JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

23 September 1997

Case T-172/96

Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue

v

Council of the European Union

‛(Officials — Annual leave — Travelling time — Place of origin outside Europe — Equal treatment)’

Full text in French II-809

Application for:

annulment of the Council's decision of 29 January 1996 refusing to increase the applicant's annual leave by adding additional travelling time.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

The applicant is an official in the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union. His place of employment is consequently Brussels. His place of origin has been fixed as being Washington DC (United States of America).

By decision of 9 March 1995, the appointing authority fixed the applicant's travelling time at two days, adding that if the applicant were to show that the return journey between his place of employment and his place of origin could not be completed within the time allowed, he would be given ‘appropriate additional travelling time’.

In so providing, the decision of 9 March 1995 applied to the applicant an internal directive of the Council's General Secretariat adopted on 21 December 1994, which grants travelling time of two days, that is to say, 48 hours, to officials whose place of origin is outside Europe, subject to the grant of additional travelling time for those who show that the return journey cannot be made in two days.

By letter of 23 March 1995 addressed to the Director of Personnel and Administration, the applicant requested additional travelling time on the ground that the journey from Brussels to Washington, taking all transfers into account, lasted from 11 to 12 hours, that the Washington-Brussels journey was a night journey, that the time-difference between the two places was six hours and that the journey Brussels-Washington-Brussels therefore necessarily covered three days.

By memorandum of 11 April 1995, the Director of Personnel and Administration replied that the mie providing that additional travelling time could be requested applied only after the annual journey had been completed, and he accordingly asked the applicant to submit, when claiming reimbursement of the costs of his next annual journey, any document which could justify the grant of additional travelling time.

By letter of 13 December 1995, the applicant repeated his request, on this occasion after having completed his annual journey, and stated that, by reason of the three travelling days and the additional recovery period, he was seeking entitlement to two days' additional travelling time.

By memorandum of 29 January 1996, the Director of Personnel and Administration rejected his request on the ground that the duration of the return journey manifestly did not exceed the period of two days granted.

On 30 April 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint, which was expressly rejected by a decision notified to him on 25 July 1996.

Law

The single plea in law, based on breach of the fifth paragraph of Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment

An institution which, in regard to annual leave, fixes travelling time of two days for an official whose place of origin is outside Europe does not act contrary to the fifth paragraph of Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations applicable to Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) or the principle of equal treatment with which application of that provision of the Staff Regulations must comply, if the institution takes adequate account of the official's needs or the latter fails to provide proof capable of establishing that the journey between his place of employment and his place of origin was subject to delays or any other circumstances having the result that the journey could not be made within the time allowed.

Operative part:

The application is dismissed.