Under Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure, where an action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking all or part of the law, without further procedural action, the Court may, by reasoned order, give a decision. In particular, according to settled case-law, the principle of subsidiarity on the basis of Art. The dismissal of the action by reasoned order, adopted in point 81 of the Rules of Procedure, not only contributes to the efficiency of the procedure but also saves the parties the costs which would be incurred in holding a hearing if, after having examined the documents in the file, the Court considers itself sufficiently informed by the file before it, is satisfied that the application initiating proceedings is manifestly inadmissible or does not entail any manifest deprivation of any legal basis, and Furthermore, considers that the holding of a hearing would not be such as to provide new evidence capable of influencing his conviction (see order of 22 April 2015, judgment in Mészáros v Commission (F-22/13, EU: F:2014:189, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). It is apparent from the grounds of this order that the appellant was unsuccessful on appeal. Since that order was made before the defendant applied for a directed action against it, each party must bear its own costs, in accordance with Article 103(3) of the Rules of Procedure. Following the adoption of the order of 7 June 2016, Verile v Commission (F-108/12, EU:F:2016:125), the parties to the present case were informed, by letter from the Registry of the General Court of 8 June 2016, that, pursuant to Article 42(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the General Court intended to reopen the proceedings before the expiry of the stay decided on 4 December 2014. To that end, they were invited to submit their observations on the early reopening of the proceedings at the Court before 15 June 2016. On 7 June 2016, the General Court adopted the order in Verile v Commission (F-108/12, EU:F:2016:125). By that order, the Court of First Instance held that the action, which had been dismissed by the judgment of 13.
October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776), which had finally ruled on action F-130/11, Verile and Gjergji v Commission, an action between the same parties as action F-108/12, which has become devoid of purpose, no longer needs to be adjudicated. after reclassification by the General Court of the European Union on the same subject matter as Action F-108/12. In the present case, having regard to the judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776), and to the application, the Court considers it necessary to have recourse to Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure and to adopt its decision by reasoned order, without taking any further procedural steps. The Court`s decision to adopt a reasoned order In its observations lodged on 24 June 2016, the Commission stated that the decision of 7 June 2016 had not been adopted. June 2016, Verile v Commission (F-108/12, EU:F:2016:125), which confirmed the scope of the judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776), was final, with the result that the present case could be decided only in the light of that judgment and that the applicant`s arguments in the present case had become manifestly unfounded. In the present case, as mentioned in paragraph 30 of this decision, the capital representing the pension rights acquired by the applicant from other pension institutions before he took up his duties in the service of the European Union had not been transferred to the EU pension scheme – DGE 2011 – at the time of entry into force on 1 April 2011. Since the applicant is manifestly not in a situation comparable to that of officials whose capital was actually transferred to the EU pension scheme before the entry into force of the GIP 2011 in order to satisfy their pension rights acquired before they took up their duties, he cannot validly plead infringement of the principle of equal treatment. The parties to the present case were informed of the reopening of the procedure by letter from the Registry of the General Court of 22 June 2016. In that regard, they were invited to submit to the Court, by 27 June 2016 at the latest, their observations on any conclusions to be drawn, in the context of the present case, from the order of 7 June 2016, Verile v Commission (F-108/12, EU:F:2016:125). These proposals are the result of a calculation taking into account the parameters of Commission Decision C(2011) 1278 of 3. March 2011, laying down general rules for the application of Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on the transfer of pension rights, published in Administrative Information No 17-2011 of 28 March 2011 (`the 2011 GIP`), which has since entered into force.
The General Court of the European Union held that officials for whom the capital constituting their pension rights acquired under another scheme had not been transferred to the Union pension scheme at the time of entry into force of the GIP 2011 were not in the same legal situation as officials whose pension rights had been acquired before taking up their duties, before that date, to the pension scheme in the form of a lump sum. and for which a decision recognising an increase in pension years under this scheme has been adopted. The former still had pension rights under another scheme, while the latter had already been the subject of a capital transfer which had led to the extinction of those rights and the corresponding recognition of an increase in the number of years of service in the EU pension scheme. In addition, the General Court of the European Union held that such a difference in treatment is also based on an objective factor over which the Commission has no control, namely the speed with which the external pension scheme concerned dealt with the request for a transfer of capital at issue. The applicant claims that the Court should: In its judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776, paragraph 2015). Paragraphs 150 to 154 and 165 to 179), the possibility of rejecting those pleas alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, protection of legitimate expectations, misuse of powers, non-retroactivity and acquired rights, and the arguments put forward in support of them, which are essentially identical to those relied on by the applicant in support of the present action. In the present case, at the time of the entry into force of the GIP 2011, that is to say, on 1 April 2011, the applicant was not in a situation which had arisen and had become definitively concrete under the previous legislation, in this case the GIP 2004, since the transfer of his pension rights had not yet taken place. As regards the question whether the Commission was empowered to apply the new conversion factors listed in Annex 1 to the GIP 2011 to applications for transfer of pension rights submitted before its entry into force, namely 1.
In April 2011, it should be noted, as the General Court of the European Union observed in paragraph 152 of its judgment of 13 October 2015, Commission v Verile and Gjergji (T-104/14 P, EU:T:2015:776), that, in accordance with a generally recognised principle and unless otherwise agreed, a new rule is directly applicable to situations which arise and to their future effects; which were raised from the old regulation but which are not fully justified.