Case F-60/07: Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Martin Bermejo v Commission
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, pension scheme

C 199/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.8.2007

The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 85 of the
Staff Regulations inasmuch as the CoR found that the irregu-
larity of the transfers at issue was so apparent that, in view of
his legal qualifications, the applicant was or, at the very least,
ought to have been aware of it. In that respect, the applicant
considers that: (i) in the light of the Conclusion of the Heads of
Administration, the building savings account which he opened
appeared to correspond to the concept of
‘building savings
contract’ for the purposes of the Common Rules; (ii) bringing
the building savings account below the maximum limit in the
way he did appeared to comply with those rules; (iii) following
reviews in December 2003 and December 2004, his personnel
(iv) having only
file appeared to be complete and in order;
restricted access to his personnel file, he was not in a position
to consult the necessary documents in order to review whether
the transfers were in order.

equal treatment, as interpreted by the Civil Service Tribunal in
its judgment of 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chat-
ziioannidou v Commission (not yet published).

(1) Administrative Notice No 60/2004 of 9 June 2004.
(2) OJ 1997 L 162, p. 1.

Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Bauch v Commission

(Case F-61/07)

(2007/C 199/101)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Martin Bermejo v
Commission

Parties

(Case F-60/07)

(2007/C 199/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Joaquin Martin Bermejo (Brussels, Belgium)

Applicant:
(repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare the unlawfulness of

the Commission decision of
28 April 2004 adopting the new General
Implementing
Provisions of Article 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff
Regulations and, to the extent that it is necessary, the unlaw-
fulness of those provisions of the Staff Regulations;

— annul the Commission decision of 27 September 2006 inas-
much as it fixes the calculation of credited pension rights
to the Community pension
transferred by the applicant
scheme;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the General Imple-
menting Provisions of Article 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the
Staff Regulations on the transfer of pension rights (1), inasmuch
as the rule set out in Article 7(3) thereof infringes Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions
relating to the introduction of the euro (2) and the principle of

Applicant: Gerhard Bauch (Berlin, Germany)
W. Uhlmann, lawyer)

(represented by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Direct the defendant to amend its certificate of 12 March
2003 or, alternatively, to issue further confirmation to the
applicant to the effect that the amount repaid to the appli-
cant does not amount
to a severance grant by way of
compensation for retirement pension rights or, therefore, to
the equivalent of a retirement
a retirement pension or
pension;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was employed by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities as a member of the temporary staff. He was
granted unpaid leave for that period of employment from his
post as an official of the then Federal Ministry of Economics.
The Ministry reduced the applicant's retirement pension because
of the cumulation of pension benefits and a pension from inter-
national and supranational employment, as the Commission of
the European Communities had issued the applicant with a
certificate concerning the payment of a severance grant
in
compensation for pension rights.

The applicant complains that the Commission's certificate is
defective inasmuch as members of the temporary staff cannot
acquire pension rights owing to the short period of service
(Articles 77 to 84 of the Staff Regulations), and the applicant
was thus merely refunded the pension fund contributions that
had been deducted.