Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Claude Richter v Commission of the European Communities. [1986] EUECJ C-330/85 (13 November 1986)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1986/C33085.html
Cite as: [1986] EUECJ C-330/85

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

61985J0330
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 1986.
Claude Richter v Commission of the European Communities.
Official - Grant of expatriation allowance.
Case 330/85.
European Court reports 1986 Page 03439

OFFICIALS - REMUNERATION - EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE - PURPOSE - CONCEPT OF EXPATRIATION - OFFICIALS HAVING THE NATIONALITY OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED
( STAFF REGULATIONS , ANNEX VII , ART . 4 ( 1 ))

THE OBJECT OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE IS TO COMPENSATE OFFICIALS FOR THE EXTRA EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE OF TAKING UP EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMMUNITIES AND BEING THEREBY OBLIGED TO CHANGE THEIR RESIDENCE AND MOVE TO THE COUNTRY OF EMPLOYMENT .

THE CONCEPT OF EXPATRIATION DEPENDS ON THE PERSONAL SITUATION OF AN OFFICIAL , NOTABLY WHETHER , ALTHOUGH HE IS A NATIONAL OF THE MEMBER STATE OF THE PLACE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT , HE HAS ACTUALLY BROKEN HIS SOCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL TIES WITH THAT STATE BY MOVING COMPLETELY AND ON A LONG-TERM BASIS HIS HABITUAL RESIDENCE OUTSIDE THE EUROPEAN TERRITORY OF THAT STATE . THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS COVERS ONLY PERSONS WHO HAD TO MOVE THEIR PERMANENT CENTRE OF INTERESTS OUTSIDE THE STATE WHERE THEY ARE EMPLOYED BY THE COMMUNITY AND CAN THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS NO LONGER HAVING PERMANENT LINKS WITH THAT STATE .

IN CASE 330/85
CLAUDE RICHTER , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY VICTOR BIEL , OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE LATTER ' S CHAMBERS , 18 A RUE DES GLACIS ,
APPLICANT , V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , DIMITRIOS GOULOUSSIS , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF GEORGIOS KREMLIS , A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,
DEFENDANT ,

APPLICATION CONCERNING THE GRANT OF AN EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,

1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 8 NOVEMBER 1985 , CLAUDE RICHTER , A LUXEMBOURG NATIONAL , WHO HAS BEEN AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES SINCE 16 APRIL 1984 AND WHOSE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IS LUXEMBOURG , BROUGHT AN ACTION ESSENTIALLY FOR THE GRANT OF AN EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .

2 ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( B ) PROVIDES THAT AN EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE IS TO BE PAID
' TO OFFICIALS WHO ARE OR WHO HAVE BEEN NATIONALS OF THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE PLACE WHERE THEY ARE EMPLOYED IS SITUATED BUT WHO DURING THE 10 YEARS ENDING AT THE DATE OF THEIR ENTERING THE SERVICE HABITUALLY RESIDED OUTSIDE THE EUROPEAN TERRITORY OF THAT STATE FOR REASONS OTHER THAN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES IN THE SERVICE OF A STATE OR OF AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ' .

3 MR RICHTER WAS BORN IN 1953 IN LUXEMBOURG , WHERE HE LIVED UNTIL 15 OCTOBER 1973 . FROM 15 OCTOBER 1973 UNTIL 1 OCTOBER 1977 HE RESIDED IN STRASBOURG FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS STUDIES . FROM 4 OCTOBER 1977 UNTIL 1 MAY 1984 HIS NAME WAS ENTERED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION IN THE POPULATION REGISTER OF GERMERSHEIM IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY . DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1977 UNTIL MARCH 1981 THE APPLICANT STUDIED LANGUAGES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINZ . BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1978 AND APRIL 1983 HE WORKED AS A FREELANCE TRANSLATOR AT GERMERSHEIM AND BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1981 AND FEBRUARY 1982 HE WAS ALSO A TRAINEE WITH THE TERMINOLOGY DIVISION OF THE COMMISSION IN LUXEMBOURG AND , BETWEEN MARCH 1982 AND APRIL 1983 HE WAS A FREELANCE TRANSLATOR FOR THE COMMISSION IN LUXEMBOURG . ON HIS APPLICATION FORM FOR A POST WITH THE COMMISSION IN LUXEMBOURG , HE STATED THAT BOTH HIS PERMANENT ADDRESS AND HIS ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE WERE IN LUXEMBOURG . HIS JUDICIAL RECORD , INCLUDED IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE AND DATED 31 MARCH 1983 , REFERS TO HIM AS ' LIVING IN LUXEMBOURG ' .

4 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR A MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FOR THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES .

5 THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE COMMISSION INFRINGED ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS BY NOT GRANTING HIM AN EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE .

6 THAT SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE OBJECT OF THE EXPATRIATION ALLOWANCE IS TO COMPENSATE OFFICIALS FOR THE EXTRA EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE OF TAKING UP EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMMUNITIES AND BEING THEREBY OBLIGED TO CHANGE THEIR RESIDENCE AND MOVE TO THE COUNTRY OF EMPLOYMENT ( SEE JUDGMENT OF 2 MAY 1985 IN CASE 246/83 DE ANGELIS V COMMISSION ( 1985 ) ECR 1253 ). FURTHERMORE , THE CONCEPT OF EXPATRIATION ALSO DEPENDS ON THE PERSONAL SITUATION OF AN OFFICIAL , NOTABLY WHETHER , ALTHOUGH HE IS A NATIONAL OF THE MEMBER STATE OF THE PLACE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT , HE HAS ACTUALLY BROKEN HIS SOCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL TIES WITH THAT STATE BY MOVING COMPLETELY AND ON A LONG-TERM BASIS HIS HABITUAL RESIDENCE OUTSIDE THE EUROPEAN TERRITORY OF THAT STATE . THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF ANNEX VII TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS COVERS ONLY PERSONS WHO HAD TO MOVE THEIR PERMANENT CENTRE OF INTERESTS OUTSIDE THE STATE WHERE THEY ARE EMPLOYED BY THE COMMUNITY AND CAN THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS NO LONGER HAVING PERMANENT LINKS WITH THAT STATE .

7 IN THIS CASE , IT IS CLEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ' S OWN STATEMENTS THAT HE DID NOT SEVER HIS LASTING LINKS WITH LUXEMBOURG . IN HIS APPLICATION FORM HE GAVE LUXEMBOURG BOTH AS HIS PERMANENT ADDRESS AND AS HIS ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE . MOREOVER , HE WORKED FOR 20 MONTHS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1981 AND APRIL 1983 AT THE COMMISSION IN LUXEMBOURG , INITIALLY AS A TRAINEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY AS A FREELANCE TRANSLATOR .

8 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT STUDIED IN STRASBOURG FROM OCTOBER 1973 TO OCTOBER 1977 AND LIVED IN GERMANY FROM OCTOBER 1977 TO MAY 1984 IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT HE HABITUALLY RESIDED OUTSIDE LUXEMBOURG DURING THE 10 YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE OF HIS ENTERING THE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION . DURING THAT PERIOD HE NEVER ACTUALLY SEVERED HIS SOCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL TIES WITH LUXEMBOURG NOR DID HE MOVE HIS PERMANENT CENTRE OF INTERESTS OUTSIDE THAT STATE .

9 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .

COSTS
10 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR IN THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY ' S PLEADINGS .

11 HOWEVER , UNDER ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES , INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )
HEREBY : ( 1 ) DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;

( 2 ) ORDERS EACH OF THE PARTIES TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .