1.

The Court is called upon to interpret the concept of “basic salary”, used in Article 11 (3) of the Staff Regulations and in Article 8 (2) of the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities. The problem arises with regard to the calculation of the “special reimbursement” of medical expenditure provided for in those provisions. The question which must be decided is essentially whether, in calculating the amount of the basic salary, account must be taken of the effect of weighting on the amounts set out in the table contained in Article 66 of the Staff Regulations. It should be noted at once that, according to Article 72, the employees of the Community, their families and other dependants are insured against sickness for up to 80% of the expenditure incurred and up to 100% in cases of particularly serious illness. In practice, however, reimbursement is made in accordance with certain upper limits so that certain benefits awarded by the sickness insurance scheme amount to less than 80% of the actual cost of treatment. To prevent the portion borne by the employee from placing too heavy a burden on his income, the Staff Regulations provide for the possibility of his obtaining a “special reimbursement”. According to Article 72 (3), in fact: “Where the total expenditure not reimbursed for any period of 12 months exceeds half the official's basic monthly salary or pension special reimbursement shall be allowed by the appointing authority, account being taken of the family circumstances of the person concerned.” Article 8 (2) of the Rules on Sickness Insurance provides: “The non-reimbursed portion of the actual expenses which is in excess of half the average basic monthly salary ... shall be reimbursed at the following rates : 90% in the case of a member by whose insurance no other person is covered; 100% in other cases.” In this case, Marinus C. Ooms, an official of the Commission working at Ispra, applied on 27 May 1982 for a special reimbursement and asked that it be calculated on the basis of his basic salary adjusted by the weighting applied to employees working at Ispra. By a letter of 11 June 1982, however, the office responsible for settling claims refused to take account of that weighting because the provisions regarding special reimbursement mentioned only the basic salary and it was therefore on that basis that the medical expenditure was reimbursed (21. 7. 1982). At that point, having worked out that this method of calculation caused him to lose the equivalent of DM 450, Mr Ooms submitted a complaint through official channels pursuant to Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations (21. 9. 1982). On 1 December 1982, the Management Committee for the joint sickness insurance scheme, whose opinion on the question had been sought by the Commission, approved the decision of the office responsible for settling claims. On the basis of that opinion, the Commission rejected the complaint (9 3 1983). On 14 June 1983, Mr Ooms brought an action before the Court seeking: (a) the annulment of the decision, endorsed by the Commission, by which the office responsible for settling claims at Ispra had made the special reimbursement of medical expenditure without taking account of the weighting; (b) a declaration that the basic salary referred to in Article 72 (3) of the Staff Regulations and Article 8 (2) of the Rules on Sickness Insurance, is that referred to in the table contained in Article 66 of the Staff Regulations, as adjusted by the weighting provided for in Article 64 of the Staff Regulations; (c) an order to the Commission to adjust the amount of the reimbursement and pay the applicant the amount due on the basis of the new calculation. The applicant makes two submissions in support of those claims; infringement of Article 72 (3) of the Staff Regulations and Article 8 (2) of the Rules on Sickness Insurance and breach of the principle of equal treatment.