JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)
25 September 2014
Case T‑86/13 P
Diana Grazyte
v
European Commission
(Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Ten-year reference period — Duties in the service of an international organisation)
Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 in Grazyte v Commission (Case F‑76/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:173), seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. Ms Diana Grazyte is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present appeal proceedings.
Summary
1. Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting — Services performed for another State or an international organisation — Concept — Services performed in the European Training Foundation (ETF) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) — Included
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1))
2. Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting — Habitual residence outside the Member State of employment during the reference period — Calculation of period — Disregarding of periods of service performed for a State or international organisation — Lawfulness
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b))
3. Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions for granting — Based on objective factors — Taking account of reasons which led the person concerned to leave the country of which he is or was a national — None
(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(b))
1. The European Training Foundation (ETF) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as bodies established by the European Union, must be classified as international organisations for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
Moreover, since the activities carried out at the Commission are regarded as services performed for an international organisation for the purposes of that provision, there would be no justification for reaching any other conclusion regarding the bodies of the European Union.
(see paras 33-35)
See:
judgment of 10 October 1989 in Atala-Palmerini v Commission, 201/88, ECR, EU:C:1989:365, para. 6
judgments of 30 March 1993 in Vardakas v Commission, T‑4/92, ECR, EU:T:1993:29, para. 47; and 3 May 2001 in Liaskou v Council, T‑60/00, ECR-SC, EU:T:2001:129, paras 49 and 50
2. As regards the conditions for granting the expatriation allowance, under Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, an official must show that he habitually resided outside the European territory of the State in which he is employed and of which he is or was a national, for reasons other than the performance of duties in the service of a State or of an international organisation. If the official did indeed habitually reside outside the territory of the State of employment, but while in the service of a State or of an international organisation, he may not be regarded as having interrupted the lasting ties which he had established with the country of employment of which he is or was a national. It is therefore the simple fact of having been in the service of a State or international organisation during the ten-year reference period which overturns the presumption that the lasting ties established with the country of employment of which the official concerned is or was a national may be regarded as having been interrupted.
Consequently, when calculating the ten-year reference period, account must be taken, by disregarding them, of periods in which the official performed duties in the service of a State or in an international organisation, resulting in an equivalent extension of the reference period. An approach in which the fact of having worked for a State or an international organisation has no effect on the definition of the reference period would infringe both the wording and the purpose of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, since it would, in practice, treat such work in the same way as work for any other employer.
(see paras 50, 51, 54)
See:
judgment of 24 January 2008 in Adam v Commission, C‑211/06 P, ECR-SC, EU:C:2008:34, para. 41 and the case law cited therein
judgment of 27 September 2000 in Lemaître v Commission, T‑317/99, ECR-SC, EU:T:2000:218, para. 59
3. It is not at all evident from the wording of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that the reasons which determined an official’s decision to relocate to or remain in a new country must be taken into account for the purpose of the grant of the expatriation allowance. A detailed examination of the various reasons which led the person concerned to leave the country of which he is or was a national and to take up residence in another country would necessarily be based on assessments of a subjective nature, which is not consistent with either the wording or the purpose of that provision.
Moreover, it may not in any way be inferred from Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations that its authors intended to attach particular importance to the point at which the person concerned transferred his residence outside the State of which he is or was a national, or to the reasons which determined that transfer.
(see paras 56, 58, 78)
See:
judgments of 8 April 1992 in Costacurta Gelabert v Commission, T‑18/91, ECR, EU:T:1992:56, para. 42; and 13 April 2000 in Reichert v Parliament, T‑18/98, ECR-SC, EU:T:2000:113, para. 25