EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-602/20: Action brought on 30 September 2020 — MS v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0602

62020TN0602

September 30, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/41

(Case T-602/20)

(2020/C 414/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: MS (represented by: M. Medla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision in the form of the decision on the complaint;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against Decision PMO 4, TFT IN, 0425863600, of the European Commission, PMO — Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements, PMO 4 — Pensions and relations with former officials, of 3 December 2019, in the form of Decision HR.E.2/NX/sb/Ares of the European Commission, DG HR — Directorate General for Human Resources and Security, DIR E — Legal Affairs & Partnerships, Unit 2 — Appeals & Case Monitoring, of 30 June 2020, by which the applicant’s complaint against the contested decision was rejected.

The action is based on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of the Court of Justice of 12 May 2004 laying down general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

The applicant claims that the defendant incorrectly used as a basis for the calculation of the years of pensionable service to be credited the capital that was actually transferred and discounted by 3,9 % per annum to the day of the transfer application. According to the applicant, instead, the defendant should have used as a basis for this calculation the value, submitted by the national pension scheme provider, of the pension rights at the time of the transfer application. This would have led to a number of years of pensionable service to be credited that is over 20 % higher.

(1) Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1959-1962, p. 135).

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia