Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In order to give judgment in the action brought against the Commission by Claudia De Angelis, the Court will have to interpret Article 4 (1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and, more particularly, the last sentence thereof.

2. Until 1981, the final sentence of that provision was generally given a very broad interpretation, particularly for the benefit of the spouses and children of Community officials who were themselves recruited by one of the Community institutions.

3. Following the express rejection of her complaint against the application of that new practice in relation to her, Mrs De Angelis brought an action in which she claims that the Court should:

4. In support of her application, Mrs De Angelis maintains that the defendant's decision refusing to grant the expatriation allowance to her is contrary to :

5. In the applicant's view, the purpose of the expatriation allowance isto offset the difficulties and the inconvenience resulting from the status of alien which beset an official who does not intend to establish lasting ties with the country to which he has been posted by the international organization for which he works.

6. Secondly, Mrs De Angelis contends that the Commission continues to grant the expatriation allowance to officials recruited at the time at which the old interpretation of the provision in question was still followed. She contends that since the two situations are identical, the application of the same provision in different ways constitutes a breach of the principle of equal treatment of officials.

7. In her final submission the applicant alleges a breach of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers and, more particularly, of the provisions of the Council Directive of 10 February 1975. Mrs De Angelis considers that the restrictive interpretation which she is contesting leads to discrimination between male workers, who are free to carry on their occupation without delay, and female workers, who are subject to social and cultural pressure to raise their children until they have reached school-age and must therefore delay their careers by several years.

8. Consequently no purpose is served by examining the claim relating to the payment of interest by way of compensation.

1 Translated from the French.

2 127th meeting of the heads of department on 21 March 1980, Conclusion No 45/80 — Reference Document: RCA/127.

3 127th meeting of the heads of department on 21 March 1980, Conclusion No 45/80 — Reference Document: RCA/127.

4 Special Report of the Court of Auditors relating to the expatriation and foreign residence allowances, adopted on 4 February 1982 and dated 6 April 1982, p. 30, No 67.

5 Emphasis added.

6 Judgment of 20 February 1975 in Case 21/74 Airola v Commission [1975] ECR 221, p. 228, paragraph 8 of the decision; see also the judgment of 7 June 1972 in Case 20/71 Sabbatini v European Parliament [1972] ECR 345, p. 351, paragraph 8 of the decision.

7 Judgment of 12 January 1973 in Case 13/73 Angenieux v Hackenbag [1973] ECR 935, p. 951, paragraph 32 of the decision; judgment of 17 February 1977 in Case 76/76 Di Paulo v Office National de l'Emploi [1977] ECR 315.

8 Judgment of 9 March 1978 in Case 54/77 Herpels v Commission [1978] ECR 585, paragraphs 31 and 32 of the decision.

9 Judgment of 15 January 1981 in Case 1322/79 Vutera v Commission [1981] ECR 127, paragraph i of the decision.

10 Judgment of 9 October 1984 in Case 188/83 Witte v European Parliament [1984] ECR 3465, paragraph 15 of the decision.

11 Judgment of 20 March 1984 in Joined Cases 75/82 and 117/82 Razzouk and Beydoun v Commission [1984] ECR 1509.