The background to the complaint

1. The complaint concerns a dispute in relation to pension payments to a former member of staff of the Council of the European Union (hereafter 'the Council'). The former member of staff worked for the Council from 1984 until 1997, during which time she made contributions to the EU pension scheme. When she resigned from the Council in 1997, her EU pension contributions were reimbursed directly to her.

2. The former member of staff contacted the Council in 2010 to inform it of a problem that had arisen in relation to her pension rights. She argued that her French pension rights that she had acquired prior to joining the Council in 1984 had been transferred to the EU pension scheme. The Council informed her that no such transfer took place. The complainant, who is the husband of the former member of staff, subsequently lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman against the Council on behalf of his wife.

The subject matter of the inquiry

3. The complainant alleged that the Council wrongly dealt with his wife's French pension rights.

4. The complainant claimed that the Council should clarify the situation regarding his wife's pension rights.

The inquiry

5. On 1 April 2011, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and forwarded the complaint to the Council, which sent its opinion to the Ombudsman on 1 August 2011. The opinion was forwarded to the complainant, who then submitted his observations on 18 August 2011.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Alleged wrongful handling of French pension rights and related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

6. The complainant's wife worked for 11 years in France and two years in Belgium before joining the Council in 1984. She worked for the Council from 1984 until 1997. During this period, she was on personal leave for more than four years. According to the complainant, after she commenced working for the Council, she transferred to the EU pension system the pension rights she had previously acquired while working in France.

7. The complainant attached some documents to his complaint concerning his wife's French pension rights. According to him and contrary to what the Council stated, these documents show that her French pension rights were transferred to the EU pension scheme. He stated again that these transferred rights were then sent back to the French pension scheme without his wife's agreement. Among these documents, there is a letter from a French pension body ("Caisse générale de retraite des cadres par répartition", CGRCR), indicating that it could not reply positively to the pension request submitted by the complainant's wife, since all her pension rights had been transferred to the EU pension scheme.

8. In its opinion to the Ombudsman, the Council explained that, on 16 March 1995, the complainant's wife introduced a request on the basis of Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations for the transfer to the EU pension system of her pension rights acquired in France. On 22 March 1995, this request was sent to the French pension body coordinating transfer requests, namely, the "Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salariés" ('CNAVTS'). On 28 August 1995, CNAVTS sent a letter to the Council which contained information concerning the value of the pension rights acquired by the complainant's wife under this scheme. The letter also confirmed that her request had been forwarded to the complementary schemes, namely, ARRCO and AGIRC, to which she had also contributed.

9. In a letter dated 22 September 1995, AGIRC informed the Council about the value of the pension rights acquired by the complainant's wife within the complementary scheme (AGIRC). However, at that time and until the complainant's wife ended her service in the Council, the information from the other complementary scheme (ARRCO) was not provided. Therefore, the Council was not in a position to submit a complete proposal for a transfer of the French pension rights acquired by the complainant's wife before the end of her service in the Council. In practice, such a transfer can only take place once the proposal is submitted to the official and accepted by him/her. In any case, according to the applicable rules, the institution shall terminate the procedure where, on the date of resignation, the official has completed fewer than ten years' service giving entitlement to an EU pension and where the final agreement of the official on a proposed transfer has not been obtained. This was the case for the complainant's wife. This is why, on 23 March 1998, the Council sent a letter to CNAVTS and AGIRC informing them that the file had to be closed because the complainant's wife was no longer in service. Thus, no transfer was made in the complainant's wife's name from any of the French pension schemes.

10. As regards an ostensible transfer from Belgian pension schemes, the Council can only confirm that no such transfer, nor a request for such a transfer, was registered in the name of the complainant's wife.

11. It added that, given that the complainant's wife, on the date of her resignation, did not have the minimum of ten years of actual service within the institution, she did not, pursuant to Article 77 of the Staff Regulations, qualify for a retirement pension from the EU pension scheme. However, in conformity with Article 12 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations, the severance grant representing cash payment for the respective pension rights, and amounting in the complainant's wife's case to 2 347 020 Belgian Francs, was paid into her bank account upon her request. The effect of this payment was the liquidation of all her pension rights under the EU pension scheme.

12. The Council noted that, according to the letter sent by CGRCR to the complainant's wife on 1 July 2000, all acquired rights under this scheme were transferred to the EU pension scheme. The Council repeated that no such transfer was registered. Moreover, such a transfer could not take place unless a relevant proposal had been submitted and accepted by the complainant's wife. The Council was not in a position to submit such a proposal until the complainant's wife had ended her service at the Council. This was so because of the fact that the Council had not received the complete information about all her pension rights under the different French schemes.

13. The Council emphasised the fact that, in the framework of the transfer procedure between the EU pension scheme and the French authorities, CNAVTS was established as the main addressee of the transfer requests, whose task was to forward those requests to complementary pension schemes such as ARRCO, AGIRC or IRCANTEC. Accordingly, the Council discussed the transfers directly with CNAVTS and the complementary schemes and not with their local or regional branches. The documentation concerning the complainant's wife shows that CGRCR is a branch of AGIRC. AGIRC indeed sent the Council information about the value of the pension rights acquired by the complainant's wife. However, due to the lack of information from the other complementary scheme, namely, ARRCO, before the service of the complainant's wife came to an end, the complete transfer proposal could not be established, and the file had to be closed after her resignation. AGIRC was duly informed about this. The Council implied that CGRCR had not provided proof that the claimed transfer had been effected.

14. In his observations, the complainant stated that nobody explained to his wife what her pension rights were and nobody coordinated her pension claims in the different Member States in which she worked. The complainant and his wife dealt with the British, French and Belgian authorities directly. Eighteen months after his wife's 65th birthday, she still had not received her correct French pension. According to the complainant, this is due to the fact that her last employer, the Council, refuses to do anything. He listed the names of the persons in the Council to whom he and his wife had written.

15. According to the complainant, his wife should now be allowed to pay missing pension years into the British, French, Belgian or the EU pension scheme, in order to qualify for the pension that her 26 years of work merits. The complainant could not understand why the Council has not shown any interest in her case. The fairest solution would be that his wife be allowed to repay the contributions she was obliged to take when she left the Council, and be given a corresponding pension from the EU pension system. Failing that, someone with expert knowledge of the EU pension rights should examine her case and advise her as to exactly what she should do to ensure that she is treated fairly. The complainant finds it disgraceful that no-one seems to be competent and willing to take responsibility.

16. The complainant did not understand why no information was given to his wife about the transfer procedure and its length. He stated that the request for the transfer of his wife's pension rights was made before 16 March 1995. His wife introduced a request for a transfer and wondered what else she could have done. She is not, he states, responsible for the delay in the procedure. He did not accept the Council's statement about the CGRCR submitting proof of any transfer. He stated that he raised important social welfare issues for his wife which the Council seems to disregard.

The Ombudsman's assessment

17. The Ombudsman would first like to underline that the purpose of the present inquiry was to check a factual element which the complainant brought to his attention, that is, the letter from CGRCR of 1 August 2000. According to that letter, the French pension rights acquired by the complainant's wife were transferred to the EU pension scheme. This letter therefore contradicted the information previously provided by the Council.

18. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant's wife requested the transfer of her French pension rights to the EU pension scheme[1]. According to the Council, the transfer could not, because of information missing from some French pension schemes, be finalised before the complainant's wife resigned from her position in the Council on 31 December 1996. Three French pension schemes were involved: CNAVTS[2], ARRCO[3] and AGIRC[4]. According to the Council, ARRCO never provided information on the pension rights acquired by the complainant's wife. On 23 March 1998, the Council therefore informed CNAVTS and AGIRC that no transfer of pension rights would be made.

19. The Ombudsman first notes that the Council checked again the file of the complainant's wife and confirmed that no transfer had been made. He understands that a transfer of national pension rights to the EU pension scheme can only take place after: (i) a proposal is made by the relevant institution; and (ii) that proposal has been accepted by the official. He notes that the Council did not address such a proposal to the complainant's wife. He further notes that the complainant does not argue that his wife accepted such a proposal. The Ombudsman thus concludes that the French pension rights acquired by the complainant's wife were not transferred to the EU pension scheme.

20. The Ombudsman therefore understands the doubts raised by the Council as to the accuracy of CGRCR's letter, which stated that the pension rights acquired by complainant's wife had been transferred to the EU pension scheme. Given that CGRCR is, as rightly stated by the Council, a branch of AGIRC[5] and that the Council cooperates with CNAVTS for transfers of pension rights, it would now appear that CGRCR provided incomplete information to the complainant's wife in its letter of 1 August 2000.

21. In light of the above, the Ombudsman concludes that the Council correctly dealt with the French pension rights acquired by the complainant's wife and clarified her situation. He therefore finds no maladministration by the Council.

22. As regards the other issues raised by the complainant, notably in his observations, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds to open an inquiry because the Council has correctly dealt with his wife's EU pension rights and provided adequate advice and assistance.

23. The Ombudsman well understands the complainant's concerns about his wife's pension situation and empathises with the predicament facing her. He notes, however, that, since it is now clear that no transfer of pension rights to the EU pension scheme did, in fact, occur and that, therefore, the problem that has arisen concerns pension authorities at the Member State level, he has no authority to intervene further in this case. In this context, he notes that his Statute limits his mandate to the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. It follows that the only bodies which are competent to help him clarify his wife's pension situation are the relevant national pension authorities. The Ombudsman therefore advises him to contact these authorities again.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

There has been no maladministration by the Council.

The complainant and the Council will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 15 November 2011

---

[1] The complainant and the Council disagree on the date of the request. The Council stated that it was made on 16 March 1995, while the complainant believes that it occurred earlier. The CGRCR letter of 1 August 2000 refers to a request made on 20 March 1995.

[2] The complainant provided a document dated 6 April 1995, emanating from CNAV, summarising his wife's pension rights and asking for supporting documents.

[3] The complainant provided a document dated 27 July 1995, emanating from ARRCO and asking for information about his wife's employers.

[4] The complainant provided a document with information on his wife's French pension rights. This document seems to be from AGIRC. Another document dated 22 September 1995 issued by AGIRC informed the complainant's wife that relevant information had been sent to the EU pension scheme.

[5] A document dated 8 September 1995, which the complainant attached to his complaint, confirms this information.