Case C-603/25 P: Appeal brought on 12 September 2025 by Gianfranco Emanuele and Dorte Hansen against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2025 in Case T-228/24, Emanuele and Hansen v Parliament
Date: 2025-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, pension scheme, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_202600440EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/440


2.2.2026






Appeal brought on 12 September 2025 by Gianfranco Emanuele and Dorte Hansen against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2025 in Case T-228/24, Emanuele and Hansen v Parliament


(Case C-603/25 P)

(C/2026/440)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Gianfranco Emanuele, Dorte Hansen (represented by: L. Levi, P. Baudoux, avocates)

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

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 July 2025, Emanuele and Hansen v Parliament (T-228/24, ‘the judgment under appeal’, ECLI:EU:T:2025:651);










—


consequently, grant the appellants the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly:






—


annul the decision at issue of 4 July 2023 concerning the appellants’ pension rights, in particular refusing their request for the application of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and informing them that only Article 28 of that annex is applicable to them;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the appellants’ individual complaints, dated 5 February 2024;














—


order the defendant to pay all of the costs of both sets of proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds of appeal:






—


First ground of appeal, alleging breach of the scope of the law, in particular Articles 21, 22 and 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and breach by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons.
In essence, the appellants allege that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court disregarded the criterion established by the case-law for the application of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, a criterion which must be applied when interpreting Article 28 of that annex.










—


Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment in the examination of the plea of illegality and breach by the General Court of its obligation to state reasons.
In the judgment under appeal, the General Court failed to address the appellants’ criticism concerning the comparison of their situation with that of any other contributor to the pension scheme (including the case of an official becoming a member of the temporary staff). Next, the existence of different categories of staff does not justify the difference in treatment between officials and other servants, since what is at issue is whether, with regard to the acquisition of pension rights, a member of the temporary staff who becomes an official should/may be treated differently to ‘other contributors’ who have continuously maintained their membership of the pension scheme (contributors who have always been officials, those who have always been other servants, and those who have been officials then other servants). In addition, there are no ‘objective differences’ as found in the judgment at issue. Furthermore, the objectives of actuarial balance and budgetary discipline are not relevant for the purposes of examining the legality of Article 28 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. Thus, the criterion of differentiation – which, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court appears to limit, incorrectly, to the difference between officials and other servants – is unrelated to the objectives pursued and the opposite conclusion in the judgment under appeal is vitiated, on the same grounds, by an error of law.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/440/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)