Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:129
Date: 2001-05-03
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Foreign residence allowance
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-60/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions for granting 
- No habitual residence or main occupation in the place of employment before 
entry into service - Reference period of five years - Determination -
Circumstances arising from work done for another State or for an international 
organisation 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1) (a)) 
2. Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Purpose - Habitual 
residence in the Member State of employment during the reference period -
Definition - Taking into account of actual residence - University studies -
Included — Conditions 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4) 
1. Under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in order for the 
expatriation allowance to be paid, the official must not have habitually resided or 
carried on his main occupation in the country of the place of employment during the 
five years ending six months before he entered the service, with no account being 
taken of circumstances arising from work done for another State or for an 
international organisation. 
That provision must be interpreted as meaning that, where the official's entry into 
service in a Community institution is preceded by a period of occupational activity 
which must not be taken into account because it was undertaken in the service of an 
international organisation, the reference period corresponds to the five years 
immediately preceding the start of the period not taken into account and not to the 
five years ending six months before that period. 
I-A - 108 
LIASKOU v COUNCIL 
The six-month period laid down by that provision must be interpreted in the light 
of its purpose, which is to avoid a situation where officials who have, habitually and 
during practically the entire reference period, resided or carried on their main 
occupation in the country in which it is intended they will work change their 
habitual residence or the place where they carry on their main occupation only 
shortly before they take up their post. 
In cases where a period which cannot be taken into account for the purposes of the 
abovementioned provision occurs before the official takes up his post, the risk 
described above does not exist and the six-month period is absorbed by that period 
if the latter exceeds in duration the six months preceding entry into service. 
(see paras 36, 39, 42-44) 
See: 188/83 Witte v Parliament [1984] ECR 3465, para. 8; 201/88 Palmerini. née Atala 
v Commission [1989] ECR 3109, paras 3 and 6; T-72/94 Diamantaras v Commission 
[1995] ECR-SC I-A-285 and II-865, para. 50 
2. Although, for the purpose of determining cases of expatriation, Article 4 of 
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations refers to the habitual residence and main 
occupations of officials in the State in whose territory the place where they work is 
situated over a certain reference period, it takes those connecting factors in order 
to establish simple, objective criteria to cover the situation of officials who are 
obliged, as a result of taking up employment with the Communities, to change their 
place of residence and to integrate themselves in their new environment. 
I-A - 109 
SUMMARY - CASE T-60/00 
The concept of habitual residence must be understood to mean the place where the 
person concerned has established the permanent or habitual centre of his interests 
with the intention that it should remain so. That being a question of fact, an 
official's actual residence during the reference period must be taken into account in 
determining where that place is. 
The fact that a person undertakes a university degree course, by definition 
temporary, in a country is not such as to establish long-term connections with that 
country. It does however represent an important fact if it is taken into account 
together with other relevant facts for the purpose of determining the existence of 
long-term social and occupational links between the official and the State in which 
he is employed. 
(see paras 52-53, 55) 
See: 211/87 Nuñez v Commission [1988] ECR 2791, para. 10; T-90/92 Magdalena 
Fernández v Commission [1993] ECR II-971, para. 27, and the case-law cited therein; 
T-18/98 Reichert v Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I-A-73 and II-309, para. 25; T-317/99 
Lemaître v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-191 and II-867, para. 51 
I-A- 110