CELEX: 62016TN0769
Language: en
Date: 2016-11-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-769/16: Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Picard v Commission

16.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 14/44
            
         Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Picard v Commission
   (Case T-769/16)
   (2017/C 014/52)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Maxime Picard (Hettange-Grande, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision setting, in advance, certain elements of the applicant’s pension rights or the failure to adopt such a decision required by the Staff Regulations as a result of the message sent on 4 January 2016 to the applicant by a case handler in Section 001 ‘Pensions’ of Unit 4 of the PMO informing him, in response to his query of the same date, that his pension rights had changed following his re-employment in Function Group II at 1 June 2014, his pensionable age having become 66 years old and the accrual rate of his pension rights having become is 1,8 % from 1 June 2014;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul if necessary the decision of 26 July 2016 of the Director of Directorate E of the Human Resources Directorate General of the Commission, inasmuch as it rejects the applicant’s claim of 1 April 2016 against the decision or lack of decision resulting from the message of 4 January 2016 as inadmissible in the absence of a measure adversely affecting him and, in the alternative, as unfounded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the second and fifth paragraphs of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the second paragraph of Article 21 and the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Annex XIII thereto, applicable by virtue of Article 109 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) which vitiate the message of 4 January 2016, in that the date of entry into service taken into consideration for the application of those provisions of the regulation was 1 June 2014, the date on which the applicant entered Function Group II (‘FG II’) pursuant to Article 87(4) of the CEOS, whereas that date should have been 1 July 2008, the date on which he initially entered the Commission’s service as a member of the contractual staff in Function Group I.
   That plea in law is divided into two parts:
   
               —
            
            
               First part, alleging that Section 1 of Unit 4 of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (‘PMO’) and the Director of Directorate E of the Human Resources Directorate General of the Commission (DGHR) was incorrect to take the view, on the ground that the contract of 19 May 2014 by which the applicant entered FG II was new and had given rise to a fresh recruitment, that the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) and the second paragraph of Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations did not apply to him, so that paragraphs 5 and 2 of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations did apply to him, however, although the date of entry into service referred to in Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII is the date of first recruitment.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Second part, alleging an error also committed by Section 1 of the Unit of the PMO and the Director of Directorate E of the DGHR in taking the view, on the ground that the contract of 19 May 2014 by which the applicant entered GF II constituted a break in continuity in his career, that the second subparagraph of Article 22(1) and the second paragraph of Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations did not apply to him, so that paragraphs 5 and 2 of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations did apply to him, however, although that contract formed part of his continued career since it was intended to and had the effect of re-grading him without making any change to his duties other than a formal change.