Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/2352

28.4.2025

(Case C-880/24 P)

(C/2025/2352)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: VK (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocata)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—Set aside the judgment of 9 October 2024 in Case T-148/23 VK v Commission;

—uphold the appeal at first and second instance;

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first and second instance.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant contests the General Court’s decision regarding the transfer of pension rights acquired prior to service with the European Union, arguing that the General Court erred in law and that the judgment provides insufficient reasoning.

In particular, the appellant criticises the interpretation according to which the mere submission of a transfer application has a ‘practical effect’ even without the attainment of ten years’ seniority, which is regarded as an essential condition for actual transfer. The appellant claims that the ‘practical effect’ of the procedure occurs only when the official accumulates at least ten years of service with the European institution and accepts the projected conversion of national contributions. Without this condition, the transfer cannot be successfully completed. Moreover, he criticises the General Court for having interpreted the ten-year period as a formality and not as a substantive requirement under the legislation.

The appellant then contests the General Court’s interpretation of the determination of when the period starts to run. The General Court held that the period runs from the date of entry into service, since the contributions to the European pension rights scheme are paid from that time. The appellant argues that the period should run from the date of appointment as an official or from the end of the probationary period, as indicated in the statutory provisions.

By not upholding the appellant’s position, the judgment alters the literal meaning of the rules, contravening the hierarchy of sources [of EU law] and particularly penalising temporary staff, whose employment is inherently precarious. The appellant alleges infringement of the literal interpretation criterion and the incorrect precedence given to secondary provisions (GIPs) over the Staff Regulations. He also complains of infringement of the criteria of interpretation applicable in EU law, since the General Court applies criteria of interpretation other than the literal interpretation criterion, in spite of the extreme clarity of the rule. The error of interpretation committed by the General Court is relevant because the appellant’s application was filed in time if the period is calculated from the end of the probationary period and not from the date of entry into service.

The appellant also alleges an error of law and a failure to state reasons with regard to the concepts of force majeure and exceptional conditions, which should have been interpreted differently in the context of circumstances that had never previously occurred, such as those related to the Covid 19 pandemic.

Lastly, the appellant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, in view of the fact that, by exceeding a period that is merely indicative, the appellant definitively loses the pension contributions accrued under Spanish law, given the prohibition on the cumulation of two pensions in force at national level and duly proven by the appellant by means of annexing the text of the national legislation.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2352/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—