JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

7 March 1996

Case T-362/94

Jan Robert de Rijk

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for officials posted outside the Communities — Procedure for reimbursement of medical expenses’

Full text in French   II-365

Application for:

the annulment of a Commission decision refusing the reimbursement of the full difference between the total amount of medical expenses incurred for a dependent child and the sums paid by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the institutions of the European Communities.

Decision:

Dismissal.

Abstract of the Judgment

The applicant is a Commission official assigned to its delegation to Finland. In the summer of 1993 he incurred expenses for medical care given to his son in Belgium where the latter is habitually resident. The applicant obtained reimbursement for these expenses under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the institutions of the European Communities but the Commission refused to pay him the balance under Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations applicable to officials of the European Communities (Staff Regulations).

Law

The dispute turns on the question whether full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on behalf of a dependent child of an official posted outside the Community is dependent solely on the official's being posted outside the Community or whether it is also dependent on the child's having his permanent residence in the country where the official is posted.

In interpreting a provision of Community law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objects of the rules of which it is part (paragraph 32).

See: 140/77 Verhaafv Commission [1978] ECR 2117, para. 18; 292/82 Merck [1983] ECR 3781, para. 12; 337/82 St Nikolaus Brennerei [1984] ECR 1051, para. 10; C-314/91 Weber v Parliament [1993] ECR I-1093, para. 15

Moreover, an assessment should be made of the extent to which the various interpretations possible are compatible with the provisions of the Treaty and the general principles of Community law, in particular the principle of proportionality and the principle of nondiscrimination (paragraph 32).

Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, whose wording does not accurately convey the intention of the legislature, finds justification for its existence solely to the extent that the specific disadvantages which prompted the setting up of an alternative compensation scheme exist. It is only necessary to apply the supplementary reimbursement scheme provided for by that article in the case of persons residing in a third country. On the other hand, where the medical expenses were incurred by an official posted to a third country on behalf of a person dependent on him who is habitually resident within the Community, the general regime laid down in Article 72 of the Staff Regulations applies, since, in that case, the disadvantages for which the legislature is seeking to compensate do not exist (paragraph 34).

The fact that, for reasons of manageable administration, the legislature chose not to limit the application of Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations to those countries where medical expenses or risks were, in practice, greater than within the Community, does not affect the objective of that article as described above (paragraph 35).

Any other interpretation of Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations would be incompatible with the principle of nondiscrimination, since, if the person receiving medical care is not exposed to the disadvantages associated with the posting of the official under whom he is insured, the situation of an official posted to a third country is the same, from the point of view of sickness insurance, as that of an official posted within the Community and the same rules should therefore be applied to the former as to the latter, namely, Article 72 of the Staff Regulations (paragraph 36).

The fact that, unlike their colleagues posted within the Community, officials posted to third countries pay a special premium for this supplementary insurance, does not invalidate that analysis. It follows from the objective of Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations that this special premium is intended partially to cover the risks arising from their presence in the country where they are posted and not to cover the risks common to all officials (paragraph 37).

Accordingly, Article 2(2) of the general implementing provisions of Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations is not contrary to the latter article and should not be declared unlawful (paragraph 38).

As the medical expenses in issue were incurred on behalf of a child habitually resident within the territory of a State of the Community, they cannot entitle the applicant to the supplementary reimbursement provided for in Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations (paragraph 39).

Operative part:

The application is dismissed.