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure since it is a matter of 
public policy. 
(see paras 28, 29) 
See: T-242/97 Z v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I-A-77 and II-401, para. 58, and the 
case-law cited therein 
I-A - 150 
NEVIN V COMMISSION 
2. The rationale for the derogation concerning the grant of the expatriation 
allowance, provided for in the last sentence of Article 4(1 )(a) of Annex VII to the 
Staff Regulations, in favour of officials who, during the reference period, did work 
for an international organisation or for a State other than that in which their place 
of employment is situated, lies in the fact that, in such circumstances, those officials 
cannot be deemed to have established lasting ties with the country in which they are 
employed. 
Although that derogation cannot be restricted solely to persons who have served on 
the staff of another State or of an international organisation, since it covers all 
'circumstances arising from work done for another State or for an international 
organisation', its application nevertheless requires that the official concerned have 
at least had direct legal ties with the institution or State in question. 
Any person who has not been employed directly by an institution under a contract 
or in any other form, in accordance with the Conditions of Employment of Other 
Servants or other Community legislation, conferring entitlement to application of the 
derogation provided for in the abovementioned article, and who has done work only 
under temporary work contracts with temporary employment agencies which have 
themselves entered into contracts for the supply of temporary staff with that 
institution, cannot claim to have had a direct legal relationship with that institution. 
(see paras 50-51, 58, 69) 
See: 1322/79 Vinera v Commission [1981] ECR 127, para. 8; 246/83 De Augelis v 
Commission [1985] ECR 1253, para. 13; T-43/93 Lo Giudice v Parliament [1995] 
ECR-SC I-A-57 and II-189, para. 34; T-72/94 Diamantaras v Commission [1995] 
ECR-SC I-A-285 and II-865, para. 52; T-60/00 Liaskou v Council [2001] ECR-SC 
I-A-107 and II-489, para. 49 
I-A - 151