{"id":19012,"date":"2026-04-16T17:40:49","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T15:40:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.daldewolf.com\/?p=19012"},"modified":"2026-04-16T17:40:49","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T15:40:49","slug":"the-officil-march-2026-issue-109","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.daldewolf.com\/en\/the-officil-march-2026-issue-109\/","title":{"rendered":"THE OFFICI@L \u2013 March 2026 \u2013 Issue 109"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div><\/div>

The OFFICI@L – Issue 109 – March 2026, 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 Reader,<\/em><\/p>\n

This month, we are pleased to present an article exploring the distinctions between the \u201crecovery of undue payments\u201d and the \u201cfinancial liability\u201d of officials and other staff members<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

We will then comment on a recent judgment of the General Court of the European Union concerning the liability of the European Union as an employer and the related claims for compensation<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Finally, our \u201cBelgian Law\u201d section will address Belgian tax obligations and remedies against municipal surcharges applicable to non\u2011resident income tax<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

And you \u2014 what topic matters most to you?<\/em><\/p>\n

A forthcoming issue of The Official may take a closer look at it for you!<\/em><\/p>\n

We look forward to receiving your suggestions at: theofficial@daldewolf.com<\/a>.<\/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 – LUCIE MARCHAL – CELIA ANDR\u00c9 – PAULINE BAUDOUX – TELMA BONNENFANT – 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 – When the Institution Seeks to Recover Money from You: Undue Payment Recovery or Financial Liability?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Many officials and agents have questions about the difference between \u201crecovery of undue payments\u201d and \u201cfinancial liability\u201d, as these two mechanisms may appear to overlap. However, these two legal mechanisms are in fact clearly distinct.<\/p>\n

This article therefore aims to present, in a structured manner, the differences between these two legal concepts.<\/p>\n

With regard to the recovery of undue payments<\/u>, this concept is governed by Article 85 of the Staff Regulations (also applicable to other staff members pursuant to Article 116 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants \u2013 CEOS), which provides that \u201cAny sum overpaid shall be recovered if the recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such that he could not have been unaware of it<\/em>.\u201d This provision thus establishes a system for the recovery of undue payments based on the existence of an irregular payment of sums deemed to be due to the official under Title V of the Staff Regulations, which concerns the official\u2019s remuneration and social benefits (General Court, judgment of 11 November 2020, AV and AW v Parliament<\/em>, T\u2011173\/19, paragraph 84).<\/p>\n

According to the case-law, recovery of undue payments by the administration requires proof that a sum or financial advantage was irregularly paid to the official or staff member concerned and that the latter had actual knowledge of that irregularity, or that it was so obvious that he or she could not have been unaware of it.<\/p>\n

In this regard, the EU judge has clarified that the expression \u201cso obvious\u201d, characterising the irregularity of the payment, does not mean that the official or agent who benefited from the undue payment is relieved of any effort of reflection or verification. Rather, it means that repayment is required where the error is one that would not escape a normally attentive and diligent official or agent, who is deemed to know the rules governing his or her salary and the rules generally applicable to him or her. In the absence of proof of such knowledge in the context of a dispute, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in order to determine whether the irregularity was manifest (General Court, judgment of 15 December 2021, HG v Commission<\/em>, T\u2011693\/16 P\u2011RENV\u2011RX, paragraph 112; General Court, judgment of 8 September 2017, Gillet v Commission<\/em>, T\u2011578\/16, paragraphs 96\u201397).<\/p>\n

By way of illustration, where an official receives remuneration higher than that to which he or she is normally entitled, without any change in his or her administrative situation, this constitutes an error attributable to the administration. Nevertheless, the official remains obliged to repay the overpaid amount, since he or she is deemed to know the exact amount of his or her remuneration.<\/p>\n

As regards time limits, Article 85 of the Staff Regulations provides that the administration may request repayment of sums wrongly paid within a period of five years from the date of payment. However, this limitation period does not apply where the person concerned has deliberately misled the appointing authority, in particular by omitting important personal information or by providing incorrect information (General Court, judgment of 11 November 2020, AV and AW v Parliament<\/em>, T\u2011173\/19, paragraph 106).<\/p>\n

The decision relating to the recovery of undue payments may be adopted, where appropriate, after the appointing authority has enabled the official or staff member to exercise his or her right to be heard, and once the conditions laid down in Article 85 are met (General Court, judgment of 15 December 2021, HG v Commission<\/em>, T\u2011693\/16 P\u2011RENV\u2011RX, paragraph 112).<\/p>\n

As regards the financial liability of the official or agent<\/u>, it is governed by Article 22 of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of the CEOS. This provision establishes a liability regime aimed at obtaining compensation for the damage suffered by the European Union in the event of serious personal misconduct committed by an official in the performance of his or her duties or in connection therewith. Its scope is broader than that of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, since the financial liability of the official may relate not only to payments received in error, but also to amounts unlawfully incurred by the Union as a result of the official\u2019s fault (General Court, judgment of 26 June 2024, UA v AUEA<\/em>, T\u20113\/23).<\/p>\n

In this context, the appointing authority may adopt a decision relating to financial liability under Article 22 of the Staff Regulations only after strict compliance with the required disciplinary procedures. This notably entails establishing the existence of serious misconduct, generally following a preliminary investigation, disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Board, and a final adversarial phase with the appointing authority, in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations (General Court, judgment of 15 December 2021, HG v Commission<\/em>, T\u2011693\/16 P\u2011RENV\u2011RX, paragraph 112).<\/p>\n

In this regard, the EU judge has specified that, in order to characterise \u201cserious personal misconduct\u201d, the appointing authority must examine the circumstances and may not merely find that the official or staff member concerned has breached rules or obligations (General Court, judgment of 15 December 2021, HG v Commission<\/em>, T\u2011693\/16 P\u2011RENV\u2011RX, paragraph 99).<\/p>\n

As regards the limitation period for initiating financial liability proceedings against an official or staff member, Article 22 of the Staff Regulations does not contain any explicit indication. However, reference should be made to Regulation (EU) financial Regulation No 2024\/2509 of 23 September 2024. Article 105(2) thereof provides for a limitation period of five years from the date on which the official\u2019s or staff member\u2019s debt becomes due.<\/p>\n

In summary, the conditions for the application of Articles 85 and 22 of the Staff Regulations differ significantly. Article 85 merely requires proof that an irregular advantage was granted and that the official was aware of it or should have been aware of it. By contrast, Article 22 requires the establishment of serious personal misconduct giving rise to damage, and its conditions of application are more stringent, as the administration must comply with the procedural formalities laid down in disciplinary matters.<\/p>\n<\/div>