Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2012:173
Date: 2012-12-05
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Summary 1. Actions brought by officials — Unlimited jurisdiction — Disputes of a financial character within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations — Action for an order that an institution pay the expatriation allowance — Included (Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1)) 2. Officials — Actions brought by officials — Unlimited jurisdiction — Disputes of a financial character within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations — Concept — Action for an order that an institution pay the expatriation allowance — Included (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 21) 3. Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting — Member of the temporary staff having the nationality of the Member State of employment — Habitual residence in that country during the reference period — Determination of the starting point of that period — Periods of service for a State or an international organisation disregarded (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 21) 1. Claims seeking that an institution should be ordered to pay the expatriation allowance and interest must be regarded as having the same object as claims having the effect of bringing before the Civil Service Tribunal a decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements not to award the person concerned the expatriation allowance, since in disputes of a financial character the unlimited jurisdiction conferred on the Community judicature by Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations entrusts it with the task of providing a complete solution to disputes brought before it, that is to say, of ruling on all the rights and obligations of the staff member, save for leaving to the institution in question, under the control of the Tribunal, the implementation of such part of the judgment and under such precise conditions as it shall determine. (see para. 25) See: 18 December 2007, C‑135/06 P Weißenfels v Parliament, para. 67 2. Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person claiming the expatriation allowance has worked for a number of separate bodies, the date on which the reference period expires is that on which that person entered the service of the body concerned, as provided for in the temporary staff contract on the basis of which the expatriation allowance is claimed. (see para. 46) See: 24 January 2008, C‑211/06 Adam v Commission, paras 38 and 39 3. As regards the reference period provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, by analogy with the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, any period during which a person has worked for a State or an international organisation must be disregarded, which means that the fact of having been in the service of a State or an international organisation does not deprive the person concerned of the right to receive the expatriation allowance but that the starting point of the reference period must be brought forward in order to ascertain that the person concerned has indeed spent 10 years outside the European territory of the State whose nationality he has or has had without working during those 10 years for a State or an international organisation. There is nothing in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations to support the assertion that, for the purposes of determining the starting point of the reference period, periods of activity on behalf of a State or an international organisation should not be disregarded. (see paras 50-51) See: 25 September 2007, F‑108/05 Cavallaro v Commission, para 74