(Appeal – Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 in Case T-205/02 Salvador García v Commission [2005] ECR-SC I‑A‑285 and II‑1311, seeking the annulment of that judgment.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Summary

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 113(2))

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))

1.It follows from Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 113(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, that, on appeal, an appellant may put forward any relevant argument, provided only that the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance is not changed in the appeal.

2.Even if the distribution of responsibilities at intra-State level varies according to the institutional make-up of each State, that State must be considered to be a unitary subject of public international law. In the light of that approach, it is essential that the State be represented, vis-à-vis other States and international organisations, by a system of a single diplomatic representation, which reflects the unitary nature of the State concerned, at international level.

Although it is not essential, in order for the official concerned to be considered to have worked for ‘another State’, that he should have been employed by the central administration of that State, his functional integration within the permanent representation of that State constitutes a decisive factor.

In that respect, both those who work for a State through the intermediary of its central administration and those who work for an autonomous community through its administration must be considered to be in a situation of expatriation within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as long as they are formally integrated into the permanent representation of the State.

Accordingly, for the purposes of interpreting the expression ‘work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the only fact to be considered relevant is that the work is done within a permanent representation of a State. Therefore, work done for governments of political subdivisions of States cannot be regarded as work done for a State if the person concerned has not been formally integrated into the permanent representation of the State. For the same reason, activity in the service of a publicly owned company falling within one of the categories of commercial undertakings cannot be considered to be work done for a State.

<br>