For colleagues approaching retirement, questions concerning the relocation allowance and the applicable correction coefficient can have a significant financial impact. The recent judgment from 3 June 2026 (Case T-662/24, GW v Commission) of the General Court of the European Union is therefore relevant. It clarifies how the concept of “residence” is assessed under the staff regulations and what evidence staff may need to demonstrate that their main or habitual residence has genuinely been transferred to another Member State.
The case
The case concerned a retired Commission official who claimed a relocation allowance and the corresponding correction coefficient for Sweden. The Commission refused the claim and sought recovery of amounts that had previously been paid, considering that the official had not demonstrated that he had actually transferred his residence from Belgium to Sweden.
The General Court dismissed the applicant’s action and upheld the Commission’s decisions.
Residence under EU staff rules is an autonomous concept
The Court recalled that the concept of “residence” under the Staff Regulations is specific to the EU civil service and does not necessarily correspond to the way residence is defined under national law.
In this case, the absence of a Swedish residence certificate was an important element. The official had been specifically asked by the Commission to provide such a certificate and had been informed that his entitlement was conditional.
The Court also examined evidence showing that the official owned property in Sweden and spent significant periods there. However, this evidence was not sufficient to establish a transfer of his main or habitual residence. According to the Court, the evidence was consistent with a situation of dual residence, with the main residence remaining in Belgium and a secondary residence in Sweden.
The Staff Regulations do not provide for the relocation allowance and correction coefficient in circumstances of this kind.
Intent to relocate is not enough
The official had also challenged decisions by the Swedish authorities concerning his registration as a resident and had pursued several proceedings before the Swedish courts.
The Court recognised that these actions demonstrated a genuine intention to establish himself in Sweden. However, intention alone could not prove that the transfer of residence had actually taken place.
The Court placed particular importance on the applicant’s family situation.
His wife continued to live in the couple’s home in Belgium, including after his retirement. The Court considered this relevant in determining where the centre of his permanent or habitual interests remained.
The judgment therefore confirms that the assessment of residence is based on the reality of a person’s life and the centre of their interests, rather than simply on property ownership, time spent in a country or an intention to relocate.
National decisions can be considered
The Court also rejected the argument that the Commission had improperly relied on findings made by the Swedish authorities.
While the concept of residence under the Staff Regulations is an autonomous concept of EU law, this does not prevent the administration from considering factual findings made by national courts or authorities when assessing the evidence available to it.
The Commission was not required to reinterpret Swedish national law or conduct its own independent investigation into every aspect of the applicant’s residence.
Procedural rights and reasonable time
The applicant also raised concerns about the length of the administrative procedure and his right to be heard.
The Court recalled that an excessive delay affects the validity of an administrative procedure only where it may have affected the substance of the final decision or the person’s ability to defend themselves effectively. That was not established in this case.
Similarly, a failure to hear a person before a decision is adopted does not automatically lead to annulment. The applicant must demonstrate that, had they been given the opportunity to present their views, the procedure could have resulted in a different outcome.
In this case, the Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he would have put forward arguments different from those already known to the Commission.
What does this mean for staff?
The judgment is particularly relevant for colleagues considering retirement and relocation to another Member State.
It shows that staff should carefully document a genuine transfer of their main or habitual residence. Depending on the circumstances, relevant evidence may include official residence documentation, information concerning the family home and other evidence demonstrating where the centre of their permanent or habitual interests is actually located.
Importantly, owning a property or spending substantial periods in another Member State is not necessarily enough. Nor is an intention to move.
Staff should therefore verify the conditions carefully before relying on an entitlement to a relocation allowance or correction coefficient, particularly where they maintain links or a second residence in another Member State.
Generation 2004: clarity is essential
Generation 2004 considers that the judgment highlights the importance of clear information and predictable rules, particularly when colleagues are making major decisions about retirement and their place of residence.
Relocation after retirement can involve complex personal, family and financial circumstances. Staff should therefore have a clear understanding of the conditions attached to any allowance before making irreversible decisions.
If you are approaching retirement, considering relocation to another Member State, or have questions about the relocation allowance, correction coefficient or recovery of amounts paid, do not hesitate to contact Generation 2004. We can help you understand the applicable rules and your rights.
