Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019TN0708

    Case T-708/19: Action brought on 17 October 2019 – Bujar v Commission

    IO C 10, 13.1.2020, p. 36–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    13.1.2020   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 10/36

    Action brought on 17 October 2019 – Bujar v Commission

    (Case T-708/19)

    (2020/C 10/48)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Marcin Bujar (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: R. Wardyn, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2018; and

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs of the process.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of Staff Regulations and Article 7(1) of the GIP:

    —

    the transferable pensionable years should be calculated on the basis of the amount actually transferred minus the capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the actual date of the transfer;

    —

    the PMO erred by calculating the transferable pensions rights based on the amount provided by the national administration in the provisional decision while the amount actually transferred was a result of the capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the actual date of the transfer, and: a recalculation of the pension rights by the national authority; the capital appreciation for the period prior to the request for a transfer.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging unjustified enrichment of the Union:

    —

    the calculation of the transferable years on the basis of a provisional amount which was subject to recalculation and that did not correspond uniquely to the capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the actual date of the transfer resulted in unjustified enrichment of the Union.
    Top