ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)

14 July 2015

Case F‑109/14

Silvana Roda

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Remuneration — Survivor’s pension — Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Right of the divorced spouse of the deceased official — Maintenance paid by the deceased official — Capping of the survivor’s pension — Action manifestly unfounded)

Application:      under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Ms Roda seeks an order that the European Commission pay her, by way of the survivor’s pension to which she is entitled, and from the date of her former spouse’s death, 35% of the amount of the retirement pension paid to him at the time of his death, plus interest in arrears.

Held:      The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. Ms Roda is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

1.      Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Scope

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 81)

2.      Officials — Pensions — Survivor’s pension — Maintenance fixed by an agreement between the former spouses — Capping of the survivor’s pension

(Staff Regulations, Annex VIII, Arts 18 and 27)

1.      Under Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, where an action is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Tribunal may, by reasoned order, give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.

In particular, the dismissal of an action by reasoned order made on the basis of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure not only benefits procedural economy, but also saves the parties the costs entailed by the holding of a hearing, if, upon reading the case-file, the Tribunal, provided that it considers itself to be sufficiently informed by the documents before it, is entirely convinced of the manifest inadmissibility of the application or that it is manifestly lacking any foundation in law and further considers that the holding of a hearing would be unlikely to provide new evidence capable of affecting that belief.

(see paras 14, 15)

See:

Orders of 10 July 2014 in Mészáros v Commission, F‑22/13, EU:F:2014:189, para. 39, and 23 April 2015 in Bensai v Commission, F‑131/14, EU:F:2015:34, para. 28

2.      The amount of the survivor’s pension to which a divorced spouse is entitled is governed solely by the provisions of Articles 27 and 28 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and, for the purpose of calculating and updating that amount, it makes no difference that the amount of maintenance provided for in Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations can no longer, under national law and by reason of the death of the former spouse, be changed.

Furthermore, Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations governs only the situation of the surviving spouse of a deceased official and is not intended, particularly as regards the minimum survivor’s pension of 35% of the last basic salary, to be applied by analogy to the situation of former spouses of the deceased official.

(see paras 19, 20)