Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:269
Date: 2002-11-05
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Principles of the law of the European civil service;Individual decisions;Family allowances;Recovery of undue payment
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY — CASE T-205/01 
Summary 
1. Officials - Decision adversely affecting an official - Obligation to state grounds 
- Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25) 
2. Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Household allowance -
Conditions for granting - Spouse's income from employment - Concept 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 62; Annex VII, Art. 1(3)) 
3. Officials - Recovery of undue payments - Conditions - Irregularity of the 
payment patently evident - Criteria 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 85) 
4. Officials - Recovery of undue payments - Reasonable period - Concept 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 85) 
5. Officials - Principles - Protection of legitimate expectations - Recovery of 
undue payments — Conditions 
6. Officials - Equal treatment - Assistance given on a one-off basis, in special 
cases, to officials in connection with the determination of their entitlements under 
the Staff Regulations - Breach - None 
I-A - 212 
RONSSE v COMMISSION 
1. The obligation to state grounds, laid down in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, 
is satisfied where the measure against which the action is brought was adopted in 
circumstances known to the official concerned, which enable him to apprehend the 
scope of a measure which concerns him personally. 
(see para. 28) 
See· 36/81 37/81 and 218/81 Seton v Commission [1983] ECR 1789. para. 48; C-350/88 
Delacre and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I-395. para. 16; T-80/92 Turner v 
Commission (19931 ECR II-1465, para. 62 
2. It follows from the express wording of Article 1(3) of Annex VII to the Staff 
Regulations that it is the spouse's entire income from employment, as denoted by 
the use of the plural 'revenus professionnels' in the French text of that provision, 
which must be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting the household 
allowance and compared with the upper limit, defined as the basic annual salary of 
an official in the third step of Grade C 3. The concept of income from employment, 
like that of remuneration mentioned in Article 62 of the Staff Regulations, is wider 
than that of basic salary, which it encompasses, and includes all income received on 
a regular basis in consideration of the performance of duties, including allowances 
subsidiary to that basic salary. 
(see paras 37, 39) 
See: T-107/92 White v Commission [19941 ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-143. para. 19 
3. For a sum paid without justification to be recovered evidence must be produced 
to show that the recipient was actually aware that there was no due reason for the 
payment or that the fact of the overpayment was patently such that he could not 
have been unaware of it. 
I-A - 213 
SUMMARY — CASE T-205/01 
Where overpayment is disputed by the recipient and in the absence of evidence that 
he was aware that there was no due reason for the payment, the circumstances in 
which the payment was made must be examined in order to determine whether the 
overpayment was patently evident. 
Indeed, the words 'patently such', which define undue payment in Article 85 of the 
Staff Regulations, do not mean that the official need make no effort to reflect or 
check, but mean that repayment is due 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. Account must also be taken in each case of the ability 
of the official concerned to carry out the necessary checks. The factors taken into 
consideration by the Community judicature in that regard concern the official's level 
of responsibility, his grade and seniority, the degree of clarity of the provisions of 
the Staff Regulations laying down the conditions for granting the allowance and the 
significance of the changes which have taken place in his personal or family 
circumstances, when payment of the sum at issue is dependent on the 
administration's assessment of such circumstances. Consequently, an official in a 
relatively high grade with long service in the Community civil service should be 
capable of recognising that he is receiving an undue payment. 
(see paras 45-47) 
See: 71/72 Kuhl v Council [1973] ECR 705, para. 1; 142/78 Berghmans v Commission 
[1979] ECR 3125, para. 9; 310/87 Stempels v Commission [1989] ECR 43, para. 10; 
White v Commission, cited above, paras 32 and 33; T-38/93 Stahlschmidt v Parliament 
[1994] ECR-SC I-A-65 and II-227, para. 19; T-545/93 Kschwendt v Commission [1995] 
ECR-SC I-A-185 and II-565, para. 104; T-348/00 Barth v Commission [2001] ECR-SC 
I-A-119 and II-557, para. 33 
I-A - 214 
RONSSE v COMMISSION 
4 In the absence of any provision fixing a limitation period or time-limit in respect 
of the recovery of sums overpaid provided for in Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, 
the question of whether or not a period is reasonable must be assessed by reference 
to the particular circumstances of each case, in particular the degree of patency of 
the irregularity of the payments at issue and the occasional or continuous nature of 
the undue payments. Consequently, time plays a part only as a factor in assessing 
the justification for the exercise of the right of recovery, in the light, inter alia, of 
all the circumstances which may be taken into account, such as the total of the sums 
demanded, any conduct of the administration constituting a wrongful act, the 
official's good faith and the ordinary care which may be expected of him, having 
regard to his training, grade and professional experience. 
(see para. 52) 
See: 44/74, 46/74 and 49/74 Acton and Others v Commission (19751 ECR 383. para. 29; 
White v Commission, para. 47 
5. As regards the possibility of relying on the protection of legitimate expectations 
in litigation relating to the recovery of undue payments, the right to claim the 
protection of legitimate expectations is enjoyed by any individual who has been led 
by the administration to entertain reasonable expectations. However, no breach of 
that principle may be alleged in the absence of specific assurances given by the 
administration, and such assurances must in any event comply with the provisions 
of the Staff Regulations. 
(see para. 54) 
See: T-235/94 Galtieri v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I-A-43 and II-129, paras 63 and 65 
I-A- 215 
SUMMARY — CASE T-205/01 
6. The mere fact that the administration may, in certain special cases, have provided 
assistance on a one-off basis to officials experiencing difficulties in determining the 
status of their entitlement to household allowance, which does not amount to a 
consistent and discriminatory practice in that regard, does not prove the 
discrimination alleged. 
(see para. 60) 
I-A - 216