62025TO0051_INF
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 August 2025 –HM v Commission
(Case T‑51/25)
(Civil service – Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance – Habitual residence – Ten-year reference period – Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
1.
Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Official holding the nationality of the Member State of employment – Habitual residence outside the Member State of employment during the reference period – Concept of habitual residence – Period of university study followed by a period of training or employment outside the Member State of employment – Intention of the person concerned to move the permanent centre of his or her interests – Assessment in the light of the circumstances of the case
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 40, 41, 47, 55-60, 67, 74-81)
2.
Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Official holding the nationality of the Member State of employment – Habitual residence outside the Member State of employment during the reference period – Concept of habitual residence – Account taken of information relating to the period prior to the reference period – Limits
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b))
(see paragraph 53)
3.
Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Official holding the nationality of the Member State of employment – Habitual residence outside the Member State of employment during the reference period – Concept of habitual residence – Registration of the person concerned in another State and documents drawn up by private bodies of that State – Factors which, on their own, do not establish habitual residence
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b))
(see paragraphs 64-66)
Operative part
1.
The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
2.
HM shall pay the costs.