EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :18 1JUDGMENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Ch amber)
9 March 2010
Case F-33/09
Aglika T z v etanova
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Temp orary staff — Remuneration — Expatriation a llowance — Conditions laid d own 
in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Habitual residence before entering the service — 
Stay as a s tudent in the place of emp loyment during the reference period — Training pe riods outside 
the place of emp loyment during the reference pe riod — Account taken of actual residence)
Application:brought u nder Articles 236 E C and 152 E A, in which M rs Tzvetanova, née S abeva, seeks 
annulment of the Commission’s decision t o refuse her the benefit of the expatriation 
allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to th e Staff Regulations of Officials of 
the European U nion, as shown in th e form d etermining th e applicant’s individual 
entitlements, dra wn up on 10 July 2008 b y th e O ffice for th e A dministration a nd 
Payment of Individual Entitlements.
Held: The Commission’s decision o f 10 July 2008 t o refuse th e applicant the benefit of the 
expatriation a llowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to th e Staff Regulations is 
annulled. The Commission is to pay all the costs.
Summ ary
Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))
Even if the terms ‘reside’ and ‘carry on th eir m ain occupation’ are used in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII 
to the Staff Regulations, that provision m ust be interpreted as adopting as the essential criterion for the 
grant of the expatriation a llowance the official’s habitual residence (rather than his home o r simply 
where he lived) prior to taking up emp loyment. The place of habitual residence is that in which th e 
official concerned has established, with th e intention th at it should be of a l asting character, the 
permanent or habitual centre of his interests.
Registration in a l ocality is a p urely formal element which does no t prove th at the person c oncerned is 
actually resident in that locality. Likewise, documents reflecting a pe rson’s ties with a g iven country or 
even giving an addr ess in that country, such as certificates relating to the exercise of rights as a c itizen 
or the registration o f a ve hicle and the payment of related taxes and fees, have no ev idential value if the 
authorities or the natural or legal persons who dr ew up th ose documents did no t verify th e actual 
residence of the person c oncerned.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :18SUMM ARY—CASEF-33/09
TZVETANOVAvCOMM ISSION
Although, as a r ule, the fact of residing in a c ountry, in particular in order to complete university 
studies and undergo practical professional training, both o f which ar e by definition t emp orary and 
supplementary parts of a pe rson’s education, does no t lead t o th e presumption th at that pe rson 
intends to m ove th e centre of his interests to th at country, it is still possible, however, that such a 
stay constitutes habitual residence in th at country if, taken into consideration w ith o ther relevant 
facts, it shows that the pe rson c oncerned has lasting social and professional ties with th e country in 
question. Wh ere those other ‘relevant facts’ include the fact that the student continued to reside in 
the country where he studied almost uninterruptedly after those studies ended, and eve n beyond th e 
reference pe riod, the studies in th emselves do no t create the presumption th at he definitely intended 
to move th e pe rmanent centre of his interests to the country where he studied, but at the very most a 
still uncertain prospect that he might do so.
An official loses the benefit of the expatriation a llowance on ly if he had h is habitual residence or 
carried on h is main occupation in th e country of his place of emp loyment throughout the reference 
period.
(see paras 39, 43, 45, 46, 48, 57)
See:
201/88 A tala-Palmerini v C omm ission [1989 ] ECR 3109 , para. 10
T-18/91 C ostacurta Gelabert v C omm ission [1992 ] ECR II-1655 , para. 42; T-72/94 D iamantaras v C omm ission [1995 ] 
ECR-SC I-A-285 a nd II-865, para. 48; T-317/99 L emaître v C omm ission [2000 ] ECR-SC I-A-191 a nd II-867, para. 51; 
T-60/00 L iaskou v C ouncil [2001 ] ECR-SC I-A-107 a nd II-489, paras 52, 55 a nd 56; T-124/01 a nd T-320/01 D el 
Vaglio v C omm ission [2003 ] ECR-SC I- A-157 a nd II-767, para. 85; T-299/02 D edeu i Fontcuberta v C omm ission 
[2005 ] ECR-SC I- A-303 a nd II-1377 , para. 66; T-416/04 K ontouli v C ouncil [2006 ] ECR-SC I- A-2-181 
and II-A-2-897, paras 90, 105 a nd 106; T-473/04 A sturias Cuerno v C omm ission [2007 ] ECR-SC I- A-2-139 
and II-A-2-963, paras 73 a nd 74 a nd the case-law cited therein
F-134/06 B ordini v C omm ission [2008 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-87 a nd II-A-1-435, paras 74, 76 a nd 77