C-75/82

applicants ,

v

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , represented by John Forman , a member of its Legal Department , acting as Agent , assisted by Robert Andersen of the Brussels Bar , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Oreste Montako , a member of its Legal Department , Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg ,

defendant ,

RAZZOUK AND BEYDOUN / COMMISSION

APPLICATIONS for:

JUDGMENT

Facts and issues

The facts of the case, the course of Beydoun, in retirement since 1 August the procedure and the conclusions, 1979, was a specialist in the American submissions and arguments of the parties primary commodities futures market. may be summarized as follows: Their wives were both officials of the European Communities, Mrs Razzouk at I — Facts and written procedure the European Parliament from February 1971 and at the Commission from March 1. Mr Razzouk and Mr Beydoun are 1971, and Mrs Beydoun, first at the both widowers. Mr Razzouk is a ECSC and then at the Commission from researcher at UCL, Brussels, while Mr 1 August 1966. Their respective grades

JUDGMENT OF 20. 3. 1984 — JOINED CASES 75 AND 117/82

By a registered letter of 25 November Finally, as regards your comments 1981, received by the applicant on 2 concerning the practice of various inter­ December 1981, Mr O'Kennedy, a national organizations with regard to Member of the Commission, informed equal pensions for widows and the applicant that the Commission could widowers, it ' should be noted that, in not uphold his complaint and, con­ each case, only express statutory sequently, that it confirmed the decision provisions permit such practices where of 3 July 1981. they exist. On the other hand, the conditions under which those pensions are granted are very different from those The essential grounds for the Com­ dealing with widow's pensions in the mission's decision were stated as follows : Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities."

"The provisions of the Staff Regulations On 16 July 1980 Mr Beydoun wrote to relating to pensions only grant a pension the head of the relevant division seeking to the widower of a female official on a survivor's pension pursuant to the Staff the conditions laid down in Article 23 of Regulations. He pointed out in particular Annex VIII to those regulations. Those his own limited resources (below conditions are not met in your case. subsistence level) and referred to health

RAZZOUK AND BEYDOUN / COMMISSION

" The provisions of the Staff Regulations relating to pensions only grant a pension to the widower of a female official on It is true that the Commission submitted the conditions laid down in Article 23 of a proposal to the Council during 1974 to Annex VIII to those regulations. Those amend the Staff Regulations which conditions are not met in your case. would, as regards survivor's pensions grant equal rights to both widows and widowers of officials. So far that proposal has not been accepted and the On the one hand, at the time of your Commission cannot ignore its non- wife's death in June 1980, it cannot be acceptance, as it would have to do if it said that you did not have an income of were to accept your claim."

JUDGMENT OF 20. 3. 1984 — JOINED CASES 75 AND 117/82

4. As a consequence of the Com­ him on 2 December 1981, mission's refusal to accede to the re­ rejecting his claim to a widower's quests submitted by Mr Razzouk and Mr pension; grant the applicant a Beydoun, the present applications were widower's pension as a result of lodged at the Court Registry on 22 the death on 29 January 1981 of February and 2 April 1982 respectively. his wife Christiane Razzouk, née van Campenhout, an official of the Commission, and grant their son, Michel, the right to an orphan's 5. By an order of 3 December 1982, pension as from 1 May 1981; the Court (Second Chamber) joined the two cases for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment. By an Award the applicant interest at the order of 14 July 1983, the Chamber rate of 9 % as from 1 May 1981; referred the cases to the full court.

RAZZOUK AND BEYDOUN / COMMISSION

Award the applicant interest at the of the EEC Treaty and, as regards rate of 9 % as from 1 October the submission based on the 1980; principle of equality of treatment between men and women, give the competent Community insti­ in the alternative, grant the tutions, if the Court in its wisdom applicant a pension under Article considers that the individual de­ 23 of Annex VIII to the Staff cisions at issue are without legal Regulations as from the same foundation, a reasonable period date; in which to take the necessary measures to eliminate all discrimi­ nation according to sex to be In the further alternative, pay to found in the provisions of the Staff the applicant a sum equivalent to Regulations concerning pensions the pension contributions paid by for the survivors of officials and Mrs Beydoun under Article 83 of other servants of the European the Staff Regulations of Officials Communities; of the European Communities during her employment with the European Institutions; and Dismiss the applicant's claim for interest, which in any event could only be due from the date of the pay the applicant's costs. complaint submitted pursuant to Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regu­ lations;

The Commission contends that the Court should: Declare the alternative claim for the reimbursement of Mrs Raz­ zouk's pension contributions to be without foundation, if indeed it is A — In giving judgment on the appli- considered admissible; and cation brought by Mr Razzouk:

Make an appropriate order as to As regards admissibility, declare costs; that the claim for an orphan's pension on behalf of Michel Razzouk, son of the applicant, is pointless; declare the alternative B — In giving judgment on the appli- claim for the reimbursement of cation brought by Mr Beydoun: Mrs Razzouk's pension contri­ butions inadmissible and take note of the fact that the defendant Declare the application completely submits the rest of the case to the inadmissible; wisdom of the Court;

The Commission is of the opinion that in contesting the decision of 25 November In the further alternative, dismiss 1981, which expressly rejected the ...,, the alternative claim for a complaint lodged by the·- applicant survivor's pension pursuant to pursuant to Article 90 (2) of the Staff Article 23 of Annex VIII to the Regulations against the decision of Staff Regulations; 3 July 1981 rejecting his claim of 3 April 1981 for a survivor's pension as a result of the death of his wife, the applicant has contested an act which cannot in itself be contested. The Commission cites on this In the still further alternative, point the judgments of the Court of 28 declare the alternative claim for May 1980 (Joined Cases 33 and 75/79 reimbursement of the deceased Kuhner v Commission [1980] ECR 1677) wife's pension contributions to be and of 9 December 1982 (Case 191/81 without foundation, if indeed that Plug v Commission [1982] ECR 4229). claim is considered admissible;

The Commission points out however that on other occasions the Court has been more liberal, taking the view that the In any event, dismiss the essential element was that the complaint applicant's claim for interest, and the application had been lodged which in any case can only be due within the prescribed time-limits, as is from the date of the complaint the case here. That being so, the Court submitted pursuant to Article 90 of was prepared to interpret the application the Staff Regulations; directed formally against the rejection of the complaint as being also directed against the decision which gave rise to the complaint. The Commission cites in Make an appropriate order as to this connection the judgment of the costs. Court of 21 May 1981 (Case 156/80,

The applicant contends that his claim for The applicant does not accept that the the annulment of the Commission's application is inadmissible and points decision of 25 November 1981 implies out, in his reply, that his claim of 16 July the annulment of the decision of 3 July 1980 was followed by a long exchange of 1981 because the former expressly correspondence and by several interviews confirmed the latter. with officials of the Commission. Fur­ thermore, discussions with a view to As regards the claim for reimbursement finding an appropriate solution to his of the pension contributions, this is not, claim took place between officials of the in the applicant's view, a new claim commission and of other institutions in because the pension contributions the framework of the Preparatory constitute the consideration for the Committee for Meetings of Heads of pension rights which form the subject- Administrative services. The general matter of the principal claim. If the atmosphere of these discussions was Court does not grant him a widower's fairly positive and constructive and pension, the Commission will have showed a willingness to help him. In unjustly enriched itself and it is thus reply to a question which the Court put perfectly normal to seek compensation to the parties, Mr Beydoun also points for this as an alternative to the pension. out that, in spite of the many interviews

JUDGMENT OF 20. 3. 1984 — JOINED CASES 75 AND 117/82

The Commission states in its rejoinder The applicants' first submission is based that the Preparatory Committee for on Article 119 of the EEC Treaty, Meetings of Heads of Administrative Article 79 of the Staff Regulations and Services, and later the heads of on the principle of equality of treatment. administrative services, dealt, at its According to the applicants, Article 79 of initiative, with the general question of the Staff Regulations, which grants a the interpretation of the first paragraph survivor's pension to the widow of an of Article 23 of Annex VIII to the ' official or a former official under the Staff Regulations and, in particular, with conditions set out in Chapter 4 of Annex the interpretation of the expression VIII to the Staff Regulations, must be "provided that he has no income of his interpreted in conformity both with the own" and with the concept of invalidity. principles laid down in Article 119 of the The Committee considered that the EEC Treaty and confirmed jn judgments provision in question did not apply to the of the Court, and with the general widower of an official who, being 66 principle of non-discrimination. In years old at the time of his wife's death, accordance with those principles, all was suffering from invalidity and had persons to whom the Staff Regulations only a small income, because the term apply, be they officials or otherwise, "invalidity", as used in that article, must be treated in the same way when referred to an invalidity incapacitating they are in the same situation, and a the person concerned from engaging difference of sex should not imply a in gainful employment, and not an difference of treatment. invalidity due to age, and because, at the age of 66, the person concerned was no longer available for employment. It is for the Commission to ensure that the Community rules are applied in conformity with the principles set out As regards the rest of the application, the above. That is all the more reason why it Commission does not understand why should apply the provisions at issue in the applicant wishes to have his claim for the present case in conformity with those a pension of 16 July 1980 treated as a principles, adopting, if necessary, a request under the first paragraph of liberal interpretation or an interpretation Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. It by analogy. If Article 79 of the Staff

The Commission refutes the applicant's Finally, the applicants point out that reference to the Court's judgment of the survivor's pension is not a benefit 9 February 1982 (Case 12/81, Garland v designed to guarantee a source of British Rail Engineering, [1982] ECR income to persons who have no other, 359), because the Advocate General's but derives from a right to which the opinion in that case demonstrates that survivors are entitled and which is the judgment does not depart from the justified by the professional activity Court's earlier decisions in this field. In of the official in the service of the particular, that judgment in no way Communities. Not only are the Staff contradicts that of 25 May 1971 Regulations silent as regards the alleged (De/renne), which held that retirement purpose of this pension as a form of pensions are not included in the concept assistance but the fact that the pension is of pay within the meaning of Article 119. provided for regardless of the financial, social or professional situation of the recipient excludes such a purpose.

In the present case, moreover, the pensions paid by the European The Commission observes, in its defence, Communities to their officials and that the applicants are wrong to claim dependants derive from the Staff Regu­ that Article 119 of the EEC Treaty, lations. They are paid solely on the basis which enshrines the principle that men that the officials meet the conditions laid and women should receive equal pay for down in those regulations. On that basis, equal work also applies to survivor's the lack of proportionality between pensions for the dependants of deceased pensions and contributions cannot be officials. regarded as discrimination. The Com-

The applicant's second submission is based on an interpretation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women. In Finally, the survivor's pension scheme in their view, the Commission has not the Staff Regulations was set up with followed the guidelines laid down by the certain social considerations in mind, Court to help the institutions to interpret namely to ensure a decent standard of the Staff Regulations when it is a living for the spouse of the deceased question of adapting them to factual, official. Whereas a surviving wife is legal or economic situations which do presumed not to have sufficient resources not appear to correspond to the carefully for this purpose, a surviving husband thought-out objectives of the legislature. must prove that he does not have such The applicants refer in this connection to resources. the judgment of 31 May 1979 (Case 156/78, Newth v Commission, [1979] ECR 1941), in which the Court held that, where the application of an article is likely to result in a breach of a The applicants contend, in their reply, superior rule of law, as in the present that the Commission is wrong to assume case, the Commission is obliged, in order that the applicants seek to have Article to avoid such a result, not to apply the 119 applied to their case and they point article in question. out that the application uses the words "in conformity with the principles laid down in Article 119 of the EEC Treaty . . .". Those principles are de­ The aforementioned guidelines are signed to ensure equality of treatment favourable to the applicants' case, parti­ for both men and women and the cularly in view of the Commission's own application seeks neither more nor less proposal of 13 June 1974 (Official than that. It is perfectly possible that the Journal 1974, C 88, p. 25), seeking to principles referred to, as regards the insert an express right to a widower's factors mentioned and other related pension in the Staff Regulations. It is this factors, can be made more concrete. The fact which justifies the claim for interest Court can thus use them as a suitable at 9 % from 1 May 1981, the date at basis to regulate the equality of male which the pension rights of Mr Razzouk and female officials of the European and his son Michel should have arisen, Economic Community in regard to pen­ and from 1 October 1980 in the case of sion rights. That would also constitute a Mr Beydoun. useful contribution to the law governing the European civil service.

It was that strictly egalitarian concept The Commission states, in its defence, which caused the Commission to that the application of the general propose, on 13 June 1974, that the principle of equality between the sexes is Council should insert, in Title V of the an extremely delicate question. The Staff Regulations, after Article 79, an objective difference between the factual Article 79a making the provisions of situations in which a widow and a Article 79 applicable mutatis mutandis to widower find themselves can be the widower of an official or former advanced to justify the present provisions official. That proposal was approved by of the Staff Regulations on this point. It the European Parliament (Official is still true that the major part of a Journal 1974, C 140, p. 20). In two later household's resources come from the resolutions the Parliament reiterated its husband's work, such that, upon his opinion of 13 November 1974 (sec the death, the widow is likely to find herself resolution of 18 January 1980 relating to in a difficult financial situation. the social security scheme applicable to temporary staff, Official Journal 1980, C 34, p. 56, and the resolution of 10 April 1981 on the special and temporary measures taken in consequence of the accession of Greece, Official Journal 1981, C 101, p. 104). Finally, when the Against that, it could be argued that 1982 budget was being adopted, the since the amendment of the Staff Regu­ Parliament, at the second reading on lations in 1972 the widow of an official 17 December 1981, passed Amendment can combine the benefit of a survivor's No 77 which sought to allow the appro­ pension with a salary paid by the priation to cover the survivor's pensions European institutions. The survivor's of widows of officials to be used also for pension is therefore of a hybrid nature in widower's pensions (Official Journal the sense that it is not only intended to 1982, C 11, pp. 56 and 121). provide maintenance (which would entail its forfeiture on remarriage) but is also a pecuniary advantage, linked to the public office held by the deceased spouse and independent of the survivor's means. In its present form, the Staff Regulations The Council's position on the Com­ suffer from an internal contradiction. mission proposal was less explicit. While

The Commission wonders, however, if Finally, if the Court finds that the the fact that discrimination based on sex present system is without legal foun­ in relation to survivor's pensions, which dation, the Commission suggests that it continues to exist in the internal law should invite the competent institutions of the Member States, cannot at the to take the measures which they consider moment be regarded as being contrary to necessary, within a time-limit to be fixed Community law necessarily means that by the Court, to eliminate all discrimi­ the same discrimination in the Staff nation between the sexes in the Regulations and the rules applicable to provisions of the Staff Regulations other servants cannot be regarded as a dealing with pensions for the survivors of breach, not of the social provisions of officials and other servants of the the Treaty, but of the fundamental rights European Communities. which the Court has repeatedly held to be part of the general principles of Community law whose observance it must ensure. In support of this theory, the Commission cites the judgments of The applicants, in their reply, present a 7 June 1972 (Case 20 / 71 , Sabbatini, née synopsis of the evolution of the law in Bertoni, v European Parliament, [1972] the Member States and elsewhere. Thus, ECR 345) and of 20 February 1975 in Belgium provisions meeting the (Case 21/74, Airola v Commission, requirements of equality between men [1975] ECR 221). and women have existed for Senators

RAZZOUK AND BEYDOUN / COMMISSION

As for the rest, the Commission merely repeats that the question must, in its view, be dealt with by legislation. For it, the most serious doubts are due to the The Commission answers, in its contradiction which, in its opinion, rejoinder, that, as regards Belgium the would arise from the immediate equality relied on by the applicants is application of a single scheme of based not on a law or a royal decree but widow's and widower's pensions in the on a rule of the Senator's pension fund. institutions while the absence of similar In Italy equality with regard to survivor's schemes in the Member States continues pensions is regulated by Law No 908 of not to be contrary to Community law. 9 December 1977. As regards Ireland, the Commission notes that the Department of the Public Service has decided to extend the existing survivor's pension scheme so as to apply the same conditions to widows and widowers of 2. Submission pleaded only by Mr officials. Beydoun

In addition, the Commission appended Mr Beydoun pleads an alleged wrongful a table to its rejoinder summarizing interpretation of Article 23 of Annex the position in the Member States on VIII to the Staff Regulations. Fie 1 September 1982. It can be seen from contends that the condition that the that table that in four Member States applicant should have no income of his there is complete equality between own must be interpreted as meaning that widows and widowers of officials. In two he must have no adequate income of Member States the widower of an his own, which is manifestly true of official is not at present entitled to a someone who has only a Belgian survivor's pension. Two other Member pension, presently worth BFR 9 187 and States grant such a right to widowers, a German widower's pension, presently

worth DM 299.80. The interpretation of as the one raised by the present Article 23 on this point should be in application saves it from being ordered conformity with the rules on own income to pay damages (see the Airola judgment, applicable in other areas, especially in cited above). relation to family allowances. As regards the invalidity or serious illness from which the applicant must suffer if he is to comply with the second condition, the As regards the interest claimed by the Commission has wrongly evaluated the applicants, the Commission points out, situation and there is no legal basis for referring to the Advocate General's its theory that the applicant's serious opinion in the Garganese case (Case illness, recognized as such by the 185/80, [1981] ECR 1803 and 1804), Commission itself, is of no importance that save in exceptional cases, interest in because the applicant retired on 1 August compensation for delay in payment can 1979, that is to say before the death of only be granted from the day on which his wife. the complaint under Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations was submitted, where the failure to pay a sum due results purely from a mistake in the application The Commission rejects the applicant's of the Staff Regulations. In the present submission regarding his own income, case, interest can only be due, even in which, according to it, is approximately the hypothesis most unfavourable to the BFR 15 000 per month. Furthermore, the Commission, from 1 October 1980 in the applicant has not proved that he was case of Mr Beydoun and from 24 July suffering, "at his wife's death", from a 1981 in Mr Razzouk's case. serious illness making it permanently impossible for him to engage in gainful employment. As regards Mr Beydoun's retirement, this took place before his In its rejoinder, the Commission states wife's death solely because of his age (he that the applicants, when invited to had reached the age of 65) and not justify the rate of interest claimed, because of his illness (frozen shoulder), presented no argument justifying the from which he had suffered, according fixing of this rate at 9 % and that, fur­ to the Commission, for several years thermore, in their reply, they merely without having been prevented from asked the Court to fix the appropriate working before his retirement. rate of interest for the periods in question.

Finally, the Commission emphasizes that The pensions paid by the Communities in a system based on social solidarity, are not of a contributory nature but there is no necessary correlation between derive from the Staff Regulations, so that the contributions paid in and the benefits the lack of proportion between the received. It adds that, in accordance with pensions and the contributions cannot the provisions of Article 38 of Annex be regarded as discrimination (see VIII to the Staff Regulations, contri­ the above-mentioned opinion of the butions properly deducted cannot be Advocate General in Grogan v Com- refunded. mission). This means, among other things, that if the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations are not met the contributions are lost and cannot be recovered either by the official or by his dependants. Furthermore, the contri­ IV — Oral procedure butions have not been lost in the present case because Mr Razzouk's son is receiving an orphan's pension, which would incidentally, be considerably reduced if a survivor's pension were At the sitting on 10 January 1984 oral granted to Mr Razzouk, in application argument was presented by D. Rogalla, of the third paragraph of Article 80 of for the applicants and by R. Andersen, the Staff Regulations rather than of the assisted by A. Pincherle, for the first paragraph of the same article. Commission.

In their reply, the applicants contest the At the hearing the Commission's agent Commission's view on this point. They indicated that, at present, about ten stress in particular that the pension female officials in the service of the contributions are part of the official's Commission die each year leaving a remuneration and they ought to be and surviving husband. There are probably can be recovered by the dependants about 50 widowers of officials in all. when no pension is payable.

2 As regards Mr Razzouk, the Court has been told that he wrote to the President of the Commission on 3 April 1981 seeking, as a result of the death of his wife, the survivor's pension which Article 79 of the Staff Regu­ lations grants to the widows of officials. By a letter dated 3 July 1981 the head of the Financial and Administrative Rights Division replied that, having regard to the existing provisions of the Staff Regulations dealing with the pension scheme, the administration did not feel able to grant his request. On 24 July 1981 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Commission pursuant to Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations. That complaint was rejected by a letter of 25 November 1981, in which the Commission stated that the provisions of the Staff Regulations entitled widowers to a pension only on the conditions laid down in Article 23 of Annex VIII to those regu­ lations and that those conditions were not met in the applicant's case. The Commission added that, although it had submitted to the Council in 1974 a proposal to amend the Staff Regulations so as to accord widows and widowers of officials the same rights, it had no choice but to apply the Staff Regulations as they stood.

3 Mr Beydoun, for his part, applied to the Commission on 16 July 1980 for a survivor's pension under the terms of Article 23 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, pointing out in particular his own limited resources and his health problems, which incapacitated him from engaging in gainful employment. By a letter of 12 August 1981 the deputy head of the relevant division informed the applicant that Article 23 did not apply to his case. On 9 September 1981 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Commission

6 As regards the claim for annulment, the Commission points out that it is directed solely against the decision of 25 November 1981 whereby the Commission rejected the complaint submitted by the applicant pursuant to Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of 3 July 1981. In the Commission's view, the claim should have been directed against the latter decision, which is the act adversely affecting the applicant, the decision of 25 November 1981 being purely confirmatory.

7 While it is true that the rejection of the complaint, because of its purely confirmatory nature, is not of itself an act capable of being contested, it must also be recognized that the application, which was lodged within the time- limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, is clearly

JUDGMENT OF 20. 3. 1984 — JOINED CASES 75 AND U7/82

- seeking the annulment of the refusal to grant a pension under Article 79 of the Staff Regulations. There is thus no doubt about the real subject-matter of the dispute and, hence, about the admissibility of the application, in this regard.

8 Finally, the Commission expresses doubt about the admissibility of the alter­ native claim for reimbursement of the pension contributions paid by the applicant's wife during her working life. The Commission considers that this is a new claim which has not been the subject of a complaint.

11 The applicant contends that Article 90 of the Staff Regulations is not applicable in the present case and that the express decision of 12 August 1981 set in motion the period for lodging a complaint. He refers in particular to the opening sentence of that decision, which speaks of an exchange of

RAZZOUK AND BEYDOUN / COMMISSION

correspondence and of interviews which he had on several occasions with officials of the Commission. He submits that in those circumstances an implied rejection cannot be presumed.

12 According to Article 91 (2) of the Staff Regulations, an application is only admissible if the appointing authority has previously had a complaint submitted to it pursuant to Article 90 (2) within the period prescribed therein. Article 90 (1) provides that, if no reply has been received to a request within four months, this should be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it and, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the same article, that decision sets in motion a period of three months for lodging a complaint. That period is not extended by the sole fact that the request is followed by interviews or correspondence which do not provide a reply to the request, unless it is shown that the failure to comply with the time-limit can be imputed to the Commission, which is not so in this case. Nor does time start to run again as a result of a later express decision doing no more than rejecting the request.

D Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations govern generally the administrative procedure which must precede an application to the Court challenging a decision of the appointing authority and they are thus applicable in the present case also. As the Court has held on many occasions, inter alia in the judgment of 19 February 1981 (Joined Cases 122 and 123/79, Schiavo v Council, [1981] ECR 473), the time-limits prescribed by these articles are mandatoiy in nature and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or of the Court.

17 In that judgment, as in the judgments of 7 June 1972 (Case 20/71 Sabbatini, née Bertoni, v European Parliament, [1972] ECR 345) and of 20 February 1975 (Case 21/74, Airola v Commission, [1975] ECR 221), the Court recognized the need to ensure equal treatment of men and women employed by the Community itself within the framework of the Staff Regulations. Consequently, in relations between the Community institutions, on the one hand, and their employees and the dependants of employees, on the other, the requirements imposed by the principle of equal treatment are in no way limited to those resulting from Article 119 of the EEC Treaty or from the Community directives adopted in this field.

18 The Commission's decision of 3 July 1981 must therefore be annulled on the ground that it is based on provisions of the Staff Regulations which are contrary to a fundamental right and therefore inapplicable in so far as they treat surviving spouses of officials unequally according to the sex ot the persons concerned.

19 Following upon that annulment, it is for the Community legislature to accept the consequences of the present judgment and to take the necessary measures

RAZZOUK AND BEYDOUN / COMMISSION

to establish equality between the sexes as regards the Community pension scheme. In the meantime, the Commission must re-examine the applicant's request, applying to it the provisions of the Staff Regulations dealing with widows' pensions, which remain, for the moment, the only valid frame of reference. Any sums which may ultimately be payable to the applicant should bear interest at 6% from 27 July 1981, the date on which the Commission received the applicant's complaint under Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regu- ations, or from the date on which the pension became payable, if that date is later.

1. As regards Case 75/82:

(a) The Commission's decision of 3 July 1981 refusing to grant a widower's pension is annulled;

(b) The Commission shall re-examine the applicant's claim for a survivor's pension, applying to it the provisions of the Staff Regu- lations dealing with widows' pensions. Any sums which may be

OPINION OF SIR GORDON SLYNN — JOINED CASES 75 AND 117/82

payable to the applicant shall bear interest at 6% from 27 July 1981 or from the date on which the pension became payable, if that date is later;

(c) It is not necessary to adjudicate on the claim for an orphan's pension;

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 20 March 1984.

For the Registrar H. A. Rühi J. Mertens de Wilmars

Principal Administrator President

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SIR GORDON SLYNN DELIVERED ON 14 FEBRUARY 1984

My Lords, equal to 60 % of the retirement or invalidity pension which was or would The widow of an official or a former have been, paid to her husband. The official of the European Communities is survivor's pension is payable irrespective normally entitled to a survivor's pension of the degree of dependence of the