JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(First Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case F‑22/12

Mark Hall

v

European Commission

and

European Police College (CEPOL)

(Civil service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Education allowance — Children of applicant’s wife not living at the home of the couple — Conditions for granting)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Hall seeks annulment of the implied decision of 25 March 2011 and of the express decision of 11 July 2011 of the European Commission rejecting his application for dependent child and education allowances for his wife’s three children for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines and compensation for the material and non-material damage incurred as a result of the non-payment of those allowances.

Held:      The action is dismissed as inadmissible, in so far as it is directed against the European Police College. The implied decision of 25 March 2011 and the express decision of 11 July 2011 of the European Commission rejecting the application for dependent child and education allowances for the three children of Mr Hall’s wife, for the period in which they were still living in the Philippines, are annulled. The action brought against the European Commission is dismissed as to the remainder. The European Commission is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr Hall. Mr Hall is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police College.

Summary

Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Conditions for granting — Actual maintenance — Administration’s circumscribed powers

(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 2)

Article 2(3) and (5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations concern cases where entitlement to the dependent child allowance for an official’s child arises automatically by reason of the fact that it is presumed in those provisions that the child referred to in them is, solely on account of his being a minor, a student, a sick person or an invalid, in fact dependent on the official. It does not follow, however, that the institution is exempt from the obligation to verify that the condition of actual maintenance of the child by the official, laid down in Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, is satisfied. It is only if this condition is fulfilled that it can be considered that the powers of the appointing authority are circumscribed, in the three cases referred to in Article 2(3)(a) and (b) and Article 2(5) of that annex. A minor child cannot be regarded as dependent on the official concerned or give rise to entitlement to dependent child allowance when another person, public or private, fully provides for his actual maintenance.

(see paras 39-41)

See:

28 November 1991, C‑132/90 P Schwedler v Parliament, paras 19 to 24; 7 May 1992, C‑70/91 P Council v Brems, para. 5

11 July 2000, T‑134/99 Skrzypek v Commission, para. 66