Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2012:73
Date: 2012-06-05
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for the application of the rule against overlapping referred to in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations where allowances of like nature are paid from other sources — Application to the financial benefit for students in Luxembourg — Lawfulness (Staff Regulations, Art. 67(1)(c) and (2)) Only allowances which are comparable and have the same purpose are ‘of like nature’ for the purposes of the rule against overlapping laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations concerning family allowances. The decisive criterion in classifying allowances as of like nature is the aim pursued by the allowances in question. In that regard, the education allowance referred to in Article 67(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations and the financial benefit in Luxembourg in the form of grants and loans, which is intended to provide students with financial aid to enable them to finance their studies and living expenses while studying, serve similar purposes in that they are intended to contribute to the education costs of the official’s dependent child. That finding is not invalidated by the fact that the recipients of the two benefits are not the same. The fact that the education allowance is paid to the official and the national benefit is paid to the child, or formally allocated to him, is not decisive for assessing whether those benefits are of like nature within the meaning of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. The fact that the allowance under the Staff Regulations is added to the official’s salary and thus relates to an employment relationship, unlike the Luxembourg financial benefit, which is paid to the child, is also not decisive. (see paras 29, 31, 32, 37-38) See: 13 October 1977, 106/76 Gelders-Deboeck v Commission, para 16; 13 October 1977, 14/77 Emer-van den Branden v Commission, para 15; 18 December 2007, C‑135/06 P Weiβenfels v Parliament, para 89 10 May 1990, T‑117/89 Sens v Commission, para 14; 11 June 1996, T‑147/95 Pavan v Parliament, para 41 13 February 2007, F‑62/06 Guarneri v Commission, paras 39, 40 and 42