62018TJ0432_RES
Case T‑432/18
Peeter Palo
v
European Commission
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 16 October 2019
(Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pensions — Pension scheme — Severance grant — Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Duty of care)
Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Severance grant — Conditions for granting — Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Strict interpretation
(Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 12(2))
(see paragraphs 23-25, 27, 28)
Officials — Equal treatment — Limits — Advantage unlawfully granted
(see paragraphs 37-39)
Officials — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions
(Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Art. 12(2))
(see paragraphs 45, 46, 49)
Officials — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope — Limits
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41)
(see paragraphs 60-62)
Résumé
In the judgment in Palo v Commission (T‑432/18), delivered on 16 October 2019, the General Court rejected the application of a former member of temporary staff seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision not to pay him the severance grant provided for in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the decision rejecting the complaint against that decision and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following those decisions.
The applicant was engaged as a member of the temporary staff of the European Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) from 1 December 2010 to 31 August 2017. On 19 June 2017, he requested a severance grant under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. In that regard, the applicant certified, first, that since taking up his duties at Europol he had paid a private insurance company EUR 14200 in order to establish or maintain his pension rights and, secondly, that on 1 December 2014, he had concluded a second insurance contract with that company in which contributions should amount to EUR 87460. On 5 October 2017, the Commission rejected the applicant’s request, stating that, under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, the contributions paid to a private pension scheme had to be ‘consistent’ with those paid to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions (‘PSEUI’) during the same period, which, in this case, they were not, as the amount of the contributions paid to the PSEUI was EUR 65 334.95. Moreover, the second contract could not be taken into account because it was concluded after the applicant took up his duties. Lastly, the Commission stated that the applicant did, however, satisfy the conditions for a transfer to another scheme, under Article 12(1)(b) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. In that context, the applicant relied, inter alia, on an infringement of Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.
The General Court stated, first of all, that the severance grant, referred to in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is not an end-of-service allowance to which the staff member concerned is automatically entitled at the time when his contract is terminated or expires, but is a financial and derogating measure coming under provisions of the Staff Regulations on social security. That provision must therefore be interpreted strictly. According to the General Court, it follows from the wording of that provision that payments to the national or private pension scheme chosen by the staff member must be made to establish or maintain pension rights. That provision therefore requires — in order to avoid situations in which a staff member would find himself without sufficient income at retirement age and would be obliged to have recourse to social assistance from Member States, notwithstanding the acquisition of rights within the PSEUI that may be transferred to another scheme — that such payments guarantee the staff member a retirement pension, namely a monthly income that he will receive at retirement age. It follows that a strict interpretation of Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations necessarily presupposes that payments made to such a national or private pension scheme must, as such, be able to provide the staff member with sufficient coverage at retirement age, providing him with a retirement pension which excludes any recourse to social assistance from the Member States.
In that regard, the General Court stated that, in order to determine whether those payments are such as to guarantee a retirement pension which excludes any recourse to social assistance from the Member States, an assessment must be carried out on a case-by-case basis. That assessment means that account must be taken of the relevant factual evidence of the particular case, such as, inter alia, the nature of the pension insurance in question, the amount of the payments made in that respect by the member of staff concerned since taking up his duties or the reasonably foreseeable income likely to be generated by those payments and to be received at retirement age.
In the present case, the General Court concluded that the payments in the amount of EUR 14200 made by the applicant to the private insurance company since taking up his duties were clearly not such as to guarantee him a satisfactory retirement pension which excludes any recourse to social assistance from the Member States. As regards the payments made under the second contract concluded between the applicant and the same private insurance company, the General Court confirmed that they could not be taken into consideration given that they were not made until after the applicant took up his duties, at odds with the requirements laid down in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.
Therefore, having also rejected the other pleas raised by the applicant, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care, the General Court dismissed the action in its entirety.