JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

18 June 2015

EG

v

European Parliament

‛Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Household allowance — Conditions for granting — Same-sex couple — Non-marital partnership registered under Belgian law — Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Access to legal marriage in a Member State — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation — Installation allowance’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which EG essentially seeks annulment of the European Parliament’s decision to refuse him the grant of the household allowance and to limit the amount of the installation allowance to the equivalent of one month’s basic salary.

Held:

The action is dismissed. EG is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. The Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Household allowance — Conditions for granting — Official registered as a stable non-marital partner — No access to legal marriage — Duty to establish whether access is practical and effective

(Art. 19(1) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 7 and 21(1); Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 1(2)(c)(iv))

The extension of entitlement to the household allowance to officials registered as stable, non-marital partners, including those of the same sex, who do not have access to legal marriage in a Member State, reflects the legislature’s concern that compliance should be observed with the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 19(1) TFEU, thus necessitating the further development of a staff policy ensuring equal opportunities for all, regardless of the person’s sexual orientation or marital status, which also corresponds to the prohibition of any discrimination based on sexual orientation provided for in Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the extension of entitlement to the household allowance to officials registered as stable, non-marital partners, including those of the same sex, who do not have access to marriage reflects the need to protect officials against the administration’s interference in the exercise of their right to respect for their family and private life, as recognised in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In that regard, it is clear from both the wording of Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and from its purpose that that provision, far from creating any discrimination between officials based on sexual orientation, enables the household allowance to be granted to any official registered as a stable, non-marital partner, regardless of his or her sexual orientation.

Under that provision, an official registered as a stable, non-marital partner in a heterosexual couple is subject to the same condition of having to demonstrate that he or she does not have access to legal marriage in a Member State in order to be able to receive the household allowance.

The administration must interpret the provision in question so that entitlement to the household allowance is not theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective, which may extend as far as taking account of the law of a State which was not applicable for the formation of marriage, but which was nevertheless closely connected with the situation in question because of the nationality of the persons concerned.

It is clear from the wording of Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that, in the case of an official registered as a stable, non-marital partner, the fact that the couple has no access to marriage in the Member State where the official is employed is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that the couple has no access to marriage and therefore that the official concerned should receive the household allowance.

(see paras 48-50, 81, 82)

See:

Judgments of 14 October 2010 in W v Commission, F-86/09, EU:F:2010:125, paras 42, 43 and 45, and 6 May 2014 in Forget v Commission, F-153/12, EU:F:2014:61, para. 26

JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

18 June 2015

EG

v

European Parliament

‛Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Household allowance — Conditions for granting — Same-sex couple — Non-marital partnership registered under Belgian law — Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Access to legal marriage in a Member State — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation — Installation allowance’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which EG essentially seeks annulment of the European Parliament’s decision to refuse him the grant of the household allowance and to limit the amount of the installation allowance to the equivalent of one month’s basic salary.

Held:

The action is dismissed. EG is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. The Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Household allowance — Conditions for granting — Official registered as a stable non-marital partner — No access to legal marriage — Duty to establish whether access is practical and effective

(Art. 19(1) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 7 and 21(1); Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 1(2)(c)(iv))

The extension of entitlement to the household allowance to officials registered as stable, non-marital partners, including those of the same sex, who do not have access to legal marriage in a Member State, reflects the legislature’s concern that compliance should be observed with the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 19(1) TFEU, thus necessitating the further development of a staff policy ensuring equal opportunities for all, regardless of the person’s sexual orientation or marital status, which also corresponds to the prohibition of any discrimination based on sexual orientation provided for in Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the extension of entitlement to the household allowance to officials registered as stable, non-marital partners, including those of the same sex, who do not have access to marriage reflects the need to protect officials against the administration’s interference in the exercise of their right to respect for their family and private life, as recognised in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In that regard, it is clear from both the wording of Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and from its purpose that that provision, far from creating any discrimination between officials based on sexual orientation, enables the household allowance to be granted to any official registered as a stable, non-marital partner, regardless of his or her sexual orientation.

Under that provision, an official registered as a stable, non-marital partner in a heterosexual couple is subject to the same condition of having to demonstrate that he or she does not have access to legal marriage in a Member State in order to be able to receive the household allowance.

The administration must interpret the provision in question so that entitlement to the household allowance is not theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective, which may extend as far as taking account of the law of a State which was not applicable for the formation of marriage, but which was nevertheless closely connected with the situation in question because of the nationality of the persons concerned.

It is clear from the wording of Article 1(2)(c)(iv) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that, in the case of an official registered as a stable, non-marital partner, the fact that the couple has no access to marriage in the Member State where the official is employed is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that the couple has no access to marriage and therefore that the official concerned should receive the household allowance.

(see paras 48-50, 81, 82)

See:

Judgments of 14 October 2010 in W v Commission, F-86/09, EU:F:2010:125, paras 42, 43 and 45, and 6 May 2014 in Forget v Commission, F-153/12, EU:F:2014:61, para. 26