Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2004:108
Date: 2004-04-21
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Interpretation of Community law;Survivor's pension
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded
Origin: Greece

Summary of the Judgment 1. Community law – Interpretation – Principles – Independent interpretation – Limits – Specific references to the laws of the Member States (Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 27, first para.; Council Regulations Nos 422/67 and 5/67, Art. 15(7)) 2. Officials – Pensions – Survivor’s pension – Maintenance as a result of a settlement between the former spouses – Conditions governing validity – Determination in accordance with national law (Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 27, first para.) 3. Officials – Pensions – Survivor’s pension – Existence of an oral agreement providing for maintenance following a divorce – Admissibility of types of evidence – Application of national law, the Rules of Procedure and the general principles applicable to the taking of evidence (Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 27, first para.) 1. The terms of a provision of Community law – such as the first paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, which is applicable in this case on account of the reference to that provision in Article 15(7) of Regulations Nos 422/67 and 5/67 determining the emoluments of the President and Members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates General and Registrar of the Court of Justice – which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation, which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant rules. However, even in the absence of such an express reference, the application of Community law may necessitate a reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community judicature cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of a Community provision by way of independent interpretation. (see paras 70-71) 2. The concept of ‘maintenance … as a result of a settlement between herself and her former husband’, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, cannot be given an independent Community interpretation. On the contrary, the concept of a maintenance obligation agreed between former spouses by reason of their divorce is one of the financial consequences arising from the decree of divorce pronounced on the basis of the rules of the applicable civil law. Consequently, the conditions governing the validity of an agreement providing for payment of maintenance for the divorced spouse of a servant of the Communities or a former Member of a Community institution must, in principle, be determined in accordance with the law which governs the consequences of divorce. (see paras 72-73) 3. Although the admissibility of types of evidence for the existence of an oral agreement providing, by reason of the divorce of the former spouses, for maintenance for the divorced spouse by the deceased is governed by national law, it is nevertheless for the Court of First Instance, hearing an action brought against a refusal to grant a survivor’s pension considered to arise from the application of the first paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, to ascertain, in order to ensure the correct application of that provision, whether the conditions required by the national law are satisfied. That obligation presupposes compliance with the provisions of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and with the general principles applicable to the taking of evidence, in particular as regards the admissibility of types of evidence and, therefore, the evidence of witnesses, the procedures for examining the witnesses summoned and the interpretation which must be given to the facts adduced by those witnesses. Like any court, the Court of First Instance must exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions conferring it. (see paras 87-88)