C-56/81

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER ) 14 JANUARY 1982

Colette Novi v Commission of the European Communities

(Official on secondment — Reimbursement of expenses)

Case 56/81

Officials — Secondment — Additional expenses entailed by the secondment — Concept (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 38 (d))

Article 38 (d) of the Staff Regulations The expenses arising as a result of an does not compel the administration to official's decision to retain during his reimburse all expenses caused by any secondment a flat at his previous place of decision, however reasonable it may be, employment could not be described as which may be taken by an official in additional expenses entailed by his connection with his secondment, but secondment; a fortiori, the cost of solely those expenses which may be furniture storage resulting from his described as additional expenses entailed decision to save paying rent for that flat by the secondment itself. cannot be so described.

v

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by its Legal Adviser, J. Delmoly, acting as Agent, and assisted by J.-F. Kleykens, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of its Legal Adviser, O. Montalto, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for an order that the Commission pay the applicant the sum of BFR 220 205 for the costs of moving out furniture, storing it and bringing it back again,

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

composed of: O. Due, President of Chamber, A. Chloros and F. Grévisse, Judges,

Commission the applicant in the present Advocate General the Court (Second proceedings, Mrs Colette Novi, who is a Chamber) decided to open the oral Grade B official at the Commission, was procedure without any preparatory first granted leave on personal grounds inquiry. and subsequently seconded in the interests of the service in order to take up employment as an administrative and financial assistant to the Contrôleur II — Conclusions of the parties Délégué [Delegate Controller], of the European Development Fund at (a) The applicant claims that the Court Yaounde (Cameroon) under a contract should: with the European Association for Cooperation. The Association, incor- Declare the application admissible porated under Belgian law, was created and well-founded; and consequently for the sole purpose of providing the Commission with the necessary Order the Commission to pay her supervisory and supportive staff and the sum of BFR 220 205 together technical assistance for administering the with interest at the customary legal projects of the Fund. rate and costs.

On 24 January 1980 the applicant (b) The Commission contends that the applied for reimbursement of the costs Court should: she had incurred following her Dismiss the application as inad- secondment, namely those of moving her missible and in any case unfounded; furniture to a repository, storing it and and bringing it back again, amounting to BFR 220 205 in all. Order the applicant to pay the costs.

her subjective rights as against the might never have had to return to Commission. The sole purpose of the Brussels. decisions was to resolve financial difficulties between the defendant and Owing to the special circumstances the European Association for Coop­ surrounding tours of duty in certain eration to which the applicant was African countries, the European seconded. They indicate that the Association for Cooperation does not expenses which may be payable by the permit officials, whether seconded or Commission to the applicant by way recruited by other methods, to take their of "additional expenses" must be furniture with them. They are therefore reimbursed to the Commission by the obliged to take the necessary steps for European Association for Cooperation, storing their furniture for the period of not that the applicant may not claim their stay in Africa. That was the from the Commission that to which she consideration which led the applicant, is entitled by virtue of Article 38 (d) of who was anxious to limit the expenses the Staff Regulations. her stay would entail, to put her furniture into store for the duration of her secondment. It was the least onerous way of keeping it and also the surest way of enabling her to avoid the risk of damage or theft. Consequently the storage of her furniture was for the 2. Substance applicant an expense entailed by her secondment to Cameroon. It was because she was seconded there and was unable to take her furniture with her that she was obliged to put it into store and (a) The applicant bases her action on keep it there in Brussels for the duration Article 38 (d) of the Staff Regulations of her secondment. Putting her furniture which provides that "an official on into store entailed for the applicant an secondment ... shall ... be entitled to "additional expense" of her secondment reimbursement of all additional expenses to Cameroon. Had her conditions of entailed by his secondment". employment enabled her to keep her furniture with her she would not have had to put it into store. The extra expense is not covered by the installation and resettlement allowances she has It was pointed out on her behalf that received. Those allowances cover the secondment of the official in order to costs of her installation in Yaounde and enable him to take up long-term all the necessary local purchases this employment abroad necessarily involves entailed: curtains, brushes, wall transferring his residence to the place coverings, etc., and of resettlement in the where he is to work. Secondment official's new residence on termination of normally entails removal to the new her secondment. In her case such costs place of residence, at the expense of the are separate from the expenses incurred institution employing the official, of his by the applicant throughout her furniture and effects, since there is no secondment in order to keep her longer any reason for him to maintain furniture in Brussels. She was unable to accommodation at the place where he seek prior authorization for the removal was employed prior to the secondment. of her furniture into store owing to the For her to relinquish her accommodation fact that at the time she was on leave on was therefore a logical consequence of personal grounds. the secondment of the applicant, who

Still in the submission of the Commission, the contract provided, in The Commission observes in the alter­ addition, for payment to the applicant native that even if the Court were to of an installation allowance which hold that the expenses at issue amount to amounted in her case to 100% of the "additional expenses entailed by the aggregate amount for one month of secondment" the fact would remain that the basic salary, the overseas ser­ the expenses have been reimbursed by vice allowance and the expatriation the installation and resettlement allowance, together with payment of a allowances received by the applicant. It reinstallation allowance equivalent to has been established that the installation 100% of the same aggregate amount. and resettlement allowances are flat-rate amounts representing, by means of an advance estimate, the equivalent of the The Commission stresses the fact that costs of a single operation, namely the the contract provided also for free transfer of the residence of an official furnished accommodation to be made from one place another: see the available for the employee and for the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 electricity bills to be paid by the July 1960 (Joined Cases 27 and 39/59 European Association for Cooperation. Campolongo v High Authority of the ECSC[ 1960] ECR391 ).

The conditions governing the applicant's secondment thus described show, in the Commission's view, that the expenses the reimbursement of which is claimed by IV — Oral procedure the applicant were not entailed by her secondment. They were in fact the result of a unilateral decision taken by the At the sitting on 29 October 1981 oral applicant, evidently out of concern to argument was presented by F. van der

4 She claims that inasmuch as an official's secondment entails the transfer of his residence to his new place of employment, his furniture must normally be moved at the expense of the institution. Since the applicant's family centre of interest is in the Var (France) she ceased to have any connection with Brussels on her secondment and accordingly ceased to have any reason to

NOVI v COMMISSION

maintain accommodation there. As she was not permitted to take her furniture to Yaounde the only reasonable solution was therefore to terminate the lease of the accommodation she occupied in Brussels, put her furniture into store and thereby reduce as much as possible the expense entailed by her secondment. She claims that those charges are not covered by the installation and resettlement allowances which are intended to cover, in particular, the cost of local purchases and resettlement on termination of the secondment and are therefore separate from the expenses incurred in order to keep her furniture in Brussels for the duration of the secondment. Furthermore, the expatriation allowance received by the applicant when she was employed in Brussels was withdrawn for that period.

5 In response to those submissions it must be noted that Article38 (d) of the Staff Regulations does not compel the Administration to reimburse all expenses caused by any decision, however reasonable it may be, which may be taken by an official in connection with his secondment, but solely those expenses which may be described as additional expenses entailed by the secondment itself.

10 However, Article 70 provides that, in proceedings by servants of the Communities, the institutions are to bear their own costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Second Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.