# C_2014151EN.01002201.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/22

---

Appeal brought on 17 February 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-130/11, Verile and Gjergji v Commission

(Case T-104/14 P)

2014/C 151/29

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) and Anduela Gjergji (Brussels, Belgium)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-130/11 Verile and Gjergji v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-130/11 Verile and Gjergji v Commission;

Verile and Gjergji

Commission

| — | declare that each of the parties should bear its own costs in relation to the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that each of the parties should bear its own costs in relation to the present proceedings;

| — | order Mr Verile and Ms Gjergji to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Mr Verile and Ms Gjergji to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging a misapplication of the concept of a measure having adverse effects in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the action at first instance was admissible, characterising the proposal made by the Commission to the interested parties concerning the number of years of pensionable service to be credited in the context of the transfer of their pension rights under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union as a measure having adverse effects (relating to paragraphs 37 to 55 of the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging a misapplication of the concept of a measure having adverse effects in that the Civil Service Tribunal held that the action at first instance was admissible, characterising the proposal made by the Commission to the interested parties concerning the number of years of pensionable service to be credited in the context of the transfer of their pension rights under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union as a measure having adverse effects (relating to paragraphs 37 to 55 of the judgment under appeal).

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal unlawfully raised of its own motion the plea of illegality in respect of the general implementing provisions concerning the transfer of pension rights adopted in 2011. The Commission claims that the plea was not expressly raised by the applicants at first instance and, moreover, was not the subject of an exchange of arguments (relating to paragraphs 72 and 73 of the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal unlawfully raised of its own motion the plea of illegality in respect of the general implementing provisions concerning the transfer of pension rights adopted in 2011. The Commission claims that the plea was not expressly raised by the applicants at first instance and, moreover, was not the subject of an exchange of arguments (relating to paragraphs 72 and 73 of the judgment under appeal).

| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the interpretation of Article 11 of Annexe VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the provisions relating to the transfer of pension rights (relating to paragraphs 74 to 98, 106, 109 and 110 of the judgment under appeal). The Commission claims that, since the concept of ‘[updated] capital value’ referred to in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII is different from the concept of ‘actuarial equivalent’ referred to in Article 11(1) and defined in Article 8 of Annex VIII, the Civil Service Tribunal limited itself to a literal interpretation in coming to conclusions liable to give rise to significant inequalities between officials requesting an inward transfer of their pension rights and those requesting an outward transfer. The Commission maintains that the Civil Service Tribunal’s interpretation is incompatible with both the need to maintain a financial equilibrium in the European Union pension scheme and the property rights of officials requesting an inward transfer. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the interpretation of Article 11 of Annexe VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the provisions relating to the transfer of pension rights (relating to paragraphs 74 to 98, 106, 109 and 110 of the judgment under appeal). The Commission claims that, since the concept of ‘[updated] capital value’ referred to in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII is different from the concept of ‘actuarial equivalent’ referred to in Article 11(1) and defined in Article 8 of Annex VIII, the Civil Service Tribunal limited itself to a literal interpretation in coming to conclusions liable to give rise to significant inequalities between officials requesting an inward transfer of their pension rights and those requesting an outward transfer. The Commission maintains that the Civil Service Tribunal’s interpretation is incompatible with both the need to maintain a financial equilibrium in the European Union pension scheme and the property rights of officials requesting an inward transfer.

| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding that the rights of the applicants at first instance in relation to the transfer of their rights were already ‘fully constituted’ at the time of the entry into force of the general implementing provisions concerning the transfer of pension rights adopted in 2011, since only the final decision on the number of years of pensionable service to be credited would establish the transferred pension rights (relating to paragraphs 99 to 108 of the judgment under appeal). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in holding that the rights of the applicants at first instance in relation to the transfer of their rights were already ‘fully constituted’ at the time of the entry into force of the general implementing provisions concerning the transfer of pension rights adopted in 2011, since only the final decision on the number of years of pensionable service to be credited would establish the transferred pension rights (relating to paragraphs 99 to 108 of the judgment under appeal).

---