Case T-679/24: Action brought on 27 December 2024 – Menacho v Commission
Date: 2024-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, equal treatment, retired person, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_202500928EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/928


17.2.2025






Action brought on 27 December 2024 – Menacho v Commission


(Case T-679/24)

(C/2025/928)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Manuela Menacho (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: D. Grisay, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


grant the present application for annulment / extra-contractual liability;










—


declare it admissible and, consequently,










—


principally:






—


declare the action for annulment well founded and rule that the implied refusal of the appointing authority (AA) of 30 September 2024 and the decision taken by the European Commission on 14 March 2024 (fixing notice) are void;










—


and return the file to the AA so that it can determine the amount to be returned to the applicant;














—


in the alternative:






—


declare the action for damages based on unjust enrichment to be well founded;










—


order the Commission to pay compensation for the financial loss suffered by the applicant, assessed at the date on which the present application was lodged, in the sum of EUR 3 265,64 in capital;














—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in relation to Articles 77(1) and 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).




The aforementioned articles stipulate that officials must take the decision to transfer their pension rights accumulated within the national system to the European Union Pension Fund (‘PFEU’) within ten years of starting to work for the institutions of the European Union. However, it is only when they retire that officials who have made a transfer can properly assess the extent of their possible transfer, in particular because of the rule limiting the amount of pensions to 70 %. That rule therefore creates a difference in treatment compared with an official who has spent his entire career within the European system.
Thus, the contested provisions are unlawful: the claimant should therefore be able to make an informed choice about transferring her national pension rights to the European system when she takes her pension and not before. An interpretation to the contrary would violate the principle of non-discrimination.






2.


Second plea in law, alleging non-contractual liability and unjust enrichment to the detriment of the applicant.




When the applicant’s pension rights are transferred to the PFEU, a conversion mechanism is put in place. First, the national administration determines a capital amount (actuarial equivalent). Next, the European Commission carries out its own calculation to convert the actuarial equivalent into the number of additional years that will be taken into account when calculating the official’s pension rate on retirement.
However, it was found that on her retirement, the applicant did not receive reimbursement of the percentage in excess of that provided for in Article 77 of the Staff Regulations, even though that excess percentage came from contributions paid into the Belgian pension scheme, which were transferred by way of capitalisation to the PFEU, and which will not be taken into account in establishing the pension to which the applicant was entitled.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/928/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)