Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:144
Date: 2001-05-30
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Family allowances;Recovery of undue payment
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-348/00 
Summary 
1. Officials - Recovery of sums overpaid - Conditions - Patent absence of due 
reason for the payment — Criteria 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 85) 
2. Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Household allowance — 
Conditions for grant - Family responsibilities - Definition - Financial costs 
incurred by a former official no longer capable of running a household - Not 
included 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 76; Annex VII, Art. 1(2)(c)) 
1. According to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, any sum overpaid is to be 
recovered if the recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the payment 
or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such that he could not have been 
unaware of it. The words 'patently such' are to be interpreted as meaning that the 
question is not whether the error was patent to the administration but whether it was 
patent to the recipient. Far from not needing to make any effort to reflect or check, 
the recipient is required to effect repayment where the error is one which does not 
escape the notice of an official exercising ordinary care, who is deemed to know the 
rules governing his salary. The factors taken into consideration in assessing the 
ability of the official concerned to make the necessary checks concern his level of 
responsibility, grade and seniority, the degree of clarity of the provisions of the 
Staff Regulations setting out the conditions for grant of the benefit at issue and the 
significance of the changes in his personal or family circumstances where payment 
of the sum in issue is linked to an assessment of such circumstances by the 
administration. 
I-A - 120 
BARTH v COMMISSION 
In that regard, it is not necessary for the official concerned, in the exercise of his 
duty of diligence, to be able to determine the precise extent of the error made by 
the administration. On the contrary, the fact that he has doubts about the validity of 
the payments in question is sufficient for him to be obliged to contact the 
administration so that it can carry out the necessary checks. A former official who 
was last in the relatively high Grade B1 and who has spent more than 25 years in 
the Community civil service must be prompted to suspect that his entitlement to the 
household allowance which he received as a married pensioner has become doubtful 
after the death of his spouse. He was in a position, by exercising normal care, to 
realise that the administration had made an error as from the time of his spouse's 
death. 
Moreover, the fact that an official or pensioner has duly informed the administration 
of the change in his family circumstances cannot exempt him from his obligation to 
repay sums overpaid where, despite his declarations, the administration has 
continued to pay him allowances which are clearly incompatible with the relevant 
provisions of the Staff Regulations. That is especially true in the light of the clarity 
of Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of the fact that the 
household allowance was the only family allowance which the person concerned was 
receiving at the time of the declaration of his spouse's death to the administration. 
(see paras 27, 29, 30, 33-36) 
See: T-93/92 Burck v Commission [1994] ECR-SC I-A-55 and II-201, paras 27 and 28; 
T-122/95 Chabert v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-19 and II-63, paras 35, 41 and 42; 
T-92/94 Maslias v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I-A-249 and II-713, para. 61; T-14/99 
Kraus v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-7 and II-39, para. 38 and the case-law cited 
therein, and para. 41 
I-A - 121 
SUMMARY — CASE T-348/00 
2. The financial costs relating to domestic help and eating out incurred by a former 
official who is no longer capable of running a household cannot be regarded as 
family responsibilities actually assumed by the official and falling within the scope 
ratione materiae of Article 1(2)(c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. Such costs 
fall within the scope of Article 76 of the Staff Regulations which provides that 
exceptional relief (gifts, loans or advances) may be granted to officials or former 
officials who are in a particularly difficult position as a result inter alia of serious 
or protracted illness or by reason of family circumstances. 
(see para. 43) 
I-A - 122