| SODBA SODIŠČA (osmi senat) | JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber) |
| z dne 12. maja 2021 ( *1 ) | 12 May 2021 ( *1 ) |
| „Pritožba – Javni uslužbenci – Nekdanji pogodbeni uslužbenec – Socialna varnost – Skupni sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja (SSZZ) – Člen 95 Pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropske unije (PZDU) – Ohranitev vključenosti po upokojitvi – Pogoj, da je bila oseba zaposlena več kot tri leta – Zahteva za vključitev v SSZZ po prenosu pokojninskih pravic – Izenačitev priznane pokojninske dobe z leti zaposlitve – Zavrnitev zahteve – Ničnostna tožba – Akt, ki posega v položaj – Sklep Splošnega sodišča, s katerim je ugotovljena nedopustnost tožbe – Razveljavitev“ | (Appeal – Civil service – Former member of the contract staff – Social security – Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) – Article 95 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS) – Continued membership after retirement – Condition of having been employed for more than three years – Request to join the JSIS following a transfer of pension rights – Equating the credited years of pensionable service with years of service – Rejection of the request – Action for annulment – Act having an adverse effect – Order of the General Court declaring the action inadmissible – Order set aside) |
| V zadevi C‑202/20 P, | In Case C‑202/20 P, |
| zaradi pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodišča Evropske unije, vložene 12. maja 2020, | APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 12 May 2020, |
| Claudio Necci, stanujoč v Bruslju (Belgija), ki sta ga sprva zastopala S. Orlandi in T. Martin, avocats, nato S. Orlandi, avocat, | Claudio Necci, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented initially by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, avocats, and subsequently by S. Orlandi, avocat, |
| pritožnik, | appellant, |
| druge stranke v postopku so | the other parties to the proceedings being: |
| Evropska komisija, ki jo zastopata B. Mongin in T. S. Bohr, agenta, | European Commission, represented by B. Mongin and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents, |
| tožena stranka na prvi stopnji, | defendant at first instance, |
| Evropski parlament, ki ga zastopata J. Van Pottelberge in I. Terwinghe, agenta, | European Parliament, represented by J. Van Pottelberge and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents, |
| Svet Evropske unije, ki ga zastopata M. Bauer in M. Alver, agenta, | Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents, |
| intervenienta na prvi stopnji, | interveners at first instance, |
| SODIŠČE (osmi senat), | THE COURT (Eighth Chamber), |
| v sestavi N. Wahl, predsednik senata, F. Biltgen (poročevalec), sodnik, in L. S. Rossi, sodnica, | composed of N. Wahl, President of the Chamber, F. Biltgen (Rapporteur) and L.S. Rossi, Judges, |
| generalni pravobranilec: M. Bobek, | Advocate General: M. Bobek, |
| sodni tajnik: A. Calot Escobar, | Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, |
| na podlagi pisnega postopka, | having regard to the written procedure, |
| na podlagi sklepa, sprejetega po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca, da bo v zadevi razsojeno brez sklepnih predlogov, | having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, |
| izreka naslednjo | gives the following |
| Sodbo | Judgment |
| 1 | Pritožnik s pritožbo predlaga razveljavitev sklepa Splošnega sodišča Evropske unije z dne 25. marca 2020, Necci/Komisija (T‑129/19, neobjavljen, EU:T:2020:131, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijani sklep), s katerim je to kot nedopustno zavrglo njegovo ničnostno tožbo na podlagi člena 270 PDEU zoper odločbo Komisije z dne 18. aprila 2018, s katero je bila zaradi molka zavrnjena njegova zahteva za vključitev v skupni sistem zdravstvenega zavarovanja institucij Evropskih skupnosti (SSZZ), vložena 18. decembra 2017 (v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba). | 1 | By his appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2020, Necci v Commission (T‑129/19, not published, EU:T:2020:131; ‘the order under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible his action for annulment under Article 270 TFEU against the Commission’s decision of 18 April 2018 impliedly rejecting his request to join the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the Institutions of the European Communities (JSIS) submitted on 18 December 2017 (‘the decision at issue’). |
| Pravni okvir | Legal context |
| Kadrovski predpisi za uradnike Evropske unije | The Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union |
| 2 | Člen 72(1) Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropske unije (v nadaljevanju: Kadrovski predpisi), kakor so bili spremenjeni z Uredbo (EU, Euratom) št. 1080/2010 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 24. novembra 2010 (UL 2010, L 311, str. 1), v bistvu določa, da so uradnik, njegov zakonec, če ta ni upravičen do dajatev iste vrste in enake ravni na podlagi vseh drugih zakonskih ali drugih predpisov, njegovi otroci in druge vzdrževane osebe zdravstveno zavarovani pri SSZZ. Člen 72(2), prvi pododstavek, Kadrovskih predpisov določa: | „Uradnik, ki je do 63. leta starosti delal v Uniji [za Unijo] ali ki prejema invalidnino, je po prenehanju delovnega razmerja upravičen do dajatev, predvidenih v odstavku 1. Znesek prispevka se izračuna na podlagi njegove pokojnine ali invalidnine.“ | 2 | Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1080/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 (OJ 2010 L 311, p. 1), provides, in essence, that an official, his spouse, where the spouse is not eligible for benefits of the same nature and of the same level by virtue of any other legal provision or regulations, his children and other dependants, are insured against sickness by the JSIS. The first subparagraph of Article 72(2) of the Staff Regulations provides: | ‘An official who has remained in the service of the Union until the age of 63 years or who is in receipt of an invalidity allowance shall be entitled to the benefits provided for in paragraph 1 after he has left the service. The amount of contribution shall be calculated by reference to the amount of pension or allowance.’ |
| 3 | Člen 90 Kadrovskih predpisov, kakor so bili spremenjeni z Uredbo št. 1080/2010, spada v naslov VII, naslovljen „Pravna sredstva“, in določa: | „1. Vsaka oseba, za katero veljajo ti kadrovski predpisi, lahko pri organu za imenovanja vloži zahtevo za sprejem odločitve, ki se nanaša nanjo. Organ obvesti zadevno osebo o svoji obrazloženi odločitvi v štirih mesecih od datuma zahteve. Če po izteku tega roka ni odgovora na zahtevo, se šteje, da gre za molk organa, ki pomeni zavrnitev zahteve, zoper katero se lahko vloži pritožba v skladu z naslednjim odstavkom. | 2. Vsaka oseba, za katero veljajo ti kadrovski predpisi, lahko pri organu za imenovanja vloži pritožbo zoper akt, ki je imel zanjo negativne posledice, ne glede na to, ali je omenjeni organ sprejel odločitev ali pa ni sprejel nobenega od ukrepov, predpisanih v Kadrovskih predpisih. Pritožbo je treba vložiti v treh mesecih. […] | […]“ | 3 | Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1080/2010, appears in Title VII thereof, entitled ‘Appeals’, and is worded as follows: | ‘1. Any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply may submit to the appointing authority … a request that it take a decision relating to him. The authority shall notify the person concerned of its reasoned decision within four months from the date on which the request was made. If at the end of that period no reply to the request has been received, this shall be deemed to constitute an implied decision rejecting it, against which a complaint may be lodged in accordance with the following paragraph. | 2. Any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply may submit to the appointing authority a complaint against an act affecting him adversely, either where the said authority has taken a decision or where it has failed to adopt a measure prescribed by the Staff Regulations. The complaint must be lodged within three months. … | …’ |
| 4 | Člen 11 Priloge VIII h Kadrovskim predpisom, kakor so bili spremenjeni z Uredbo Sveta (ES, Euratom) št. 723/2004 z dne 22. marca 2004 (UL, posebna izdaja v slovenščini, poglavje 1, zvezek 2, str. 130), je v odstavku 2 določal: | „Uradnik, ki začne delati v Skupnostih [za Skupnosti] po tem, ko: | – | je prenehal delati v državni upravi ali v nacionalni ali mednarodni organizaciji; | ali | – | je opravljal dejavnost kot zaposlena ali samozaposlena oseba, | ima po tem, ko se zaposli, vendar preden izpolni pogoje za plačilo starostne pokojnine v smislu člena 77 Kadrovskih predpisov, pravico Skupnostim plačati na dejanski datum prenosa ažurirano kapitalizirano vrednost pokojninskih pravic, pridobljenih na podlagi takega dela ali dejavnosti. | V takem primeru institucija, v kateri je uradnik zaposlen, ob upoštevanju njegove osnovne plače, starosti in deviznega tečaja na dan, ko se za prenos zaprosi, s pomočjo splošnih izvedbenih določb določi število let pokojninske dobe, ki se mu za prejšnje zaposlitve priznajo v novem pokojninskem zavarovanju na podlagi prenesenega kapitalskega zneska, po odbitku zneska povečanja vrednosti kapitala med datumom, ko se za prenos zaprosi in dejanskim datumom prenosa. | […]“ | 4 | Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1), provided: | An official who enters the service of the Communities after: | – | leaving the service of a government administration or of a national or international organisation; | or | – | pursuing an activity in an employed or self-employed capacity, | shall be entitled, after establishment but before becoming eligible for payment of a retirement pension within the meaning of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations, to have paid to the Communities the capital value, updated to the date of the actual transfer, of pension rights acquired by virtue of such service or activities. | In such case the institution in which the official serves shall, taking into account the official’s basic salary, age and exchange rate at the date of application for a transfer, determine by means of general implementing provisions the number of years of pensionable service with which he shall be credited under the Community pension scheme in respect of the former period of service, on the basis of the capital transferred, after deducting an amount representing capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the actual date of the transfer. | …’ |
| Pogoji za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropske unije | The Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union |
| 5 | Člen 95 Pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropske unije, kakor so bili spremenjeni z Uredbo št. 1080/2010 (v nadaljevanju: PZDU), določa: | „[…] [Č]len 72(2) in (2a) Kadrovskih predpisov [se] ne uporablja za pogodbenega uslužbenca, ki je do 63. leta starosti delal v Uniji [za Unijo], razen če ni bil več kot tri leta zaposlen kot pogodbeni uslužbenec.“ | 5 | Article 95 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, as amended by Regulation No 1080/2010 (‘the CEOS’), provides: | ‘… Article 72(2) and (2a) of the Staff Regulations shall not apply to a member of the contract staff who has remained in the service of the Union until the age of 63, unless he has been employed for more than 3 years as a member of such staff.’ |
| Dejansko stanje | Background to the dispute |
| 6 | Splošno sodišče je dejansko stanje povzelo v teh točkah izpodbijanega sklepa: | „1 | Tožeča stranka, Claudio Necci, je med 1. julijem 2009 in 30. junijem 2011 opravljala delo pri Evropski komisiji […] kot pogodbeni uslužbenec. | 2 | Tožeča stranka je 27. oktobra 2010 zahtevala prenos pokojninskih pravic […], ki jih je pridobila med službovanjem v italijanski upravi, v pokojninski sistem institucij Evropske unije (v nadaljevanju: PSEU) na podlagi člena 11(2) Priloge VIII h Kadrovskim predpisom[, kakor so bili spremenjeni z Uredbo št. 723/2004]. | 3 | Tožeča stranka je 1. julija 2011 prenehala delati za Komisijo in se upokojila pri starosti 64 let. | 4 | Komisija je z odločbo z dne 18. julija 2011 določila pokojninske pravice tožeče stranke. Poleg tega je tožečo stranko izključila iz [SSZZ], pri čemer se je oprla na člen 95 [PZDU], ki za nadaljnjo vključenost pogodbenega uslužbenca, ki je ostal v službi Unije do upokojitvene starosti, v SSZZ določa pogoj, da mora zaposlitev pogodbenega uslužbenca trajati več kot tri leta. Odločba z dne 18. julija 2011 ni bila izpodbijana. | 5 | Italijanski pokojninski sklad je 12. februarja 2014 Komisijo obvestil, da je znesek kapitalizirane vrednosti pokojninskih pravic tožeče stranke na datum zahteve [za prenos pokojninskih pravic] znašal 383.570,92 EUR. | 6 | Službe Komisije so z elektronskim dopisom z dne 18. marca 2014 tožeči stranki poslale obvestilo o začasnem izračunu njene pokojninske dobe in jo pozvale, naj sprejme odločitev glede prenosa svojih pokojninskih pravic. V tem dokumentu, v katerem je bil omenjen člen 95 PZDU, je bilo opozorjeno na pogoj, da morajo biti izpolnjena tri leta dejanske zaposlitve pri institucijah Unije, da bi bila lahko oseba pri teh institucijah zdravstveno zavarovana, tožeča stranka pa je bila opozorjena tudi na posledice, ki bi jih lahko imel [prenos njenih pokojninskih pravic]. | 7 | Tožeča stranka je 11. aprila 2014 Uradu za vodenje in plačevanje posameznih pravic (PMO) poslala elektronski dopis, v katerem je zaprosila za podaljšanje roka za sprejetje odločitve o [prenosu njenih pokojninskih pravic]. Dodala je: ,Zavedam se, da bom izgubil zdravstveno zavarovanje Italije in da ne bom imel kritja SSZZ Komisije. Želim pridobiti več informacij o zasebnem kritju.‘ Rok je bil podaljšan do 5. maja 2014. | 8 | Tožeča stranka je 6. maja 2014 sprejela začasno ponudbo [za prenos svojih pokojninskih pravic], na podlagi katere ji je bila priznana dodatna pokojninska doba, ki jo je treba upoštevati v PSEU, in sicer 16 let, 9 mesecev in 17 dni. | […] | 11 | Italijanski pokojninski sklad je 14. avgusta 2017 PSEU izplačal 387.768,73 EUR iz naslova nacionalnih pokojninskih pravic tožeče stranke. | 12 | Komisija je 19. septembra 2017 sprejela prvo odločbo o priznanju pokojninske dobe, na podlagi katere je bilo tožeči stranki priznano dodatno obdobje plačevanja prispevkov v PSEU, in sicer 14 let in 9 dni. Na podlagi pritožbe, ki jo je tožeča stranka vložila 18. decembra 2017 in ki ji je bilo ugodeno 14. marca 2018, je bilo to dodatno obdobje spremenjeno v 16 let, 9 mesecev in 17 dni. | 13 | Tožeča stranka je 18. decembra 2017, po prenosu svojih pokojninskih pravic, pri PMO vložila zahtevo za vključitev v SSZZ. | 14 | Ta zahteva je bila zavrnjena 18. aprila 2018 zaradi molka organa[, pri čemer ta zavrnitev zaradi molka organa pomeni sporno odločbo,] v skladu s členom 90(1) Kadrovskih predpisov[, kakor so bili spremenjeni z Uredbo št. 1080/2010]. | 15 | Tožeča stranka je 18. julija 2018 na podlagi člena 90(2) Kadrovskih predpisov[, kakor so bili spremenjeni z Uredbo št. 1080/2010,] zoper [sporno odločbo] vložila pritožbo. | 16 | Njena pritožba je bila zavrnjena z odločbo z dne 19. novembra 2018. Ta odločba temelji na tem, da pritožba ni dopustna, ker bi morala biti vložena zoper odločbo z dne 18. julija 2011 o določitvi pokojninskih pravic tožeče stranke, v kateri je bilo navedeno, da tožeča stranka ni vključena v SSZZ.“ | 6 | The General Court summarised the background to the dispute in the following paragraphs of the order under appeal: | ‘1 | The applicant, Mr Claudio Necci, was employed at the European Commission … as a member of the contract staff between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2011. | 2 | On 27 October 2010, the applicant requested the transfer of the pension rights … which he had acquired during his service with the Italian administration to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union (‘the PSEU’), pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations [as amended by Regulation No 723/2004]. | 3 | On 1 July 2011, the applicant left the Commission and retired at the age of 64. | 4 | By decision of 18 July 2011, the Commission determined the applicant’s pension rights. It also terminated his membership of the [JSIS] on the basis of Article 95 of the [CEOS], which makes the continued application of the JSIS, for a member of the contract staff who has remained in the service of the European Union until retirement age, subject to a condition of service of more than three years as a member of the contract staff. The decision of 18 July 2011 has not been challenged. | 5 | On 12 February 2014, the Italian pension fund informed the Commission that the capital value representing the applicant’s pension rights on the date of the application [for the transfer of pension rights] was EUR 383 570.92. | 6 | By email of 18 March 2014, the Commission’s services sent the applicant a note for information purposes concerning the provisional calculation of his years of pensionable service and asked him to take a decision on the transfer of his pension rights. That document, which referred to Article 95 of the CEOS, drew attention to the condition that three years’ actual service within the EU institutions were necessary to qualify for sickness cover with those institutions and drew to the applicant’s attention the possible consequences of the [transfer of his pension rights]. | 7 | On 11 April 2014, the applicant sent an email to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) requesting an extension of the deadline for taking a decision on the [transfer of his pension rights]. He added: “I know that I will lose the Italian sickness insurance and that I would not have cover under the Commission’s JSIS. I would like to ask for more information about private cover”. He was granted an extension of the deadline until 5 May 2014. | 8 | On 6 May 2014, the applicant accepted the provisional offer [to transfer his pension rights], which led to 16 years, 9 months and 17 days of additional pensionable years being credited to him in the PSEU. | … | 11 | On 14 August 2017, the Italian pension fund paid the sum of EUR 387 768.73 to the PSEU in respect of the applicant’s national pension rights. | 12 | On 19 September 2017, the Commission adopted an initial decision crediting years of pensionable service, culminating in the applicant being credited with an additional contribution period in the PSEU of 14 years and 9 days. Following a complaint lodged by the applicant on 18 December 2017 and accepted on 14 March 2018, that credit was extended to 16 years, 9 months and 17 days. | 13 | On 18 December 2017, following the transfer of his pension rights, the applicant submitted a request to the PMO to join the JSIS. | 14 | That request was impliedly rejected on 18 April 2018, [that implied rejection constituting the contested decision], in accordance with Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations [as amended by Regulation No 1080/2010]. | 15 | On 18 July 2018, the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations [as amended by Regulation No 1080/2010] against [the contested decision]. | 16 | His complaint was rejected by decision of 19 November 2018. That decision is based on the fact that the complaint was inadmissible on the ground that it should have been submitted against the decision of 18 July 2011 determining the applicant’s pension rights, in which it was stated that he was not a member of the JSIS.’ |
| Tožba pred Splošnim sodiščem in izpodbijani sklep | Proceedings before the General Court and the order under appeal |
| 7 | Tožeča stranka na prvi stopnji je s tožbo, ki jo je 25. februarja 2019 vložila v sodnem tajništvu Splošnega sodišča, predlagala razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe. Ta tožba je temeljila na dveh tožbenih razlogih, od katerih se je prvi nanašal na kršitev člena 95 PZDU, drugi, naveden podredno, pa na nezakonitost te določbe glede na člen 45 PDEU. | 7 | By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 25 February 2019, the appellant brought an action seeking annulment of the contested decision. That action was based on two pleas in law alleging, first, infringement of Article 95 of the CEOS and, secondly, in the alternative, that that provision was unlawful in the light of Article 45 TFEU. |
| 8 | Komisija je v obrambo navedla, da je tožba nedopustna, saj je bila pred njo že vložena pritožba, ki je bila prav tako nedopustna. Po njenem mnenju je bila pritožba nedopustna, ker bi morala biti vložena zoper odločbo z dne 18. julija 2011 o določitvi pokojninskih pravic tožeče stranke, v kateri je bilo navedeno, da tožeča stranka ne bo vključena v SSZZ (v nadaljevanju: odločba z dne 18. julija 2011). Ta institucija je podredno predlagala zavrnitev tožbenih razlogov, ki jih je navedla tožeča stranka. | 8 | The Commission contended in its defence that the action was inadmissible on the ground that it had been preceded by a complaint which was also inadmissible. In its view, the complaint was inadmissible because it should have been brought against the decision of 18 July 2011 determining the appellant’s pension rights and in which it was stated that he was not a member of the JSIS (‘the decision of 18 July 2011’). In the alternative, the Commission contended that the pleas put forward by the appellant should be rejected. |
| 9 | Splošno sodišče je z izpodbijanim sklepom tožbo razglasilo za nedopustno. Najprej je ugotovilo, da je odločba z dne 18. julija 2011 akt, ki posega v položaj, ki je postal dokončen, ker tožeča stranka ni vložila pritožbe. Splošno sodišče je opozorilo, da uslužbenec, ki ni vložil tožbe zoper akt, ki posega v njegov položaj, te opustitve ne more popraviti s poznejšim zahtevkom, razen če obstaja novo in bistveno dejstvo, ki upravičuje novo preučitev njegovega položaja, vendar je štelo, da prenos pokojninskih pravic tožeče stranke ni tako dejstvo, zlasti ker ta prenos ni spremenil položaja tožeče stranke glede njene vključenosti v SSZZ. Splošno sodišče je na podlagi tega ugotovilo, da tožeča stranka s svojo zahtevo za vključitev v SSZZ z dne 17. decembra 2017 ne more obuditi pravice do tožbe zoper odločbo z dne 18. julija 2011. | 9 | By the order under appeal, the General Court declared the action inadmissible. It held, first of all, that the decision of 18 July 2011 was an act adversely affecting the appellant which had become definitive in the absence of a complaint by the appellant. While pointing out that a staff member who has failed to bring an action against an act adversely affecting him or her cannot, by means of a subsequent request, remedy that omission unless a material new fact is such as to justify reconsideration of his or her situation, the General Court held that the transfer of the appellant’s pension rights did not constitute such a fact, in particular because that transfer did not alter the appellant’s situation with regard to his membership of the JSIS. The General Court thus concluded that the appellant could not, by his request of 17 December 2017 to join the JSIS, reopen to his advantage a right of action against the decision of 18 July 2011. |
| Predlogi strank pred Sodiščem | Forms of order sought by the parties before the Court of Justice |
| 10 | Pritožnik s pritožbo Sodišču predlaga, naj: | – | izpodbijani sklep razveljavi; | – | zadevo vrne v razsojanje Splošnemu sodišču in | – | odločitev o stroških pridrži. | 10 | By his appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of Justice should: | – | set aside the order under appeal; | – | refer the case back to the General Court, and | – | reserve the costs. |
| 11 | Komisija Sodišču predlaga, naj: | – | pritožbo zavrne in | – | pritožniku naloži plačilo stroškov. | 11 | The Commission contends that the Court should: | – | dismiss the appeal; and | – | order the appellant to pay the costs. |
| Pritožba | The appeal |
| 12 | Pritožnik v utemeljitev pritožbe navaja tri pritožbene razloge, od katerih se prvi nanaša na izkrivljanje predmeta spora, drugi na kršitev pravice do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva, tretji pa na kršitev načela enega samega prava, ki se uporablja. | 12 | In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal, alleging (i) distortion of the subject matter of the proceedings, (ii) infringement of the right to an effective remedy and, (iii) infringement of the principle of single applicable law. |
| Prvi pritožbeni razlog | The first ground of appeal |
| Trditve strank | Arguments of the parties |
| 13 | Pritožnik s prvim pritožbenim razlogom uveljavlja izkrivljanje predmeta spora, ker je Splošno sodišče v točki 45 izpodbijanega sklepa ugotovilo, da je akt, ki posega v njegov položaj, odločba z dne 18. julija 2011. Pritožnik trdi, da ne izpodbija te odločbe in da nima pravnega interesa za vložitev tožbe proti tej odločbi, ker je Komisija v njej pravilno ugotovila, da v skladu s členom 95 PZDU od njegove upokojitve ni več mogel biti vključen v SSZZ, saj je delo pogodbenega uslužbenca opravljal manj kot tri leta. Njegova ničnostna tožba pa naj bi se nanašala na sporno odločbo, s katero je Komisija zavrnila njegovo vključitev v SSZZ od 19. septembra 2017, z obrazložitvijo, da italijanskih pokojninskih pravic, prenesenih v PSEU, ni mogoče enačiti z leti zaposlitve v smislu navedene določbe. | 13 | By his first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges distortion of the subject matter of the proceedings in so far as the General Court held, in paragraph 45 of the order under appeal, that the act adversely affecting him was the decision of 18 July 2011. The appellant claims that he is not challenging that decision and that he did not have an interest in bringing proceedings against it, since the Commission was fully entitled to find that, in accordance with Article 95 of the CEOS, he could no longer be a member of the JSIS as of his retirement since he had been employed as a member of the contract staff for less than three years. By contrast, his action for annulment was directed against the contested decision, by which the Commission refused to affiliate him to the JSIS as of 19 September 2017 on the ground that the Italian pension rights transferred to the PSEU could not be treated as years of service for the purpose of that provision. |
| 14 | Pritožnik meni, da odločba z dne 18. julija 2011 in sporna odločba temeljita na različnih razlogih in torej nimata enakega predmeta, saj prva temelji na ugotovitvi, da pritožnik za Unijo ni delal več kot tri leta, druga pa pomeni zavrnitev s strani uprave, da priznano pokojninsko dobo izenači z leti zaposlitve v smislu člena 95 PZDU. | 14 | According to the appellant, the decision of 18 July 2011 and the contested decision are based on different grounds and therefore do not have the same subject matter, the first being based on the finding that the appellant was not employed by the European Union for more than three years and the second giving concrete expression to the administration’s refusal to treat additional years of pensionable service as years of service for the purposes of Article 95 of the CEOS. |
| 15 | Pritožnik navaja, da je bil 18. julija 2011 sicer opozorjen na to, da naj bi Komisija člen 95 PZDU razlagala tako, da je pokojninska doba, priznana na podlagi morebitnega prenosa pokojninskih pravic, izključena. Vendar naj bi to opozorilo kazalo le na prihodnji namen uprave, da ne bo ponovno preučila vključitve pritožnika v SSZZ v primeru prenosa njegovih pokojninskih pravic. Navedenega opozorila naj ne bi bilo mogoče obravnavati, kot da posega v položaj pritožnika, ker naj ne bi neposredno in takoj vplivalo na njegove interese ob njegovi upokojitvi tako, da bi bistveno spremenilo njegov pravni položaj. | 15 | The appellant states that, admittedly, he was informed on 18 July 2011 that the Commission would interpret Article 95 of the CEOS as excluding years of pensionable service credited by way of a possible transfer of pension rights. However, that warning merely manifests the administration’s future intention not to review the appellant’s membership of the JSIS in the event of his pension rights being transferred. That warning cannot be regarded as adversely affecting the appellant since it does not directly and immediately affect his interests at the point at which he retires by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position. |
| 16 | Pritožnik dodaja, da preudarki, ki jih je Splošno sodišče navedlo v točkah 46 in 52 izpodbijanega sklepa v zvezi s tem, da je ob polnem poznavanju dejstev privolil v prenos svojih pokojninskih pravic, ne vplivajo na dopustnost ničnostne tožbe zoper sporno odločbo. Meni namreč, da ni mogel izpodbijati zavrnitve Komisije, da upošteva priznano pokojninsko dobo, dokler ta prenos ni bil opravljen. | 16 | The appellant adds that the considerations set out by the General Court in paragraphs 46 and 52 of the order under appeal concerning the fact that he consented in full knowledge of the facts to the transfer of his pension rights have no bearing on the admissibility of the action for annulment of the contested decision. He takes the view that he could not challenge the Commission’s refusal to take account of the credited years of pensionable service as long as that transfer had not taken place. |
| 17 | Komisija izpodbija zatrjevano izkrivljanje in predlaga zavrnitev tega pritožbenega razloga. Ta institucija s sklicevanjem na točko 51 izpodbijanega sklepa trdi, da dejanski prenos italijanskih pokojninskih pravic ni mogel vplivati na pogoje za uporabo člena 95 PZDU, ker se s tem prenosom ni spremenilo število let, v katerih je pritožnik delal za Unijo kot pogodbeni uslužbenec v smislu te določbe. Med to določbo in členom 11 Priloge VIII h Kadrovskim predpisom, kakor so bili spremenjeni z Uredbo št. 723/2004, ki omogoča povečanje števila let pokojninske dobe s prenosom prispevkov, plačanih v okviru nacionalnega sistema, naj namreč ne bi bilo nobene povezave. Pritožnik naj bi zato zmotno pomešal obdobja dejanske zaposlitve v službi Unije in število let pokojninske dobe, priznanih zaradi navedenega prenosa. | 17 | The Commission disputes the existence of the alleged distortion and contends that the present ground of appeal should be rejected. Referring to paragraph 51 of the order under appeal, the Commission submits that the actual transfer of the Italian pension rights could not have affected the conditions for the application of Article 95 of the CEOS, since that transfer did not change the number of years during which the appellant was employed by the European Union as a member of the contract staff within the meaning of that provision. It argues that there is no link between that provision and Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 723/2004, which allows the number of pensionable years to be increased by the transfer of contributions paid under the national scheme. The appellant therefore mistakenly conflates the years of actual employment in the service of the European Union and the number of years of pensionable service allocated on account of that transfer. |
| 18 | Po mnenju Komisije imata odločba z dne 18. julija 2011 in sporna odločba različen predmet, kar naj bi pritožnik sam priznal. Zadnjenavedena odločba, ki se nanaša na število prenesenih let pokojninske dobe, naj ne bi mogla pomeniti novega dejstva za presojo števila let zaposlitve v smislu člena 95 PZDU, ki je bilo dokončno določeno z odločbo z dne 18. julija 2011. Ker se zaradi pokojninske dobe, ki je bila prenesena, ne more spremeniti število let zaposlitve v službi Unije, naj ta doba ne bi mogla bistveno spremeniti položaja pritožnika v primerjavi s položajem, v katerem je bila izdana ta odločba. | 18 | According to the Commission, the decision of 18 July 2011 had a different subject matter from that of the contested decision, as the appellant himself acknowledges. Since the latter decision relates to the number of pensionable years transferred, it cannot constitute a new fact for the purposes of assessing the number of years of employment for the purpose of Article 95 of the CEOS, definitively determined by the decision of 18 July 2011. Since the years of pensionable service transferred cannot change the number of years of service within the European Union, they are not capable of materially altering the appellant’s situation as compared with that which gave rise to that decision. |
| 19 | Odločba z dne 18. julija 2011 naj ne bi pomenila „opozorila“, kot trdi pritožnik, niti naj ne bi bilo v njej navedeno, da je bila odločba o odvzemu zdravstvenega zavarovanja SSZZ le začasna. Nasprotno, v njej naj bi bilo ugotovljeno, da pritožnik po upokojitvi ni upravičen do tega kritja, in naj bi bila takoj izvršena. | 19 | The decision of 18 July 2011 does not constitute a ‘warning’, as the appellant claims, nor does it state that the decision to withdraw the JSIS sickness insurance cover was only provisional. On the contrary, that former decision found that the appellant was not covered by the JSIS during his retirement and was applied immediately. |
| Presoja Sodišča | Findings of the Court |
| 20 | Pritožnik s prvim pritožbenim razlogom v bistvu trdi, da je Splošno sodišče izkrivilo predmet spora s tem, da je v izpodbijanem sklepu ugotovilo, da sporna odločba zgolj potrjuje akt, ki posega v njegov položaj, in sicer odločbo z dne 18. julija 2011, ne da bi prišlo do kakršnega koli novega in bistvenega dejstva, s katerim bi bilo mogoče utemeljiti ponovno preučitev te odločbe, čeprav navedeni odločbi temeljita na različnih razlogih in torej nimata enakega predmeta. | 20 | By his first ground of appeal, the appellant claims, in essence, that the General Court distorted the subject matter of the proceedings by holding, in the order under appeal, that the contested decision was purely confirmatory of the act adversely affecting him, namely the decision of 18 July 2011, and that there was no material new fact capable of justifying reconsideration of that decision, even though those decisions were based on different grounds and did not therefore have the same subject matter. |
| 21 | V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da akt zgolj potrjuje predhodni akt, če v primerjavi z njim ne vsebuje nobenega novega elementa. V zvezi s predlogom za ponovno preučitev prejšnje odločbe, ki je postala dokončna, iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da lahko predložitev take zahteve upraviči le obstoj novih in bistvenih dejstev (sodba z dne 15. novembra 2018, Estonija/Komisija, C‑334/17 P, neobjavljena, EU:C:2018:914, točka 46 in navedena sodna praksa). | 21 | In that regard, it must be borne in mind that a measure is purely confirmatory of a previous measure where it contains no new factors as compared with that earlier measure. As regards a request for reconsideration of a previous decision which has become final, it is settled case-law that only the existence of material new facts can justify the submission of such a request (judgment of 15 November 2018, Estonia v Commission, C‑334/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:914, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited). |
| 22 | V obravnavanem primeru pa je treba ugotoviti, da imata, kot priznava tudi Komisija, odločba z dne 18. julija 2011 in sporna odločba različna predmeta. Zato za drugo ni mogoče šteti, da zgolj potrjuje prvo. | 22 | In the present case, it is clear that, as the Commission itself acknowledges, the decision of 18 July 2011 and the contested decision have differing subject matters. Consequently, the latter cannot be regarded as merely confirming the former. |
| 23 | Po eni strani je bila namreč z odločbo z dne 18. julija 2011 s 1. julijem 2011, ko je bil pritožnik upokojen, prekinjena vključenost pritožnika v SSZZ na podlagi člena 95 PZDU, v skladu s katerim je taka vključenost pogodbenega uslužbenca po prenehanju delovnega razmerja odvisna od tega, ali je bil slednji v službi Unije zaposlen več kot tri leta. Po drugi strani je bila s sporno odločbo zahteva pritožnika za vključitev v SSZZ od 19. septembra 2017 po prenosu njegovih italijanskih pokojninskih pravic zavrnjena, saj priznane pokojninske dobe ni mogoče enačiti z leti zaposlitve v smislu navedene določbe. | 23 | On one hand, by the decision of 18 July 2011, the appellant’s membership of the JSIS was terminated with effect from 1 July 2011, the date on which he retired, pursuant to Article 95 of the CEOS, under which such affiliation of a member of the contract staff after leaving the service is conditional on his having completed a period of employment of more than three years in the service of the European Union. On the other hand, by the contested decision, the appellant’s request to join the JSIS with effect from 19 September 2017, following the transfer of his Italian pension rights, was rejected, as the years of pensionable service credited could not be treated as years of service for the purpose of that provision. |
| 24 | Iz tega sledi, da je zahteva za vključitev v SSZZ, ki temelji na prenosu navedenih pokojninskih pravic, nov element v smislu sodne prakse, navedene v točki 21 te sodbe, glede na odločbo z dne 18. julija 2011. | 24 | It follows that the request to join the JSIS based on the transfer of those pension rights constitutes a new factor, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 21 above, as compared with the decision of 18 July 2011. |
| 25 | V zvezi s tem ni mogoče šteti, da je bil predmet te odločbe zavrnitev izenačitve priznane pokojninske dobe pritožnika z leti zaposlitve za namene uporabe člena 95 PZDU. Namreč, ne samo, da pritožnik pred sprejetjem navedene odločbe ni vložil zahteve v tem smislu, ampak naj tega sploh ne bi mogel storiti, saj je bil prenos italijanskih pokojninskih pravic opravljen šele leta 2017, čeprav je pritožnik ta prenos zahteval leta 2010. | 25 | In that regard, it cannot be considered that the subject matter of that decision was the refusal to treat the years of pensionable service credited to the appellant as years of service for the purposes of the application of Article 95 of the CEOS. Not only had the appellant not submitted a request to that effect before the adoption of that decision, but he would not have been in a position to do so, since, although he had requested the transfer of the Italian pension rights in 2010, it was only in 2017 that that transfer took place. |
| 26 | Zato bi se taka zavrnitev nanašala na prihodnji in hipotetičen položaj, tako da pritožnik zaradi neobstoja pravnega interesa ne bi bil upravičen vložiti tožbe zoper to zavrnitev, saj bi moral biti tak interes obstoječ in dejanski ob vložitvi tožbe (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 23. novembra 2017, Bionorica in Diapharm/Komisija, C‑596/15 P in C‑597/15 P, EU:C:2017:886, točki 83 in 84 ter navedena sodna praksa). | 26 | Therefore, such a refusal would have concerned a future and hypothetical situation, so that the appellant would not have been entitled to bring an action against that refusal given that he lacked a legal interest in bringing proceedings, such an interest having to be vested and current at the time when the action is brought. (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 November 2017, Bionorica and Diapharm v Commission, C‑596/15 P and C‑597/15 P, EU:C:2017:886, paragraphs 83 and 84 and the case-law cited). |
| 27 | Poleg tega ugotovitev Splošnega sodišča iz točke 51 izpodbijanega sklepa, da prenos italijanskih pokojninskih pravic pritožnika na PSEU ne spreminja njegovega pravnega položaja glede njegove vključenosti v SSZZ, in trditev Komisije, da je pritožnik zmotno pomešal leta dejanske zaposlitve v službi Unije in število let pokojninske dobe, dodeljene zaradi tega prenosa, ne moreta omajati predmeta sporne odločbe, temveč se nanašata na njeno utemeljenost. | 27 | Furthermore, the General Court’s finding in paragraph 51 of the order under appeal that the transfer of the appellant’s Italian pension rights to the PSEU did not alter his legal situation with regard to his membership of the JSIS, just like the Commission’s assertion that the appellant incorrectly conflates the years of actual employment in the service of the European Union and the number of years of pensionable service allocated on account of that transfer, are not such as to call into question the subject matter of the contested decision but relate to its merits. |
| 28 | Iz navedenega izhaja, da je Splošno sodišče s tem, da je presodilo, da je bil akt, ki posega v položaj pritožnika, odločba z dne 18. julija 2011 in da je bila ničnostna tožba pritožnika zoper sporno odločbo zato nedopustna, v izpodbijanem sklepu izkrivilo predmet te tožbe. | 28 | It follows from the foregoing that, by holding that the act adversely affecting the appellant was the decision of 18 July 2011 and that his action for annulment of the contested decision was inadmissible on that basis, the General Court, in the order under appeal, distorted the subject matter of that action. |
| 29 | V teh okoliščinah je treba prvemu pritožbenemu razlogu ugoditi in zato izpodbijani sklep razveljaviti, ne da bi bilo treba preučiti drugi in tretji pritožbeni razlog. | 29 | In those circumstances, the first ground of appeal must be upheld and, accordingly, the order under appeal must be set aside, without it being necessary to examine the second and third grounds of appeal. |
| Posledice razveljavitve izpodbijanega sklepa | The consequences of setting aside the order under appeal |
| 30 | Sodišče lahko v skladu s členom 61, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodišča Evropske unije po razveljavitvi odločbe Splošnega sodišča zadevo bodisi vrne v razsojanje Splošnemu sodišču bodisi samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje. | 30 | In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Justice may, after setting aside a decision of the General Court, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment or, where the state of the proceedings so permits, itself give final judgment in the matter. |
| 31 | Ker je Splošno sodišče v obravnavanem primeru tožbo pritožnika zavrglo kot nedopustno in zato ni preučilo tožbenih razlogov, ki jih je ta navedel v utemeljitev tožbe, Sodišče meni, da stanje postopka ne dovoljuje, da bi samo dokončno odločilo o zadevi. Zato je treba zadevo vrniti v razsojanje Splošnemu sodišču. | 31 | In the present case, since the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action as inadmissible and, consequently, did not examine the pleas in law relied on by the appellant in support of his action, the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit final judgment to be given. Accordingly, the case must be referred back to the General Court. |
| Stroški | Costs |
| 32 | Ker se zadeva vrne v razsojanje Splošnemu sodišču, se odločitev o stroških pridrži. | 32 | Since the case is being referred back to the General Court, it is appropriate to reserve the costs. |
| | Iz teh razlogov je Sodišče (osmi senat) razsodilo: | | On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby: |
| | 1. | Sklep Splošnega sodišča Evropske unije z dne 25. marca 2020, Necci/Komisija (T‑129/19, neobjavljen, EU:T:2020:131), se razveljavi. | | 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2020, Necci v Commission (T‑129/19, not published, EU:T:2020:131); |
| | 2. | Zadeva se vrne v razsojanje Splošnemu sodišču Evropske unije. | | 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| | 3. | Odločitev o stroških se pridrži. | | 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| | Podpisi | | [Signatures] |
| ( *1 ) Jezik postopka: francoščina. | ( *1 ) Language of the case: French. |
