JUDGMENT OF 19.3.64 — CASE 11/63 LEPAPE V HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 11/63

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: A. Trabucchi, President, L. Delvaux and W. Strauß (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Fact

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Removal expenses (claim for 13800 Belgian francs)

2. Mission expenses

A — In general

B — Data of various journeys

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

I — Removal expenses

II — Mission expenses

1. General observations

2. Examination of the different missions

A — Missions relating to numbers 1 and 5 to 9 of the statement (claim for 4615 Belgian francs, reduced to 4246 Belgian francs in the reply)

B — Missions relating to Nos 10 to 13 of the statement (claim for 2918 Belgian francs, increased to 2968 Belgian francs in the reply)

C — Journeys on mission relating to nos 14, 15, and 16 of the statement (claim for 16009 Belgian francs, reduced to 3645 Bfrs in the reply)

D — Journeys on mission relating to Nos 18 and 19 of the statement; journey on mission from 2 to 6 (or 7) April 1962 (claim for 2943 Belgian francs, reduced to 2942 Belgian francs)

III — Costs

I —. Fact

1. The applicant has been employed by the defendant since 1953. During the period with which the present application is concerned (1959 to 1962), he was a member of the inspection group, later named Inspection Directorate, and in this capacity he was charged with the checks involving undertakings coming under the jurisdiction of the ECSC. This required him to make frequent journeys for which he often used his own car. For some of these missions, or for parts of them, a difference arose between the parties in particular as to whether the travel expenses should be calculated on the basis of the rail fare (as the defendant considers) or at the rate of 3 Belgian francs per kilometre travelled by car (as the applicant thinks); reimbursement on that latter basis is hereinafter referred to as the rate per kilometre.

2. In December 1960 at the latest, the applicant learned that the defendant intended to transfer him from Luxembourg to Brussels.

3. The applicant states that he moved from Luxembourg to Brussels on 22 April 1961.

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Removal expenses (claim for 13800 Belgian francs)

2. Mission expenses

A —. In general

B —. Data of various journeys

(a). Missions undertaken between 1 July 1959 and 31 December 1960 (claim for 4615 Belgian francs, reduced in the reply to 4246 Belgian francs).

(b). Missions undertaken between the end of December 1960 and the end of January 1961 (claim for 2918 Belgian francs, increased in the reply to 2968 Belgian francs)

(c). Missions undertaken between 1 March and 17 April 1961 (claim for 16009 Belgian francs, reduced in the reply to 3645 Belgian francs)

(d). Missions undertaken after 17 April 1961 (claim for 2943 Belgian francs, reduced to 2942 Belgian francs)

IV —. Procedure

I —. Removal expenses

1. Under the terms of the first, second and third sentences of Article 15 (a) of the former Staff Regulations of the ECSC of 1 July 1956, in the version adopted by the Committee of Chairmen on 21 November 1960, The expenses incurred in respect of removal of furniture and personal effects … shall be reimbursed … to officials. Such reimbursement shall not exceed the amount of an estimate approved in advance. Not less than two estimates shall be submitted to the appropriate department of the institution.

2. The literal interpretation of the provision quoted above does not give any definite answer. Its first sentence appears to accord an official an unconditional right. On the other hand the second sentence appears to exclude that right in cases where the official does not submit the estimates in advance. Therefore the interpretation must be based on the meaning and aim of that provision.

3. By letter of 16 June 1961, the applicant declared to the administration of the High Authority, I have requested written confirmation of the quotations submitted to me in December 1960 by carriers in Luxembourg and Brussels. As you will see, I have in the end taken the lowest estimate. These documents will be sent to you as soon as I receive them.

II —. Mission expenses

1. General observations

(a). In his written reply to the questions put by the Court, as well as in his statements at the hearing, the applicant declared that he concurred in restricting the dispute to the question whether the mission expenses incurred for certain journeys on mission, or for parts of journeys on mission, must be reimbursed on the basis of the rail fare, or in accordance with the rate of 3 Belgian francs per kilometre covered by private motor car (rate per kilometre).

(b). In the opinion of the applicant, the statement own car inserted in his travel orders is sufficient by itself to entitle him to the rate per kilometre.

2. Examination of the different missions

A —. Missions relating to numbers 1 and 5 to 9 of the statement (claim for 4615 Belgian francs, reduced to 4246 Belgian francs in the reply)

(a). These missions must be examined in accordance with Articles 17 (d) and 13 (d) of the former Staff Regulations of the ECSC, in its original version. The latter provision lays down in particular: If the calculations cannot be effected on that basis, a special decision of the appointing authority shall fix the means of reimbursement.

(b). It is true that these provisions do not show clearly whether the granting of a rate per kilometre should be excluded ipso jure when the travel order does not provide for any outward and return journey in the neighbourhood of the mission centre, but only for journeys between the place of employment and one or more large towns with good rail connexions. However such provisions must certainly be interpreted as authorizing the reimbursement at the rate per kilometre, in such cases, only in special situations and on the basis of detailed evidence.

(c). The missions listed under Nos 5 and 6 of the statement related to an outward and return journey between the place of employment (Luxembourg) and Brussels and, moreover, outward and return journeys between Brussels and The Hague and journeys within the industrial regions of which Brussels is the centre.

B —. Missions relating to Nos 10 to 13 of the statement (claim for 2918 Belgian francs, increased to 2968 Belgian francs in the reply)

(a). The High Authority states that, from its point of view, the applicant can only claim the amount of 2920 Belgian francs, since the distances covered must be calculated in accordance with official road maps.

(b). There are at issue four double journeys between Luxembourg and Brussels for which the applicant was obliged to use his private car because of the strike on the Belgian railways.

C —. Journeys on mission relating to nos 14, 15, and 16 of the statement (claim for 16009 Belgian francs, reduced to 3645 Bfrs in the reply)

(a). In its statement of defence, the High Authority recognized the original claim of the applicant for reimbursement of 12364 Belgian francs to be well founded.

(b). With regard to the journey appearing in the statement under No 16, the dispute between the parties turns in addition on the question whether the cost of the return journey from Brussels to Luxembourg should be reimbursed, despite the fact that the applicant had in the meantime been informed of his transfer to Brussels.

(c). All the journeys on mission in question relate to travel between Luxembourg and Brussels and between Brussels and different industrial regions.

(d). Consequently, one of the conditions for reimbursement at the rate per kilometre was the finding that reimbursement in accordance with the rail fare clearly covered only a part of the actual mission expenses.

(e). In accordance with the above-mentioned provisions, another condition for reimbursement at the rate per kilometre was that the immediate superior of the servant concerned certifies with reasons on the travel order the need, for reasons of service, to use a private car.

D —. Journeys on mission relating to Nos 18 and 19 of the statement; journey on mission from 2 to 6 (or 7) April 1962 (claim for 2943 Belgian francs, reduced to 2942 Belgian francs)

III —. Costs

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community, especially Article 32; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of the European Coal and Steel Community of 1 July 1956, especially: Articles 13 (d) and 17 (d) in the original version; Articles 15 (a) and 17 (d) in the version emerging from the decisions of the Committee of Chairmen of 21 November 1960, which entered into force on1 December 1960; Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Coal and Steel Community of 1 January 1962, especially Annex VII, Article 12 (1) and (4): Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69 and 70; Having regard to the opinions of the administrative committee of the High Authority of 3 May 1957 and 20 February 1961, approved by the President of the High Authority and relating to the reimbursement of travel expenses of the officials of the inspection group or of the Inspection Directorate; THE COURT (First Chamber) hereby:

1 (a) Takes note of the High Authority's offer to pay to the applicant, in full and final settlement, the sum of 12364 Belgian francs, which, according to the information provided by the High Authority, results from the amendments to the accounts of the mission expenses for the journeys on mission undertaken by the applicant between 1 March and 17 April 1961; (b) Orders the High Authority to pay to the applicant, on the amount mentioned in subparagraph (a) above, interest at the rate of 4.5 % from the date on which the application was made up to the date on which the sum due is actually paid;

(a) Takes note of the High Authority's offer to pay to the applicant, in full and final settlement, the sum of 12364 Belgian francs, which, according to the information provided by the High Authority, results from the amendments to the accounts of the mission expenses for the journeys on mission undertaken by the applicant between 1 March and 17 April 1961;

(b) Orders the High Authority to pay to the applicant, on the amount mentioned in subparagraph (a) above, interest at the rate of 4.5 % from the date on which the application was made up to the date on which the sum due is actually paid;

2 Orders the High Authority to pay to the applicant the sum of 2920 Belgian francs together with interest at 4.5 % from the date on which the application was made up to the date of payment;

3 Dismisses the remaining conclusions of the application as unfounded;

4 Orders the High Authority to bear its own costs and one half of the costs incurred by the applicant who shall bear the other half of his own costs.