Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2007:24
Date: 2007-02-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Family allowances
Procedure: Staff cases - successful

Summary Officials – Remuneration – Family allowances – Dependent child allowance (Staff Regulations, Art. 67(2)) Only allowances which are comparable and have the same purpose are of like nature for the purposes of the rule against overlapping laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations concerning family allowances. The decisive criterion in classifying allowances as of like nature is the aim pursued by the allowances in question. The Belgian orphans’ pension does not have the same aim as the dependent child allowance provided for in Article 67(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations. The Belgian pension is intended to compensate not for the normal costs associated with the maintenance and upbringing of children, but for the specific costs, for the surviving parent, resulting from the death of the other parent who, when alive, contributed to that maintenance and upbringing. The pension thus provides for the specific needs of orphaned children and constitutes financial assistance for the person who is left to bear the family responsibilities alone. The fact which can trigger its award is not the actual maintenance of a child, but a separate circumstance connected with the materialisation of a risk, that of the death of one of the child’s parents. (see paras 34, 42, 45-46) See: 106/76 Deboeck v Commission [1977] ECR 1623, para. 16; 14/77 Emer v Commission [1977] ECR 1683, para. 15 T-147/95 Pavan v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I‑A‑291 and II‑861, para. 41; T‑33/04 Weißenfels v Parliament [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-1 and II-A-2-1, para. 47