JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

8 November 2000

Case T-175/97

Bernard Bareyt and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Temporary agents — Remuneration — Posting to a third country — Adjustment of weightings — Retroactive effect — Recovery of overpayment’

Full text in French II-1053

Application for:

annulment of all the salary slips of the applicants from May 1996 and for an order requiring the Commission to repay to the applicants the amounts withheld from their salary with effect from June 1996 by way of recovery of amounts overpaid and to pay them the amounts by which their salaries had been reduced as from May 1996.

Held:

The action is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

The Community legislature is required to ensure that officials in Brussels and in other places of employment in third countries enjoy equivalent purchasing power by adjusting the weightings. That obligation is not extinguished solely because it was not fulfilled within the period prescribed by the Staff Regulations. Even on the assumption the periods prescribed in Article 13 of Annex X of the Staff Regulations for the adjustment of the weightings are mandatory and that the Community legislature failed to fulfil its obligation to adjust those weightings at the prescribed time, such a breach of the applicable rules does not affect the validity of the regulations fixing weightings. (see para. 48)

As regards the statistical methods used for calculating weightings, the Commission and Eurostat have a discretion in selecting methods to assess equivalence of purchasing power. In order for the Court of First Instance to declare the choice of such a method unlawful, the applicant must establish that that choice is manifestly erroneous. Moreover, the weightings reflect the difference between the purchasing power of Community staff in Brussels and that of staff in another place of employment and do not merely follow changes in the cost of living in that other place. Consequently, the mere reduction of the weighting, even if it is significant and does not reflect a reduction in the cost of living in the place of employment, is not a factor which points to the existence of a manifest error in the choice of methods to assess equivalence of purchasing power. (see paras 64-65) See: T-544/93 and T-566/93 Abello and Others v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-271 and II-815, para. 56

The statement of reasons for a regulation laying down the weightings to be applied to officials' salaries may be confined to indicating, on the one hand, the general situation which led to its adoption and, on the other, the general objectives which it is intended to achieve. It is not required to address the technical aspects of the procedure for calculation. (see para. 75) See: Abello and Others v Commission, cited above, para. 89

In the case of a decision by which the appointing authority applies a measure of general application to the individual situation of an official, without having any discretion in that regard, the statement of reasons may be confined to a reference to the legislative measure and an indication, if necessary in the circumstances of the case, of the reasons why the appointing authority considers that the conditions for the application of that measure to that official are met. The appointing authority is not required by the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations to state the reasons why the Community legislature adopted the legislative measure. (see para. 77)

According to Article 64(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the purpose of measures of organisation of procedure is to ensure that cases are prepared for hearing, procedures carried out and disputes resolved under the best possible conditions. Measures of inquiry under Articles 65 to 67 of those Rules are intended to enable the truth of the factual allegations made by a party in support of his pleas to be proved. It is not appropriate to order a measure of organisation of procedure or inquiry proposed by an applicant where it is not intended to clarify the claims made or prove the truth of his factual allegations but is, rather, an attempt to obtain further evidence in support of his action, as the applicant is not making specific complaints which can be verified or clarified by a request for information or for specific documents. (see paras 89-91)