Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:218
Date: 2000-09-27
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Refund of expenses;Allowances
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-317/99 
Summary 
1. Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance - Object — Concept of 
expatriation 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b)) 
2. Officials - Reimbursement of expenses — Installation allowance — Official not 
entitled to the expatriation allowance 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 5(1)) 
3. Officials — Reimbursement of expenses — Installation allowance — Purpose 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 5(1)) 
1. The concept of expatriation depends on the personal situation of an official, 
notably, in the case of an official who is a national of the Member State of his place 
of employment, on whether he has actually broken his social and professional ties 
with that State by moving completely and on a long-term basis his habitual residence 
outside the European territory of that State. The exception provided for in 
Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations covers only persons who had 
to move their permanent centre of interests outside the State where they are 
employed and can therefore be regarded as no longer having permanent links with 
that State. 
It is clear from the wording of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations 
and its interpretation in the case-law that it is for the official concerned to reverse 
a simple presumption of 'non-expatriation' by showing that he severed all permanent 
ties with the State in which he is employed. The fact, referred to in Article 4(1)(b) 
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, of having habitually resided, during the 
period of 10 years expiring on his entry into the service, outside the European 
I-A - 192 
LEMAITRE v COMMISSION 
territory of the State in which he is employed is therefore evidence that such ties 
were severed. 
(see paras 49 and 50) 
See: 330/85 Richter v Commission [1986] ECR 3439, para. 6 
2. Under Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, any established official 
who qualifies for expatriation allowance is thereby also entitled to the installation 
allowance. An official who is granted an expatriation allowance is, at least in 
principle, in a situation characterised by the absence of permanent and lasting 
installation at the place of employment. 
An official who is not entitled to the expatriation allowance, because, for example, 
he is a national of the State of employment, may also be in the situation of being 
required to instai himself at his place of employment on a permanent basis. It is for 
that reason that Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations provides, as a 
second condition, that an installation allowance is to be paid to an official who 
furnishes evidence of having been obliged to change his place of residence in order 
to comply with Article 20 of the Staff Regulations. 
(see paras 62 and 63) 
3. The installation allowance is intended to compensate for the expenses associated 
with the situation of a duly established official who passes from a precarious status 
to a permanent status and must therefore enable himself to live in and become 
integrated into his place of employment in a permanent and lasting manner for an 
indeterminate but substantial period of time. 
I-A - 193 
SUMMARY - CASE T-317/99 
In that regard, it is reasonable to assume that an official whose situation becomes 
stable after having been precarious will incur certain additional expenditure, in 
particular in arranging appropriate accommodation for a long-term stay, which he 
did not have to incur while his situation remained precarious. 
(see paras 66 and 67) 
See: T-33/95 Lozano Palacios v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-575 and II-1535, para. 
63; T-74/95 Monteiro Da Silva v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-583 and II-1559, para. 
63; T-137/95 Mozzaglia v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-619 and II-1657, para. 56 
I-A - 194