Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2025:1010
Date: 2025-12-18
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary C-776/24 – 1 
Case C-776/24 [Bopuis] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
12 November 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
5 November 2024 
Applicant: 
CJ 
Defendant: 
Service fédéral des Pensions (SFP) 
  
I. Subject matter of the main proceedings 
1 CJ seeks the annulment of the decision of 17 April 2023 by which the Service 
fédéral des Pensions (‘the SFP’) informed him that he was not entitled to an 
employed person’s retirement pension as from 1 August 2021. 
The reasons given for the decision are as follows: 
‘… your pension rights under the scheme for employed persons have been 
transferred to the scheme of the European institutions pursuant to the loi du 21 
mai 1991 établissant certaines relations entre des régimes belges de pension et 
ceux d’institutions de droit international public (Law of 21 May 1991 establishing 
a certain relationship between the Belgian pension schemes and those of 
international public law institutions) [‘the Law of 21 May 1991’]. […]’. 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-776/24 
 
2  
II. Facts 
2 CJ worked in Belgium between 1972 and 1992, both as an employed person and 
as a self-employed person. He became an EU official on 1 April 1994 and was 
established as an official on 1 January 1995. 
3 On 29 May 1995, CJ requested the transfer of his rights under the Belgian pension 
scheme for employed persons to the pension scheme of the European 
Communities (‘the transfer’). 
4 On 15 July 1996, the SFP notified CJ of its decision, indicating the amount of the 
transferable rights. On 4 November 1996, it notified that amount to the 
Commission of the European Communities. 
5 On 14 July 2019, CJ asked the SFP about the first date on which his pension 
would start. On 7 August 2020, he clarified: ‘For your information, I am an 
international official and transfers of rights have been/will be made in accordance 
with the rules in force […]’. 
6 On 12 August 2020, the SFP replied as follows: 
‘ […] if your entire period of employment has been taken over by the European 
Commission, the calculation of your retirement pension as an employed person is 
reduced to zero’. 
7 On 8 March 2022 CJ applied to the SFP for an employed person’s retirement 
pension. 
On 25 May 2022, the SFP notified CJ of two decisions: 
– an initial decision granting him, with effect from 1 August 2021, an 
employed person’s retirement pension in the gross monthly amount of 
EUR 533.85; 
– a second decision granting him, with effect from 1 August 2022 (the 
date taken into consideration by the SFP as the date on which the 
person concerned ceased to work for the European Commission) an 
employed person’s retirement pension in the gross monthly amount of 
EUR 577.85. 
8 On 10 June 2022, CJ requested copies of documents from SFP: 
‘… The first document is: a registered letter which was allegedly sent to me at the 
end of 1996 and by which, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the [Law of 21 May 1991], 
the amounts to be transferred and the calculation elements were to be 
communicated to me for agreement or, possibly, for challenge. […] I would 
therefore ask you to send me a copy of that document and a copy of the 
acknowledgement of receipt that I should have signed. I have ascertained that the 
BOPUIS 
 
3 
absence of those elements would result in the nullity of the file and of any action 
that might result from it, and in particular the nullity of any request for the 
payment of funds addressed to you by the European institutions, since no 
subrogation would in fact cover such a request.’ 
9 On 4 July 2022, the SFP replied as follows: 
‘… please find enclosed a copy of the documents in the archives relating to the 
transfer of the pension amount to the Commission of the European Communities. 
The only documents found are: 
– the notification sent to you on 15 July 1996 setting out the amount and 
calculation of the transfer 
– the letter subsequently sent to the Commission. 
The Commission was then to contact you to finalise the transfer and then to claim 
the transferable amount from us. As no action was taken, the file was closed, 
archived and scanned’. 
10 On 6 July 2022, CJ replied to the SFP: 
‘ […] ‘I recently discovered that, in the context of the [Law of 21 May 1991], and 
more specifically in the context of the implementation obligations arising from 
Article 6 thereof, I did not receive at that time (1995, 1996, 1997) […] the two 
notifications of the annual pension amounts to be transferred together with the 
relevant calculation elements, notifications which I should have received by 
registered post. […] In the absence of receipt of those notifications, again pursuant 
to Article 6 of the Law of 21 May 1991, the final annual pension amounts must 
therefore be regarded as not having been established. In so far as is necessary, it 
follows that, under Article 7 of the Law, a retirement pension may be granted to 
me by the Belgian State on the one hand, and that the transfer request may still be 
revoked. Should it still be necessary, I hereby ask you to revoke it. I no longer 
wish to have my pension rights accrued in the Belgian State pension systems 
transferred to the pension system of the European institutions. […] As things 
currently stand, your office has calculated the pension to be paid to me monthly, 
and it made an initial payment on 24 June 2022. I confirm that this situation seems 
to me to be consistent with the state of the file, and that there is no reason to 
review the situation […]’. 
11 On 3 November 2022, the SFP replied as follows: 
‘… we confirm to you our letter of 4 July 2022, our pension decision and our 
letter to the Commission of the European Communities, attached to this 
document.’ 
12 On 6 December 2022, the SFP stated: 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-776/24 
 
4  
‘… we would like to inform you that the sums relating to your retirement pensions 
as an employed person and as a self-employed person, paid by the Federal 
Pensions Service since 1 August 2021 (= commencement date of your pensions), 
are due to you and will not be reclaimed. Furthermore, we would like to inform 
you that the Commission of the European Communities (EEC) has not made any 
specific request to us recently.’ 
13 On 13 March 2023, the European Commission (Office for the Administration and 
Payment of Individual Entitlements, PMO) (‘the PMO’) contacted the SFP in the 
following terms: 
‘I hereby confirm that the person concerned [CJ] has agreed to have his pension 
rights accrued with your institution transferred to our pension scheme. In 
accordance with the above-mentioned laws and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to our 
Staff Regulations, I would ask you to make monthly payments to the 
Commission’s […] account […] corresponding to the regular amounts of pension 
due as from 1 August 2022. […]’. 
14 On 21 March 2023, the SFP replied as follows: 
‘We acknowledge receipt of your request to activate subrogation (document 
attached) for: [CJ] Date of birth: 5 July 1956. Pension commencement date: 
1 August 2022. However, we note that two retirement pensions under national law 
(scheme for employed persons and scheme for self-employed persons) were 
granted to him by the SFP as of exactly that date. It appears that the person 
concerned has declared to our office that he has revoked his request for 
subrogation on the grounds of a ‘procedural defect’. He then demanded that his 
retirement pensions be paid under national law. However, the archives of his 
integrated file appear to show that the procedure was indeed followed (in 1996) 
and, therefore, that subrogation is irrevocable (at least in the scheme for employed 
persons). […] I would therefore like to ask you: 1. whether [CJ] has indeed retired 
from your services as a permanent European official? 2. whether he has been in 
receipt of his retirement pension from the supranational European scheme since 
1 August 2022?’. 
15 On 23 March 2023, the PMO confirmed that CJ had retired as a permanent 
European official and that he had been in receipt of a retirement pension under the 
pension scheme of the European Union institutions since 1 August 2022. 
16 On 29 March 2023, the SFP asked the PMO the following questions: 
‘ […] CJ challenges the transfer of contributions from the Belgian national 
scheme to the supranational European scheme. In his view, his request was 
automatically revoked because he did not have the opportunity to validate the 
notification of the decision with your office in 1996. He argues that the 
contributions were therefore not transferred. He has thus requested payment of his 
Belgian pensions in the employee and self-employed schemes with effect from 
1 August 2021. However, he has recognised that he has received his European 
BOPUIS 
 
5 
pension since 1 August 2022. […] Could you please confirm that the retirement 
pension that you have been paying (since August 2022) includes the fraction of 
20/45 as a Belgian employed person, for the period from 1972 to 1992? If, 
conversely, the pension paid by your office includes only the years subsequent to 
1994 (entry into service with the European Commission), that would confirm the 
contention that the transfer of contributions did not take place’. 
17 On 31 March 2023, the PMO confirmed that CJ’s European pension did take into 
account the years of pensionable service granted by the transfer and in that 
connection sent a document setting out the initial transfer calculations, CJ’s 
agreement on subrogation, the recalculation of those rights following the change 
to the Staff Regulations of European officials and the notice determining the 
European pension proving that the calculation of the transfer of rights had been 
included in his pension. 
18 On 31 March 2023, the SFP informed CJ that payment of his retirement pension 
under the Belgian national scheme had been suspended. The reasons for that 
decision are as follows: ‘… In view of the fact that you have been in receipt of a 
retirement pension from the European supranational scheme since 1 August 2022; 
in view of the fact that your career under the Belgian scheme for employed 
persons is by law subrogated to the supranational European scheme; […]’. 
19 On 17 April 2023, the SFP informed CJ of its decisions to review his entitlement 
to a retirement pension and to annul its previous decision of 25 May 2022. CJ is 
therefore not entitled to an employed person’s retirement pension as from 
1 August 2021. It is not seeking repayment of any amounts unduly paid, since the 
SFP considers that it made an administrative error. 
The following reasons were given for those decisions: 
‘ […] Reasons for the review[:] On 29 May 1995, you submitted a request to 
transfer your pension rights from the scheme for employed persons to the pension 
scheme of the European institutions in application of the [Law of 21 May 1991]. 
Under Article 6 of that law, services provided in the scheme for employed persons 
before the date on which you entered the service of the institution cannot confer 
entitlement to a pension under the scheme for employed persons. […]’. 
20 On 16 May 2023, the SFP informed CJ that the information in its possession 
indicated that the notification of 15 July 1996 concerning the transferable amount 
had indeed been sent to CJ by registered post pursuant to Article 6 of the Law of 
21 May 1991. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-776/24 
 
6  
III. Decision of the referring court 
III. 1. The transfer request has become irrevocable 
The procedure and detailed rules for the transfer of pension rights from the 
Belgian schemes to the pension scheme of the European Communities are set out 
in Articles 3 to 7 of the Law of 21 May 1991, cited below in the version 
applicable ratione temporis. 
21 Article 3: 
‘Any official may, with the agreement of the competent institution, request that 
the amount of retirement pension relating to service and periods prior to the date 
on which he joined the institution in question should be paid to that institution’. 
22 Article 4: 
‘Unless the request referred to in Article 3 is: 
1. submitted to the administration by registered letter no later than the last day of 
the sixth month following the month in which the official was established; 
2. accompanied by a document recording the institution’s agreement; […]’. 
23 Article 5: 
‘After receiving the request, the administration shall determine the amount of the 
retirement pension in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III’. 
24 Article 6: 
‘Once they have been adopted by the administration, the annual amount of the 
retirement pension to be transferred and the various elements taken into account in 
determining it shall be notified to the person concerned by registered letter. Any 
challenge concerning the amount of the pension must be submitted to the 
administration no later than the last day of the third month following the month of 
notification. 
The decision taken by the administration following a challenge shall be the subject 
of a new notification. If disagreement persists, an appeal must be lodged with the 
competent court within 30 days of the date of the new notification. 
At the end of one or other of the above-mentioned periods, as the case may be, the 
amount of the pension shall become final. However, if an action has been validly 
lodged with the competent courts, the amount of the pension shall become final 
only once a decision having the force of res judicata has been delivered. 
The institution shall be notified of the final annual amount of the pension’. 
BOPUIS 
 
7 
25 Article 7:  
‘As soon as the amount of the retirement pension has become final: 
1. it may no longer be amended for any reason whatsoever, without prejudice to 
the subsequent application of the third paragraph of Article 11; 
2. no retirement pension may be granted to the person concerned in respect of the 
service and periods referred to in Article 3 or service and periods treated as such. 
Furthermore, those services and periods may no longer be taken into account for 
the grant or calculation of another retirement pension as referred to in Article 1. 
3. The request referred to in Article 3 shall become irrevocable, without prejudice 
to the possible application of Article 9’. 
26 Article 9: 
‘As long as the subrogation referred to in Article 11 has not taken effect, the 
official may, with the agreement of the institution, withdraw his transfer request. 
Such withdrawal shall be ‘final’. 
27 On 29 May 1995, pursuant to Article 3 of the Law of 21 May 1991, CJ requested 
the transfer of his pension rights from the scheme for employed persons to the 
pension scheme of the European institutions. That request was accepted by the 
European institutions. 
28 Pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 of the Law of 21 May 1991, the SFP notified CJ of a 
decision of 15 July 1996 indicating the amount of the transferable rights. 
29 CJ maintains that he did not receive that decision, and that therefore the periods 
within which an action might be brought did not begin to run, the transferable 
amount was not final and that, therefore, the transfer request could be revoked. 
30 The referring court observes that: 
– On 10 December 1996, CJ completed and signed a declaration 
addressed to the European institutions, the subject of which is: 
‘transfer of pension rights acquired with the Office National des 
Pensions to the Community pension scheme under Article 11(2) of 
Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European 
Communities’. In that declaration, he authorised the administration of 
the European Parliament to provide the Belgian scheme with all the 
supporting documents relating to subrogation. 
– On 10 August 1998 CJ completed and signed a declaration addressed 
to the European institutions in which he noted, inter alia, that ‘pursuant 
to Articles 11 and 28 of the Law of 21 May 1991, the European 
Parliament is subrogated to his rights to the pension acquired under the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-776/24 
 
8  
Belgian scheme in respect of which Article 3 of the above-mentioned 
law has been applied, as from the date of entitlement to a pension 
under both Belgian legislation and the provisions of the Staff 
Regulations’. 
31 In the light of those documents, CJ cannot reasonably maintain that he was 
unaware at the time of the decisions indicating the calculation of the amount of 
transferable rights. 
32 In 1996, CJ had no reason to challenge the SFP’s decision. The amount of 
transferable rights was correctly calculated. When the transfer became 
irrevocable, CJ was unaware that he would obtain a maximum European pension 
solely on the basis of his European career, and thus independently of the years of 
pensionable service corresponding to his Belgian career. He was required to take 
action within six months of his establishment as an official in order to request that 
transfer, which he did. 
33 Lastly, CJ cannot rely on Article 9 of the Law of 21 May 1991, since that 
provision was amended with effect from 1 May 2004. The possibility of 
withdrawal now applies only to an official who leaves the institution without 
being entitled to a retirement pension. 
34 The transfer request therefore became irrevocable when the SFP, in a letter dated 
4 November 1996, informed the Commission of the amount of the transferable 
pension. 
III.2. Is the irrevocable nature of the transfer and subrogation, as provided for 
by the Law of 21 May 1991, contrary to the objectives and procedures laid down 
by EU law? 
35 On the date of entry into force of the Law of 21 May 1991 and of CJ’s 
establishment as an official, Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations 
of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) provided: 
‘An official who enters the service of the Communities after leaving the service of 
a government administration or of a national or international organisation or of an 
undertaking shall be entitled upon establishment 1 to have paid to the 
Communities: 
– the actuarial equivalent of retirement pension rights acquired by him in 
the government administration, national or international organisation 
or undertaking; or 
 
1 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff 
Regulations replaced the words ‘upon establishment’ by ‘after establishment but before 
becoming eligible for payment of a retirement pension within the meaning of Article 77 of the 
Staff Regulations’. That amendment was not yet in force when CJ was established as an official 
in 1995. 
BOPUIS 
 
9 
– the sums repaid to him from the pension fund of the government 
administration, organisation or undertaking at the date of his leaving 
its service. In such case, the institution in which the official serves 
shall, taking into account his grade on establishment, determine the 
number of years of pensionable service with which he shall be credited 
under its own pension scheme in respect of the former period of 
service, on the basis of the amount of the actuarial equivalent or sums 
repaid as aforesaid.’ 
36 Under that mechanism, the contributions accrued in the national pension scheme 
are therefore transferred to the European institutions at the time when the staff 
member is established in the service of a European institution. 
37 However, the Law of 21 May 1991 departs from the mechanism provided for by 
the Staff Regulations, since the transfer of rights does not take place in the form of 
a transfer of contributions or at the time when the person concerned is established; 
the actual transfer starts after retirement in the context of a subrogation of the 
European institutions to the Belgian retirement pension rights. 
38 The subrogation mechanism established by the 1991 Law alters neither the rights 
nor the obligations of the Belgian pension schemes at the time of the transfer. 
Those schemes do not pay any sums into the Community pension scheme. They 
remain liable for the official’s pension rights and they have an obligation to pay 
the corresponding pension in monthly instalments from the date on which the 
official becomes entitled to the Community pension. The institution grants the 
official in the Community scheme the actuarial equivalent of his Belgian pension 
rights and, in return, is subrogated to the pension rights which the official has 
acquired under the Belgian schemes. 
39 The preparatory works for the Law of 21 May 1991 explain Belgium’s decision to 
depart from the European mechanism for budgetary reasons: 2 
‘The system established by the present draft provides that an official of an 
international institution may request that, at the time when entitlement to the 
pension is established […], the pension rights accrued under a Belgian scheme for 
the periods prior to his entry into the service of the international institution be 
transferred to that institution pursuant to a subrogation mechanism. In comparison 
with the possibilities expressly mentioned in Article 11, which involve a full 
transfer at the time of establishment of the person concerned, the solution chosen, 
which was the subject of consultation with representatives of the Commission of 
the European Communities, makes it possible to achieve a similar result while at 
the same time phasing the payments to be made over a period of time. It also has 
the advantage of spreading the cost of the operation over several years’. 
 
2  Doc.Parl., Ch.repr., session 1989-1990, No 1274/1, p. 2. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-776/24 
 
10  
40 In view of the discrepancy between the Law of 21 May 1991 and Annex VIII to 
the Staff Regulations, the Conseil d’État (Council of State) observed: ‘The 
subrogation scheme established by the draft law does not constitute, strictly 
speaking, the implementation by the Kingdom of Belgium of Article 11(2) of 
Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of 
Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities. That scheme is 
therefore not such as to remove all legal uncertainty, even though the Commission 
of the European Communities has given its agreement to that draft’. 3 
41 In response to the observations of the Council of State, the government stated: ‘… 
it has been agreed with the representatives of the Commission of the European 
Communities that the Law [would] be enshrined in a written undertaking between 
the Belgian State and the Commission so as to guarantee for the future the system 
that had been jointly agreed’. 4 
42 Although the parliamentary proceedings indicate that the European institutions 
expressly agreed to the subrogation scheme established by the Law of 21 May 
1991 and that there was consultation with the Commission, the General Court has 
found no trace of any agreement on that point. 
43 The Law of 21 May 1991 applies to transfer requests submitted before 1 January 
2002. Since then, the transfer of rights acquired under the Belgian schemes has 
given rise to the immediate payment of a capital sum to the Community pension 
scheme. That new legislation does not apply to CJ’s case. 
44 The system for the transfer of pension rights provided for in Article 11(2) of 
Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is intended to facilitate movement from 
national employment, whether public or private, to the Community administration 
and thus to ensure that the Communities have the best possible chance of being 
able to choose qualified staff who already possess suitable experience (judgment 
of 20 October 1981, Commission v Belgium, 137/80, EU:C:1981:237, 
paragraph 11). 
45 Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations seeks, moreover, to ensure 
that Community officials may retain the rights which they have acquired in their 
own State even though they may be limited, or even conditional or future, or 
insufficient to give rise to the immediate award of a pension, and also to ensure 
that account may be taken of those rights by the pension scheme to which the 
persons concerned are affiliated at the end of their careers, in this case the 
Community scheme (judgments of 20 October 1981, Commission v Belgium, 
137/80, EU:C:1981:237, paragraph 12, and of 18 April 1989, Retter, 130/87, 
EU:C:1989:147, paragraph 15). 
 
3  Doc.Parl., Ch.repr., session 1989-1990, No 1274/l, p. 23-24. 
4  Doc.Parl., Ch.repr., session 1989-1990, No 1274/1, p. 2. 
BOPUIS 
 
11 
46 CJ is entitled to a maximum European pension determined solely on the basis of 
his European career. 
Under that mechanism, he therefore loses the benefit of the pension rights relating 
to his professional activities in Belgium between 1972 and 1992. That would not 
be the case if the mechanism, which was supposed to protect his interests, were 
not applied. 
47 In addition, under the subrogation mechanism, the Belgian State pays CJ’s 
pension rights each month to the European institutions, whereas the European 
pension granted to the person concerned does not take into account the years of 
pensionable service corresponding to his Belgian career. In that context, the 
transfer could be regarded as a tax. It allows the European institutions to enrich 
themselves at the expense of CJ. 
48 According to CJ, if interpreted as preventing years of employment from being 
effectively recognised in either of the two schemes, the Law of 21 May 1991 
contravenes the first objective of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII, which is to ensure 
that acquired rights (namely those acquired prior to entry into the service of the 
European institutions) are retained. The SFP argues that the effective recognition 
of acquired rights is not clearly set out in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII. According 
to the SFP, that provision does not require rights that have been acquired and 
transferred to grant a more favourable retirement pension. Belgian law does not 
provide for any derogation in the case of a maximum European pension calculated 
solely on the basis of a European career. The SFP states that CJ must take 
responsibility for his choice to request the transfer. 
49 In the cases that gave rise to the judgment of 10 November 1999, Kristensen and 
Others v Council (T-103/98, T-104/98, T-113/98, T-118/98 and T-107/98, 
EU:T:1999:289), five officials of the Council of the European Union sought 
annulment of the decisions refusing them reimbursement of the portion of the 
pension rights transferred to the Community pension scheme which were not 
taken into account when calculating years of pensionable service under 
Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. 
50 The Council justified the refusal to reimburse the transferred surplus not taken 
into account for the calculation of the European pension as follows (see 
paragraphs 29 and 31 of the judgment): 
‘Since the Community pension scheme is therefore based on the principle of 
solidarity, the Council maintains that it is not required to repay to the applicants 
the surplus amounts transferred which were not taken into account as pensionable 
years. More specifically, the basic thinking behind the Community pension system 
differs from that of a traditional “pension fund” in which there is a kind of 
“personal account” for each affiliated person[,] in which a capital sum intended to 
finance the pension of the person concerned is accumulated. It adds in that regard 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-776/24 
 
12  
that, in any event, the official concerned has free discretion in deciding whether to 
transfer their pension rights to the Community scheme’. 
‘The Council concludes that, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the 
applicants’ argument alleging unjust enrichment for the Communities is 
unfounded. In so far as the payment of pensions constitutes a charge on the budget 
of the Communities, it is consistent with the solidarity-based nature of that system 
to pay any surplus to the Community budget. That is particularly true since the 
transfer of pension rights to the Community scheme depends on the wishes of the 
person concerned, who is free to decide whether or not to request such a transfer’. 
51 The Court of First Instance annulled the Council’s decisions on the following 
grounds: 
‘39. It must first of all be pointed out that, while it is true that it follows from 
certain provisions of the Staff Regulations, in particular Article 83, that each 
official does not always recover the exact equivalent value of his contributions, as 
is the case under pension schemes based on the principle of capitalisation, 
nonetheless, in the absence of express provisions in the Staff Regulations the 
Council cannot require, solely on the basis of the principle of solidarity, that any 
monetary surplus which may result from the transfer of pension rights acquired 
under national pension schemes be paid into the Community budget. 
40. In that regard, it should be pointed out that where the Council, in applying its 
own rules, decides that the years of pensionable service to be taken into account 
may not exceed the number of years during which the person concerned was 
actually affiliated to non-complementary national schemes and that only the 
amount corresponding to those years of pensionable service may be paid into the 
Community pension scheme for the purpose of establishing a retirement pension, 
which will, in itself, be subject to the requirements of the principle of solidarity, 
the Council cannot, however, on the basis of that principle, justify failing to repay 
the resulting financial surplus in full to the person concerned where the pension 
rights thus transferred were not acquired in the context of an employment 
relationship between the person concerned and one of the Community institutions. 
41. As the Court of Justice, the Commission and the Court of Auditors pointed out 
in their replies to the written questions put by the Court of First Instance, pension 
rights transferred to the Community scheme which are not taken into account 
when applying Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations belong to the 
official concerned and must be repaid to him. 
42. In those circumstances, the contested decisions refusing the applicants the 
surplus resulting from the calculation of the years of pensionable service taken 
into account in connection with the transfer of their pension rights are unfounded 
and must, accordingly, be annulled.’ 
52 The principles established in that judgment are perfectly capable of being applied 
to CJ’s situation. 
BOPUIS 
 
13 
53 CJ submits that, by providing for an irrevocable subrogation in favour of the 
European institutions, the Law of 21 May 1991 risks depriving the person 
concerned of the right to benefit from an old-age benefit to which he would have 
been entitled had he not accepted employment with the European institutions. 5 
That risk becomes a reality if it transpires, as in the present case, that the 
European career in itself enables the maximum European retirement pension to be 
obtained. 
54 According to CJ, such a risk is certainly likely to deter a candidate from entering 
the service of the European institutions. The Law of 21 May 1991, in conjunction 
with the provision in Annex VIII which provides for transfer at the time of 
establishment, in so far as it renders the request for transfer and subrogation 
irrevocable upon establishment, is therefore liable to contravene the second 
objective pursued by the transfer provided for by Article 11(2) of Annex VIII. 
55 CJ states that a Member State whose legislation dissuades its nationals from 
entering into the service of the European institutions is also failing to observe the 
principle of sincere cooperation referred to in Article 4(3) TEU. 6 Under that 
principle, the European Union and the Member States are, in full mutual respect, 
to assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties. The 
Member States are to take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to 
ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from 
the acts of the institutions of the Union. The Member States are to facilitate the 
achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could 
jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives. 
IV. Conclusion and reasons for the referral 
56 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the General Court notes two 
essential problems. 
– The first is that it was impossible for CJ to determine, at the time when he had 
to decide whether or not to transfer his Belgian pension rights, that is to say, at 
the time of his establishment, whether the transfer of those rights would be of 
benefit to him. Since the transfer and subrogation were irrevocable from the 
outset, at the time when they actually took effect CJ no longer had the 
possibility of contesting them. However, it must remain possible to challenge 
the transfer and subrogation up until the time that they actually take effect. 
– The second problem concerns the transfer of the rights as such (in the form of 
subrogation, with the SFP making monthly payments to the European 
institutions of the Belgian retirement pension to which the person concerned is 
 
5  Judgment of 16 December 2004, My (C-293/03, EU:C:2004:821). 
6  See, in particular, judgments of 4 February 2015, Melchior (C-647/13, EU:C:2015:54), and of 
10 September 2015, Wojciechowski (C-408/14, EU:C:2015:591). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-776/24 
 
14  
entitled). As CJ is entitled to a maximum pension calculated solely on the basis 
of his career within the European institutions, the transfer and subrogation of 
pension rights in the present case give rise to unjust enrichment. 
57 In the present case, there is a problem of interpretation of the rule contained in 
Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European 
Union, in the version applicable to the dispute. It is therefore necessary to submit 
a request to the General Court for a preliminary ruling. 
V. The question referred 
‘Where the legislation of a Member State provides that the transfer of the rights 
provided for in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of 
the European Union is to take place not by transferring the contributions at the 
time of establishment of the official of the European Union, but by subrogation of 
the European institutions to the pension rights accrued in that Member State from 
the date on which the official would have had access to that pension, must the 
abovementioned Article 11(2) and the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined 
in Article 4[(3)] of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) be interpreted, in the 
light of the objectives of the transfer, which are to enable the rights acquired by an 
EU official in a Member State to be retained for the benefit of that official and to 
guarantee the attractiveness of the European civil service, as requiring that 
legislation to permit the revocation of the transfer request up to the date on which 
the subrogation takes effect and the official obtains actual knowledge of the risk 
that he might not receive the benefit of a part of the rights acquired payable by 
that Member State?’