JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

22 May 2012

Case T‑317/11 P

Ioannis Vakalis

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service — General implementing provisions — Obligation to state reasons — Audi alteram partem rule — Equal treatment)

Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case F‑38/10 Vakalis v Commission [2011] ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Ioannis Vakalis is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those of the European Commission relating to these proceedings.

Summary

1. Procedure — Statement of reasons for judgments — Scope — Obligation to rule on every alleged violation of law

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1))

2. Official — Actions — Plea of illegality — Appointing authority lacking power to determine the legality of regulations — Consequences

(Arts 263, second para., and 277 TFEU)

3. Union law — Principles — Equal treatment — Infringement — Meaning

1. Although the obligation for the Civil Service Tribunal to state the reasons on which its decisions are based does not mean that it must reply in detail to every argument advanced by a party, particularly where those arguments are not sufficiently clear and precise and are not based on detailed evidence, it does, at the very least, require it to consider all the breaches of law alleged before it.

(see para. 45)

See:

T‑50/08 P Michail v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1‑127 and II‑B‑1‑775, para. 42 and the case-law cited

2. It is not for the appointing authority to judge the legality of the regulatory provisions which it is expected to apply. Accordingly, justifications given by that authority during the administrative procedure in relation to a challenge to the legality of such provisions do not affect either the grounds of illegality on which an applicant can rely in the course of a plea of illegality before the Courts of the Union (those grounds being, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU, those set out in the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU), nor the assessment of the legality of those provisions by those Courts.

(see para. 62)

3. When it establishes rules relating to the transfer, under the Union regime, of pension rights acquired by officials in a national system, the Union legislature must observe the principle of equal treatment. This general principle of Union law requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified. In this regard, any breach of the principle of equal treatment arising from different treatment presupposes that the situations in question are comparable, having regard to all the elements which characterise them. These include, in particular, the subject-matter and purpose of the Union measure which creates the distinction in question, and the principles and objectives of the field to which that measure belongs. It follows that, in considering whether identical treatment has been prescribed for different situations, all of the elements which characterise those situations must also be taken into account. Furthermore, in order for the institution to be found to have breached the principle of equal treatment, the treatment in question must have placed certain people at a disadvantage in comparison with others.

(see paras 76-77, 79-80)

See:

C‑127/07 Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others [2008] ECR I‑9895, paras 23, 25, 26 and 39 and the case-law cited