Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:169
Date: 2000-06-27
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Duty to have regard for the interests of officials;Obligation to assist officials
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-67/99 
Summary 
1. Officials — Duty of the administration to provide assistance — Scope — Limits 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 
2. Officials — Duty of the administration to provide assistance and to have regard 
to the welfare of officials — Concept 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 24) 
3. Officials - Duty of the administration to have regard for the welfare of officials 
- Limits - Interpretation of a provision of the Staff Regulations contrary to its 
wording - Not permissible 
1. It follows from Article 24 of the Staff Regulations that the institutions of the 
Communities are required to assist their officials only in respect of acts on the part 
of third parties to which the officials are subjected by reason of their position or 
duties. 
In that regard, the mere fact that a child was admitted to a Community crèche 
because one of his parents was a member of the Community civil service, and was 
there the victim of extremely serious assaults, does not support the conclusion that 
the link, for the purposes of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, between the acts 
of the third parties concerned and the parent's position as an official is established. 
I-A - 128 
K v COMMISSION 
Thus, while it is indisputable that Article 24 of the Staff Regulations is intended to 
protect the working conditions of officials and that the introduction of a system of 
crèches and Community schools also seeks to achieve that objective, the acts of 
third parties inside those crèches and schools cannot be regarded as being 
necessarily caused by the parents' position as officials and their duties in that 
capacity. 
(see paras 32, 36, 38 and 40) 
See: 180/87 Hamill v Commission [1988] ECR 6141, para. 15 
2. The administration's duty to provide assistance to its officials and its duty to have 
regard to have regard to their welfare are not completely identical. The former is 
laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and requires that the administration 
assist an official in any attack or threat to which he is subjected by reason of his 
position or duties. The latter, although not mentioned in the Staff Regulations, 
reflects the balance between the mutual rights and obligations which the Staff 
Regulations have created in the relations between the public authority and civil 
servants, which means, in particular, that where the authority reaches a decision 
concerning the situation of an official, it is to take into consideration all the factors 
capable of affecting its decision and that, in doing so, it must take into account not 
only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned. 
(see para. 66) 
See: T-114/98 and T-115/98 Rodríguez Pérez and Others v Commission [1999] ECR-SC 
I-A-97 and II-529, para. 32 
I-A - 129 
SUMMARY - CASE T-67/99 
3, The duty to have regard for the welfare of officials cannot lead the administration 
to give a Community provision an effect contrary to its clear and precise wording. 
An official cannot therefore rely on the duty to have regard for his welfare in order 
to obtain advantages which he cannot be granted under the Staff Regulations. 
(see paras 68 and 69) 
See: T-65/92 Arauxo-Dumay v Commission [1993] ECR II-597, para. 37; T-66/95 
Kuchlenz-Winter v Commission [1997] ECR II-637, para. 43 
I-A - 130