Judgment No. 2214
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
The complainant asked for the payment of the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 72 of the EPO's Service Regulations. The Tribunal gave "a definition of permanent or continuous residence". While this requires actual long-term presence in the country concerned, it does not necessarily exclude another residence. In judgment 1099 the Tribunal held that in order to establish whether the complainant met the condition of 'continuous residence' in the country of his duty station for at least three years prior to being recruited by the Office, it was necessary to determine whether there were "objective and factual links with that country". It added that: "what matters is that the complainant had to live, and did live [in that country]". It was not important to know whether the complainant had paid taxes there or whether, at the same time, he kept a home address at his former place of residence (see Judgment 1099, under 8). The status of the residence is not relevant either (see Judgment 1150). It is clear from the case law when residence must be deemed to have been interrupted, within the meaning of Article 72 of the Service Regulations. It is not sufficient for the person concerned to have stopped living in a particular country; he must in addition have intended to leave the country for some length of time."
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 72 OF THE SERVICE REGULATIONS FOR PERMANENT EMPLOYEES OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1099, 1150
place of origin; judgment of the tribunal; iloat; case law; staff regulations and rules; provision; assignment; duty station; period; appointment; residence; non-resident allowance; tax; staff member's duties; condition; definition; request by a party; same