ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
The application of new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations concerning the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, applied for before those provisions were adopted but effected after their entry into force, is not contrary to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

In that regard, according to a generally accepted principle and save as otherwise provided, a new rule applies immediately to situations yet to arise and to the future effects of situations which arose, but were not fully constituted, under the old rule. That is so except for situations originating and becoming definitive under the previous legislation, which create acquired rights. A right is considered to be acquired when the event giving rise to it occurred before the legislative amendment. However, that is not the case when the event creating the right did not take place under the legislation that has been amended.

First of all, Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations does not preclude the immediate application of the new general implementing provisions.

Secondly, neither the communication, to an official or other staff member who has submitted an application for a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another pension scheme, of a proposal concerning the additional pensionable years to be credited, let alone the mere submission of such an application, alters the legal position of that person or produces binding legal effects. Consequently, the official or other staff member did not have acquired rights capable of being infringed by the application of the new provisions.

Furthermore, the right of an official or other staff member to have additional pensionable years credited is not fully constituted until the capital representing his rights acquired under another scheme has been transferred to the EU pension scheme.

In addition, individuals may not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations to challenge the application of a new regulatory provision, particularly in an area where the legislature has a broad discretion.

(see paras 28-31, 33, 40)

See:

Judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 151 to 154 and 170 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

15 June 2016

Gabrio Marinozzi

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Gabrio Marinozzi sought annulment of the ‘decision of 15 October 2014 fixing the calculation of the amount credited[, under the EU pension scheme,] in respect of his pension rights acquired before his entry into service’, under another scheme, and also, to the extent necessary, of the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 29 January 2015 rejecting his complaint against the ‘decision’ fixing that amount.

Held:

The action is dismissed. Mr Gabrio Marinozzi is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1) and Annex VIII, Art. 11(2))

A proposal concerning additional pensionable years, notified to an official with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under another scheme, does not produce binding legal effects which directly and immediately affect the legal situation of the person to whom it is addressed, by significantly altering that situation. Therefore, it does not constitute an act having adverse effect for the purposes of Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 16)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, para. 62, and Teughels v Commission, T‑131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, para. 58
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/19

Action brought on 13 March 2006 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission

(Case F-29/06)

(2006/C 121/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Andres Arnaldos Rosauro and Others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the applicants' instruments of appointment, taken together with the remuneration slips which they have received since the date of their advancement from category C to category B, in that the slips appoint them in grade B*3/B*4 and retain their basic salary as it was before the change of category through the application of a multiplier;

— Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority to remove the applicants' promotion points ('rucksack') following their advancement from category C to category B;

— Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of those annulments, that is to say, with retroactive effect from the day of their advancement from category C to category B: (1) the appointment of the applicants in grade B*5/B*6 under Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, (2) the payment to them of the basic salary to which they are entitled under the Article 2(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations without a multiplier, (3) their retention, after their advancement to category B, of the merit points and transitional points which they accumulated when they were employed in category C;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are all successful candidates of the internal competition for change of category COM/PB/04, the notice for which was published before the date when the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that date, they were appointed by the defendant to the higher category but, because of the application of a multiplier, that did not entail an increase in their remuneration. In addition, their promotion points were re-set at zero.

In their action, the applicants submit three complaints, the first of which is that their appointment to grade B*3/B*4 is unlawful to the extent that the equivalent grades to those referred to in the competition notice are the grades B*5/B*6, in accordance with Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

So far as the second complaint is concerned, the applicants argue that the application of a multiplier to their remuneration is contrary to, on the one hand, the Staff Regulations, which make no mention of the application of such a factor in this instance, and, on the other hand, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of acquired rights.

Lastly, as regards the third complaint, the applicants maintain that the cancellation of their promotion points is contrary to the spirit of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations and Article 5 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, and the principle of equal treatment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/34

Action brought on 29 August 2007 — Dominguez Gonzalez v Commission

(Case F-88/07)

(2008/C 37/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Juan Luís Domínguez González (Girona, Spain) (represented by: R. Nicolazzi Angelats, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 20 310,68 for damages, not including material and personal damages, and the costs of the application;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks compensation for damages, which, according to the applicant, arise from the Commission's decision of 20 July 1999 to terminate his contract with the Humanitarian Aid Department of the European Community (ECHO) that he signed on 1 July 1999 after passing the medical examination provided for in the contract.

In support of his application the applicant claims principally that:

— the contract was terminated on the basis of an examination of his medical problems which was conducted without using up to date information and therefore without taking account of his current state of health;

— he did not receive any answer to the series of letters sent to the responsible persons at ECHO in order to rectify the earlier error.

— the Commission breached the terms of the contract stipulating that it could enter into force only when the employee's state of health had been positively evaluated.
—

Order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages fixed in accordance with the principles of equity at EUR 28 718 for the material and non-material loss suffered as a result of the unlawful decision of the selection board, plus interest from the date of lodging the application;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/36

Action brought on 18 October 2007 — Šimonis v Commission

(Case F-113/07)

(2008/C 79/69)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Irmantas Šimonis (Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Vilkas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities by which, in the course of the selection procedure to fill a post which is the subject of notice of vacancy No COM/2007/142, it withdrew its request to transfer the applicant to the Commission and excluded him from the selection procedure;

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 8 August 2007 dismissing complaint No R/273/07 filed by the applicant on 27 April 2007;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant puts forward three pleas, the first of which alleges infringement of his legitimate expectations resulting from the conclusion of an institutional agreement between the heads of administration in 2005 which provides that a waiting period of three years would be imposed prior to any inter-institutional transfers of newly recruited officials.

In his second three, the applicant claims the Commission's decision is unlawful on the grounds of failure to state reasons, the fact that it is not proportional to the interests protected, and that the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the decision operates discrimination based on nationality.

In his third plea the applicant claims infringement of the principle of sound administration and breach of the duty of care towards officials.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/33

Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission

(Case F-21/08)

(2008/C 116/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eric Gippini Fournier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Ruggeri Laderchi)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the Commission's decision to award no priority points to the applicant in the 2003 Promotion procedure, refusing to award ‘DG priority points’ and refusing to award points for work in the interest of the institution pursuant to Article 9 of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. Secondly, an order that the defendant compensate the applicant for the economic loss which he has suffered and will suffer throughout his career because of the delays in his promotions arising from the contested decision and pay him the sum of EUR 2 500 as compensation for non-material damage.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision to award no priority points to the applicant in the 2003 Promotion procedure, refusing to award ‘DG priority points’ and refusing to award points for work in the interest of the institution pursuant to Article 9 of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the economic loss which he has suffered and will suffer throughout his career because of the delays in his promotions arising from the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 500 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;
—

in the alternative, decide the order in which the case is to be dealt with in accordance with Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure so that the applicant is still able to take part in selection procedure PE/95/S.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/51

Action brought on 22 April 2008 — Bernard v Europol

(Case F-45/08)

(2008/C 171/102)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Marjorie Bernard (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision of Europol concerning the assessment of the applicant and the implicit rejection of her complaint with regard to that assessment, and, second, an order for Europol to pay damages.

Form of order sought

— Annul the assessment of 25 July 2007 and the implicit decision to reject the complaint lodged by Ms Bernard on 23 October 2007;

— Order Europol to pay damages of up to EUR 7 500;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/25

Action brought on 14 February 2008 — Wybranowski v Commission

(Case F-17/08)

(2008/C 158/44)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Andrzej Wybranowski (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: Z. Wybranowski, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for amendment of the decision of 15 November 2007 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/60/06 to award the applicant 20/50 points in the oral test and, consequently, not to include him on the reserve list, and the decision of 20 December 2007 of the same selection board not to increase the number of points obtained, after a review of the oral test, by means of including the applicant on the reserve list. In the alternative, an application for annulment of those decisions and for an order that the defendant and/or competition selection board adopt a new decision including the applicant on the reserve list.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— amend the decision of 15 November 2007 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/60/06 to award the applicant 20/50 points in the oral test and, consequently, not to include him on the reserve list, and the decision of 20 December 2007 of the same selection board not to increase the number of points obtained, after a review of the oral test, by means of including the applicant on the reserve list;

— in the alternative, annul those decisions and order the defendant and/or competition selection board to adopt a new decision including the applicant on the reserve list;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/62

Action brought on 30 June 2008 — Klug v European Medicines Agency

(Case F-59/08)

(2008/C 223/119)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bettina Klug (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: S. Zickgraf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the performance evaluation report drawn up by the defendant in respect of the applicant for the period from 31 December 2004 to 31 December 2006, and order for payment by the defendant of compensation for material and non-material damage.

Form of order sought

— Declare the performance evaluation report drawn up by the defendant in respect of the applicant for the period from 31 December 2004 to 31 December 2006 void;

— declare the non-renewal of the applicant's employment contract unlawful;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation for material damage in the sum of EUR 200 000;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/33

Action brought on 18 March 2008 — Carvalhal Garcia v Council

(Case F-40/08)

(2008/C 183/65)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Carvalhal Garcia (Sines, Portugal) (represented by: F. Antas da Cunha, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Council's decision refusing to grant the education allowance for the applicant's daughter

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:
—

Annul the decision dated 10 January 2008 in which the Appointing Authority rejected the applicant's request for revision of the calculation of the pension annuities that she had acquired in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Communities as a result of the transfer of pension rights by Greek social security institutions;
—

Annul the decision of 4 October 2007 by which the defendant informed the applicant that there was no possibility of offering him a permanent post, the decision of 29 April 2008 rejecting the complaint against the earlier decision and the decision of 12 June 2008, which follows on from that of 4 October 2007;
—

confirm that, on 30 April 2003 and 2 May 2003, members of the defendant's staff or its representatives entered the applicant's lodgings against his will, took photographs, drew up a list of the applicant's presumed personal effects, carried out an evaluation of each item on the list of personal effects, entered the applicant's motor vehicle, took possession of the applicant's personal effects and motor vehicle and evicted him from the lodgings and their appurtenances;
—

Annul the decision not to promote the applicant in 2008, published in Staff Note No 32/2008 of 5 May 2008, and the acts preparatory to that decision, in particular the decisions of 19 and 29 February 2008 which were the subject of the Staff Notes Nos 10-2008 and 17-2008 adopting the lists of those eligible for promotion at 1 January 2008, inasmuch as they concern the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/53

Action brought on 16 January 2009 — Ridolfi v Commission

(Case F-3/09)

(2009/C 55/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Ridolfi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision to refuse the applicant entitlement to reuse and retain the education allowance together with interest in respect of his two eldest children.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2008 refusing the applicant entitlement to reuse and retain the education allowances together with interest in respect of his two eldest children;

— annul all of the Commission's decisions taken to implement the aforementioned decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2008, in particular the note of the Head of Unit of the External Service Directorate of DG RELEX, of 12 December 2008‘Rights and Obligations of Officials and Members of the Contract Staff’, recovering the sum of EUR 1 295,38;

— so far as necessary, annul the Commission's express decision of 6 October 2008 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant under Article 90(2) on 5 June 2008;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/46

Action brought on 9 March 2009 — Juvyns v Council

(Case F-20/09)

2009/C 113/98

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marc Juvyns (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/53

Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Menghi v ENISA

(Case F-2/09)

(2009/C 55/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Achille Menghi (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to confirm the applicant's contract after the probationary period and an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision of 3 October 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint relating to the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 14 March 2008 not to confirm the applicant's contract;

— Consequently, annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 14 March 2008 not to confirm the applicant's contract;

— Order the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment to pay compensation to the applicant for the financial harm caused by the failure to confirm his three year contract of employment, the financial harm caused as a result of the medical expenses which he had to incur and the non-material harm suffered on account of psychological harassment;
—

order the Commission to pay to the heirs and successors of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano the sum of EUR 2 552 837,96, corresponding to the murdered official’s salary spanning a period of 26 years, to be reassessed in order to take account of that person’s career prospects (as regards both the automatic addition of points on the pay scale and likely promotions in grade) by way of compensation for financial loss;
—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 under the 2008 promotion procedure and, to the extent that it is necessary, the decision to promote to that grade less meritorious officials;
—

Order the defendant, in addition, with regard to the similar additional damage caused, to pay appropriate damages of at least EUR 10 per day, from the day following the bringing of the action until the day on which there is full and lawful compliance with Cases T-85/04 and T-394/04 by lawful completion of the appraisal and promotion procedures concerning the applicant to which those cases refer, equal to the payment of the full surrogate damages which would be payable in the event of acceptance of the fifth plea-in-law below;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 167/27

Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Wendler v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-49/09)

2009/C 167/54

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eberhard Wendler (Laveno Mombello, Italy) (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s demand on the applicant to designate a bank account at his place of residence in Italy for his pension payments.

Forms of orders sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

— Annul the decision of the defendant of 9 September 2008, in the form of the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal of 19 February 2008, according to which he is obliged to designate a bank account at his place of residence for his pension payments;