JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Chamber)

8 September 2011

Case F‑89/10

François-Carlos Bovagnet

v

European Commission

(Civil service – Officials – Remuneration – Family allowances – Education allowance – School fees – Concept)

Application:      brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Bovagnet seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to refund the proportion of the school fees incurred by him and connected with participation in the investment and contingency funds of the private educational establishment which his two children attend.

Held:      The Commission’s decision of 17 December 2009 is annulled in so far as it refuses to refund to the applicant the proportion of the school fees incurred by him and connected with participation in the investment and contingency funds of the private educational establishment which his two children attend. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the difference between the amount of the education allowance granted and the amount which would result from the calculation of that allowance including the fees incurred for participation in the investment and contingency funds of the private educational establishment which his two children attend, subject to compliance with the maximum amount fixed in Article 3 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Union. The Commission is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

1.      Officials – Remuneration – Family allowances – Education allowance – School fees – Concept

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 3(1))

2.      Officials – Actions – Unlimited jurisdiction – Disputes of a financial character within the meaning of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations – Concept

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1))

1.      The concept of ‘school fees’ for the purpose of the Staff Regulations is an autonomous concept the substance of which cannot depend on descriptions existing or classifications applied at national level, but depends on the actual nature and the constituent elements of the expenditure to be refunded.

Under the General Implementing Provisions relating to the grant of the education allowance provided for in Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations adopted by the Commission, school fees cover the fees for enrolling at and attending educational establishments. As thus formulated, school fees cover both the fees enabling a pupil to have access to the educational establishment (enrolment fees) and the fees enabling him to follow the courses and to participate in the programmes of that establishment (attendance fees). Since school education can be provided only within appropriate infrastructures that require running operational costs, the costs associated with those infrastructures and those running costs are costs which enable a pupil first to have access to a school and then to attend that school. Such costs, which correspond to participation in the investment and contingency funds of a private educational establishment are therefore, by virtue both of their purpose and the use to which they are put, school fees which are reimbursable in the context of the education allowance provided that the total amount does not exceed the monthly maximum amount provided for in Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 22, 23, 32)

2.      A claim seeking payment by an institution to one of its officials of a sum which he considers to be due to him under the Staff Regulations is a ‘dispute of a financial character’ within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, but is to be distinguished from actions to establish liability brought by staff members seeking damages against their institution. Under the same article, the Civil Service Tribunal has, in such disputes, unlimited jurisdiction which entrusts it with the task of providing a complete solution to those disputes and thus of ruling on all the rights and obligations of the official, save for leaving to the institution in question, under the control of the Tribunal, the implementation of such part of the judgment under such precise conditions as the Tribunal shall determine. It follows that, in disputes of a financial character, the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction which enables it to order the defendant institution to pay specific amounts, plus interest where appropriate.

(see para. 35)

See:

18 December 2007, C‑135/06 P Weiβenfels v Parliament, paras 65, 67 and 68

23 March 2000, T‑197/98 Rudolph v Commission, paras 33 and 92 and the case-law cited

2 July 2009, F‑49/08 Giannini v Commission, paras 39 to 42; 13 April 2011, F‑105/09 Scheefer v Parliament para. 68