Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 19 February 1992

1 Original language: French.

2 Judgment in Case T-75/89 Brems v Council [1990] ECR II-899.

3 Emphasis added.

4 Pursuant to Article 2(3)(b): child under 26 years of age receiving educational training.

5 Annex 3 to the defence in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

6 As above, Annex 4.

7 As above, Annex 5.

8 As above, Annex 6.

9 As above, Annex 9.

10 Subject to deduction of certain amounts.

11 Paragraph 23 of the judgment appealed against.

12 As above, paragraph 24.

13 As above.

14 As above, paragraph 25.

15 As above, paragraph 26.

16 As above.

17 As above, paragraph 27.

18 As above, paragraphs 29 and 30.

19 As above, paragraph 31.

20 Paragraph 4 of the appeal.

21 See the wording: paragraph (3) sutes The allowance shall be granted: (a) automatically (...) (b) on application with supporting evidence (...), and paragraph 5 provides payment of the allowance (...) shall continue. See also the observations made in the statement of defence before the Court of First Instance, p. 9.

22 Paragraph 23 of the contested judgment. The term had previously been used by the Court in the judgment in Case 65/83 Er Jini v Council [1984] ECR 211 with reference to Article l(2)(c) of Annex VII, laying down the conditions for the award of a household allowance.

23 See also the wording of paragraph (4): Any person ... may ... be treated as if he were a dependent child by special reasoned decision of the appointing authority ....

24 Judgment in Case 46/71 Brandau v Council [1972] ECR 373.

25 Paragraphs 8 and 9; emphasis added.

26 See judgment in Case 339/85 Brunotti v Commission [1988] ECR 1379.

27 Since the child is actually a dependant.

28 And because the official is responsible for his maintenance.

29 Cited above, at paragraph 9.

30 Case 6/74 Moulijn v Commission [1974] ECR 1287.

31 Paragraphs 12 and 13; emphasis added.

32 See paragraph 4 of the Moulijn judgment, cited above.

33 In other words, a person other than the minor child and the child aged under 26 who is receiving training.

34 Contested judgment, paragraph 25.

35 Judgment in Joined Cases 19/63 and 65/63 Prakash v Commission of the EAEC [1965] ECR 533.

36 Judgment in Case 16/64 Rauch v Commission [1965] ECR 135.

37 For example, the first paragraph of Article 2: Each institution shall determine ....

38 See judgment in Case 86/77 Ditterich v Commission [1978] ECR 1862.

39 Cited above.

40 Judgment cited above, paragraphs 11 to 14; emphasis added.

41 That is to say, as far as those aged up to 26 were concerned.

42 Unless the official had a legal responsibility to maintain them.

43 Judgment cited above (at page 385).