28.3.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/25

(Case T-39/22)

(2022/C 138/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OA (represented by: G. Rossi and F. Regaldo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—uphold the application;

—annul both contested decisions (save the part of the second contested decision in which the complaint on pensionable age has been upheld by the defendant);

—state that the applicant’s pension amount must be established according to the average of all salaries received by the applicant from 24.6.2010 to 31.3.2021 (pro-rata rule);

—state that, for the calculation of the applicant’s pension amount, also the period of service at the institution, between 27.7.2004 and 1.07.2009, must be taken into account;

—condemn the defendant to compensate the damages caused to the applicant, in the amount to be determined according to the formula referred to under paragraph 74 (of the application), or in any other amount the Court may find just and fair (in the denied and not believed hypothesis in which the Court does not order what mentioned under items 2, 3 and 4 above); and,

—condemn the defendant to pay the costs (in any case).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions have fixed in advance certain detailed arrangements for calculating the amount of the applicant’s pension rights and the application is therefore admissible.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions misinterpreted the case law of the Court on the admissibility.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the decision sought by the applicant has no adverse effect on the defendant, even in case of future changes of the former’s working status.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the period of service rendered by the applicant between 2004 and 2009 should be considered as a period of service rendered at the institution.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the re-determination of the pensionable age, should lead to the indication of 63-years old, without prejudice to appeal the forthcoming decision of the defendant.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging the need of applying the so-called pro-rata rule.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging the possible partial disapplication (with reference to the words ‘final’ and ‘last’) of Article 77(2) of the Staff Regulations, in order to cure the violations of the principles of equality and proportionality.

8.Eight plea in law, containing a request for damages.