Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2015:81
Date: 2015-07-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

Summary 1. Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Person treated as a dependent child — Conditions — Maintenance involving heavy expenditure — Criteria (Staff Regulations, Art. 72 and Annex VII, Art. 2(4)) 2. Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Withdrawal of entitlement to an allowance — Infringement — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 85) 3. Officials — Recovery of overpayments — Conditions — Patent overpayment — Concept (Staff Regulations, Art. 85) 1. When calculating the amount of maintenance costs of a person treated as a dependent child under Article 2(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, parallel entry in the population registers of two Member States cannot be used to establish a person’s actual residence. (see para. 37) See: Judgments in Tzvetanova v Commission, F‑33/09, EU:F:2010:18, para. 43, and Mioni v Commission, F‑28/10, EU:F:2011:23, para. 35 2. Payments made in favour of an official by the administration, even over several years, by themselves cannot be regarded as precise, unconditional and consistent assurances giving entitlement to rely on the protection of legitimate expectations. Otherwise, any decision of the administration refusing for the future, and possibly with retroactive effect, to pay a pecuniary benefit unduly paid to the person concerned for several years would be systematically annulled by the Courts of the European Union for non-compliance with the principle of legitimate expectations, with the consequence that Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, on the recovery of undue payment, would be largely deprived of any practical effect. (see para. 64) See: Judgment in Mandt v Parliament, F‑45/07, EU:F:2010:72, para. 125 3. The words ‘patently such’, used of the irregularity of the payment, in Article 85 of the Staff Regulations do not mean that an official in receipt of an undue payment does not need to make any effort to reflect or check, but mean that repayment is required where the error is one which would not escape the notice of an official exercising ordinary care, who is deemed to know the rules governing his salary. (see para. 72) See: Judgment in Stempels v Commission, 310/87, EU:C:1989:9, para. 10 Judgments in Maslias v Parliament, T‑92/94, EU:T:1996:70, para. 60; Jensen v Commission, T‑156/96, EU:T:1998:174, para. 63; Barth v Commission, T‑348/00, EU:T:2001:144, para. 29, and Gussetti v Commission, T‑312/02, EU:T:2004:102, para. 82