Latest up-date


Further to our request, the Commission (HR) agreed to have a meeting on 29 January 2014 to discuss the consequences of two important judgements [Teughels vs European Commission (F-117/11) and Verile and Gjergii vs European Commission (F-130/11)] concerning the "transfer-IN" of pension rights.


The judgments' key conclusions were:


  • The Commission opinion that the new GIP (General Implementation Provisions) (2011) should be applied to all requests for pension transfer-in introduced after 1 January 2009 is wrong. Regulation No.1324/2008 does not automatically imply that the previous GIP (2004) are no longer applicable.


  • In spite of this, the Tribunal limits the scope of the application of the old GIP (2004) to those situations "enshrined and fully constituted pursuant to GIP 2004". In order to qualify as such, the Court establishes as a necessary condition that, at the latest at the date of entry into force of the new GIP in 2011, the proposal of pensionable years must have been made and accepted according to the GIP 2004.



What we charge the Commission to do


More than 9,000 colleagues did not have the opportunity to accept the Commission proposal simply because they never received one! In fact, the Commission (wrongly) stopped making proposals for pension transfer-in.


The Commission in two documents dated 25 May and 30July 2010 informed the staff that the GIP 2004 would be applied to all requests introduced before the adoption of the new rules (01/04/2011). It should be noted that this interpretation is still applied to staff at the European Parliament.

Despite the above, the Commission (wrongly) changed its opinion. The revised Commission opinion was that the new rules should be applied to all requests introduced after 1 January 2009. Therefore, no new proposals were made until these new rules were adopted (31 March 2011) and all proposals already made were revised.


Practical consequences


Once again the Commission's staff is requested to pay for an error made by the Commission!


If the Commission had issued pension transfer-in proposals (as the Tribunal has now stated), staff could have had the opportunity to accept them. The GIP 2004 would therefore have been applicable to them.


But due to the Commission's wrong interpretation, this opportunity has been denied to staff.


The outcome of the meeting with the Commission services (HR)


We asked the Commission if they were aware of the error made and of the consequences of this error.


The Commission recognised that the Tribunal judgments are against its opinion. They told us that reflections are on-going to decide whether to introduce un appeal against the Verile judgment.


However, in any case (appeal or not appeal), the Commission does not intend to assume the consequence of its wrong interpretation of Regulation 1324/2008.




TAO-AFI believes that the Commission should not act in a way that runs contrary to the basic provisions of good administrative behaviour, and without due regard to the normal relationship that should exist between public servants and their employer. Insofar as there is a time limit for submitting a transfer application under the Staff Regulations, the Commission administration must respond with a proposal within a reasonable time period, and not take three or even four years to make a proposal to colleagues, as is the situation at present.


We request that the Commission takes due account of all the elements of this dispute and recognises that it was wrong to have stopped issuing official proposals. The Commission should follow the procedure adopted by the European Parliament for its staff and apply the GIP 2011 only to requests to "transfer-IN" pension rights introduced after 31 March 2011.