Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/932

17.2.2025

(Case T-10/25)

(C/2025/932)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marilyne Stassin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Grisay, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—admit the present application for annulment/seeking to establish non-contractual liability;

—declare the action admissible and, consequently;

—primarily:

—declare that the action for annulment is well-founded and rule that the decision of 4 October 2024 by which the appointing authority refused admissibility is invalid;

—refer the case back to the appointing authority for a determination of the amount to be repaid to the applicant;

—in the alternative:

—declare that the claim for compensation based on unjust enrichment is well-founded;

—order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the two instances of financial harm she has suffered, evaluated at the day the present application was lodged, in the amount of EUR 93 909,69;

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the first paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to those regulations are unlawful.

Pursuant to the abovementioned articles, an official must make the decision to transfer his or her pension rights accrued within the national system to the pension fund of the European Union (‘the EU pension fund’) in the 10 years following the start of his or her employment in the EU institutions. However, it is only upon retiring that the official who has made a transfer can correctly assess the extent of his or her possible transfer, in particular on account of the rule limiting the pension amount to 70 %. That rule therefore entails a difference in treatment compared with that of an official who has spent his or her entire career within the European system.

Thus, the contested provisions are unlawful: the applicant should thus be able to make an informed decision regarding the transfer of her national pension rights to the European system when she draws her pension, not before. An interpretation to the contrary would fail to observe the principle of non-discrimination.

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to provide assistance and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

When transferring their pension rights from the national system to the EU pension fund, officials usually receive, from the Commission, a table stating whether they are entitled to a reimbursement of the non-credited actuarial equivalent of the contributions paid into their original national scheme and not accounted for in the EU pension system. Moreover, the reimbursement generally takes place without any limitations or specific steps. In the present case, the applicant did not receive a table or any reimbursement. That situation is a serious breach by the Commission of its duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

3.Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination.

The fact that some officials are reimbursed when their pension rights are transferred and others are not, without any objective principle being applied, constitutes a failure to observe the principle of equal treatment as well as unjustified discrimination.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging non-contractual liability and unjust enrichment to the detriment of the applicant.

Upon transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU pension fund, a conversion mechanism is implemented. First of all, the national authorities determine the capital value (actuarial equivalent). Next, the European Commission makes its own calculation in order to convert the actuarial equivalent into the number of additional years to be taken into account in the calculation of the official’s pension rate upon retirement.

Nevertheless, it was established that, when she retired, the applicant did not receive a reimbursement of the percentage in excess of that provided for in Article 77 of the Staff Regulations, even though that percentage in excess derives from the contributions paid into the Belgian pension scheme, which were transferred by way of capitalisation to the EU pension fund, and which will not be taken into account to determine the pension to which the applicant is entitled.