ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

27 April 2015

Ronald Meyer

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Temporary staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Refusal to grant the dependent child allowance — Article 2(3)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Child aged between 18 and 26 and receiving educational or vocational training — Education allowance — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Child in regular, full-time attendance at an educational establishment — Break in the studies — Action manifestly unfounded’

Application

:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Meyer requests the Tribunal to annul the decision of the European Commission terminating from 1 September 2013 payment of the dependent child allowance which he was receiving for his daughter Marie Isabel.

Held

:

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

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Conditions for granting — Actual maintenance — Definition — Administration’s circumscribed powers

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art 2(2), (3) and (5))

The dependent child allowance is payable in respect of a dependent child within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, whether the legitimate, natural or adopted child of an official or of his spouse, in so far as the child is actually being maintained by the official and also satisfies one of the conditions listed in Article 2(3) and (5). The allowance provided for in Article 2 is thus payable if the child is under 18 years of age, between 18 and 26 and receiving educational or vocational training, or prevented by serious illness or invalidity from earning a livelihood. In each of these three cases, the Staff Regulations confer on the appointing authority circumscribed powers, in so far as it is bound to grant the dependent child allowance if it finds that these conditions are satisfied, and not to grant it if they are not. In other words, Article 2(3) and (5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations relate to cases where entitlement to the dependent child allowance for an official’s child arises automatically by reason of the fact that it is presumed in those provisions that the child referred to in them is, solely on account of his being a minor, a student, a sick person or an invalid, in fact dependent on the official.

The dependent child allowance has an objective of a social nature justified by the costs arising from a present and certain need connected with the child and its effective maintenance.

Consequently, payment of the dependent child allowance where the child is aged between 18 and 26 may be made, where such payment is applied for under Article 2(3)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, only on condition that the child is actually receiving educational or vocational training of genuine substance, and only for the actual duration of that training. Where the child is not receiving either educational or vocational training and is thus capable of working and hence earning an income such that he cannot be regarded as dependent on the official, the grant of the allowance would fail to take account of the scope of Article 2(3)(b). However, the fact that a child aged over 18 interrupts his studies does not, in itself, prevent entitlement to the allowance from being renewed when he actually resumes his studies, provided that he continues to fulfil the other conditions for the grant of the allowance in question.

(see paras 25-27)

See:

Judgments in Sorasio-Allo and Others v Commission, 81/79, 82/79 and 146/79, EU:C:1980:270, paras 15 and 16; Schwedler v Parliament, C‑132/90 P, EU:C:1991:452, para. 14, and Council v Brems, C‑70/91 P, EU:C:1992:201, para. 5

Judgments in Brems v Council, T‑75/89, EU:T:1990:88, para. 23, and Kschwendt v Commission, T‑545/93, EU:T:1995:137, paras 81 to 83