T-33/89

JUDGMENT OF 16. 3. 1993 —JOINED CASES T-33/89 AND T-74/89

duty implies in particular that when the not only the interests of the service but appointing authority takes a decision con- also those of the official concerned. How- cerning the situation of an official, it ever, the protection of the rights and should take into consideration all the fac- interests of officials must always be sub- tors which may affect its decision and that ject to compliance with the legal rules in when doing so it should take into account force.

J U D G M E N T O F T H E COURT O F FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 16 March 1993 *

In Joined Cases T-33/89 and T-74/89,

David Blackman, a member of the temporary staff of the European Parliament, residing at Tervueren (Belgium), represented by Aloyse May, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service at his Chambers, 31 Grand-Rue,

applicant,

BLACKMAN v PARLIAMENT

complaint against the refusal of his request for prior authorization concerning his daughter's participation in special courses during the academic year 1987-1988,

T H E COURT O F FIRST INSTANCE O F T H E EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),

composed of: R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President, R. Schintgen and C. P. Briët, Judges,

Registrar: M. Fierstra, Legal Secretary,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 May 1992,

JUDGMENT OF 16. 3. 1993 —JOINED CASES T-33/89 AND T-74/89

and then, until the end of 1985, at Sibford School in England, where, in addition to the normal teaching provided, she took special courses (remedial teaching). At the end of 1985 she returned to Brussels, where she again attended the British School, also taking special courses.

3 From 1981 to 1985 the Luxembourg claims office agreed to meet 100% of the fees for the special courses taken by the applicant's daughter.

4 By a memorandum of 17 February 1986 the applicant requested that the fees for a special learning support programme adopted by the British School for his daughter owing to her particular educational problems be met by the sickness insurance fund. According to the memorandum, this programme, which was to last from Jan- uary to July 1986, consisted, inter alia, of 'eight individual sessions per week of educational therapy'.

5 By a memorandum of 23 May 1986 the head of division attached to the Brussels claims office, to whom the applicant's memorandum had been sent for a decision owing to the absence of a head of the Luxembourg claims office, wrote to the appli- cant as follows:

'Concerning the special learning support programme, in particular one individual session per week of educational therapy, I spoke to our Medical Officer, who con- tacted the British School. His opinion, which in my view is reasonable, is that as the special programme consists partly of remedial courses and partly of special treatment, the sickness insurance fund should meet 50% of the fees'.

9 On 5 June 1987 the applicant lodged a complaint with the claims office against the Medical Council's decision of 27 February 1987. The complaint was returned to the applicant by the office on 16 June 1987 on the ground that it was not compe- tent to entertain it, and the applicant submitted it to the appointing authority by memorandum of 29 June 1987, which was registered on 8 July 1987.

10 The complaint was rejected by decision of the appointing authority of 4 February 1988. The action in Case T-33/89 has been brought against that decision.

II-255

JUDGMENT OF 16. 3. 1993 —JOINED CASES T-33/89 AND T-74/89

1 1 Meanwhile, on 18 October 1987, the applicant had submitted a request for prior authorization concerning the educational therapy programme which his daughter was to follow during the academic year 1987-1988. After obtaining the Medical Officer's opinion, the claims office informed the applicant by memorandum of 28 March 1988 that it refused to grant authorization. The reasons given were as fol- lows:

'Since it is now clear from examining the file that the request for prior authoriza- tion concerns remedial classes in mathematics and that courses of this type do not form part of medical treatment, there are no grounds for conferring a right to reim- bursement for such services. Services of this type provided in an educational insti- tution by persons who are not medical or paramedical practitioners are excluded by the provisions for the interpretation of sickness insurance rules adopted by the heads of administration on 10 September 1987, which specify that "the treatments specified in the Annexes to these Rules must be administered by a person or per- sons legally authorized to exercise a medical or paramedical profession or by approved medical or paramedical establishments."'

15 By letter of 15 March 1989 the applicant asked to Court to suspend the procedure in Case 127/88 and to join it with the new case. On 7 April 1989 the President of the First Chamber of the Court of Justice decided to suspend the procedure in Case 127/88 pending the completion of the written procedure in Case 84/89. The entire written procedure in that case took place before the Court of Justice.

16 By order of 15 November 1989 the Court of Justice (First Chamber), pursuant to Article 14 of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities, referred the cases to the Court of First Instance, where they were registered as Cases T-33/89 and T-74/89 respectively.

17 On application by the applicant, and after requesting the defendant to submit its observations, on 22 February 1990 the Court of First Instance ordered the joinder of the cases for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment.

18 By order of 12 July 1990 the Court ordered the parties to appear in person. They did so at the hearing on 8 November 1990. In the light of the documents produced in the written procedure and the information received when the parties appeared in person, the Court considered it necessary to obtain an expert opinion and, by order of 1 July 1991, it appointed a panel of experts for this purpose. As the experts found it impossible to contact one another and failed to carry out the task entrusted to them by the Court, on 9 January 1992 it ordered that Dr Marc Boel and Jack Gillman be heard as witnesses. The witnesses were examined at the hearing on 25 March 1992.

— formally admit the action as having been brought within the prescribed time- limit;

— declare unlawful and annul the decision adopted by the President of the Social- ist Group of the European Parliament on 4 February 1988 refusing the appli- cant 100% reimbursement by the Joint Scheme of the costs of special paramed- ical education for his daughter incurred between May 1986 and August 1987;

— declare that the applicant is entitled to 100% reimbursement, in accordance with Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, of the medical and paramedical expenses relating to the serious illness of his daughter, for special paramedical courses followed by her;

— declare that the defendant must reimburse the applicant for the balance of 50% not met during the period in question;

— order the defendant to pay the arrears owed on the basis of the new calcula- tion;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

23 In Case T-74/89 the applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible;

— declare unlawful and annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority of the Parliament on 31 January 1989 expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint of 30 May 1988 and refusing to grant the prior authorization requested by the applicant on 18 October 1987 concerning the programme of educational ther- apy — remedial teaching to be followed by the applicant's daughter;

— declare that the applicant is entitled to 100% reimbursement of the medical and paramedical expenses incurred in 1987-1988 in respect of his daughter's serious illness, in accordance with Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations;

— declare that the defendant must reimburse all expenditure incurred by the appli- cant for the programme of educational therapy — remedial teaching followed by his daughter in 1987-1988, with interest from the date on which reimburse- ment fell due to the date of actual payment;

— order that this case be joined with Case T-33/89;

— in the further alternative, after declaring that the Court is not competent to take the place of the administration and to address directions to it, dismiss that part of the action as inadmissible;

— for the rest, declare the action admissible but unfounded;

— order the applicant to pay the costs.

Admissibility of the action in Case T-33/89

Arguments of the parties

25 The Parliament contends that this action is inadmissible. Firstly, observing that under Article 20(3) of the Insurance Rules the claims office accepts and processes applications for reimbursement, the Parliament points out that the memorandum of 23 May 1986 from the Brussels claims office informing the applicant that the sickness insurance fund would meet only 50% of the fees for the special courses taken by his daughter at the British School is the first measure adversely affecting

26 The applicant contends, firstly, that the memorandum of 23 May 1986 does not constitute a decision within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. According to him, it formed part of an exchange of correspondence between the administrative department of an institution and one of its officials regarding the question of his individual rights. The memorandum of 23 May 1986 should there- fore be regarded as administrative information within the meaning of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 17/78 Deshormes v Commission [1979] ECR 189, paragraph 23. Secondly, the applicant contends that although his complaint was originally addressed in error to the welfare service, that was done on the basis of information provided by the official in charge of that service. The applicant explained at the hearing that he had submitted his complaint on 5 June 1987 after telephoning the head of the welfare service to ask him how he should proceed and that he had been told to send his complaint to the welfare service, which would follow it up.

Findings of the Court

27 The Court observes that the effect of the combined provisions of Articles 90(2) and 91 of the Staff Regulations, to which Article 16 of the Insurance Rules refers and which, under Article 46 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, apply by analogy to temporary staff, is that, for an action under Article 179 of the EEC Treaty to be admissible, the contested act must adversely affect the applicant. The only acts which may be regarded as adversely affecting an individual are those which are capable of directly affecting a specific

30 The same applies to the later correspondence regarding the fees in question, as the new head of the Luxembourg claims office at first informed the applicant, by mem- orandum of 17 November 1987, that he had requested the Medical Officer's opin- ion and then, by memorandum of 9 March 1987, informed him of the decision taken on his application.

II-262

BLACKMAN v PARLIAMENT

31 It follows from these considerations as a whole that there is no foundation for the Parliament's argument that the memorandum of 23 May 1986 from the Brussels claims office in this case constitutes the first act adversely affecting the official, and that therefore a complaint concerning it should have been lodged within three months of notification.

II-263

JUDGMENT OF 16. 3. 1993 —JOINED CASES T-33/89 AND T-74/89

and the protection of legitimate expectations out of which the party's error arose (judgment of the Court of First Instance in Bayer v Commission, cited above).

35 In the present case the applicant already indicated in the complaint which he sent to the appointing authority on 29 June 1987 that he had lodged a complaint with the Parliament's welfare service on 5 June 1987 on the basis of information pro- vided by that service. At the hearing the applicant stated that he had sent his first complaint to the welfare service after telephoning the head of the service to ask him how to proceed and that he had been told to send the complaint to the welfare ser- vice, which would follow it up. However, the welfare service did not forward the complaint to the competent department, but merely returned it to the applicant. When the applicant learnt that it was not the welfare service, but the appointing authority, which was competent to entertain his complaint, he brought the matter before the appointing authority by a memorandum of 29 June 1987, which was registered on 8 July 1987.

36 In the light of the applicant's explanations, which are not contradicted by the Par- liament, the Court considers that the applicant's error as to the authority compe- tent to entertain his complaint is excusable and that his first complaint, which was submitted within the time-limit of three months laid down in the Staff Regulations, had the effect of extending his right to bring an action.

37 It follows that the plea of inadmissibility raised b y the Parliament must be dis- missed.

The plea of breach of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations

Arguments of the parties

39 The applicant contends that the appointing authority has, since 1983, consistently accepted that his daughter's illness is a serious illness within the meaning of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations and paragraph IV of Annex I to the Insurance Rules. He points out that for the period 1 September 1983 to 31 August 1986 the appoint- ing authority granted him 100% reimbursement of the medical fees connected with that illness, which, according to the applicant, included the fees for special educa- tional therapy courses such as those provided by various psychologists and special- ist teachers at Sibford School and the British School of Brussels. The medical, or at least paramedical, nature of these special courses is borne out by the numerous medical certificates annexed to the application to the Court. The applicant states that the special programme of remedial teaching, although consisting of various types of treatment divided into special courses, as a whole forms an overall therapy all the components of which are designed to improve his daughter's health.

'An official, ..., [and] his children ... are insured against sickness [for] up to 80% of the expenditure incurred ... [This rate] shall be increased to 100% in cases of tuber- culosis, poliomyelitis, cancer, mental illness and other illnesses recognized by the appointing authority as of comparable seriousness, and for early detection screen- ing and in cases of confinement ...'

In this connection Annex I to the Insurance Rules, entitled 'Rules Governing the Reimbursement of Medical Expenses', provides in paragraph IV, 'Special cases', that

'In cases of tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, cancer, mental illness and other illnesses recognized by the appointing authority as of comparable seriousness, expenses shall be reimbursed at the rate of 100%.

The appointing authority, or the office responsible for settling claims if the requi- site powers have been delegated to it by the said authority, shall take its decision after consulting the Medical Officer of that office, whose opinion shall be based on general criteria drawn up by the Medical Council.'

II - 266

BLACKMAN v PARLIAMENT

— regarding the component parts or elements of the programme:

'... the subjects of which the remedial teaching programme consisted were: geography, biology, human biology, physiology, home economy and nutrition.

II - 267

JUDGMENT OF 16. 3. 1993 - JOINED CASES T-33/89 AND T-74/89

Mathematics was one of the subjects of the remedial teaching programme. [The applicant's daughter] continued to study with her class: domestic science, history and English';

— regarding the persons carrying out the programme:

BLACKMAN v PARLIAMENT

48 These statements show that the applicant's daughter followed a programme of remedial teaching at the British School which was carried out on the sole respon- sibility of an educational psychologist attached to that school, that the teaching methods used were specially devised to help the applicant's daughter to overcome her specific difficulties and that the special teaching provided for her was given by two persons without medical training.

49 In these circumstances the Court considers that, as the programme in question was neither devised nor carried out by persons legally authorized to practise a medical or paramedical profession or by a duly recognized medical or paramedical institu- tion, the programme is not of a medical or paramedical nature. It follows that the claims office was justified in refusing to reimburse 100% of the fees for the pro- gramme and was not in breach of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations.

50 Consequently the first plea in law must be dismissed.

The plea of no legal basis for the contested decision, manifest error, misuse of pow- ers and lack of competence of the person who adopted the decision

Arguments of the parties

52 The Parliament does not deny that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations for reimbursement at 50%, but it points out that the decision is based on the opin- ion of the medical officer, according to whom 'as the special programme consists partly of remedial courses and partly of special treatment, the sickness insurance fund should meet 50% of the fees'. The Parliament argues further that, regarding the reimbursement of medical fees, the Staff Regulations make no provision for the consultation of specialist doctors and the fact that the decision was adopted con- trary to the opinion of such doctors is irrelevant. Furthermore, the fact that reim- bursement claims by officials of the Parliament are generally dealt with by the Luxembourg claims office in no way implies that the Brussels office is not compe- tent to deal with them. In the present case the latter took action because at the time there was no official at Luxembourg with authority to sign following the termina- tion of service of the previous head of the office.

Findings of the Court

unanimous opinions of the specialist doctors who were familiar with his daughter's specific case, the Court notes first (see above, paragraphs 43 and 53) that the appointing authority, by decision of 16 December 1986, acknowledged that his daughter's illness was a serious illness within the meaning of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations. To the extent that the applicant complains that the Parliament took no account of those opinions when it adopted the decision to recognize only 50% of the fees for the remedial teaching programme as medical fees, the Court considers that the applicant is unjustified because the Staff Regulations in question do not provide for the consultation of external specialist doctors. It should be added that the claims office sought the opinion of the Medical Council, which was informed of all the special features of the present case. For the rest, it should be observed that the concept of abuse or misuse of power has a precisely defined scope. It refers to cases where an administrative authority has used its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred on it (see the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 817/79 Buyl v Commission [1982] ECR 245). The Court has consistently held that a decision may amount to an abuse or misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective and consistent evidence, to have been taken for purposes other than those stated (see, for example, Case 69/83 Lux v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447). As the applicant has adduced no such evi- dence, it must be concluded that a misuse of powers has not been proved in the present case and the applicant's argument to that effect must be dismissed.

57 In his third plea the applicant claims that he is entitled to special reimbursement under Article 72(3) of the Staff Regulations. He contends that the conditions laid down in Article 72(3) of the Staff Regulations and Article 8(2) of the Insurance Rules are fulfilled. He states that the enrolment fees of the British School in Brus- sels amounted to BFR 325 000 for the academic year 1986-1987, while the allow- ances which he received for that period came to BFR 140 000. The remedial teach- ing programme cost an additional BFR 112 200 for 1986-1987. Half of this additional financial burden is BFR 56 100, so that the total fees paid by him in the twelve-month period were BFR 241 100, which is more than half of his basic sal- ary.

58 The Parliament observes that the applicant did not claim special reimbursement under Article 8(2) of the Insurance Rules and he cannot therefore complain that the appointing authority did not grant such reimbursement. Alternatively, the Par- liament disputes the applicant's calculation. Article 72(3) of the Staff Regulations refers only to expenditure which can be reimbursed under Article 72. It follows that the fees of the British School cannot be included in the calculation. The fees of BFR 56 100 paid by the applicant for the remedial teaching programme therefore do not exceed one half of his basic monthly salary.

Findings of the Court

59 The Court observes that, according to Article 8(2) of the Insurance Rules, in the version applicable at the material time, the administrative procedure for obtaining

II-272

BLACKMAN v PARLIAMENT

63 The Parliament, after pointing out in its statement of defence that the applicant did not specify the nature of his plea, observed in its rejoinder that any submissions by an applicant concerning an act adversely affecting him must relate to that act. For the year to which the act adversely affecting him relates (1986-1987), the reference to the specific heading in the budget for 1987-1988 is irrelevant and the applicant's complaint is devoid of purpose.

II - 273

JUDGMENT OF 16. 3. 1993 —JOINED CASES T-33/89 AND T-74/89

Findings of the Court

Case T-74/89

The admissibility of the applicant's claim that the Court should recognize his right to 100% reimbursement of the medical and paramedical expenses in connection with his child's serious illness, and the claim that the Court should recognize his right to reimbursement in full of the cost of the remedial teaching programme followed by his daughter

Arguments of the parties

66 The Parliament considers that the applicant's claim that the Court should acknowl- edge, in accordance with Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations, that he is entitled to

II - 274

BLACKMAN v PARLIAMENT

II-275

JUDGMENT OF 16. 3. 1993 —JOINED CASES T-33/89 AND T-74/89

Findings of the Court

70 By these claims the applicant seeks various declarations of principle from the Court which in reality seek recognition of his right to full reimbursement of the cost of the programme of remedial teaching for his daughter, and thus seeks to persuade the Court to issue directions here and now to the authority responsible for com- plying with the judgment to be given in the present case.

71 However, it is not for the Court, in the context of judicial review, to issue direc- tions to the Community authorities or to substitute its decision for that of those authorities. Accordingly these submissions must be declared inadmissible.

Substance

specified in that article. He observes that he was granted 100% reimbursement for an unbroken period of more than five years without the slightest reservation being expressed, and considers that no provision of the Staff Regulations can justify reversing a decision in this way.

74 The Parliament does not deny that the applicant is entitled to 100% reimburse- ment, in accordance with Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations, as specified in para- graph IV of Annex I to the Insurance Rules, but it stresses that reimbursement can be made only in respect of medical expenditure in accordance with the interpreta- tion proposed by the Management Committee for the Joint Scheme. Even if the expenses in question here could be described as being for 'services which are not mentioned in the Annexes', in the words of paragraph XV of Annex I, they could still only be reimbursed on the conditions laid down in each case by the Manage- ment Committee. The Parliament also observes that the possibility of reimburse- ment in respect of 'services which are not mentioned in the Annexes' in no way implies an obligation to do so. Referring to the judgment in Bayl, the Parliament observes that each decision to reimburse expenditure is adopted on the merits of the case and that past practice in the present case cannot bind the administration in so far as it gave no undertaking to the applicant to adhere to a certain rate of reim- bursement.

75 In its rejoinder the Parliament added that the reimbursement for 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 of 100% of the cost of the special courses for the applicant's daughter related to tuition at Sibford School, an institution well-known for the resources available to children with learning difficulties, particularly dyslexic problems. When the claims office refused, as from 1985-1986, to reimburse 100% of the cost of the special courses, the courses in question were provided at the British School of Brus- sels. In the light of the documents furnished by each of those schools, the claims office took the view that the British School, unlike Sibford School, was not a spe- cialist institution.

77 The Parliament replies that only point in issue is whether the disputed costs are medical expenses or not. The Parliament considers that they were not medical expenses within the meaning of Annex I to the Insurance Rules, according to the Management Committee's interpretation of the term. On the basis of eight docu- ments, including a certificate from Dr Judith Themen of Sibford School, a report and a certificate from Dr Marc Boel and documents produced by the applicant himself, the Parliament contends that the courses in question are technical and not medical. The Parliament adds that, according to the provisions for the interpreta- tion of the term 'medical expenses' adopted by the heads of administration on 10 September 1987, the treatments covered by that term 'must be administered by a person or persons legally authorized to exercise a medical or paramedical profes- sion or by approved medical or paramedical establishments'. The British School is not an approved medical or paramedical establishment and the information pro- vided by the applicant does not show that the treatment in issue was administered by a person or persons legally authorized to exercise a medical or paramedical pro- fession. The defendant also points out that the qualifications of the persons respon- sible in the present case for the programme of remedial teaching are not mentioned in Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recogni- tion of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medi- cine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establish- ment and the freedom to provide services (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 1).

80 The Court observes that the question underlying the first three pleas is essentially whether the cost of the remedial teaching programme for the applicant's daughter during 1987-1988 at the British School is medical expenditure within the meaning of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations and Annex I to the Insurance Rules. Con- sequently the three pleas must be examined together.

81 As the Court has judged that the remedial teaching programme taken by the appli- cant's daughter at the British School during 1986-1987 was not of a medical or paramedical nature (see above, paragraph 49), and as the applicant has not proved or even alleged that the programme for 1987-1988 was devised or organized dif- ferently, it must be concluded that the decision not to recognize the costs of the programme as expenditure covered by insurance against sickness within the mean- ing of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations is not mistaken in law or in fact.

II - 279

JUDGMENT OF 16. 3. 1993 —JOINED CASES T-33/89 AND T-74/89

82 With regard to the legality of the decision, in so far as the refusal to reimburse 100% of the expenditure in question constitutes a reversal of previous decisions, the Court considers that the appointing authority must, for every claim for reim- bursement, determine whether the conditions for reimbursement laid down in Arti- cle 72(1) of the Staff Regulations are satisfied by reference to the matters of fact and of law disclosed by the person concerned, without being bound by a previous decision adopted on the basis of different or less complete information.

opinions of Dr Marc Boel concerning the applicant's daughter and a document set- ting out the professional qualifications of the staff of the British School participat- ing in the special programme for the applicant's daughter. It follows that the Par- liament took the contested decision with full knowledge of the applicant's daughter's health and of the qualifications of the staff of the British School. There- fore the applicant's arguments in this respect must be dismissed.

86 It follows that the first three pleas relied on by the applicant must be dismissed.

— The plea of breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

Arguments of the parties

87 In the fourth plea the applicant alleges breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. He criticises the defendant for failing to draw his attention to the provisions for the interpretation of the term 'medical expenses' adopted by the heads of administration on 10 September 1987 so as to enable him to take the necessary measures to prove that the persons attending to his daughter were legally authorized to practise a medical or paramedical profession. He also considers that the competent authorities ought to have taken the appropriate steps to approve the British School. According to the applicant, the Parliament's failure to do so is a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations which an insti- tution should respect in relation to eveiy official.

88 The Parliament observes that the details of the medical or paramedical qualifica- tions of the persons involved in the special programme were given to the Medical Officer and were taken into consideration. It adds that only a medical or paramed- ical institution can be approved, which does not apply to the British School.

92 Consequently, the plea of breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot succeed.

II-282

BLACKMAN v PARLIAMENT

— The plea of breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of officials

Arguments of the parties

93 The applicant contends that the Parliament failed to fulfil its duty to have regard to his interests by simply cancelling the reimbursement of the expenses which he has to meet, while the financial burden resulting from the special courses for his daugh- ter is very heavy. He states that in 1987-1988 the total cost of the courses was BFR 198 000 and the basic school fees at the British School were BFR 341 000, whereas his basic monthly salary for July to December 1987 was BFR 312 226 and for Jan- uary to June 1988 BFR 326 697.

educational therapy which the applicant's daughter was to take in the 1987-1988 academic year.

96 It has consistently been held that the duty of the administration to have regard for the interests of its officials reflects the balance of the reciprocal rights and obliga- tions established by the Staff Regulations in the relationship between a public auth- ority and civil servants. That duty implies in particular that when such an authority takes a decision concerning the situation of an official, it should take into consid- eration all the factors which may affect its decision and that when doing so it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned (judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 321/85 Scbwiering v Court of Auditors [1986] ECR 3199, paragraph 18; judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-133/89 Burban v Parliament [1990] ECR II-245, paragraph 27). However, the protection of the rights and interests of officials must always be sub- ject to compliance with the legal rules in force (judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-123/89 Chomel v Commission [1990] ECR II-131, para- graph 32).

97 In the present case the appointing authority refused the applicant's request of 18 October 1987 for prior authorization regarding the programme of remedial teach- ing for his daughter in the 1987-1988 academic year on the ground, which the Court has judged legitimate, that in the light of the information available to the authority and on the basis of the provisions of the Staff Regulations in force it could not recognize the cost of that programme as expenditure covered by insur- ance against sickness within the meaning of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations. It follows that by adopting its decision in conformity with the rules in force, after carrying out a full appraisal of all the determining factors, the Parliament was not in breach of its duty to have regard to the applicant's interests.

100 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Article 88 of those Rules provides that in proceed- ings between the Communities and their servants the institutions are to bear their own costs. The parties should therefore be ordered to pay their own costs in both cases.

101 According to Article 91 in conjunction with Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure, witnesses' travel and subsistence expenses and compensation for their loss of earn- ings are regarded as recoverable costs. In the present case the applicant should be ordered to bear the costs in connection with the examination of witnesses.

On those grounds,

T H E COURT O F FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the actions;

H. Jung R. García-Valdecasas

Registrar President

II - 286