Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2014:107
Date: 2014-05-22
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

Summary 1. Actions brought by officials — Time-limits — Mandatory — Complaint lodged with the European Ombudsman — No effect (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91(3); Decision 94/262 of the European Parliament, Art. 2(6)) 2. Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Double allowance — Conditions for granting — Amicable settlement between the parties after the intervention of the European Ombudsman — Implementation — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials (Staff Regulations, Art. 67(3)) 1. In accordance with Article 2(6) of Decision 94/262 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties, complaints submitted to the Ombudsman do not affect time limits for appeals in judicial proceedings. (see para. 42) 2. Under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations, the dependent child allowance may be doubled where the child concerned is suffering from a mental or physical disability which involves the official in heavy expenditure. As regards the implementation of an amicable settlement proposed by the Ombudsman and accepted by the parties, first of all, the administration committed a manifest error in assessing the Ombudsman’s decision to conclude the inquiry where, in so far as the amicable settlement required the official concerned to provide only an estimate of the cost of a therapist or private tutor, the competent head of unit imposed on the official a condition not included in the amicable settlement, which was that her son’s specific needs must consist in a therapeutic treatment. Secondly, the competent head of unit distorted the content of the medical officer’s medical opinion in concluding that the official’s son needed special treatment administered by a professional, and that the assistance he required could not be administered remotely by telephone or email. Thirdly, the consultation of a doctor independent of the parties, whose expert report resulted in the adoption of the decision refusing to grant the double allowance, was carried out following the incorrect conclusions reached by the competent head of unit, themselves formulated following an incorrect examination of the official’s case, without the administration first insisting, as it was entitled to do, that the medical officer clarify the opinions he had delivered on the needs of the official’s son, based on the medical certificates she had supplied. In those circumstances, the administration did not remain within reasonable limits when assessing the interests of the service in relation to those of the official concerned, and used its discretion in a manifestly incorrect manner when implementing the amicable settlement proposed by the Ombudsman and accepted by the parties, thereby infringing its duty to have regard for the official’s welfare. (see paras 56-58, 62, 65, 66, 71, 74)