EN
23.5.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 207/51
4.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law, and committed errors of fact and assessment, in failing to seek clarifications when possible and useful, in breach of the principles of good administration and procedural fairness. 5.
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the procurement procedure was vitiated by a series of breaches of fundamental principles of EU law. 6.
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law in failing to impose any measures to safeguard Member States’ rights under Article 346 TFEU not to disclose information contrary to the essential interests of their security, and breached the principle of equal treatment.
(1) (2)
The ‘consortium’, as defined in the application, is composed of Telefonica de España, the applicant, plus two other entities.
By ‘the offer’ is meant the consortium’s tender offer.
Action brought on 31 March 2022 — OR and OS v Commission (Case T-171/22) (2022/C 207/67) Language of the case: French Parties Applicants: OR and OS (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: — annul the decision of 12 July 2021 by which the [Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of the European Commission (PMO)] rejected the applicants’ request of 18 March 2021, made on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, for payment of the pension rights accumulated by their deceased father under the Pension Scheme of the European Union Institutions (‘the PSEUI’) and of the pension rights acquired prior to his entry into service; — annul, in so far as it is considered to supplement the statement of reasons, the decision of 22 December 2021 by which the Appointing Authority rejected the applicants’ complaint of 20 September 2021; — order the defendant to return to the applicants the amount of the rights corresponding to the contributions made by the deceased to the PSEUI and the amount of his national pension rights transferred thereto; — order the defendant to pay the interest due on the amounts to be returned at the European Central Bank interest rate, increased by two percentage points, from the date of the transfer and the monthly contributions; — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment of the European Union.
The applicants argue in this regard that their father had acquired, prior to his death, the right to transfer his years of pensionable service acquired under the PSEUI and the years of pensionable service acquired under his national pension rights, and emphasise that this right is not subject to any limitation period.
The applicants add that, since their father had not completed, prior to his death, the ten years of actual service that would have enabled him to benefit from the payment of a retirement pension under the PSEUI, the sums contributed constitute unjust enrichment of the European Union.