Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:122
Date: 2001-04-24
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Refund of expenses;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;General
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

SUMMARY - CASE T-37/99 
Summary 
1. Officials - Remuneration — Resettlement allowance — Purpose similar to that 
of the installation allowance — Conditions for granting — Actual transfer of 
habitual residence — Concept of habitual residence 
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Arts 5 and 6) 
2. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official - Obligation to state reasons 
— Scope 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para., Annex VII, Art. 6) 
3. Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions 
1. Although there is a difference in wording between Articles 5 and 6 of Annex VII 
to the Staff Regulations, in that the latter provision does not lay down any minimum 
period of residence, there is no difference in function between the installation 
allowance and the resettlement allowance. The two allowances have comparable 
aims: they are both intended to cover or offset the expenses incurred by an official 
in settling in new surroundings for an indeterminate but substantial period of time. 
Although Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations makes granting of the 
resettlement allowance conditional only upon transfer of the residence of the official 
concerned to a place situated not less than 70 kilometres from the place where he 
or she was employed, the transfer of residence referred to by that provision implies 
an actual transfer of the official's habitual residence to the new place indicated as 
being that of resettlement. The concept of habitual residence must be interpreted as 
meaning the place where the person concerned has established, and intends to 
maintain, the permanent or habitual centre of his or her interests. In addition, the 
concept of residence, whilst not based on a purely quantitative factor, namely the 
length of time spent by the person in a particular country, does nevertheless involve, 
apart from the actual fact of living in a given place, the intention of thereby 
I-A - 88 
MIRANDA v COMMISSION 
achieving the continuity which stems from a stable way of life and from the course 
of normal social relations. 
(see paras 29-32) 
See: Opinion of Advocate General Mancini in 92/82 Gutmann v Commission [1983] ECR 
3127, 3136, in particular 3138 and 3139; Opinion of Advocate General Mancini in 284/87 
Sclmflein v Commission [1988] ECR 4475, 4479, in particular 4481; T-63/91 Benzler v 
Commission [1992] ECR II-2095, para. 25; T-57/92 and T-75/92 Yorck von Wartenburg 
v Parliament [1993] ECR II-925, para. 65 
2. The reasons given for a decision adversely affecting an official are sufficient if 
the measure forming the subject-matter of the action was adopted in circumstances 
known to the official concerned which enable him to understand its scope. Since the 
irregularity of the payment of the resettlement allowance can be recognised, as a 
result of reading Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, by an official 
exercising ordinary care who is deemed to know the rules governing his salary, and 
especially by an official at the level of a head of division, the plea for annulment 
alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons cannot be accepted. 
(see paras 45-47) 
See: T-123/95 B v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-245 and II-697, para. 51 
I-A - 89 
SUMMARY - CASE T-37/99 
3. The right to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations 
extends to any individual in a situation from which it is apparent that the 
Community administration, by giving him precise assurances, led him to entertain 
reasonable expectations. In order to give rise to reasonable expectations on which 
the official could rely, the assurances given by the Community administration must 
have been consistent with the applicable rules. 
(see paras 52, 56) 
See: T-207/95 Ibarra Gil v Commission [1997] ECR-SCI-A-13 and II-31, para. 25; 
T-211/95 Petit-Laurent v Commission [1997] ECR-SCI-A-21 and II-57, para. 72; 
T-203/97 Forvass v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-705, para. 70 
I-A - 90