Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2014:3
Date: 2014-01-21
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary 1. Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting — Burden of proof borne by the official (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b)) 2. Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting — Habitual residence outside the Member State of employment during the reference period — Concept of habitual residence — Circumstances giving rise to a presumption of habitual residence in the place of employment (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b)) 1. In the case of the expatriation allowance, it is for the official concerned to show that the conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations are met. Hence, the argument of an official having the nationality of the Member State of employment that, since she did not possess that nationality during the reference period, it was incumbent on the institution to prove that she had established numerous close links with that Member State during that period cannot succeed. That interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations would, in the case of an official who lives or has lived in the State of employment without having the nationality of that State, lead to the presumption that the conditions for receiving the expatriation allowance are met in such a case. However, such an interpretation would be contrary to the strict nature of the conditions laid down in that provision. (see paras 15-16) See: 27 September 2000, T‑317/99 Lemaître v Commission, para. 48; 13 December 2004, T‑251/02 E v Commission, para. 84; 13 September 2005, T‑283/03 Recalde Langarica v Commission, para. 142 11 July 2007, F‑7/06 B v Commission, para. 39; 25 September 2007, F‑108/05 Cavallaro v Commission, para. 78 2. The fact that an official covered by Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations has established her habitual residence — a concept to be understood as referring to her centre of interests — in the country where she is employed, for however short a time during the reference period, automatically disqualifies her from receiving the expatriation allowance. With regard to determining the place of habitual residence, the fact that a person has moved to the Member State of employment to join her spouse, that she has accommodation in which to live there with that person and that she is carrying on an occupation there permits the inference that she has transferred her habitual centre of interests to that State. Moreover, the fact of having applied for the nationality of the Member State of employment immediately after her marriage to a national of that Member State gives all the more reason for presuming an official’s intention to transfer her centre of interests to that Member State. (see paras 24-26) See: B v Commission, paras 38 and 39; 4 December 2008, F‑6/08 Blais v ECB, para. 91; 5 December 2012, F‑6/12 Bourtembourg v Commission, paras 26 and 28; 26 June 2013, F‑21/12 Achab v EESC, para. 34, on appeal before the General Court of the European Union, Case T‑430/13 P