Case T-343/22: Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Mozelsio v Commission
Date: 2022-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, retirement conditions, seniority, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights, working time








C_2022284EN.01005801.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/58






Action brought on 9 June 2022 — Mozelsio v Commission
(Case T-343/22)
(2022/C 284/79)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Muriel Mozelsio (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: D. Grisay and A. Ansay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


admit the present application for annulment/seeking to establish non-contractual liability/for an incidental assessment of validity;










—


declare the action admissible and, consequently;










—


primarily






—


declare that the action for annulment is admissible in the light of the fact that a document establishing the applicant’s right to repayment — a document that was capable of adversely affecting her — was not sent;










—


annul the decision of the Commission of 11 March 2022;










—


refer the case back to the appointing authority for a determination of the amount to be repaid to the applicant;














—


in the alternative






—


declare that the claim for compensation based on unjust enrichment is well founded;










—


order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the financial harm she has suffered, evaluated on the day the present application was lodged in the principal amount of EUR 15 051,38;














—


in the final alternative






—


request that the Commission set out its calculation method and apply that method to the present situation;














—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of Article 77(1) and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant claims, in support of the unlawfulness of the provisions referred to above, that an official or member of the temporary staff should be able to make an informed decision on the transfer of his or her national pension rights to the European system when he or she draws his or her pension, not before. However, the application of the current rule entails a difference in treatment compared with that of an official who either has spent his or her entire career within the European system or took up his or her duties within the EU institutions without transferring pension rights previously acquired within the pension system of a Member State. The applicant therefore takes the view that there is an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination which leads to the unlawfulness of the contested provisions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to provide assistance and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials covered by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that, on transferring her pension rights, she did not receive any table stating that she was entitled to the repayment of the nominal capital value of the contributions paid into her original national scheme and not accounted for in the EU pension system.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. According to the applicant, the fact that certain officials are reimbursed when their pension rights are transferred and others are not constitutes an infringement of the principle of equal treatment and unjustified discrimination.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging existence of unjust enrichment to the applicant’s detriment. The applicant claims that, when her national rights were transferred to the pension regime of the EU institutions, no reimbursement of the excess, corresponding to the capital value that was not taken into account in calculating her grant of additional seniority, was made.