C-95/76

In Case 95/76

HERBERT BRUNS, a retired official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at 84 Lindenallee, 5000 Cologne 51, represented and assisted by Ernest Arendt, of the Luxembourg Bar, 34/B Rue Philippe II, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the said Ernest Arendt,

applicant,

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by its Legal Adviser, Jürgen Utermann, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mario Cervino, Legal Adviser to the Commission, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,

defendant,

In the matter of the calculation of the applicant's pension,

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and issues

The facts of the case, the course of the bound to contribute from the date when

procedure and the submissions and they take up their duties. arguments of the parties may be summarized as follows: This provident fund shall be financed by: — a contribution of 75 % deducted each month from the salary of I — Facts and procedure officials; — a payment by the institution On 19 June 1958 the Commission issued amounting to 15 % of the salary. Staff Memorandum No 16-470/58-F in which the following was provided, inter alia: The provident fund shall maintain an individual account in the name of each 'Concerning: Social Security and official in which there shall be entered: Provident Scheme — on the credit side, the contributions of the official and of the institution Pending the adoption in the Staff Regulations of provisions applicable to together with annual compound interest; the staff with regard to social security the Commission has established a mutual — on the debit side, any payments made insurance scheme which is to operate on by the institution in order to the following bases: maintain the official's pension rights in his former administration or

I. Accident insurance. institution together with the amount deducted to cover the risk of death. II. Insurance against illness, surgical operations etc. III. Pensions. At the time when the pension scheme is set up the amount in the individual A — Pending the establishment of a accounts shall be transferred to the pension scheme a provident fund shall pension fund in accordance with detailed be set up to which officials shall be rules to be established at that time.

than death before the pension scheme is established he shall be entitled to It should be recalled that the applicant reimbursement of the sum standing to successfully applied on the termination the credit of his account with the of his service at the end of 1969 for the provident fund, including interest. severance grant provided for by Article 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations B — Survivors' pension of Officials. He subsequently requested the Commission to accept the repayment of the severance grant and to award him Staff Memorandum No 16 thus a pension. contained the temporary provisions concerning the social security of officials In the course of negotiating the of the Commission which were abovementioned settlement the parties applicable until the entry into force of reached an agreement on principle.

country of origin. In the present case the provisions of the Staff Regulations of relevant provision is the first paragraph Officials and that he was bound to repay of Article 49 of Annex VIII to the Staff to the Commission the severance grant Regulations of Officials, which is worded which had been paid to him at the time, as follows: together with compound interest at the rate of 35 % per annum. Annexed to 'Where an official has exercised his the letter was a calculation of the option to withdraw from his account applicant's pension. with the temporary joint provident scheme of the institutions of the In a letter of 17 April 1974 addressed to Communities sums which he was the Commission the applicant's lawyer required to contribute in his country of expressed his opinion on the draft origin in order to maintain his pension settlement and in particular expressed rights there, his pension rights shall, in reservations concerning the proportional respect of the period when he was a reduction of the pension rights pursuant member of the temporary provident to the first paragraph of Article 49 of scheme, be reduced in proportion to the Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of sums withdrawn from his account.' Officials on the basis of the amounts which the applicant had withdrawn from The pension rights of the applicant, a his account with the temporary joint former official of the Commission, provident scheme before the entry into formed the subject-matter, as to the force of the Staff Regulations. substance, of Case 113/73 which was settled out of court and removed from By a letter dated 7 March 1975 the the Register of the Court by an Order of applicant's lawyer again expressed

By a letter of 12 March 1975 the On 20 June 1975 the Director of Commission informed the applicant's Personnel at the Commission adopted a lawyer inter alia that settlement of the decision recognizing that the applicant sums due to the applicant as from 1 was entitled to a pension with effect from January 1975 could be effected only '... 1 January 1975. on condition that the Commission adopts a decision formally agreeing to On 21 August 1975 the applicant the settlement reached ...' and, with addressed to the Commission a letter regard to the proportional reduction, that containing in particular the following: the agent of the Commission would discuss this with the administration and 'I should be obliged if you would kindly notify the result to the applicant's lawyer review your calculation of the rate of 'immediately'. pension contained in the notice of assessment of 18 April 1975, which Subsequently, the Commission commu­ became final through the decision of the nicated to the applicant a 'notice of Directorate of 20 June 1975. It appears assessment' of his pension rights, dated that an error has occurred in the 18 April 1975. It added that the notice calculation of the reduction of the was issued 'subject to the condition that pension rights in accordance with the the settlement is formally approved by first paragraph of Article 49 of Annex the Commission'. VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

It is clear from the abovementioned notice that the Commission, in Concerning the proportional reduction calculating the proportional reduction of of the pension rights for the period prior the applicant's pension rights, did not to the entry into force of the Staff take into consideration the interest Regulations, the entire pension, that is to credited to the applicant's account under say the contributions plus interest, must the temporary joint provident scheme be considered in relation to the sums when it was transferred to the scheme withdrawn. ...

application which was received at the 1. Give a ruling on the procedural issue Court Registry on 30 September 1976. in accordance with Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court to the The Commission raised an objection of effect that the application is inadmissibility in a separate document, inadmissible; which was received at the Court Registry 2. Order the applicant to bear the costs. on 6 November 1976, and requested that Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure be In his reply to this statement the applied. applicant contends that the Court should: On 13 December 1976 the applicant 1. Dismiss the application on the submitted his observations on that procedural issue which the defendant objection. has submitted in connexion with the admissibility of the application; By an Order of 19 January 1977 the 2. Order the defendant to bear the costs. Court (Second Chamber) ruled that the objection must be considered together In its statement of defence the with the substance of the case and that Commission contends that the Court the costs must be reserved. should: 1. Dismiss the application as inad­ Having heard the report of the missible; Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the 2. Alternatively dismiss the application Advocate-General the Court (Second as unfounded; Chamber) decided to open the oral 3. Order the applicant to bear the costs. procedure without any preliminary inquiry. In its reply to the statement of defence the applicant contends that the Court should: II — Conclusions of the parties 1. Dismiss the defendant's application on a procedural issue for the dismissal The applicant, in his application of the application as inadmissible; initiating the proceedings, claims that 2. Deliver a ruling as requested in Heads the Court should: 1 to 3 of the conclusions which the 1. Annul the decision of the Com­ applicant has put forward in his mission of 9 August 1976; application; 2. Order the Commission to take into — in the alternative, if the Court consideration in calculating the should rule in favour of the applicant's retirement pension rights reservations expressed by the for the period when he was a member defendant concerning the form of of the temporary joint provident Head 2 of the applicant's scheme of the institutions of the conclusions, give a ruling in favour

of that request worded as follows: description 'final', which he applied to ... that the Court should: the notice of assessment in his letter of 1. ... 21 August 1975, did not refer to the 2. Rule that for the purpose of calculation of the rate of pension is calculating the applicant's irrelevant to the dispute. In fact the pension rights for the period communication of the decision of 20 when he was a member of the June 1975 rendered the notice of temporary joint provident assessment fully valid and it could scheme of the Communities, consequently have been contested as a namely from 4 December 1958 measure adversely affecting the applicant. to 31 December 1961, consideration must be taken of The Commission maintains that the the amount credited to the applicant should have lodged a applicant's account under the complaint against the notice of said scheme at the time when assessment within the period of three the Staff Regulations entered months laid down by Article 90 (2) of the into force; Staff Regulations of Officials and have 3. ... then filed an application within the period laid down by Article 91. The applicant failed to do so. III — Submissions and argu­ ments of the parties In his letter of 21 August 1975 the applicant set out the reasons why he Admissibility considers that the interest credited to his account with the temporary joint The Commission, in its statement provident scheme should have been concerning its objection of in­ taken into consideration in calculating admissibility, observes that the subject- the reduction of his pension in matter of the application is the accordance with the first paragraph of calculation of the pension received by Article 49 and he claimed that the notice the applicant since 1 January 1975. The of assessment of 18 April/20 June 1975 calculation of the pension was should consequently be reviewed. He established through the notice of stated then that his letter was to be assessment of 18 April/20 June 1975 considered as a request that the which constitutes a measure adversely institution take a decision relating to him affecting the applicant within the within the meaning of Article 90 (1) of meaning of Article 91 of the Staff the Staff Regulations of Officials if the Regulations of Officials. administration did not review the notice of assessment. It is not disputed that the notice of assessment was issued 'subject to the condition that the settlement is formally He did not receive a reply to that letter or to his reminders of 8 December 1975 approved by the Commission', but that condition had not the slightest and 2 February 1976. connexion with the question of the In his letter of 15 March 1976, which he reduction of the pension rights. It was purely intended to preclude reliance considered as a complaint within the upon the existence of the notice of meaning of Article 90 (2), the applicant assessment in the event of a settlement, again referred to the matter; on 15 June contrary to expectations, not being 1976 he again requested that steps be attained. taken in accordance with his letter.

If, despite its wording, the letter of 21 The Commission maintains that such a August 1975 is considered as a complaint view cannot be considered compatible within the meaning of Article 90 (2) it with the provisions governing judicial must certainly be held that the time-limits. In this connexion it cites the complaint was lodged within the period judgment of the Court of 15 June 1976 prescribed, but that does not apply to the (Wack v Commission [1976] ECR 1017) application of 30 September 1976. In in which the Court held that The accordance with Article 91 (2) it should subsequent letters of the Commission in in fact have been filed within a period of reply to the requests submitted by the three months from the implied decision applicant merely confirmed the earlier of late December 1975 whereby the decision and thus could not result in request submitted in the letter of 21 starting a fresh period to run in favour of August 1975 was rejected, that is to say at the applicant.' The Court of Justice thus the latest by the end of March 1976 and refused to concede that a request not six months later. submitted prior to an application, as in the present case, can have the effect of Even if it were to be claimed that the extending the period for submitting an applicant's letter dated 21 August 1975 application and dismissed the application must be considered as a 'request' the as inadmissible on the ground that the application must still be held complaint against the measure adversely inadmissible. In fact in that case the affecting the person concerned was not implied decision rejecting the request lodged within the prescribed period. merely constitutes confirmation of the reduction of the pension rights which For the same reasons the Court must in had already been determined in the the present case find: notice of assessment. — either that the implied decision rejecting the 'request' of 21 August The Commission, on the basis of the 1975 merely confirmed the notice of case-law of the Court (in particular the assessment of 18 April/20 June 1975 judgment of 14 December 1965 in Case and was not such as to start a fresh 12/65, Bauer v Commission [1965] ECR period running in favour of the 1003), claims that such confirmation by applicant in which an application way of an implied decision of rejection is could be lodged, through the incapable of influencing in any way expedient of the complaint of 15 whatever the time-limit laid down for March 1976; lodging an application against an act — or that the 'request' of 21 August adversely affecting the person concerned 1975 in fact amounts to a complaint and a fortiori incapable of causing a which, since it was by implication fresh time-limit to run for lodging a rejected at the latest at the end of fresh complaint. December 1975, could have provided grounds for an application at the The opposite view, sustained by the latest until the end of March 1976, applicant in his application, would mean which application was not submitted.

The applicant maintains that he did not The applicant never concurred in the consider either the notice of assessment calculation of the reduction. In his or the table annexed thereto concerning request of 21 August 1975 he expressly the calculation of the reduction requested that the calculation should be previously disputed as measures adversely reviewed.

affecting him. He had obtained a promise from the Commission's agent The Commission's claim that the that this matter would be considered by reduction Had already been decided in the administration. The administration the notice of assessment is at variance clearly considered that this problem was with its own behaviour.

ministrative law. The Commission is With reference to the correspondence estopped from relying on a failure on the between the parties the Commission part of the applicant (venire contra claims that the applicant was factum proprium). undoubtedly aware in particular that the matter of a reduction of his pension It must consequently be held that the rights had been settled in a manner objection based on the failure to observe unfavourable to him by the notice of the time-limits for lodging an application assessment which had become 'final' has no objective basis. with the decision of 20 June 1975.

followed by an application. But even if The applicant disputes the deter Article 41 did permit an official to have mination of the rate of his pension in the rate of his pension confirmed in respect of the period when he was certain cases, with the abovementioned affiliated to the temporary joint provident consequence, this would be of no scheme before the Staff Regulations assistance to the applicant. In fact the came into force. He considers that the latter is contesting not a calculation of provision concerning reduction under his pension which incorporates an 'error the first paragraph of Article 49 of Annex or omission' as is provided in Article 41, VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials but the interpretation of the first has been wrongly applied. paragraph of Article 49 of Annex VIII

However, for the period during Annex VIII. which he was affiliated to that scheme

of comparing the sums withdrawn with the credit standing to the account The applicant maintains that the (without withdrawals) it compared them provident scheme established by the exclusively with the contributions. Staff Memorandum of 19 June 1958 Furthermore, it failed to take account of constituted a pension fund. The credit the credit balance, which remains appearing on the 'individual' accounts without an equivalent from the point of consisting of contributions and the revenue from their investment were the view of pension rights. equivalent of pension rights in the course The Commission, in its statement of of acquisition during the period before defence, claims that only the provisions the Staff Regulations came into force. In of the first paragraph of Article 49 are fact an official who left the service early relevant. Since that article does not without the right to a pension received in provide any information on the point at particular the amount 'standing to the credit of his account under the issue it must be interpreted on the basis of the way in which that provision, and temporary joint provident scheme of the institutions of the Communities at the the question of account being taken of interest, fit into the framework of the date when the Staff Regulations entered pension scheme under the Staff into force, plus compound interest at the Regulations. rate of 3.5 % per annum' (that is to say up to the date of leaving — Article 12 (a) The basic principles of that scheme are of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of laid down in Article 77 of the Staff Officials). Regulations and in Article 2 of Annex VIII thereto. According to those When retirement pension rights are provisions the amount of the pension is reduced pursuant to Article 49 of Annex determined exclusively on the basis of VIII the decisive question is thus by how 'the ... number of years of pensionable much the credit was in fact reduced by the sums withdrawn. service' and of 'the final basic salary carried by the last grade in which the official was classified for at least one The applicant notes that under the first year'. Years of pensionable service are paragraph of Article 49 pension rights calculated in accordance with the shall be reduced 'in proportion to the provisions contained in Article 3 of sums withdrawn' and claims that 'in Annex VIII which relate exclusively to proportion' means that it must be the period of service completed for one established what proportion the sums of the Community institutions. withdrawn bear to the amount which would have remained when the transfer If the interest entered to his account is to the scheme under the Staff taken into consideration, as the applicant Regulations was effected had the claims that it should be, in calculating withdrawals not been made. The full the reduction of pension rights pursuant pension corresponds to the amount to the first paragraph of Article 49 this remaining which was transferred to the gives a lower rate of reduction and budget of the Community. In other thereby a greater number of years of words, the extent of the reduction is pensionable service which in its turn established in proportion to the affects the amount of the pension. To

effect the reduction in this manner is The applicant maintains that it is thus incompatible with Article 3 of Annex quite wrong to base an interpretation of VIII. Furthermore, officials who did not the first paragraph of Article 49 on the make any withdrawals from their account role played by that provision and by the under the temporary joint provident account taken of interest 'within the scheme would be unable to benefit from framework of the pension scheme under such additional years of pensionable the Staff Regulations'. service because they do not come under the provisions of the first paragraph of In fact pension rights are determined Article 49 of Annex VIII. under Article 48, which forms part of the 'transitional provisions' contained in Only the provisions of Article 12 (a) of Chapter 8 of Annex VIII, on the basis of Annex VIII concerning the severance affiliation to the temporary joint grant confer upon an official the benefit provident scheme and not, as the of the interest entered to his account Commission maintains, pursuant to with the temporary joint provident Articles 2 and 3 of Annex VIII, that is to scheme. Those provisions do not apply say in terms of the number of years of to the applicant's case since, after pensionable service completed in posts repaying to the Commission the under the Staff Regulations. severance grant which had previously been paid to him, together with the The applicant disputes the argument of interest in question, he now receives a the Commission to the effect that if the pension on the basis of the settlement interest credited to his account were arrived at in Case 133/73. taken into account for the purposes of The applicant, in his reply to the the reduction of his pension rights this statement of defence, confirms that he would place him in a more favourable situation than that of officials who had concurs with the Commission's opinion not effected withdrawals. In fact, it is that the question of reduction must be based solely upon the first paragraph of clear arguing a contrario from the first Article 49 of Annex VIII. That provision paragraph of Article 49, that if the forms part of Chapter 8 of Annex VIII, official has not exercised his option to effect withdrawals he is entitled to the the special provisions of which govern the problem of the transition from the full pension. '... The amounts standing temporary joint provident scheme to the to his credit under the temporary joint pension scheme under the Staff provident scheme' (Article 51 of Annex Regulations. VIII) are then to be transferred in full to the Communities. Amounts standing to The applicant emphasizes the basic the credit of an official if no withdrawal differences between the provident has been effected are stated in Staff scheme existing before the Staff Memorandum No 16 to be 'contributions

consideration where pension rights have balance consisting of contributions and to be reduced in view of withdrawals. interest, whether or not those contri­ butions and interest were subsequently The Commission in its rejoinder claims transferred to the budget of the that the 'temporary provident scheme' Communities. referred to in Staff Memorandum No 16 was not a pension scheme properly The Commission maintains that the 'full so-called. In fact that scheme did not pension' which the applicant would have provide for a pension but only for enjoyed if he had not made withdrawals the payment of a severance grant from his account with the scheme before (contributions and interest) in the event the Staff Regulations came into force is of early termination of service. The to be calculated, as is the case with all his corresponding provisions contained in colleagues in the same situation, on the the Staff Memorandum were sub­ sole basis of years of service and of the sequently re-enacted in the provisions of last basic salary (Article 77 of the Staff the Staff Regulations concerning the Regulations; first paragraph of Article 48 severance grant and the taking into of Annex VIII). account of periods of service completed before the Staff Regulations came into In conclusion it must be found that the force (Annex VIII, first paragraph of applicant's request that in reducing his Article 48). pension rights pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 49 of Annex VIII regard should be had to the interest On the basis of Article 77 of the Staff credited to his account with the Regulations all officials are entitled to a temporary joint provident scheme is pension, including those who had already incompatible with the principles entered the service before 1 January governing the pension scheme 1962. The first paragraph of Article 48 of established under the Staff Regulations. Annex VIII only lays down that periods of service completed before the Staff The contested notice of assessment of 18 Regulations came into force by officials April/20 June 1975 which did not take who had already entered the service on 1 into account the interest credited to the January 1962 must be taken into applicant's account with the temporary consideration in calculating the pension; joint provident scheme when his pension it thus supplements Article 3 of Annex rights were reduced pursuant to the first VIII with regard to that category of paragraph of Article 49 of Annex VIII, officials. like all previous instances of the application of this provision, is thus The applicant's argument, based on the lawful and consequently the application alleged entitlement to the 'full pension' must be dismissed as unfounded. of officials who have not effected withdrawals, is mistaken. In fact, as the Commission has already stated, the IV — Oral procedure 'temporary provident scheme' is not a scheme properly so-called, and, despite The parties presented oral argument at what the applicant maintains, it confers the hearing on 13 October 1977. no right to a pension. Within the scope of the first paragraph of Article 49 there The Advocate-General delivered his can accordingly be no equivalence opinion at the hearing on 24 November between the full pension and the credit 1977.

That account included a reduction in the applicant's pension rights pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 49 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials in proportion to the sums which he had withdrawn before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations, that is, 1 January 1962, from his account under the temporary joint provident scheme which formed the subject-matter of Staff Memorandum No 16-470/58-F issued by the Commission and which he had used to maintain his pension rights in his country of origin.

3 The calculation of that proportional reduction of the applicant's pension rights became the sole point at issue between the parties in the course of the negotiations undertaken with a view to a settlement and it is the sole point of substance in the present proceedings.

That point must be resolved on the basis of the aims and of the wording of the said Staff Memorandum No 16 and of the first paragraph of Article 49 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1977 -CASE 95/76

4 The said Staff Memorandum No 16 provided inter alia as follows:

'Concerning: Social Security and Provident Scheme

The provident fund shall maintain an individual account in the name of each official in which there shall be entered:

— on the credit side, the contributions of the official and of the institution together with the annual compound interest;

— on the debit side, any payments made by the institution in order to maintain the official's pension rights in his former administration or institution together with the amount deducted to cover the risk of death.

At the time when the pension scheme is set up the amount in the individual accounts shall be transferred to the pension fund in accordance with detailed rules to be established at that time.

Until then, if an official leaves the service of the Community for a reason other than death before the pension scheme is established he shall be entitled to reimbursement of the sum standing to the credit of his account with the provident fund, including interest.'

BRUNS v COMMISSION

The Legal Department of the Commission, in its reply of 12 March 1975 to this last letter, observed in particular that payment of the sums due to the applicant by way of pension rights as from 1 January 1975 could be effected only on condition that the Commission adopted a decision formally agreeing to the settlement concluded and stated that the agent of the Commission would discuss the proportional reduction with the administration and that the applicant's lawyer would be notified immediately of the result.

The Commission subsequently notified the applicant of a 'notice of assessment' dated 18 April 1975 concerning his pension rights 'subject to the condition that [the settlement] is formally approved by the Commission'.

JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1977 -CASE 95/76

It is clear from that notice that the Commission, in calculating the proportional reduction of the applicant's pension rights, did not take into account the interest standing to the credit of his account under the temporary provident scheme.

The Commission, in a letter of 10 June 1975, notified the applicant's lawyer that it was still a formal requirement that a decision be adopted recognizing the applicant's pension rights and that, with regard to the calculation of the said rights, the administration would communicate with the applicant direct.

On 20 June 1975 the Director of Personnel at the Commission adopted a 'decision' ('Verfügung') wherein the applicant's pension rights were acknowledged with effect from 1 January 1975.

Staff Regulations entered into force.

BRUNS v COMMISSION

The applicant, in his reply, submitted as an alternative claim, in case the Court should concur with certain reservations expressed by the Commission concerning the form of Head 2 of his conclusions, a new version of that head requesting the Court to rule that for the purpose of calculating the applicant's pension rights for the period when he was a member of the temporary joint provident scheme of the Communities consideration must be taken of the amount credited to his account under the said scheme at the time when the

Staff Regulations entered into force.

10 Since the objections raised against the admissibility of the application are closely linked to the submissions put forward by the parties, for which reason the Court decided, by an Order of 19 January 1977, to consider the objections together with the substance, the substance of the case must be considered first.

11 The system established under Staff Memorandum No 16 was a provisional scheme 'pending the adoption in the Staff Regulations of provisions applicable to the staff with regard to social security'.

12 On the other hand, the pension scheme set up under Article 77 of the Staff Regulations of Officials together with Article 2 of Annex VIII provides that the pension rights of all officials shall be calculated solely on the basis of the number of years of pensionable service acquired and of the last basic salary.

Under Article 3 of Annex VIII the sole criterion for calculating years of pensionable service acquired is the period of service completed in one of the Community institutions.

Certain aspects of the calculation of the pension rights of officials to whom the Staff Regulations apply pursuant to the transitional provisions contained in Chapter 8 of Annex VIII are governed in particular by Articles 48 and 49 of that annex.

In fact the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 48 establish that such officials are entitled to pension rights computed from the date of their joining the temporary joint provident scheme of the institutions of the Community.

13 In order to ensure an equitable transition from the temporary provident scheme to the pension scheme under the Staff Regulations it was necessary to avoid creating discrimination between officials who, since they had not effected withdrawals from their account with the transitional scheme in order

to maintain their pension rights with their former administration or institution, had not already obtained a specific benefit, and officials who had effected such withdrawals from their account.

Furthermore, this finding is confirmed by the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 48, which provides that where an official, during the whole or part of his service prior to his entry into the service of one of the Community institutions, had not contributed under the provident scheme, he is entitled, by payment in instalments, to buy in the pension rights for which he had been unable to contribute.

In fact, as stated in that paragraph: 'The amounts contributed by the official, together with the corresponding amounts contributed by the institution, shall be deemed to have been standing to the official's credit under the temporary provident scheme at the date of the entry into force of these Staff Regulations'.

It is clear from those provisions that, on the one hand, the payment of contributions is sufficient to confer full pension rights without the need to pay interest and that, on the other, those rights are acquired without the fund's being compensated for the loss of the investment income from the contributions which it would have received if the contributions had been paid within the period laid down in Staff Memorandum No 16.

14 It is clear from the foregoing that, having regard to the principles governing the pension scheme established by the Staff Regulations, it must be concluded that the Commission was justified in refusing to amend its calculation of the proportional reduction of the applicant's pension as desired by the applicant.

JUDGMENT OF 15. 12. 1977 -CASE 95/76

Consequently, the applicant's claims must be dismissed as unfounded.

hereby:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

Sørensen Mackenzie Stuart Touffait

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 15 December 1977.

A. Van Houtte M. Sørensen