# C_2022303EN.01005502.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/55

---

Action brought on 21 June 2022 — PT v Commission

(Case T-367/22)

(2022/C 303/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PT (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 4 October 2021 by which the authority authorised to conclude contracts calculated and paid the applicant’s retirement pension rights, in so far as the applicant’s pension rights transferred to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union which have no effect on her pension are not restored to her; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 October 2021 by which the authority authorised to conclude contracts calculated and paid the applicant’s retirement pension rights, in so far as the applicant’s pension rights transferred to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union which have no effect on her pension are not restored to her;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful. The applicant submits that that provision does not provide for the reimbursement of transferred pension rights where those rights are not taken into account when calculating the amount of the pension to be paid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) is unlawful. The applicant submits that that provision does not provide for the reimbursement of transferred pension rights where those rights are not taken into account when calculating the amount of the pension to be paid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on the transfer of pension rights are unlawful. According to the applicant, those provisions do not provide for the restitution of transferred rights which have given rise to a ‘bonus’ in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union where that ‘bonus’ does not give rise to any increase in the amount of the pension paid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on the transfer of pension rights are unlawful. According to the applicant, those provisions do not provide for the restitution of transferred rights which have given rise to a ‘bonus’ in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union where that ‘bonus’ does not give rise to any increase in the amount of the pension paid.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the existence of unjust enrichment. The applicant claims that the absence of a legal basis providing for the restitution of transferred pension rights that have no effect where the mechanism of the minimum subsistence figure referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations applies, in fact gives rise to unjust enrichment of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the existence of unjust enrichment. The applicant claims that the absence of a legal basis providing for the restitution of transferred pension rights that have no effect where the mechanism of the minimum subsistence figure referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations applies, in fact gives rise to unjust enrichment of the European Union.

---