Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:276
Date: 2003-10-21
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Prior administrative complaint;Family allowances;Internal directives
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful;Action for damages - decision unnecessary

SUMMARY - CASE T-302/01 
Held: The decision of the Commission of 4 July 2001 cancelling, 
with effect from 1 July 2001, payment of the dependent 
child allowance in respect of the applicant's daughter who 
has reached majority is annulled. There is no need to 
adjudicate on the claim for compensation for the damage 
arising from the loss of cover in respect of the applicant's 
daughter by the EC Sickness Insurance Fund, nor on the 
part of the claim seeking compensation for the tax 
consequences of the contested decision. The remainder of 
the claim for compensation is dismissed. The Commission 
is ordered to pay two thirds of the applicant's costs, 
including those incurred in the proceedings for interim 
relief in the present case. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Appeals - Action against the decision rejecting a complaint -
Admissibility 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
2. Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance 
— Right to extend the allowance irrespective of age if the child is incapable of 
earning a livelihood - Obligation for the administration to examine the particular 
circumstances of each case without being able to resort to a predetermined objective 
test 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 2(5)) 
3. Officials - Staff Regulations - Application - Joint decision taken by the Heads 
of Administration - Not binding on the appointing authority 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 110, third para.) 
I-A - 246 
BIRKHOFF v COMMISSION 
1. An application for annulment of a decision rejecting a complaint against an initial 
decision has the effect of bringing before the Court the act adversely affecting the 
official against which the complaint was submitted. 
(see para. 24) 
See: T-82/99 Cwik v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-155 and II-713. para. 23 
2. If the child in question is prevented by serious illness or invalidity from earning 
a livelihood, payment of the allowance provided for in Article 2(5) of Annex VII 
to the Staff Regulations is extended throughout the period of that illness or 
invalidity, irrespective of age. That provision does not allow the competent authority 
any discretion as to whether or not to grant the allowance in question, but confers 
on it circumscribed powers, in so far as its mandatory wording makes it clear that 
the authority is bound to grant the dependent child allowance if it finds that the 
conditions listed are satisfied. 
Since the Community law provisions conferring entitlement to financial benefits 
must be strictly interpreted, it has to be verified in each individual case, where 
payment has been extended solely on the strength of Article 2(5) of Annex VII to 
the Staff Regulations, whether the social purpose of paying the dependent child 
allowance has been achieved. 
I-A - 247 
SUMMARY — CASE T-302/01 
It follows that, for the application of that provision, it is for the administration 
concerned to determine in each individual case, taking account of all the particular 
circumstances involved and without being able to resort to a predetermined objective 
test, whether it is a serious illness or disability which prevents the child in question 
from earning a livelihood. 
(see paras 37-40, 43) 
See: C-70/91 P Council v Brems [1992] ECR I-2973, para. 5; T-498/93 Dornonville v 
Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-813, paras 31 and 38 
3. A conclusion adopted by the Committee of Heads of Administration as part of the 
process whereby 'the administration departments of the institutions ... consult each 
other regularly' pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 110 of the Staff 
Regulations in order to follow a uniform administrative practice with regard to the 
interpretation of a provision of the Staff Regulations does not have the effect of 
binding the appointing authority when it adopts individual measures implementing 
the provision in question. 
(see para. 42) 
See: T-48/89 Beltrante and Others v Council [1990] ECR II-493, para. 17; T-49/89 
Mavrakos v Council [1990] ECR II-509, para. 17 
I-A - 248