Language of document :

**Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 22 December 2005- Borbély v Commission

(Case F-126/05)

Language of the case: English


Applicant: Andrea Borbély (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Stötzel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2005 in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant the daily subsistence allowance provided for in Article 10 (1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, the installation allowance provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 5 (1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and reimbursement of travel expenses on taking up her appointment as provided for in Article 7 (1) (a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

order the European Commission to pay the applicant the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and the travel expenses on taking up her appointment, together with interest from the dates on which those amounts became payable pursuant to Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, formally an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Budapest, Hungary, seconded for Diplomatic Service to the Permanent Representation on Hungary to the EU in Brussels for a period of four years, was appointed as probationary official of the Commission and posted in Brussels.

She applied in March 2005 for the installation allowance, reimbursement of the travel expenses payable on taking up her appointment and the daily subsistence allowance. The Commission rejected that request.

The applicant claims that, while on secondment, she continued to be remunerated by her Hungarian employer and maintained her residence and her financial interests in Hungary. Moreover, in Brussels she used to live in a furnished apartment relied by her employer.

She argues that the case-law 1 has already established that an official is entitled to the above-mentioned reimbursement and allowances in a situation where the place of appointment is the one on which the official resided immediately prior to being appointed because of a secondment.


1 - Case T-137/95 Mozzaglia v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-619 and II-1657.