Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:276
Date: 2001-12-04
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Transfer of part of emoluments
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY — CASE T-125/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Remuneration - Regular transfers outside the country of employment 
pursuant to Article 17(2) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions -
Existence of privileged links with the Member State concerned, established prior to 
the official's employment — University education of an official's child, commenced 
in another Member State after the employment of the official - Inapplicability of 
Article 17(2) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 17(2) (a)) 
2. Officials — Remuneration — Regular transfers outside the country of employment 
- Application of Article 17(2) (a) in conjunction with Article 17(2) (b) of Annex VII 
to the Staff Regulations — Maximum amount which may be transferred 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 17(2) (a) and (b); Rules laying down the 
procedure for the transfer of part of an official's emoluments, Art. 3) 
1. It is apparent from Article 17(2) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that that 
provision is intended to establish a system for the transfer of part of an official's 
remuneration in the currency of certain States with which, prior to his employment, 
he had established privileged links. That transfer system is based on the presumption 
that the official continues to have commitments in the State or States with which 
such links have been established. Point (a) specifies that those links may be 
established, inter alia, by his nationality, the existence of his own domicile or the 
place of residence of a dependent relative in the State or States concerned. In that 
regard, the fact that the son of an official pursues, as from a date subsequent to the 
official's entry into the service of the institution, a university education in another 
Member State does not prove the existence of a privileged link between the official 
and that State which pre-dates his employment. 
(see paras 33-34) 
I-A - 230 
LÓPEZ MADRUGA v COMMISSION 
2. According to the Commission's administrative practice, an official can have part 
of his emoluments transferred pursuant to Article 17(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff 
Regulations even if he does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 17(2)(a). 
That administrative practice is intended to enable an official who does not receive 
an expatriation or foreign residence allowance also to have part of his emoluments 
transferred in order to cover expenditure arising out of commitments proved to have 
been regularly undertaken by him outside the country where the institution has its 
seat or outside the country where he carries out his duties. 
The maximum amount which may be transferred pursuant to Article 17(2)(a) of 
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is equivalent to the amount of an official's 
expatriation or foreign residence allowance and the provisions of Article 17(2)(b) 
refer, with regard to the amount of regular transfers, only to the commitments 
proved to have been regularly undertaken by him, without laying down a specific 
limit. 
Although, under Article 3 of the of the Rules laying down the procedure for the 
transfer of part of an official's emoluments, the aggregate amount of regular 
transfers, as they are defined in Article 17(2)(a) and (b) of Annex VII to the Staff 
Regulations, may not exceed 35% of the net remuneration, it does not follow that 
in any circumstance the maximum available for transfers pursuant to Article 17(2)(b) 
is the amount resulting from the difference between 35% of the net remuneration 
and the amount of the expatriation allowance. In so far as the application of 
Article 17(2)(b) is not dependent on that of Article 17(2)(a) and therefore does not 
presuppose that the maximum provided for under (a) has been used up, the 
maximum amount for transfers within the meaning of the provisions of (b) is 
therefore equal to the commitments proved to have been regularly undertaken, up 
to the amount of the balance resulting from the deduction of the amount actually 
used pursuant to the provisions of (a) from the overall maximum of 35%. 
I-A - 231 
SUMMARY — CASE T-125/00 
No point of law or of fact serves to demonstrate, in connection with the 
administrative practice of treating transfers pursuant to Article 17(2)(b) of 
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations separately from those provided for under (a), 
that, even where the transfer possibilities provided for under (a) have not been 
exhausted, the maximum amount transferable pursuant to the provisions of (b) must 
be limited to 19% of the net remuneration even though the 35% ceiling would not 
be exceeded. 
(see paras 37, 39-41) 
I-A - 232