JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

19 November 2015

Daniel van der Spree

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Remuneration — Termination of service — Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Resettlement allowance at the base rate of two months’ basic salary — Applicant’s change of residence — Residence of the applicant’s daughter — Proof’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr van der Spree seeks annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 19 May 2014 to pay him a resettlement allowance equal to one month’s basic salary, rather than two months.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr van der Spree is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Officials — Reimbursement of expenses — Resettlement allowance — Conditions for granting — Actual transfer of habitual residence — Concept of habitual residence — Resettlement with family — Official responsible for proving that resettlement has actually taken place — Registration in a locality — Circumstance not giving rise to a presumption of habitual residence

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 6)

The purpose of the resettlement allowance is to cover and reduce the costs which a former official has to bear as a result of changing his principal residence after termination of his service, those costs being presumed to be greater where the official concerned is resettled with his family, warranting a resettlement allowance of two months’ basic salary for officials in receipt of the household allowance who provide evidence of resettlement with their family.

The change of residence referred to in Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations must be ‘an actual transfer of the official’s habitual residence to the new place indicated as being that of resettlement’ and the concept of habitual residence must be interpreted as ‘the place in which the official concerned has established, with the intention that it should be of a lasting character, the permanent or habitual centre of his interests’. Moreover, it is for the official to provide evidence of his actual resettlement with his family. The same also applies regarding evidence that the official’s family has resettled.

Registration in a locality is a purely formal element which does not prove that the person concerned is actually resident in that locality, so that that element does not constitute conclusive evidence of resettlement within the meaning of Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

Furthermore, documents drawn up by the administrative authorities of a given country reflecting the ties of the official concerned with that country or even giving an address in that country, such as certificates relating to the exercise of rights as a citizen or the registration of a vehicle and the payment of related taxes and fees, have no evidential value if those documents provide evidence of transactions or facts which have not been verified by the administrative authorities in question. A fortiori, therefore, statements by private individuals who are clearly not in a position to assess the legal concept of residence within the meaning of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations have no evidential value.

(see paras 29-31, 34, 37)

See:

Judgment of 25 November 1982 in Evens v Court of Auditors, 79/82, EU:C:1982:404, paras 11 and 12

Judgments of 24 April 2001 in Miranda v Commission, T‑37/99, EU:T:2001:122, paras 29 to 31 and the case-law cited therein, and 8 July 2003 in Chetaud v Parliament, T‑65/02, EU:T:2003:190, para. 64

Judgments of 8 April 2008 in Bordini v Commission, F‑134/06, EU:F:2008:40, para. 76 and the case-law cited therein, and 9 March 2010 in Tzvetanova v Commission, F‑33/09, EU:F:2010:18, para. 43 and the case-law cited therein