Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The Court is called upon to interpret the concept of basic salary, used in Article 11 (3) of the Staff Regulations and in Article 8 (2) of the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities. The problem arises with regard to the calculation of the special reimbursement of medical expenditure provided for in those provisions. The question which must be decided is essentially whether, in calculating the amount of the basic salary, account must be taken of the effect of weighting on the amounts set out in the table contained in Article 66 of the Staff Regulations.

2. The Staff Regulations deal with basic salary in Article 62, which is the first article in Title V, Chapter 1, Section 1, but which states merely that basic salary is one of the three components of remuneration (the others being family allowances and other allowances). A table of basic monthly salaries for each grade and step is to be found in Article 66.

3. Let us now turn to the essential point of the case: is the concept of basis salary to be defined as including or excluding the weightings provided for in Article 64?

4. The Commission, in its defence, opposes that argument primarily by a literal interpretation of the said provisions. It contends that Article 72 (3) of the Staff Regulations and Article 8 (2) of the Rules mention solely basic salary. The amount of the latter is independent of the weighting provided for in Article 64 which applies to officials' remuneration, that is, to the sum of the basic salary, family allowances and other allowances.

5. The Commission objects also that the expression basic salary may have different meanings according to the provision in which it is found. In particular, the defendant institution contends, with a view to excluding special reimbursements from the scope of geographical weighting, that the purpose of the sickness insurance scheme is merely to reimburse expenditure actually incurred. It is not intended to guarantee parity of the purchasing power of remuneration.

6. For the reasons set out above, I propose that the Court grant the relief sought by Marinus C. Ooms against the Commission of the European Communities by application of 14 June 1983 and therefore:

1 Translated from the Italian.