Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2008:159
Date: 2008-12-02
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Refund of expenses
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded

Summary 1. Officials – Reimbursement of expenses – Installation allowance – Members of the temporary staff (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 5(1); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 24) 2. Officials – Reimbursement of expenses – Daily subsistence allowance – Conditions for granting – Probationary official who has received the installation allowance as a member of the temporary staff – Not included (Staff Regulations, Art. 71; Annex VII, Arts 5 and 10; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 24(1)) 1. The Community legislature provides, in Article 24 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, for members of the temporary staff to receive an installation allowance, on the assumption that, even without the security of tenure of an established official, temporary staff with an expected period of service of at least one year may wish to settle at their place of employment on a permanent and lasting basis. It is in order to cover the costs resulting from the effort made to settle that the installation allowance is paid to temporary staff, albeit only in part where the expected period of service is less than three years. (see para. 20) 2. It is clear from a simple comparison of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that a person who has received the installation allowance as a member of the temporary staff under Article 24(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants may not subsequently claim the daily subsistence allowance when appointed as a probationary official, regardless of the change in his status under the Staff Regulations. In so far as the grant of the installation allowance is conditional on the person transferring his residence to his place of employment, he cannot reasonably claim subsequently, in order to obtain a further financial benefit such as the daily subsistence allowance, that he was only provisionally settled at his place of employment, and that his ‘real’ residence was in his country of origin. Since, in order to obtain the installation allowance, the staff member concerned gave a declaration on his honour that his residence was located at his place of employment, and attached the relevant supporting documents to that declaration, the administration is entitled, for reasons relating to the relationship of trust that must exist between an institution and its officials, as well as for reasons of sound administration, not to review the question of the staff member’s residence when he applies for the grant of the daily subsistence allowance. (see paras 27, 30)