Action brought on 1 February 2024 – CF v Commission

(Case T-51/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CF (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of PMO/2 Pensions No 1835091900 of 5 January 2023, refusing the transfer of pension rights from the GRC-ETEAP-EX TEAYAP national scheme to the European pension scheme;

annul the decision of PMO/2 Pensions No 1835091900 of 5 January 2023, refusing the transfer of pension rights from the GRC-MTS-METOXIKO-TAMEIO STRATOU national scheme to the European pension scheme;

annul the decision of PMO/2 Pensions No 1835091900 of 5 January 2023, refusing the transfer of pension rights from the GRC-EFKA (EX ETEAEP-EX OAEE) national scheme to the European pension scheme;

annul the decision of PMO/2 Pensions No 1835091900 of 5 January 2023, refusing the transfer of pension rights from the GRC-ETEAEP (EX-TPDY) national scheme to the European pension scheme;

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority No Ares(2023) 7199336 of 23 October 2023, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 27 March 2023;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging breach of law: the general implementing provisions, which introduce a time limit, not provided for in higher ranking rules, within which to act in order not to lose rights infringe Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. The applicant also raises a plea of illegality, under Article 277 TFEU, in respect of those general provisions.

Second plea in law, alleging an excusable error since the applicant was unable to respect the time limit invoked by the Commission because of a reform of pension funds in Greece, in respect of which he did not succeed in getting any clarification from the national authorities concerning its effects, despite his many requests.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of force majeure in that the Commission failed to assess properly the effects of the COVID 19 health crisis on compliance with the time limits.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials since the interests of the applicant and the circumstances surrounding the making of the request for a transfer-in were not taken into account.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in that the rejection of the request for a transfer-in has disproportionate consequences for the applicant who cannot recover the pension contributions paid into the national schemes.

____________