ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Single Judge)

18 June 2013

Jacques Biwer and Others

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for granting — Deduction of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources — Action manifestly unfounded’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, by Mr Biwer and the five other applicants whose names appear in the Annex, seeking annulment of a decision of the European Commission, which was not communicated to the applicants, to treat financial support provided by a Member State to students in higher education as an allowance of the same nature as the family allowances payable under the Regulations, and to deduct the amount of that support from the education allowance which is payable, under the Regulations, to officials whose children are in higher education, and also seeking annulment of the payslips issued on the basis of that decision, as from January 2010.

Held:

The application of Mr Biwer and the five other applicants whose names appear in the annex is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law. Mr Biwer and the five other applicants are to bear their own costs and are ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Applicability of the rule against overlapping allowances laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations in relation to allowances of like nature paid from other sources — Rule having been applied to financial support provided by Luxembourg to students — Lawfulness

(Staff Regulations, Arts 67(1)(c) and (2))

Only allowances which are comparable and have the same purpose are of like nature for the purposes of the rule against overlapping allowances laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations concerning family allowances. The decisive criterion in classifying allowances as of like nature is the aim pursued by the allowances in question.

The education allowance provided for in Article 67(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations has aims similar to those of the Luxembourg benefit, which takes the form of grants and loans, and is intended to provide students with financial assistance so as to enable them to meet the costs of their studies, and the costs of their maintenance during their studies, in that both are intended to contribute to the educational costs of the child who is in the official’s care.

This conclusion is not affected by the fact that the beneficiaries of the two allowances are not the same. The allowance provided for by the Staff Regulations is payable to the official, whereas the State benefit is payable to the child, or formally ascribed to the child, but this is not decisive in assessing whether they are of the same nature within the meaning of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 42-43)

See:

13 October 1977, 106/76 Gelders-Deboeck v Commission, para. 16; 13 October 1977, 14/77 Emer-van den Branden v Commission, para. 15; 18 December 2007, C‑135/06 P Weiβenfels v Parliament, para. 89

10 May 1990, T‑117/89 Sens v Commission, para. 14; 11 June 1996, T‑147/95 Pavan v Parliament, para. 41

13 February 2007, F‑62/06 Guarneri v Commission, paras 39, 40 and 42; 5 June 2012, F‑83/10 Giannakouris v Commission, para. 37; 5 June 2012, F‑84/10 Chatzidoukakis v Commission, para. 37

ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Single Judge)

18 June 2013

Jacques Biwer and Others

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for granting — Deduction of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources — Action manifestly unfounded’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, by Mr Biwer and the five other applicants whose names appear in the Annex, seeking annulment of a decision of the European Commission, which was not communicated to the applicants, to treat financial support provided by a Member State to students in higher education as an allowance of the same nature as the family allowances payable under the Regulations, and to deduct the amount of that support from the education allowance which is payable, under the Regulations, to officials whose children are in higher education, and also seeking annulment of the payslips issued on the basis of that decision, as from January 2010.

Held:

The application of Mr Biwer and the five other applicants whose names appear in the annex is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law. Mr Biwer and the five other applicants are to bear their own costs and are ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Applicability of the rule against overlapping allowances laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations in relation to allowances of like nature paid from other sources — Rule having been applied to financial support provided by Luxembourg to students — Lawfulness

(Staff Regulations, Arts 67(1)(c) and (2))

Only allowances which are comparable and have the same purpose are of like nature for the purposes of the rule against overlapping allowances laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations concerning family allowances. The decisive criterion in classifying allowances as of like nature is the aim pursued by the allowances in question.

The education allowance provided for in Article 67(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations has aims similar to those of the Luxembourg benefit, which takes the form of grants and loans, and is intended to provide students with financial assistance so as to enable them to meet the costs of their studies, and the costs of their maintenance during their studies, in that both are intended to contribute to the educational costs of the child who is in the official’s care.

This conclusion is not affected by the fact that the beneficiaries of the two allowances are not the same. The allowance provided for by the Staff Regulations is payable to the official, whereas the State benefit is payable to the child, or formally ascribed to the child, but this is not decisive in assessing whether they are of the same nature within the meaning of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 42-43)

See:

13 October 1977, 106/76 Gelders-Deboeck v Commission, para. 16; 13 October 1977, 14/77 Emer-van den Branden v Commission, para. 15; 18 December 2007, C‑135/06 P Weiβenfels v Parliament, para. 89

10 May 1990, T‑117/89 Sens v Commission, para. 14; 11 June 1996, T‑147/95 Pavan v Parliament, para. 41

13 February 2007, F‑62/06 Guarneri v Commission, paras 39, 40 and 42; 5 June 2012, F‑83/10 Giannakouris v Commission, para. 37; 5 June 2012, F‑84/10 Chatzidoukakis v Commission, para. 37