Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:184
Date: 2000-07-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Unlimited jurisdiction;Family allowances;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Staff cases - successful;Staff cases - decision unnecessary

SUMMARY — CASE T-134/99 
the third month following the month in which that death 
occurred and, second, the entitlement of the child Mira 
Posnantek to an orphan's pension from July 1998 onwards. 
The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the 
amount of the allowances and pension referred to in point 
3 of the operative part of this judgment, together with 
default interest at the annual rate of 6.25%, subject to the 
deduction therefrom of any benefits of the same kind 
which may have been received by the applicant from other 
sources. The remainder of the application is dismissed. 
The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to 
pay two thirds of the applicant's costs. The applicant is 
ordered to bear one third of her own costs. 
Summary 
1. Officials - Actions - Unlimited jurisdiction - Claims for an order that the sums 
due be paid — Admissible 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)) 
2. Officials - Actions - Conditions governing admissibility - Mandatory nature 
- Powers of the Court - Classification of the documents exchanged in the course 
of the prior administrative procedure 
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) 
3. Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance 
- Conditions for granting - Actual maintenance - Verification by the appointing 
authority — Criteria 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 2(2)) 
1. According to Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, in disputes of a financial 
character between the Communities and any person to whom the Staff Regulations 
apply, the Community judicature has unlimited jurisdiction. Claims which may be 
I-A - 140 
SKRZYPEK v COMMISSION 
understood as seeking, in effect, an order that the defendant institution pay amounts 
due by virtue of the entitlements in issue must therefore be held admissible. 
(see para. 17) 
2. The rules laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations are mandatory 
and the parties may not waive them. It is thus for the Court of First Instance alone, 
whatever the position adopted by the parties, first, to determine whether the prior 
administrative procedure has been conducted properly and, secondly, to categorise 
in law the documents exchanged in the course of that procedure. 
(see para. 37) 
See: T-115/92 Hogan v Parliament [1993] ECR II-895, para. 36; Case T-26/96 Lopes v 
Court of Justice [1996] ECR-SC I-A-487 and II-1357, para. 17; Case T-25/98 de Compte 
v Parliament [1998] ECR-SC I-A-629 and II-1357, para. 38; Case T-124/98 Politi v 
European Training Foundation [1999] ECR-SC I-A-9 and II-29, para. 26 
3. Even in the case of a minor, entitlement to dependent child allowance is, in 
principle, subject to the condition that the child is actually being maintained by the 
official concerned, in accordance with Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff 
Regulations. It is only where that condition is fulfilled that the powers of the 
appointing authority may be considered to be circumscribed. 
Grant of that allowance is justified only where there are costs arising from a present 
and certain need connected with the child and its effective maintenance. The 
administration may legitimately ascertain that those conditions are met. 
I-A - 141 
SUMMARY — CASE T-134/99 
To that end, the test to be applied must be that of actual responsibility for all or part 
of the child's essential needs, in particular so far as concerns accommodation, food, 
clothing, education and medical care and costs. 
(see paras 66 to 69) 
See: C-132/90 P Schwedler v Parliament [1992] ECR I-5745; Case C-70/91 P Council 
v Brems [1992] ECR I-2973, para. 9 
I-A - 142