EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-820/22: Action brought on 23 December 2022 — Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0820

62022TN0820

December 23, 2022
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

13.3.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/50

(Case T-820/22)

(2023/C 94/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the Communication adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, concerning the recalculation of retirement pension rights notified by registered letter (Ref No. D311149), received on 13 October 2022, by which the European Parliament recalculated the applicant’s retirement pension rights and ordered the recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the previous pension calculation;

order the European Parliament to repay all the sums unduly withheld plus statutory interest from the date of retention until payment and order the European Parliament to comply with the judgment to be given and to undertake all necessary steps, acts or measures to ensure that the initial amount of the pension is restored immediately and in full;

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the author of the act adversely affecting a member of staff, infringement of essential procedural requirements on the ground that the statement of reasons was inadequate and consequent infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.Second plea in law, alleging lack of a legal basis and misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty, of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and acquired rights and the consequent breach of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia