3.

I shall now consider the substance of the case. As I have already said, the provision which the Court is asked to apply is Article 1 (2) (c) of Annex VII. I quote the text thereof: “The household allowance shall be granted to: ... (c) by special reasoned decision of the appointing authority based on supporting documents, an official who, while not fulfilling the conditions laid down in (a) and (b) [that is to say who is not married, widowed, divorced, legally separated or unmarried and has one or more dependent children], nevertheless actually assumes family responsibilities.” In order to establish whether that provision may be relied upon in this case it is necessary to define its scope; in particular, it must be ascertained whether or on what conditions it allows a household allowance to be paid to an official who has already been granted an allowance for a person treated as a dependent child. It is therefore necessary to identify the relationship between that provision and the rule governing the second allowance. The latter rule, which is contained in Article 2 (4) of Annex VII, is as follows: “Any person [that is to say other than a legitimate, illegitimate or adopted child] whom the official has a legal responsibility to maintain and whose maintenance involves heavy expenditure may, exceptionally, be treated as if he were a dependent child by special reasoned decision of the appointing authority, based on supporting documents.” If the two provisions are read together, a number of questions arise. May an allowance in respect of a person “treated as if he were a dependent child” and a household allowance coexist? If they may, does the award of the first in all cases automatically give rise to the second? And if there is no such automatic entitlement, what different conditions must be fulfilled to enable the recipient of an allowance in respect of a person “treated as if he were a dependent child” to receive the household allowance as well? Let me say immediately that, in my opinion, coexistence of the two allowances is possible but not automatic. The arguments of a literal and systematic nature which lead me to this point of view relate to the preconditions for the two allowances. Let me start with the household allowance. The Staff Regulations make the grant of that allowance conditional upon the official's actually assuming family responsibilities. In turn, that condition logically comprises two requirements: (a) the existence of a family unit for which the official is responsible and (b) payment by that official of the associated costs. The implications of requirement (a) arc immediately apparent. On the basis of the Staff Regulations and according to ordinary practice, for a family to be defined in a broad sense, that is as extending to parents and indeed to persons who are neither the spouse nor the children of the official, it is essential for the members thereof to live together; this means that if an official's parent is accommodated in a rest home and the official bears the costs, the two persons do not constitute a family unit. A specific logical factor moreover militates in favour of the essential nature of the requirement that for the purposes of the household allowance the family should live together. Article 8 (1) of Annex VII provides in fact that an official is entitled for himself and, if he receives the household allowance, for his spouse and dependants within the meaning of Article 2 (and thus also for the persons envisaged in Article 2 (4)) to payment of the cost of travel from the place where he is employed to his place of origin. The connection thus established between the allowance and travel expenses clearly presupposes that the member of the family (including therefore a parent) whose expenses are reimbursed resides in the official's house, that is to say the relative and the official together constitute a real family in the broad sense. And that is not all. The provision also confirms that of the two possible forms of assistance for old people — either keeping the person within the family or bearing the expenses arising from their being cared for in a suitable home — the Staff Regulations favour or rather encourage the first. I say “confirms” because even more precise and eloquent evidence in that behalf is provided by the fact that the household allowance is granted only to an official who chooses that option. The second requirement, as I have said, is the assumption of the responsibilities deriving from the fact of living together as a family. The Staff Regulations require those responsibilities actually to be assumed — that is to say they use a word which evokes the idea of a substantial commitment but not necessarily one which is all-embracing or indeed necessarily burdensome. In other words, it is not stated that, to be entitled to a household allowance, the official must bear those costs in their entirety. It is sufficient if he bears a substantial proportion of them, even if he is not thereby called upon to make heavy sacrifices, and leaves the member of the family living with him to cover the remaining costs, if he can, using his own resources. The preconditions to which Article 2 (4) of Annex VII makes the grant of the other allowance subject are quite different. In that case residence at the same place is not required; on the other hand, it is necessary for the official to be under a legal obligation to maintain the person “treated as if he were a dependent child” and for the maintenance of that person to entail “heavy” expenditure. It should be added that in all cases that allowance is granted only exceptionally and that, as is indicated by the words “may ... be treated as if he were a dependent child” (by the administration), it is the subject of a margin of discretion. The defendant institution maintains that that margin exists also in the case of the household allowance. I do not agree. The relevant provision does not speak of any exceptional basis, neither does it use the word “may” with respect to the administration; on the contrary, it is introduced by the words “The household allowance shall be granted” which certainly do not bring to mind any power of appraisal. Neither let it be said, as the Council states, that the discretionary nature of the decision granting the household allowance is demonstrated by the fact that it is “special” and must state the reasons on which it is based. There is no connection between the requirement to state reasons and a discretionary power, in so far as the former neither implies nor excludes the latter; as the Court is aware, a decision is special when it relates to an individual case and requires an ad boc assessment. However, ad hoc certainly does not mean discretionary. To summarize, therefore, on the one hand there is the requirement of residing together, the assumption of significant but not heavy responsibilities, and the fact that the grant of the allowance is normal and compulsory; on the other, the mere fact that the person concerned is dependent upon the official, together with the requirement of heavy financial burdens and a legal responsibility for maintenance and the exceptional and discretionary nature of the allowance: it seems to me that the preconditions for the two allowances are sufficiently different for them to be payable simultaneously. Moreover, in so far as it is necessary to check whether the requirements laid down for each allowance are satisfied, that difference means that the two allowances are not automatically payable simultaneously.