Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/2642

(Case C-133/25 P)

(C/2025/2642)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: PV (represented by: D. Birkenmaier, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2024 in Case T-78/21, PV v Commission;

—give a ruling on the present dispute and Case T-78/21, as provided for under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

—order the defendant to pay the costs in Case C-133/25 P as well as all of the other costs relating to Case T-78/21.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal the appellant raises 12 grounds:

The first ground alleges infringement of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations resulting in the termination of rights to statutory pension on 1 November 2019 and, as a consequence, in the destruction of social rights, prohibited by Article 34 of the Charter.

The second ground alleges a lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings due to the absence of an employment relationship from 26 June 2017 which resulted in the absence of disciplinary offences under Article 86 of the Staff Regulations.

The third ground alleges infringement of Articles 59(3) and 60 of the Staff Regulations; a breach of the principle of legality and public policy by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO), which has no administrative powers to terminate statutory pension rights.

The fourth ground alleges that the PMO lacked competence to decide on the termination of the statutory pension and a breach of the legal principle ‘nullum crimen poena sine lege’.

The fifth ground is based on an infringement of Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter and infringement of the right to be heard.

The sixth ground concerns a breach of the general legal principle ‘fraus omnia corrompit’ as well as infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter (‘principle of good administration’) due to the use of a false signature in the termination of the statutory pension rights.

The seventh ground is linked to wilful misconduct resulting in the termination of the statutory pension.

The eighth ground is based on a breach of the rule of law ‘ne bis in idem’, infringement of Article 50 of the Charter and Article 9(3) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

The ninth ground alleges infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations (prohibition of psychological harassment, and of prejudicial effects where the official has acted honestly), and of Article 9b of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

The tenth ground alleges a misuse of powers by the services of the PMO, since the termination of statutory pension rights was not the subject of a regular and formalised decision on the part of the competent appointing authority.

The eleventh ground concerns a breach of the principle of equal treatment and infringement of Article 20 of the Charter (principle of non-discrimination).

The twelfth ground alleges a breach of the right to a fair trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, infringement of Article 41(1) and 47 of the Charter and infringement of Article 18 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2642/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—