Case C-835/24 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2024 by PT against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2024 in Case T-788/22, PT v Commission
Date: 2024-12-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, equal treatment, maladministration, principle of proportionality, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), subsistence level income, transfer of pension rights








C_202501740EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1740


31.3.2025






Appeal brought on 5 December 2024 by PT against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2024 in Case T-788/22, PT v Commission


(Case C-835/24 P)

(C/2025/1740)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: PT (represented by: S. Orlandi, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the judgment of 25 September 2024 in PT v Commission, T-788/22;










—


order the European Commission to refund to the appellant the updated capital value of the pension rights that she transferred to the PSEUI under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of her appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a number of errors of law, in particular:






—


a distortion of the facts and arguments put forward by the appellant,










—


errors in the analysis of the conditions for unjust enrichment,










—


an incorrect assessment of the relevance of comparisons with other beneficiaries of the minimum subsistence figure rule and in particular with the appellants in Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice (T-702/16 P).




According to the appellant, the General Court distorted her arguments by stating that she had knowingly accepted the ‘risks’ of transferring her pension rights. The appellant pointed out that she had understood the transfer as a guarantee that her pension rights would be increased by adding additional pensionable years, not as a risky act likely to lead to the loss of her transferred rights without consideration.
The appellant stated that the information provided at the time of the transfer did not make it possible to assess the potential impact of the minimum subsistence figure rule, in particular for members of the contract staff in function groups I and II.
The transfer of pension rights has no effect on the calculation of the pension under the minimum subsistence figure scheme. The retention of those rights by the European Union creates unjust enrichment to the detriment of the appellant.
Contrary to what the General Court states, the appellant raised a plea of illegality in respect of the fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations in a related case (T-367/22), and also disputed that provision in the present case (the scope of a provision being, moreover, a matter of public policy).
The General Court erred in stating that the refusal to reimburse the rights transferred has a valid legal basis (fourth paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations), when no provision of the Staff Regulations explicitly provides for that refusal.
The General Court erroneously rejected an analogy with an article of the general implementing provisions applicable to transfers of pension rights, which provides for the reimbursement of transferred rights in comparable cases. That analogy shows that the retention of rights without consideration constitutes, according to the case-law, unjust enrichment. Whether the unjust enrichment is established at the time of the transfer or when the pension rights are calculated is irrelevant in the light of the objectives of the transfer, the right to equal treatment, the principle of proportionality and the right to sound administration.
The General Court was incorrect to reject the relevance of the comparison between the situation of the appellant in the present case and that of the appellants in Barroso Truta and Others, who obtained reimbursement of their transferred pension rights in an identical situation.
By disregarding the similarities with the beneficiaries of the minimum subsistence figure rule who retained their non-transferred pension rights, the General Court failed to comply with the fundamental principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
The General Court did not demonstrate that the failure to reimburse the rights transferred was compatible with the principle of proportionality or the right to equal treatment.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1740/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)