Opinion of Mrs Advocate General Rozès delivered on 30 june 1983

1 Translated from the French.

2 The wording of che ECSC Staff Regulations of 1962 was identical in that respect.

3 By Regulations Nos 30 (EEC) and 4 (Euratom) of 16.3.1965; the ECSC Staff Regulations were amended in the same manner.

4 By Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC), No 259/68 of 29.2.1968.

5 By Article 52 of Regulation No 1473/72 of 30.6.1972.

6 Of 18.3.1975.

7 That exception is intended to apply to officials of Luxembourg nationality whose country does not provide a full range of university studies.

8 Apart from the addition of the final words referred to above the changes comprise: First, the replacement of the words educational establishment of university level by the words establishment of higher education ; Secondly, the replacement of the words country of origin by the words country of which he is a national or working in his language.

9 Published in Administrative Information No 153 of 2.5.1977, pp. 25 to 28.

10 The final indent of Article 1 (2) b of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 372/82 of 15.2.1982.

11 For example: judgment of the Court of 25.10.1978 in Case 125/77 Koninklijke Scholten-Honig [1978] ECR 1991, paragraph 27 at p. 2003; judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of 15.12.1982 in Case 5/82 Maizena [1982] ECR 4607, paragraphs 16 and 17; judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of 23.2.1983 in Case 8/82 Wagner [1983] ECR 387, paragraphs 18 and 19.

12 As was stated in the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court in Case 20/71 Luisa Sabbatini, née Bertoni, v European Parliament [1972] ECR 345, paragraph 13 at p. 351.

13 As was stated in the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court in Case 156/78 Newth v Commission of the European Communities [1979] ECR 1941, paragraph 13 at pp. 1952 and 1953.

14 As was stated in the judgment of the Second Chamber of 16.10.1980 in Case 147/79 Hochstrass v Court of Justice of the European Communities [1980] ECR 3005, paragraphs 13 and 14 at pp. 3020 and 3021, and in the judgment of the Second Chamber of 15.1.1981 in Case 1322/79 Vutera v Commission of the European Communities [1981] ECR 127, paragraph 9 at p. 138.

15 Judgement of the First Chamber of the Court of 27.11.1980 in Joined Cases 81, 82 and 146/79 Sorasio and Others v Commission of the European Communities [1980] ECR 3557, paragraph 15 at pp. 3571 and 3572.

16 It must be recalled that at Ispra in 1981-82 36 children of officials entitled to the expatriation allowance studied in Italy whilst 147 returned to their country of origin, which amounts to a ratio of approximately 1 -4 (to be precise 4.08333).

17 It is possible to add to the figures already given that only four children of 1050 officials and temporary staff at Ispra who were Italian nationals were undertaking higher education outside Italy.

18 Judgment in Hochstrass, cited above, paragraph 14 at p. 3021.

19 Judgment in Vutera, cited above, paragraph 9 at p. 138.

20 Thus Mr Carraro (Case 305/81), an Italian national, was entitled to the expatriation allowance and was in receipt of the double education allowance in respect of his daughter who was registered at the University of Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, as long as he was employed at the Geel branch of the Joint Research Centre. On being transferred to Ispra at the beginning of December 1980 he no longer received the expatriation allowance or therefore the double education allowance although his daughter continued her studies in Belgium.

21 For example, because he has worked for a private organization in that country, even if he has not resided there, for a period of five years ended six months before he entered the service — second indent of Article 4 (1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.