Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:55
Date: 2003-03-05
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Legal certainty;Refund of expenses;Revocation / Repeal
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-293/01 
Summary 
1. Procedure - Application originating proceedings - Formal requirements -
Production of documents relied on in support of pleadings - Sanction of 
inadmissibility dependent on the existence of inconvenience caused to other parties 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 43(4)) 
2. Procedure - Lodging of defence in disputes between the Communities and their 
servants — Obligation to submit the complaint - Scope 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 46(2)) 
3. Officials - Reimbursement of expenses - Daily subsistence allowance -
Conditions of grant - Change of residence - Concept of residence - Official's 
centre of interests 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 10) 
4. Procedure — Application originating proceedings — Formal requirements -
Summary of the pleas on which the application is based 
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of 
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)) 
5. Acts of the institutions - Withdrawal - Unlawful acts - Conditions -
Observance of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate 
expectations 
1. Failure to comply with the obligation set out in Article 43(4) of the Rules of 
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, which states that 'to every pleading there 
shall be annexed a file containing the documents relied on in support of it, together 
with a schedule listing them', may result in an action being inadmissible where that 
failure is such as to inconvenience the other parties in the preparation of their 
I-A - 84 
INEICHEIN v COMMISSION 
arguments. In the case of an action brought on the basis of Articles 90 and 91 of the 
Staff Regulations, the Commission cannot rely on such inconvenience where the 
documents were annexed to the preliminary administrative complaint submitted by 
the applicant. 
(see paras 31-33) 
See: 95/74 to 98/74. 15/75 and 100/75 Coopératives agricoles de céréales v Commission 
and Council [1975] ECR 1615. para. 4: C-82/01 P Aéroports de Paris v Commission 
[2002] ECR I-9297. para. 11 
2. The term 'complaint', used in Article 46(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the 
Court of First Instance, which provides that the defence must be accompanied by 
the complaint, must be understood to mean both the text of the complaint and, 
where appropriate, its annexes, where they were not attached to the originating 
application. 
(see para. 34) 
3. To determine whether an official has had to 'change his place of residence in 
order to satisfy the requirements of Article 20 of the Staff Regulations' within the 
meaning of Article 10 of Annex VII, the place of residence to be taken into account 
is the one where the person concerned has his centre of interests. To be entitled to 
the daily subsistence allowance, which is intended to cover the expense and 
inconvenience for a newly recruited official occasioned by the need to travel and 
establish a provisional residence at the place of employment, whilst retaining, 
likewise provisionally, his previous residence before removal from it, it is sufficient 
that he should be unable to continue to live at that former place of residence. 
I-A - 85 
SUMMARY - CASE T-293/01 
To determine the place in which the official concerned has established, with the 
intention that it should be of a lasting character, the permanent or habitual centre 
of his interests, account must be taken of all the circumstances which constitute such 
residence. The concept of residence, whilst not based on a purely quantitative 
factor, namely the length of time spent by the person in a particular country, does 
nevertheless involve, apart from the actual fact of living in a given place, the 
intention of thereby achieving the continuity which stems from a stable way of life 
and from the course of normal social relations. 
(see paras 63-64, 75, 82) 
See: Opinion of Advocate General Mancini in 284/87 Schäflein v Commission [1988] 
ECR 4475, 4481; C-452/93 P Magdalena Fernández v Commission [1994] ECR I-4295, 
paras. 22 and 23; C-43/94 P Parliament v Vienne [1995] ECR I-2441, para. 21; T-63/91 
Benzler v Commission [1992] ECR II-2095, para. 20; T-74/95 Monteiro da Silva v 
Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-583 and II-1559, para. 48; T-37/99 Miranda v 
Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-87 and II-413, paras 31 and 32; T-29/01 Puente Martín 
v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-157 and II-833, para. 60 
4. Under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, 
which applies to proceedings before the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first 
paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute and Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure 
of the Court of First Instance, the application must contain a summary of the pleas 
in law on which it is based. That summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to 
enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if 
necessary without any other supporting information. The application must therefore 
specify the nature of the grounds on which it is based and, accordingly, a mere 
abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Statute or 
of the Rules of Procedure. 
(see para. 84) 
See: T-102/92 Viho v Commission [1995] ECR II-17, para. 68; T-352/94 Mo Och 
Domsjö v Commission [1998] ECR II-1989, para. 333 
I-A - 86 
INEICHEIN v COMMISSION 
5. Although the retroactive withdrawal of a legal measure which has conferred 
individual rights or similar benefits is contrary to the general principles of law, the 
administration may withdraw with retroactive effect an advantageous administrative 
act vitiated by illegality, provided that it does not infringe either the principle of 
legal certainty or that of the protection of legitimate expectations. That possibility 
of withdrawal, which arises where the beneficiary of the act did not contribute to 
its illegality, applies a fortiori where the illegality is attributable to him. 
(see para. 91) 
See: 7/56 and 3/57 to 7/57 Algera and Others v Common Assembly of the ECSC [19571 
ECR 39, 56: 14/81 Alpha Steel v Commission [1982] ECR 749. paras 10 to 12; 15/85 
Consorzio Cooperative d'Abruzzo v Commission [1987] ECR 1005, paras 12 to 17; 
159/82 Verli-Wallace v Commission [1983] ECR 2711, para. 8; C-90/95 P De Compte 
v Parliament [19971 ECR I-1999, para. 35; C-500/99 P Conserve Italia v Commission 
[20021 ECR I-867, para. 90 
I-A - 87