Marie-Hélène Mouriki v European Commission (248/87)

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber)23 March 1988^noteIn Case 248/87Marie-Hélène Mouriki, 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,vCommission of the European Communities, represented by Joseph Griesmar, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G. Kremlis, a member of its Legal Department, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,THE COURT (Third Chamber),composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of Chamber, U. Everling and Y. Galmot, Judges,Advocate General: Sir Gordon SlynnRegistrar: D. Lou terman, Administratorhaving regard to the Report for the Hearing and further to the hearing on 10 February 1988,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 10 February 1988,gives the following

Judgment

1By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 14 August 1987, Marie-Hélène Mouriki, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, brought an action for the annulment of the decision rejecting her application for a household allowance under Article 1 (2) (c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

2Mrs Mouriki has been an official since 1980 and her place of work is Luxembourg. Under Article 2 (4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, she receives allowances in respect of persons treated as if they were dependent children, namely her grandmother, her mother and her father, all of whom live in the Hellenic Republic.

3Until 1985, Mrs Mouriki, as a married official, received a household allowance under Article 1 (2) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. By letter 29 November 1985, she informed the Personnel Division that her marriage had been dissolved with effect from 30 March 1984. Consequently, the Head of the Personnel Division decided, on 11 December 1985, to withdraw her household allowance with effect from 1 April 1984.

4By letter of 6 August 1986, Mrs Mouriki submitted a request to the appointing authority under Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations in which she asked to be granted a household allowance on the ground that at the time of her divorce she had family responsibilities which justified the continued payment of the household allowance. By letter of 29 October 1986, the Head of the Personnel Division refused to grant that request.

5Mrs Mouriki submitted a complaint under Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations. By decision of 4 June 1987 the Commission rejected that complaint.

6Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts, the procedure and the submissions and arguments of the parties, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

Admissibility

7The Commission objects that the action is inadmissible on the ground that it was not preceded by a complaint submitted within three months of the act adversely affecting Mrs Mouriki. That act is the decision of the Head of the Personnel Division of 11 December 1985 withdrawing her household allowance with effect from 1 April 1984 and not the decision of 29 October 1986 rejecting the request of 6 August 1986.

8In that regard, it should be noted that the household allowance paid to Mrs Mouriki as a married official was granted exclusively on the basis of Article 1 (2) (a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations. Consequently, the Commission's decision of 11 December 1985 withdrawing that allowance referred only to the conditions required by that provision. Mrs Mouriki was therefore free to make a fresh request on the basis of Article 1 (2) (c). The Commission's refusal of 29 October 1986 to grant that request is thus the act adversely affecting Mrs Mouriki. Since the complaint against that decision was submitted within the time-limit laid down in Article 90 (1), the Commission's objection of inadmissibility must be rejected.

Substance of the case

9The applicant claims that the objective conditions for the grant of a household allowance under Article 1 (2) (c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations are fulfilled. She is actually assuming family responsibilities even though her parents and her grandmother live in the Hellenic Republic. The judgment of the Court of 19 January 1984 in Case 65/83 (Erdini v Council [1984] ECR 211) does not make the fact of living under the same roof a necessary condition for the granting of that allowance.

10The Commission, which also refers to the judgment of the Court of 19 January 1984, denies that the applicant is entitled to obtain the household allowance on the basis of the provision on which she relies.

11It should be pointed out that Article 1 (2) (c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations provides that officials who do not already receive a household allowance under subparagraphs (a) and (b) as married officials or officials having dependent children may also receive the allowance if they actually assume family responsibilities.

12As the Court held in its judgment of 19 January 1984, cited above, the purpose of Article 1 (2) (c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is to make it easier for officials to live with those members of their families, including those other than spouses or children, who are unable to meet their financial needs themselves.

13By limiting the household allowance under subparagraph (c) to officials who ‘actually’ assume family responsibilities, the provision lays down an additional condition not provided for under subparagraphs (a) and (b). The household allowance is intended to make it easier for the family to live together, a situation which the Staff Regulations presume to be the case in regard to spouses and children. Consequently, the additional condition laid down in subparagraph (c) in regard to other dependent members of the family must be understood as requiring that such persons live under the same roof as the official.

14In this case, the conditions laid down in Article 1 (2) (c) are not fulfilled since the applicant's family lives in the Hellenic Republic.The application must therefore be dismissed.

Costs

15Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. However, under Article 70 of those rules, institutions are to bear their own costs in proceedings brought by servants of the Communities.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (Third Chamber)hereby:

(1).Dismisses the application;

(2).Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 23 March 1988.