# C_2023271EN.01003201.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/32

---

Action brought on 16 May 2023 — WT v Commission

(Case T-282/23)

(2023/C 271/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: WT (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision rejecting the application for transfer of pension rights under Article 11(2) and (3) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union issued by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements PMO/2 — Pensions on 4 August 2022 with reference ‘PMO 2, TFT IN, 2833610500, Pers. Nr: 336105’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision rejecting the application for transfer of pension rights under Article 11(2) and (3) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union issued by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements PMO/2 — Pensions on 4 August 2022 with reference ‘PMO 2, TFT IN, 2833610500, Pers. Nr: 336105’;

| — | annul the decision of the AECC (Authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment) of 13 February 2023, notified the same day, with which the appeal (No R/496/22) brought pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union against the decision of 4 August 2022 was dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the AECC (Authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment) of 13 February 2023, notified the same day, with which the appeal (No R/496/22) brought pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union against the decision of 4 August 2022 was dismissed;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as the six-month time limit is provided for exclusively by implementing provisions and is not imposed by any provision in the Staff regulations. The applicant also raises a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU regarding the general implementing provisions inasmuch as they infringe higher-ranking legal provisions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as the six-month time limit is provided for exclusively by implementing provisions and is not imposed by any provision in the Staff regulations. The applicant also raises a plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU regarding the general implementing provisions inasmuch as they infringe higher-ranking legal provisions.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of force majeur and of the financial provisions as well as a failure to observe the duty of care and the principle of proportionality. It cannot be denied that the Covid pandemic was both an anomalous and unpredictable event that had exogenous and disruptive effects on the management and planning of individuals’ daily activities including, in the case of the applicant, making an application for transfer of pension rights, which was done after the six-month time limit. Indeed it should be noted that in the present case both the objective and subjective elements which allow for force majeure to be invoked are present. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of force majeur and of the financial provisions as well as a failure to observe the duty of care and the principle of proportionality. It cannot be denied that the Covid pandemic was both an anomalous and unpredictable event that had exogenous and disruptive effects on the management and planning of individuals’ daily activities including, in the case of the applicant, making an application for transfer of pension rights, which was done after the six-month time limit. Indeed it should be noted that in the present case both the objective and subjective elements which allow for force majeure to be invoked are present.

---