Judgment_paragraph 8 · Michael Heßler v European Commission (C-137/24 P)

8The background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 2 to 11 of the judgment under appeal in the following terms:2 The [appellant] is a Commission official. He is the father of two daughters born in 1993 and 1994, respectively.3 The [appellant] received a dependent child allowance for each daughter until they each reached the age of 26 in 2019 and 2020, respectively.4 In addition to receiving the dependent child allowance, the [appellant] also obtained the tax abatement provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 3(4) of Regulation [No 260/68], up until 31 July 2021, in respect of each of his two daughters, who were still students on that date.5 On 28 June 2021, the [appellant] sent his first daughter’s certificate of studies to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO), in order to request an extension of the tax abatement in respect of that daughter.6 By a first email of 29 June 2021, a case manager in the Rights and Obligations unit of the PMO replied to the [appellant] that, “on the basis of [the] judgment … of [12] March 2020[, XB v ECB (T‑484/18, … EU:T:2020:90) (“the judgment in XB v ECB”)], any request for the grant or extension of the tax reduction in the absence of entitlement to the dependent child allowance paid under Article 2 of Annex VII [to] the Staff Regulations [was] suspended”. Further to a query from the [appellant] following that email, the case manager then added, in a second email sent the same day, that “the grant of the tax reduction [could] no longer be granted [because], on the basis of the judgment [in XB v ECB], it [had] been cancelled” (together, “the emails of 29 June 2021”). Each email also contained a note at the end, under the case manager’s signature, stating that the email in question was sent for information purposes only and did not constitute a decision of “the Appointing Authority AIPN/AHCC” that could give rise to a complaint under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.7 On 15 July 2021, the [appellant] sent a note to the Head of the Rights and Obligations unit of the PMO, in which he disputed the information contained in the emails of 29 June 2021 and asked the PMO to grant him the tax abatement for his daughter. The [appellant] did not receive an explicit response to that note.8 On 18 August 2021, the [appellant] requested the PMO to grant him the extension of the tax abatement in respect of his second daughter.9 By email of 27 August 2021, the case manager in the Rights and Obligations unit of the PMO replied to the [appellant] that “[they regretted] to inform [him] that on the basis of [paragraph 103 of the judgment in XB v ECB], any request or extension of the tax reduction in the absence of entitlement to the dependent child allowance paid under Article 2 of Annex VII [to] the Staff Regulations [could] no longer be accepted, it [had] been cancelled” (“the email of 27 August 2021”). That email, like the emails of 29 June 2021, contained a note, under the case manager’s signature, stating that the email in question was sent for information purposes only and did not constitute a decision of “the Appointing Authority AIPN/AHCC” that could give rise to a complaint under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.10 On 24 November 2021, the [appellant] lodged a complaint against the refusal by the PMO, arising from the PMO’s “failure to reply”, to grant the extension of the tax abatement sought for his two daughters (“the complaint”).11 On 25 March 2022, the Director of the Finance, Legal and Partnerships Directorate in the Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) for Human Resources and Security, acting as the appointing authority, rejected the [appellant]’s complaint (“the decision rejecting the complaint”).’

Michael Heßler v European Commission (C-137/24 P)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version