Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/3

—

(Case C-281/13 P)

(2013/C 226/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Lord Inglewood and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

—order

—that the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2013 in Joined Cases T-229/11 and T-276/11 Inglewood and Others v Parliament is annulled;

—ruling again, order:

—that the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament increasing the retirement age from 60 to 63 and abolishing the special methods of obtaining a pension, either early or in the form of a lump sum;

—that the contested decisions are annulled;

—the Parliament to pay the costs of the two proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants bring an appeal against the judgment of the General Court, by which the latter dismissed their action for annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament refusing to grant them their voluntary additional pension, early, at the age of 60 or in part in the form of a lump sum.

In the first place, the appellants allege an error of law by the General Court, to the effect that the contested decisions infringed their acquired rights or rights pending insolvency in the circumstances fixed and accepted at the time they took up office.

In the second place, the General Court erred in law by disregarding the plea alleging infringement of Article 27(2) of the Statute for Members, although that provision states that acquired rights and future entitlements are to be maintained. The decision of 1 April 2009 adversely affects the appellants’ acquired rights, that is to say the rights to request an early pension or to receive it at the age of 60 or, as the case may be, in part in the form of a lump sum.

In the third place, the General Court also erred in law by ruling that the Statute for Members was not applicable since it entered into force after the decision of general application of 1 April 2009, whereas the individual decisions which are the subject-matter of the appeals were taken after that date.

In the fourth place, the General Court erred in law by rejecting the plea alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment while the appellants could legitimately expect to receive their pension, according to the conditions fixed and applied during a substantial part of the payment of their contributions or on the day they ended their activities, more than those who enjoyed derogations, that is to say, those who were still carrying on activities and had reached the age of 60 prior to the entry into force, on 14 July 2009, of the decision of 1 April 2009.

In the last place, the General Court erred in law by rejecting the plea alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality after holding that only 10 % of the members bear the consequences of the financial crisis and the predictable effects of a temporary fund, which is destined to disappear.

—