ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

12 May 2016

Zlata Chatel

v

Council of the European Union

‛Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years, accepted by the applicant, based on new general implementing provisions — Concept of an act having an adverse effect — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure’

Application:

under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Zlata Chatel and Mr Vincent Piessevaux seek, respectively, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of the Council of the European Union (‘the appointing authority’) of 26 November 2013, by which that authority definitively fixed, for the purposes of the European Union pension scheme, the pension rights acquired by Ms Chatel prior to entering the service of the EU, and annulment of the appointing authority’s decision of 6 January 2014 definitively fixing the pension rights acquired by Mr Piessevaux for the purposes of the European Union pension scheme, following the transfer of rights which he had acquired under national pension schemes.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

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 — Decision to credit pensionable years adopted following transfer of the capital representing acquired pension rights — Included

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

As far as concerns the transfer of pension rights, no additional pensionable years may be credited to the official concerned as long as the capital representing his pension rights acquired under a different scheme has not been transferred to the EU pension scheme. In that regard, at the stage when the proposal for the pension rights to be credited is made, the institution concerned merely undertakes to apply correctly to the situation of the official concerned Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the general implementing provisions. Thus, such an undertaking expressed in a proposal for pensionable years to be credited does not give rise either to a fresh obligation on the institution in question or, consequently, to a change in the legal position of the official concerned, in particular because, even where the official gives his consent to the transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights which he acquired under a different scheme, the institution making the proposal is not under a corresponding obligation, once the amount of capital declared by the national fund has actually been transferred, automatically to award the official concerned the number of pensionable years stated in the original proposal, in the light of which the official confirmed his intention to transfer the capital to the EU pension scheme. Consequently, in the procedure for the transfer of pension rights laid down in Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, it is the decision adopted by the appointing authority, once the capital representing the pension rights acquired by the official concerned before entering the service of the EU has actually been transferred, which constitutes an act adversely affecting him, against which he may bring an action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. On the other hand, a proposal concerning the crediting of pension rights, if accepted by the official concerned, does not constitute an act adversely affecting him which may be the subject of an action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 31-35)

See:

Judgments of 13 October 2015 in Commission v Verile and Gjergji, T‑104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paras 50, 52, 53 and 74; Commission v Cocchi and Falcione, T‑103/13 P, EU:T:2015:777, para. 66, and Teughels v Commission, T‑131/14 P, EU:T:2015:778, paras 37, 46, 48, 49, 58 and 70