EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/32

(2004/C 70 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1146/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Abolition of pension weightings

In direct and total contradiction with the statements made by the Commission representative at the meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 28 November 2002 and its answer to Question E-0088/03 (1), it is absolutely clear that the judgement of 14 December 1995 in case T-285/94 in no way justifies the application of weightings to officials' retirement pensions.

The issue raised by the plaintiff in paragraph 28 of the judgement has not been considered by the Court, as paragraph 52 of the same judgement shows.

Under these circumstances, will the Commission say what disciplinary measures it intends to take in respect of an official who has not only deliberately falsified the facts, but involved a Commissioner in repeating this falsehood?

Given that this is the only argument put forward so far by the Commission to defend this absurd and unfair system, will it say when it intends to abolish weightings for officials' retirement pensions?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to paragraph 28 of the judgement of 14 December 1995 in Case T-285/94 and states that the issue raised by the plaintiff, Mr Pfloeschner was not considered by the Court. His questions refer to paragraph 52 of the same judgement and he asks what disciplinary measures the Commission will take in respect of an official who falsifies facts and involves a Commissioner in this. He also asks when the system of the weightings will be abolished.

The Honourable Member appears to have inadvertently misinterpreted legal details which are very relevant to the case.

It is true that the issue raised by the plaintiff was not considered by the Court: However, this is in no a way decisive factor. The Court did not in any way reject Mr Pfloeschner's argument, it merely did not have to consider it since the case could be dealt with on the basis of the first argument, which was illegality of Council regulation 2175/88. However, in considering that argument — relating to Regulation 2175/88 — the Court expressly referred to the justification for the weighting factors, and the justification is equal treatment under the explicit terms of the Staff Regulation. That was why the Commission referred to the Pfloeschner case and why it continues to do so.

The Court's reasoning in grounds 46-47 of the judgement is that Article 82 of the present Staff Regulations only provides that the weighting factor should be 100 where no other factor had been fixed. However those Regulations do not allow the Institutions to actually fix that factor as 100. This reasoning was based not only on the textual analysis of Article 82, but also upon the purpose of the weighting factor. Ground 47 says ‘Such a weighting factor [i.e. equal to 100] amounts, in a case like this one, to non-application of a weighting factor. It should be pointed out, in this connection, that the weighting factor is a means of correcting salaries and payments, whose purpose is precisely that of ensuring equivalent purchasing power for officials, whatever the country in which they are established’.

Equivalence of purchasing power is an expression of the fundamental principle of equal treatment. The Commission's reference to the Pfloeschner case was therefore entirely relevant, correct and accurate. Neither the Commissioner appearing at Cocobu nor Parliament have been misled and no facts have been falsified.

The Honourable Member will be aware that, in the context of the negotiations on the Reform of the Staff Regulations, the issue of pension weightings has been the subject of much debate and, indeed, their non-discriminatory nature has been called into question. As a consequence of this, legal precedent and political will do not — for the time being — coincide. The future of the weightings system will not be resolved with certainty until legislation of proposals relating to the Staff Regulations, now before the Council, has been concluded.

The Commission is sure that the Honourable Member understands that, in referring to jurisprudence on cases before the Court that have previously taken place, Commission officials are bound to reflect the legal situation established or clarified by those cases. They are not legally or procedurally in a position to base advice or action on speculation about what future political changes relating to pension rights and allowances might or might not occur.

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 155.