Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 June 1972. - Luisa Sabbatini, née Bertoni, v European Parliament. - Case 20-71.



European Court reports 1972 Page 00345

Danish special edition Page 00095

Portuguese special edition Page 00119



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

OFFICIALS - EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE - MARRIAGE OF THE RECIPIENT - RETENTION OF THE ALLOWANCE - CONDITIONS - STATUS OF " HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD " - DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF MALE AND FEMALE OFFICIALS - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ANNEX VII )

Summary

THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE FOLLOWING THE MARRIAGE OF THE RECIPIENT, WHICH MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED IN CASES IN WHICH THIS CHANGE IN THE FAMILY SITUATION IS SUCH AS TO BRING TO AN END THE STATE OF " EXPATRIATION " MUST HOWEVER BE DEPENDENT ON UNIFORM CRITERIA, IRRESPECTIVE OF SEX .

CONSEQUENTLY, BY RENDERING THE RETENTION OF THE ALLOWANCE SUBJECT TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE STATUS OF " HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD " - AS IT IS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 1 ( 3 ) OF ANNEX VII - THE STAFF REGULATIONS HAVE CREATED AN ARBITRARY DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT BETWEEN OFFICIALS .

Parties

IN CASE 20/71

LUISA SABBATINI, NEE BERTONI, ( WIFE OF SERENO SABBATINI ), AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, RESIDING IN SOLEUVRE ( GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG ), REPRESENTED BY MARCEL GREGOIRE, ADVOCATE AT THE COUR D' APPEL, BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF TONY BIEVER, 83 BOULEVARD GRANDE-DUCHESSE-CHARLOTTE, APPLICANT,

V

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL, HANS ROBERT NORD, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY ALX BONN, A MEMBER OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF THE LATTER, 22 COTE D' EICH, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF TWO DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DEPRIVING THE APPLICANT OF THE BENEFIT OF AN EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE,

Grounds

1 THE APPLICATION SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISIONS OF 17 NOVEMBER 1970 AND 24 FEBRUARY 1971 BY WHICH, FOLLOWING THE APPLICANT' S MARRIAGE, THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, ACTING IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS, WITHDREW THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE WHICH THE LATTER HAD PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED .

2 IN SUPPORT OF HER APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT HAS ADVANCED TWO SUBMISSIONS, BASED ON THE ILLEGALITY OF ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND, ALTERNATIVELY, ON AN INFRINGEMENT OF THAT PROVISION .

3 AS HER PRINCIPAL SUBMISSION THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS, ON WHICH THE CONTESTED DECISIONS ARE FOUNDED, IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW PROHIBITING ANY DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEX AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 119 OF THE EEC TREATY RELATING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR MALE AND FEMALE WORKERS .

4 UNDER ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF ANNEX VII AN OFFICIAL " WHO MARRIES A PERSON WHO AT THE DATE OF MARRIAGE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE ALLOWANCE SHALL FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE UNLESS THAT OFFICIAL THEREBY BECOMES A HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD ".

5 ALTHOUGH THIS PROVISION DOES NOT OF ITSELF CREATE ANY DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT AS BETWEEN THE SEXES, IT MUST HOWEVER BE EXAMINED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1 ( 3 ) OF THE SAME ANNEX, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE TERM " HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD " NORMALLY REFERS TO A MARRIED MALE OFFICIAL, WHEREAS A MARRIED FEMALE OFFICIAL IS CONSIDERED TO BE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN PARTICULAR IN CASES OF INVALIDITY OR SERIOUS ILLNESS OF THE HUSBAND .

6 IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISION THE VALIDITY OF WHICH IS CONTESTED DOES IN FACT CREATE A DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT AS BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE OFFICIALS INASMUCH AS IT RENDERS THE RETENTION OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE CONDITIONAL UPON THE ACQUISITION OF THE STATUS OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .

7 IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THIS DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT IS SUCH AS TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTESTED PROVISION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .

8 THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE IS TO COMPENSATE FOR THE SPECIAL EXPENSES AND DISADVANTAGES RESULTING FROM ENTRY INTO THE SERVICE OF THE COMMUNITIES FOR THOSE OFFICIALS WHO - IN THE CONDITIONS MORE FULLY SET OUT IN ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) OF ANNEX VII - ARE THEREBY OBLIGED TO CHANGE THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE .

9 ARTICLE 4, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, INDICATES THAT THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE IS PAID TO MARRIED OFFICIALS NOT ONLY IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PERSONAL SITUATION OF THE RECIPIENT, BUT ALSO OF THE FAMILY SITUATION CREATED BY THE MARRIAGE .

10 THUS ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE NEW FAMILY SITUATION ENTERED UPON BY THE OFFICIAL WHEN HE OR SHE MARRIES A PERSON WHO DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE .

11 THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE ALLOWANCE FOLLOWING THE MARRIAGE OF THE RECIPIENT MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED IN CASES IN WHICH THIS CHANGE IN THE FAMILY SITUATION IS SUCH AS TO BRING TO AN END THE STATE OF " EXPATRIATION " WHICH IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BENEFIT IN QUESTION .

12 IN THIS RESPECT, THE STAFF REGULATIONS CANNOT HOWEVER TREAT OFFICIALS DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO WHETHER THEY ARE MALE OR FEMALE, SINCE TERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF EXPATRIATE MUST BE DEPENDENT FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE OFFICIALS ON UNIFORM CRITERIA, IRRESPECTIVE OF SEX .

13 CONSEQUENTLY, BY RENDERING THE RETENTION OF THE ALLOWANCE SUBJECT TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE STATUS OF " HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD " - AS IT IS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 1 ( 3 ) - THE STAFF REGULATIONS HAVE CREATED AN ARBITRARY DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT BETWEEN OFFICIALS .

14 CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECISIONS TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANT ARE DEVOID OF ANY LEGAL BASIS AND MUST BE ANNULLED IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 184 OF THE EEC TREATY .

15 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE A DECISION ON THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION .

Decision on costs

16 UNDER THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

17 SINCE THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS, IT MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

Operative part

THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )

HEREBY :

1 . ANNULS THE DECISIONS OF 17 NOVEMBER 1970 AND 24 FEBRUARY 1971 BY WHICH THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WITHDREW THE APPLICANT' S EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE;

2 . ORDERS THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO BEAR THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS .