Case C-836/24 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-367/22, 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_202501741EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1741


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-367/22, PT v Commission


(Case C-836/24 P)

(C/2025/1741)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Parliament, 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-367/22;










—


annul the decision of 4 October 2021 by which the authority authorised to conclude contracts calculated and paid the appellant’s retirement pension rights, in so far as the appellant’s pension rights transferred to the PSEUI which have no effect on her pension are not refunded to her;










—


order the European 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, which primarily concern:






—


the analysis of the plea of illegality,










—


disregard of the fundamental objectives of the transfer of pension rights,










—


the incorrect application of the fundamental principles of equal treatment, of proportionality and of the right to sound administration.




According to the appellant, the General Court failed to consider the fundamental objectives of the transfer of pension rights, which are: (1) to guarantee the free movement of public servants in the European Union, (2) to make the European Union civil service more attractive by protecting acquired rights.
In concluding that members of staff who have transferred their rights must ‘bear all the consequences’ of that choice, the General Court has not demonstrated the compatibility of that position with the abovementioned objectives.
The General Court was incorrect to consider that the transferred pension rights influenced the amount of the pension under the minimum subsistence figure scheme, when the rights become entirely irrelevant and have no real effect in that context. The General Court established a hierarchy between the primary calculation of pension rights (additional pensionable years credited by virtue of a transfer/years of service) and the alternative application of the minimum subsistence figure (years of service only), in disregard of the principle that reasons must be given and the principle of consistency.
The appellant was not informed, at the time of the transfer, of the effects of the minimum subsistence figure rule. Consequently, it cannot be claimed that she would have accepted the risk of losing her rights if that rule were applied.
The refusal to reimburse the rights transferred, which have become nugatory, constitutes for the appellant disproportionate harm, without explicit legal or statutory justification.
The retention by the EU of rights transferred, without consideration, amounts to unjustified enrichment contrary to the fundamental principles of justice and of fairness.
The General Court did not correctly take into account the analogy with the situation of the appellants in Barroso Truta and Others, where members of staff in a comparable situation obtained reimbursement of their transferred pension rights. The General Court rejected the appellant’s line of argument on the grounds of lack of evidence, without taking into account the circumstances that made it impossible to provide that evidence.
The contested decision establishes an unjustified distinction between members of staff in comparable situations, failing to observe the principles of equality and of sound administration.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1741/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)