Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2010:18
Date: 2010-03-09
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

Summary Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a)) Even if the terms ‘reside’ and ‘carry on their main occupation’ are used in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, that provision must be interpreted as adopting as the essential criterion for the grant of the expatriation allowance the official’s habitual residence (rather than his home or simply where he lived) prior to taking up employment. The place of habitual residence is that 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. Registration in a locality is a purely formal element which does not prove that the person concerned is actually resident in that locality. Likewise, documents reflecting a person’s ties with a given country or even giving an address in that country, such as certificates relating to the exercise of rights as a citizen or the registration of a vehicle and the payment of related taxes and fees, have no evidential value if the authorities or the natural or legal persons who drew up those documents did not verify the actual residence of the person concerned. Although, as a rule, the fact of residing in a country, in particular in order to complete university studies and undergo practical professional training, both of which are by definition temporary and supplementary parts of a person’s education, does not lead to the presumption that that person intends to move the centre of his interests to that country, it is still possible, however, that such a stay constitutes habitual residence in that country if, taken into consideration with other relevant facts, it shows that the person concerned has lasting social and professional ties with the country in question. Where those other ‘relevant facts’ include the fact that the student continued to reside in the country where he studied almost uninterruptedly after those studies ended, and even beyond the reference period, the studies in themselves do not create the presumption that he definitely intended to move the permanent centre of his interests to the country where he studied, but at the very most a still uncertain prospect that he might do so. An official loses the benefit of the expatriation allowance only if he had his habitual residence or carried on his main occupation in the country of his place of employment throughout the reference period. (see paras 39, 43, 45, 46, 48, 57) See: 201/88 Atala-Palmerini v Commission [1989] ECR 3109, para. 10 T-18/91 Costacurta Gelabert v Commission [1992] ECR II‑1655, para. 42; T‑72/94 Diamantaras v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I‑A‑285 and II‑865, para. 48; T-317/99 Lemaître v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑191 and II‑867, para. 51; T-60/00 Liaskou v Council [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑107 and II‑489, paras 52, 55 and 56; T‑124/01 and T‑320/01 Del Vaglio v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑157 and II‑767, para. 85; T-299/02 Dedeu i Fontcuberta v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑303 and II‑1377, para. 66; T-416/04 Kontouli v Council [2006] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑181 and II‑A‑2‑897, paras 90, 105 and 106; T‑473/04 Asturias Cuerno v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I‑A‑2‑139 and II‑A‑2‑963, paras 73 and 74 and the case-law cited therein F-134/06 Bordini v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑87 and II‑A‑1‑435, paras 74, 76 and 77