{"id":17471,"date":"2025-07-02T15:05:14","date_gmt":"2025-07-02T13:05:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.daldewolf.com\/?p=17471"},"modified":"2025-07-02T15:05:14","modified_gmt":"2025-07-02T13:05:14","slug":"the-officil-june-2025-issue-103","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.daldewolf.com\/en\/the-officil-june-2025-issue-103\/","title":{"rendered":"THE OFFICI@L \u2013 June 2025 \u2013 Issue 103"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div><\/div>

The OFFICI@L – Issue 103 – June 2025, our newsletter dedicated to European Union officials, has just been published. It is available in both French and English.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>

Editorial<\/h1>\n

Dear Readers,<\/em><\/p>\n

For this final issue before our summer break, we are offering a focus<\/a> on the main privileges and immunities granted to European Union officials<\/a>. We will also revisit the K et al. v. Council judgment, which annulled a non-promotion decision due to non-compliance with the guiding promotion rates<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

In our “Belgian Law<\/a>” section, we will discuss the practical application of Regulation No. 261\/2004 on passenger rights in cases of denied boarding, flight cancellations, or long delays<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

This newsletter is also yours, and we welcome all your suggestions for future editions. Feel free to contact us by email: <\/em>theofficial@daldewolf.com<\/em><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

We wish you a wonderful summer and look forward to seeing you again in September!<\/em><\/p>\n

The DALDEWOLF team<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

\"\"<\/div><\/div>

DALDEWOLF<\/strong>
\n– European Union Law and Human Rights<\/strong><\/em>
\nTHIERRY BONTINCK – ANA\u00cfS GUILLERME – MARIANNE BR\u00c9SART – LAURA JAKOBS – LUCIE MARCHAL – LOUISE BOUCHET – SABRINA NAPOLITANO – FEDERICO PATUELLI
\n– Belgian Law<\/strong><\/em>
\nDOMINIQUE BOGAERT<\/p>\n

in partnership with PERSPECTIVES law firm<\/strong>:
\n– Family Law<\/strong><\/em>
\nCANDICE FASTREZ<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>
<\/div>

Focus – Overview of Privileges and Immunities<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The privileges and immunities granted to officials and other agents of the European Union, governed by Protocol No. 7 on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) annexed to the Treaties, as well as Article 23 of the Staff Regulations, are intended to ensure the independence of staff members and the proper functioning of the European Union. These provisions apply exclusively in the interest of the Union and in no way exempt officials from their private obligations or from complying with applicable laws and regulations.<\/p>\n

Jurisdictional Immunity<\/h3>\n

Article 11 of the PPI grants EU staff immunity from legal proceedings for acts performed and for words or writings spoken or written in the exercise of their official duties, regardless of their nationality. This immunity aims to guarantee the independence necessary for fulfilling their duties and continues even after their service has ceased.<\/p>\n

However, this immunity is not absolute. Article 17 of the PPI provides that the relevant institution may waive immunity if doing so does not prejudice the interests of the Union. For example, in case C\u20113\/20 (LR Generalprokurat\u016bra<\/em>), the Court of Justice of the EU clarified that the immunity provided under Article 11 of the PPI is not an absolute bar to criminal proceedings, provided national authorities request the lifting of immunity beforehand.<\/p>\n

Tax Exemption<\/h3>\n

Tax exemption for salaries, wages, and emoluments paid by the EU is provided under Article 12 of the PPI. These incomes are subject to a specific internal EU tax and are separate from national taxation systems.<\/p>\n

In case C-558\/10 (Bourges-Maunoury and Heintz), the Court ruled that Member States may not include such remuneration when calculating national tax thresholds (e.g., wealth tax), as this would amount to indirect taxation of EU-exclusive income.<\/p>\n

However, this exemption does not apply to other income from national sources\u2014such as rental income, inheritance, or self-employment\u2014which remains subject to the tax laws of the Member State concerned. In case C-349\/14 (Pazdziej), the Court ruled that EU salaries may be considered for calculating housing tax in France since that tax is based on household composition rather than directly on income.<\/p>\n

The exemption also extends to certain aspects of social security. In case C-415\/22 (Acerta \u2013 Social Insurance Fund), a retired EU official who began a self-employed activity in Belgium was required to contribute to the national social security system. The CJEU ruled this affiliation incompatible with the PPI, as the person remained covered by the EU’s social security system (JSIS). However, income from the self-employed activity remains taxable at national level.<\/p>\n

Mobility and Administrative Facilities<\/h3>\n

To promote mobility within the EU, officials and agents enjoy reduced administrative burdens. Article 11(b) of the PPI exempts them from immigration and registration formalities in the host Member State.<\/p>\n

For example, the Court sanctioned Belgium for imposing a tax related to non-registration in population registers (Commission v. Belgium<\/em>, Case 85\/85).<\/p>\n

Some material benefits are also provided. Upon arrival, officials may import their personal vehicle into their country of assignment without additional costs, in accordance with internal market rules. In some institutions, officials may also benefit from a VAT exemption on purchases made during their first year.<\/p>\n

Limits of Privileges and Immunities<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, EU officials are not exempt from national law in their private lives. According to Article 23 of the Staff Regulations, these protections serve only the Union’s interest and do not exempt officials from compliance with national laws or personal obligations.<\/p>\n

National courts retain jurisdiction in matters such as family or civil law. In case Kallianos v. Commission<\/em> (T-93\/04), a Belgian court ordered an official to pay monthly maintenance to an ex-spouse. The institution was authorised to deduct the amount from the official\u2019s pension, acting in this case as a regular employer.<\/p>\n

The same principle applies to civil debts, unpaid rent, or other contractual obligations. In such cases, officials are fully subject to national laws. If the institution is involved as a third party to execute a court decision, it can only invoke immunity if enforcement would impair the functioning of the Union. In the absence of such risk, the institution must allow the judgment\u2019s enforcement, as any employer would.<\/p>\n<\/div>