Order — ECLI:EU:T:1998:193
Date: 1998-08-20
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Refund of expenses;Request
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 
20 August 1998 
Case T-132/97 
Michael Collins 
v 
Committee of the Regions of the European Union 
(Probationary officials - Daily subsistence allowance - Period in respect of 
which granted - Action manifestly unfounded) 
Full text in English II - 1379 
Application for: annulment of a decision of the Committee of the Regions 
refusing to pay the applicant the daily subsistence 
allowance provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the 
Staff Regulations for the entire period of his probation plus 
one month. 
Decision: Application dismissed. 
I-A - 469 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-132/97 
Abstract of the Order 
The applicant entered the service of the Committee of the Regions on 1 March 
1995, as a member of the temporary staff. On 3 April 1996 he was appointed a 
probationary official in the Legal Affairs Unit of the Directorate for Administration, 
Personnel, Finance and Legal Affairs and for the Registry, with effect from 16 
April 1996. His probationary period came to an end on 15 January 1997. 
By letter to the Committee of the Regions of 2 July 1996, the applicant complained 
that the Committee of the Regions had failed to apply Article 10 of Annex VII to 
the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities ('the Staff 
Regulations') by not granting him the daily subsistence allowance on his entry into 
service as a probationary official. 
On 22 October 1996 the Committee of the Regions drew up a statement of the 
applicant's daily subsistence allowance entitlement as a probationary official, fixing 
the period in respect of which that allowance was granted at 120 days. 
By letter of 9 January 1997 to the Committee of the Regions, citing as its 
subject-matter his complaint of 2 July 1996, the applicant pointed out that he had 
requested the application of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with 
regard to payment of the daily subsistence allowance. He further asserted that, as 
a probationary official, he was entitled to the daily subsistence allowance for the 
whole of his probationary period plus one month. 
By letter of 24 January 1997 the Committee of the Regions informed the applicant 
that his complaint had been rejected in so far as it sought payment of the daily 
subsistence allowance for the whole of his probationary period. 
I-A - 470 
COLLINS v COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Law 
Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, where an action is manifestly 
unfounded in law, the Court may, by reasoned order, give a decision on the action 
without taking further steps in the proceedings. In the present case, the Court 
considers that it has sufficient information from the documents before it. There is 
therefore no need to open the oral procedure (paragraphs 9 and 10). 
Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations provides that where an official 
furnishes evidence that he must change his place of residence in order to satisfy the 
requirements of Article 20 of the Staff Regulations, he is to be entitled to a daily 
subsistence allowance, the amount and duration of which are specified as follows: 
'(a) in the case of an official who is not entitled to the household allowance: 120 
days; 
(b) in the case of an official who is entitled to the household allowance: 180 days 
or, if the official is a probationer, the period of probation plus one month'. 
The issue in the action is confined to the question whether the applicant was 
entitled, solely by reason of his status as a probationary official, to payment of the 
daily subsistence allowance for the whole of his probationary period plus one 
month, even though he was not entitled to the household allowance (paragraph 38). 
It is clear from Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that the period in 
respect of which the daily subsistence allowance is granted depends, in the first 
place, solely on whether the recipient is entitled to the household allowance. If he 
is not, then point (a) of the provision at issue applies and the period is 120 days. 
Only if the recipient is entitled to the household allowance does point (b) apply, 
distinguishing, in the second place, between probationary officials and other 
I-A - 471 
ABSTRACT - CASE T-132/97 
officials. The latter are entitled to receive the daily subsistence allowance for a 
period of 180 days and the former for the duration of their period of probation plus 
one month (paragraph 39). 
That interpretation is consistent with the purpose of Article 10 of Annex VII to the 
Staff Regulations. The objective of the daily subsistence allowance is, inter alia, 
to compensate for the expenses and inconvenience occasioned in particular by the 
precarious situation of a probationary official who is required to reside at his place 
of employment while maintaining, on a provisional basis, his previous residence. 
See: 280/85 Mouzourakis v Parliament [1987] ECR 589, para. 9; T-137/95 Mozzaglia v 
Commission [1996] ECR-SC 11-1657, para. 46 
Whilst the situation is equally precarious for probationary officials who are entitled 
to the household allowance and those who are not, and whilst that precariousness 
continues until they become established, it is none the less much more difficult, and 
also more risky, for a probationary official having a household within the meaning 
of the Staff Regulations to transfer that entire household to his place of employment 
than it is for a probationary official not having a household, within the meaning of 
the Staff Regulations, to move. Since those in the latter category will experience 
fewer difficulties in changing their residence, the authors of the Staff Regulations 
did not consider that they were required to maintain their previous residence, on a 
provisional basis, throughout their probationary period (paragraph 42). 
In view of the differences between the situation of probationary officials who are 
entitled to the household allowance and the situation of those who are not, the 
wording of the provision at issue is not incompatible with the principle of 
non-discrimination (paragraph 44). 
I-A - 472 
COLLINS v COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Consequently, the application must be dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law. 
Operative part: 
The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law. 
I-A - 473