JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

11 June 1996

Case T-147/95

Geneviève Pavan

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Household allowance — Allowance paid from other sources — Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations’

Full text in French II-861

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 29 September 1994 to recover from the applicant the sum of LFR 489063‘representing the household allowance paid from other sources with effect from 1 June 1987’.

Decision:

Annulment.

Abstract of the Judgment

The third paragraph of Article 62 of the Staff Regulations for Officials of the European Communities provides that the remuneration of officials comprises inter alia family allowances. Under Article 67(1) of the Staff Regulations, those allowances include the household allowance. In accordance with Article 67(2) officials in receipt of family allowances are to declare allowances of like nature paid from other sources, which will be deducted from those paid under the Staff Regulations.

Under Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, married officials and officials who are divorced, legally separated or unmarried and have one or more dependent children are entitled to the household allowance. Furthermore, by special decision, the household allowance may be granted to other officials who actually assume family responsibilities.

Under Article 17 of the collective labour agreement for Luxembourg brewery employees (‘the collective agreement’): ‘A household grant (“prime de ménage”) of up to LFR 1250 is allocated to married or widowed employees. Unmarried employees aged 28 years or over receive 60% of that grant. The household grant is payable from the first day of the month during which the marriage took place and, in the case of unmarried employees, from the first day of the month in which the person concerned reached the age of 28. As a result of the introduction of the household grant, all other grants of whatever nature generally paid by breweries shall cease. ’

The applicant is an official of the European Parliament who is married and the mother of two children. Since November 1986 she has received a household allowance under Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

In accordance with Article 17 of the collective agreement, the applicant's husband has received since September 1985 a household grant from his employer, Brasseries Réunies de Luxembourg Mousel et Clausen SA.

On 29 September 1994 the Parliament sent the applicant a letter noting that she had received the sum of LFR 489063 by way of a household allowance paid from other sources since 1 June 1987 and notifying her of the administration's decision to recover that amount, under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, within 22 months.

That decision was taken on the ground that the applicant's husband receives from his employer the abovementioned household grant which is of the same nature as the household allowance for the purposes of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations.

By letter of 7 November 1994, the applicant contests the validity of that decision. She argues in particular that the household grant in question is not comparable to the household allowance as regards either its purpose or the manner of its calculation.

On 30 November 1994 the Parliament replied that the household grant is regarded by all the European institutions as an allowance of the same nature as the household allowance, their puipose being to assist employees and officials, respectively, with living expenses.

On 16 December 1994 the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of 29 September 1994.

Admissibility

In her third, fourth and fifth heads of claim, the applicant does not only seek the annulment of the contested decision but also claims that the Court should make certain declarations and issue particular directions (paragraph 23).

However, when exercising its power of review under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, the Community judicature has no jurisdiction to make declaratory rulings or issue directions to the administration (paragraph 24).

See: C-100/88 Oyowe and Traore v Commission [1989] ECR 4285, para. 19; C-137/88 Schneemann and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I-369, para. 16; T-20/92 Moatv Commission [1993] ECR II-799, para. 36

As regards claims made for the first time in the reply, the applicant cannot rely in proceedings before the Court on claims which were not set out in the application (paragraph 25).

See: T-452/93 and T-453/93 Pevasa and Inpesca v Commission [1994] ECR II-229, para. 41

Consequently, only the applicant's claims in relation to the annulment of the contested decision are admissible (paragraph 26).

The validity of the claims for annulment of the Parliament's decision of 29 September 1994

Officials in receipt of a household allowance are required to declare allowances of like nature paid from other sources, which will be deducted from the household allowance paid under the Staff Regulations (paragraph 40).

‘Allowances of like nature’ are those which are comparable to the household allowance and have the same purpose. It should therefore be determined whether the household grant and the household allowance are comparable and have the same purpose (paragraph 41).

See: 106/76 Deboeck v Commission [1977] ECR 1623, para. 16; 14/77 Enter v Commission [1977] ECR 1683, para. 15

Pursuant to Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the decisive criterion for determining whether an official is entitled to the household allowance is the fact that he assumes additional responsibilities because he must provide for dependent persons, whether or not they live with him (paragraph 42).

However, under Article 17 of the collective agreement, the household grant is allocated not only to married employees, but also to widowed employees, and a 60% household grant is given to unmarried employees aged 28 or over, without children or another person to support. Consequently, the fact of assuming additional responsibilities, because other people live in the same household or because they must be supported, is not the decisive criterion for determining whether an employee is entitled to the household grant under the collective agreement (paragraph 43).

In view of those differences between the household allowance and the household grant, the two allowances do not have the same purpose (paragraph 44).

The difference between the tax treatment of the household grant and that of the household allowance also lends weight to that conclusion. Unlike the household allowance, which represents a ‘net’ sum, the household grant forms part of the ‘gross’ wage of the employee concerned and is subject to tax together with the basic pay (paragraph 45).

Accordingly, the household grant and the household allowance are not allowances of like nature for the purposes of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations. The contested decision was therefore adopted in breach ofthat provision (paragraph 46).

Operative pari:

The decision of the European Parliament of 29 September 1994 to recover from the applicant the sum of LFR 489063‘representing the household allowance paid from other sources with effect from 1 June 1987’ is annulled.