JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

5 November 2002

Case T-205/01

André Ronsse

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Remuneration — Household allowance — Recovery of undue payment’

Full text in French II - 1065

Application for:

first, annulment of the Commission's decisions contained in the letters of 9 and 23 November 2000 and, as far as is necessary, of the letter of 15 January 2001 and the implied rejection of the complaint submitted on 8 February 2001, all relating to recovery of a sum of EUR 22443.07 paid to the applicant by way of household allowance from 1 January 1994 to 1 November 2000, and, second, reimbursement of the sums withheld for that purpose from his pension since December 2000, together with interest at the statutory rate.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

It follows from the express wording of Article 1(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that it is the spouse's entire income from employment, as denoted by the use of the plural ‘revenus professionnels’ in the French text of that provision, which must be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting the household allowance and compared with the upper limit, defined as the basic annual salary of an official in the third step of Grade C 3. The concept of income from employment, like that of remuneration mentioned in Article 62 of the Staff Regulations, is wider than that of basic salary, which it encompasses, and includes all income received on a regular basis in consideration of the performance of duties, including allowances subsidiary to that basic salary. (see paras 37, 39) See: T-107/92 White v Commission [19941 ECRSC I-A-41 and II-143. para. 19

In the absence of any provision fixing a limitation period or time-limit in respect of the recovery of sums overpaid provided for in Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, the question of whether or not a period is reasonable must be assessed by reference to the particular circumstances of each case, in particular the degree of patency of the irregularity of the payments at issue and the occasional or continuous nature of the undue payments. Consequently, time plays a part only as a factor in assessing the justification for the exercise of the right of recovery, in the light, inter alia, of all the circumstances which may be taken into account, such as the total of the sums demanded, any conduct of the administration constituting a wrongful act, the official's good faith and the ordinary care which may be expected of him, having regard to his training, grade and professional experience. (see para. 52) See: 44/74, 46/74 and 49/74 Acton and Others v Commission (19751 ECR 383. para. 29; White v Commission, para. 47

As regards the possibility of relying on the protection of legitimate expectations in litigation relating to the recovery of undue payments, the right to claim the protection of legitimate expectations is enjoyed by any individual who has been led by the administration to entertain reasonable expectations. However, no breach of that principle may be alleged in the absence of specific assurances given by the administration, and such assurances must in any event comply with the provisions of the Staff Regulations. (see para. 54) See: T-235/94 Galtieri v Parliament [1996] ECRSC I-A-43 and II-129, paras 63 and 65