Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:153
Date: 2003-06-04
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Scope of judicial review;Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - successful;Action for damages - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - JOINED CASES T-124/01 AND T-320/01 
two percentage points per annum, on the arrears of pension from 
1 January to 31 March 2001; that interest must be calculated from 
the various dates at which each payment under the pension scheme 
should have been made, up to the date on which the payment was 
effected. In Case T-124/01, the parties are orderd to bear their own 
costs. In Case T-320/01, the Commission is ordered to bear its 
own costs and pay half the applicant's costs. In Case T-320/01, the 
applicant is ordered to bear half his own costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Pensions - Weighting - Purpose - Application of the weighting for 
the pensioner's country of residence — Concept of residence 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 82) 
2. Officials - Appeals — Assessment of the legality of the contested measure on the 
basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when it was adopted 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
3. Officials - Appeals - Claim for damages - Annulment of the contested measure 
- Adequate compensation for non-pecuniary harm 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91) 
1. It follows from the very wording of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations that 
pensioners are entitled to have applied to their pensions the weighting laid down for 
the country in which they prove they have their residence. The applicable 
weightings are intended to ensure that all former officials receive benefits having the 
same purchasing power, irrespective of their place of residence, notwithstanding the 
fact that the amount of the pension paid may be spent in a country other than the 
I-A - 158 
DEL VAGLIO v COMMISSION 
country of residence. The choice of the country of residence as the criterion of 
reference for the purpose of evaluating the living conditions and purchasing power 
of recipients of pensions is justified by the fact that the concept of residence, within 
the meaning of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations, is to be understood as the place 
where the former official has actually established his centre of interests and, 
accordingly, as the place where he is deemed to incur his expenditure. 
With regard to the place where the person concerned has established, and intends 
to maintain, the permanent or habitual centre of his or her interests, residence 
implies, irrespective of the purely quantitative element of the time spent by the 
person in a particular country, not only the actual fact of living in a given place, but 
also the intention of thereby achieving the continuity which stems from a stable way 
of life and from the course of normal social relations. This concept of residence is 
peculiar to the Community civil service and does not necessarily coincide with 
national meanings of the term. 
(see paras 70-72) 
See: 284/87 Schäflein v Commission [1988] ECR 4475, para 9; T-285/94 Pfloeschner 
v Commission [19951 ECR-SC I-A-291 and II-889, para 46; T-238/95 to T-242/95 
Mongelli and Others v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-319 and II-925. paras 41 to 43; 
T-60/00 Liaskou v Council [2001] ECR-SC I-A-107 and II-489, para 53, and the 
case-law cited; T-29/01 Puente Manin v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-157 and II-833, 
para 60, and the case-law cited 
2. The legality of an individual measure contested before the Community judicature 
must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when 
the measure was adopted. If the Court had to examine that legality in the light of 
facts that did not exist at that time, it would be assuming the role of the institution 
which took the measure in question. However, it is not for the Court to substitute 
itself for the institutions. 
(see para 77) 
I-A - 159 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-124/01 AND T-320/01 
See: 15/76 and 16/76 France v Commission [1979] ECR 321, para 7; C-449/98 P IECC 
v Commission [2001] ECR I-3875, para 87; T-19/90 Von Hoessle v Court of Auditors 
[1991] ECR II-615, para. 30; T-177/94 and T-377794 Altmann and Others v Commission 
[1996] ECR-SC I-A-553 and II-1471, para. 119 
3. The annulment of a measure of the administration which has been challenged by 
an official constitutes in itself appropriate and, as a general rule, sufficient 
compensation for any non-pecuniary harm which the official concerned may have 
sustained as a consequence of the measure which has been annulled. 
(see para. 119) 
See: C-343/87 Culin v Commission [1990] ECR I-225, paras 25 to 29; T-89/01 Willeme 
v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-153 and II-805, para. 97 
I-A - 160