This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0110
Case T-110/22: Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Kremer v Commission
Case T-110/22: Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Kremer v Commission
Case T-110/22: Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Kremer v Commission
OJ C 158, 11.4.2022, p. 14–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 158, 11.4.2022, p. 11–12
(GA)
11.4.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 158/14 |
Action brought on 28 February 2022 — Kremer v Commission
(Case T-110/22)
(2022/C 158/17)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Christiane Kremer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Grisay and A. Ansay, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
accept the present application for annulment/non-contractual liability; |
— |
declare the application admissible and consequently:
|
— |
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 the unlawfulness of Article 77(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations. The applicant submits that the abovementioned provisions provide that the official is to take the decision to transfer his pension rights, accrued in the national pension scheme, to the pension fund of the European Union (‘the PFEU’) within the 10 years of the official’s start of employment in the service of the institutions of the European Union. However, it is only at the time of retirement that the official who has carried out a transfer can accurately assess the scope of his possible transfer, in particular owing to the rule which limits the amount of pensions to 70 %. The applicant therefore concludes that, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, that rule creates a difference in treatment compared with an official who has spent his entire career within the European system. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of assistance and the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials referred to in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims that, upon transferring their pension rights from the national system to the PFEU, officials normally receive a table from the Commission clarifying whether they are entitled to a repayment of the non-supplemented actuarial equivalent of the contributed amounts in their original national scheme, not included in the EU pension scheme. In addition, repayment is generally made without restrictions or specific steps. According to the applicant, she has not received that table or any repayment. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The applicant takes the view that there is discrimination not justified by any objective criterion between some officials who receive a repayment when their pension rights are transferred and others for whom this is not the case. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that non-contractual liability has been incurred on account of unjust enrichment to the applicant’s detriment. |