Order — ECLI:EU:F:2007:166
Date: 2007-09-26
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Foreign residence allowance
Procedure: Staff cases

Summary Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))) The habitual residence to which Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations refers for the purpose of the grant of the expatriation allowance corresponds to the place in which the official concerned has established, with the intention that it should be of a lasting character, the permanent or habitual centre of his interests, it being understood that, for the purposes of determining habitual residence, all the factual circumstances which constitute such residence and, in particular, the actual residence of the official concerned must be taken into account. The place where a person carries on their occupation, apart from its relevance as an independent criterion for the application of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, is an important indicator for determining habitual residence. The fact that an official might have the intention of looking for a job other than in his country of residence is not such as to call into question the determination of his habitual residence, since it is not disputed that, throughout the reference period, that official maintained the centre of his interests at the place of his subsequent employment, where he had his home and where, for most of the period, he carried on his occupation. Accordingly, that requirement of an intention to confer stability on the centre of his interests is not to be interpreted as meaning that the official concerned must have excluded the possibility of returning to his country of origin or leaving for another Member State of the European Union. An official’s other ties with his country of origin, such as ownership of a car, medical consultations, property owned by his parents in that country, the fact of having renewed his official identity papers there, the exercise of his rights as a citizen or the fact of having his tax domicile, financial interests and assets there, including a bank account, and the visits which he makes to it are only those normal ties which people retain with the country in which their parents live and where they have lived for a long time, but are insufficient to establish that they are habitually resident in that country. (see paras 48, 51, 56, 59) See: T-18/91 Costacurta Gelabert v Commission [1992] ECR II‑1655, para. 42; T‑90/92 Magdalena Fernández v Commission [1993] ECR II‑971, para. 30; T‑18/98 Reichert v Parliament [2000] ECR‑SC I‑A‑73 and II‑309, para. 25; T‑60/00 Liaskou v Council [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑107 and II‑489, paras 53 and 64; T‑283/03 Recalde Langarica v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑235 and II‑1075, para. 114; T-83/03 Salazar Brier v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑311 and II‑1407, paras 56 and 71, under appeal to the Court of Justice, C‑9/06 P; T-259/04 Koistinen v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-177 and II-A-2-879, para. 34; T‑324/04 F v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 87