Case C‑460/18 P

HK

v

European Commission

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 19 December 2019

(Appeal — Civil service — Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Article 1d — First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII — Pension for the surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Concept of ‘surviving spouse’ of a Union official — Marriage and non-marital partnership — Cohabitation — Principle of non-discrimination — Comparable situation — None — Condition of duration of marriage — Combating fraud — Justification)

1. Judicial proceedings — Statement of reasons for judgments — Scope

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Art. 53, first paragraph)

   (see paragraphs 38, 50-53)

2. Officials — Pensions — Pension for the surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Marriage — Registered non-marital partnership treated in the same way as marriage in certain circumstances — Cohabitation treated in the same way as marriage — Not included

   (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 1d(1), second subpara., Annex VII, Art. 1(2)(c) and Annex VIII Art. 17, first para.)

   (see paragraphs 68-78)

3. Officials — Equal treatment — Pension for the surviving spouse — Cohabitation and marriage — Non-comparable situations

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21(1); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 1d and Annex VIII, Art. 17, first para.; Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 2)

   (see paragraphs 84, 85)

4. Officials — Pension for the surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Marriage — Miniumum duration of marriage — Non-discriminatory condition to combat abuse and fraud

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21(1); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 1d and Annex VIII, Art. 17, first para.; Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 2)

   (see paragraphs 89, 90)

5. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation

   (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91)

   (see paragraph 93)

Résumé

The Court confirms that the surviving spouse of an official of the European Union must have been linked to that official for more than 1 year by marriage or, subject to certain conditions, by a registered non-marital partnership, in order to receive a survivor’s pension

In the judgment in HK v Commission (C‑460/18 P), delivered on 19 December 2019, the Court set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2018 in HK v Commission ( 1 ) and, in giving final judgment in the dispute, dismissed both the action for annulment brought by the appellant against the decision of the European Commission refusing to grant him a survivor’s pension as the surviving spouse of an official and his action for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

That case concerned the appellant’s request to be able to receive the survivor’s pension as the surviving spouse of a European Commission official who died on 11 April 2015, to whom he was married since 9 May 2014. The couple had already been cohabiting since 1994. The appellant had regularly received money from his partner because of health problems which prevented him from working or attending training.

First of all, the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court dismissing the appellant’s action, on the ground that the General Court had infringed its obligation to state reasons. In that regard, the Court of Justice stated that the statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal does not disclose in a clear and comprehensible manner the General Court’s reasoning with regard to the determination of the persons eligible to receive a survivor’s pension under the first paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), which was important for the question of the comparable nature of situations weighed up for the purposes of examining the compatibility of that article of the Staff Regulations with the general principle of non-discrimination.

In taking the view that the case was ready for judgment, the Court of Justice went on to hold that the Commission was correct to refuse the appellant entitlement to the survivor’s pension on the ground that he did not satisfy the condition relating to the minimum duration of 1 year of marriage with the deceased official, laid down in the first paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

The Court stated that neither the fact that that article excludes from its scope cohabitation, nor the fact that it imposes such a minimum duration of marriage in order for the surviving spouse to be entitled to the survivor’s pension were manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objective of the survivor’s pension and did not infringe the general principle of non-discrimination.

According to the Court, entitlement to the survivor’s pension is not linked to any financial dependence of the spouse on the deceased. By contrast, the recipient of that pension must have been linked to the deceased official in the context of a civil relationship which has created a set of rights and obligations between them, such as marriage or, in certain circumstances, a registered marital partnership.

The Court stated that those conditions included in particular the fact that the surviving partner supplies an official document recognised as such by a Member State or by any competent authority of a Member State, attesting to the status of non-marital partners and that the couple did not have access to legal marriage.

Thus, the Court has held that in principle a de facto union, such as cohabitation, which is not, in principle, covered by a status set by law, does not satisfy the conditions required and that, therefore, in the light of the survivor’s pension, the cohabiters were not in a situation comparable to that of married persons or that of partners who have entered into a registered partnership satisfying the conditions laid down for eligibility for that pension.

Furthermore, the Court has held that, with a view to combating abuse, or even fraud, the EU legislature had discretion in establishing the entitlement to a survivor’s pension and that the requirement that the marriage must have lasted for at least 1 year in order for the surviving spouse to be entitled to the survivor’s pension was intended to ensure the reality and stability of the relationship between the persons concerned.

The Court concluded that the action for compensation for the material or non-material damage allegedly suffered had also to be dismissed as unfounded, since the appellant’s claims in that regard were closely connected with the claim for annulment which had itself been dismissed as unfounded.

( 1 ) T‑574/16, not published, EU:T:2018:252.