Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:153
Date: 2002-06-12
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
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-66/00 
Summary 
1. Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance 
— Conditions for granting — Actual maintenance — Definition 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 67; Annex VII, Art. 2(2) and (3)) 
2. Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance -
Conditions for granting 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 67; Annex VII, Art. 2(2) and (3)) 
3. Officials — Recovery of undue payment — Conditions — Patent absence of due 
reason for the payment — Criteria 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 85) 
1. In order to be eligible for dependent child allowance, both the conditions laid 
down by Article 2(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and the condition that 
the child is actually being maintained by the official, laid down by Article 2(2) of 
that annex, must be fulfilled. Even if it is conceded that there is a presumption that 
the child referred to by Article 2(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is in fact, 
by virtue of his student status alone, a dependent of the official, that could not 
relieve the institution of the obligation to satisfy itself that the condition that the 
child is actually being maintained by the aforementioned official, as laid down by 
Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, is fulfilled. 
(see paras 32, 34) 
See: C-70/91 P Council v Brems [1992] ECR I-2973; T-75/89 Brems v Council [1990] 
ECR II-899, para. 23; T-134/99 Skrzypek v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-139 and 
II-633, para. 64 
I-A - 76 
B v COMMISSION 
2. The granting of an education allowance is reserved for officials whose children 
satisfy the twofold condition of being dependent on the official for the purposes of 
Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of being in regular full-time 
attendance at an educational establishment. 
(see para. 38) 
3. Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, under which any sum overpaid is to be 
recovered inter alia if the fact of the overpayment was patently such that the 
recipient could not have been unaware of it, must be interpreted as meaning that the 
person concerned is required to make repayment where the error in question is one 
which should not have escaped the notice of an official exercising ordinary care. 
In that regard, the factors taken into consideration by the Community judicature are 
the official's level of responsibility, his grade and seniority, and the degree of 
clarity of the provisions of the Staff Regulations setting out the conditions for 
granting the allowance. In addition, in the case of recovery of sums the payment 
of which is apt to change in the light of data which only the official is in a position 
to provide to the administration, the significance of the changes in the official's 
personal or family circumstances must also be taken into account. 
(see para. 51) 
See: T-545/93 Kschwendt v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-185 and II-565, paras 103 
and 104; T-92/94 Maslias v Parliament [1996] ECR-SC I-A-249 and II-713, paras 60 and 
61; T-14/99 Kraus v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-7 and II-39, para. 38 
I-A - 77