This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024TN0679
Case T-679/24: Action brought on 27 December 2024 – Menacho v Commission
Case T-679/24: Action brought on 27 December 2024 – Menacho v Commission
Case T-679/24: Action brought on 27 December 2024 – Menacho v Commission
OJ C, C/2025/928, 17.2.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/928/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2025/928 |
17.2.2025 |
Action brought on 27 December 2024 – Menacho v Commission
(Case T-679/24)
(C/2025/928)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Manuela Menacho (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: D. Grisay, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The Applicant claims that the General Court should:
|
— |
grant the present application for annulment / extra-contractual liability; |
|
— |
declare it admissible and, consequently, |
|
— |
principally:
|
|
— |
in the alternative:
|
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in relation to Articles 77(1) and 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). |
The aforementioned articles stipulate that officials must take the decision to transfer their pension rights accumulated within the national system to the European Union Pension Fund (‘PFEU’) within ten years of starting to work for the institutions of the European Union. However, it is only when they retire that officials who have made a transfer can properly assess the extent of their possible transfer, in particular because of the rule limiting the amount of pensions to 70 %. That rule therefore creates a difference in treatment compared with an official who has spent his entire career within the European system.
Thus, the contested provisions are unlawful: the claimant should therefore be able to make an informed choice about transferring her national pension rights to the European system when she takes her pension and not before. An interpretation to the contrary would violate the principle of non-discrimination.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging non-contractual liability and unjust enrichment to the detriment of the applicant. |
When the applicant’s pension rights are transferred to the PFEU, a conversion mechanism is put in place. First, the national administration determines a capital amount (actuarial equivalent). Next, the European Commission carries out its own calculation to convert the actuarial equivalent into the number of additional years that will be taken into account when calculating the official’s pension rate on retirement.
However, it was found that on her retirement, the applicant did not receive reimbursement of the percentage in excess of that provided for in Article 77 of the Staff Regulations, even though that excess percentage came from contributions paid into the Belgian pension scheme, which were transferred by way of capitalisation to the PFEU, and which will not be taken into account in establishing the pension to which the applicant was entitled.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/928/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)