Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/49

(Case T-243/20)

(2020/C 215/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gerardo Galeote (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Grosjean, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—declare the present action admissible;

—where necessary, as measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, order the European Parliament to produce the opinions issued by the European Parliament’s Legal Service, which were delivered on 16 July 2018 and on 3 December 2018, without prejudice as to their exact date, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 modifying the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2018/C 466/02, Official Journal 28 December 2018, C 466/8);

—annul the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the ‘Remuneration and Social Entitlements of Members’ unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance concerning the applicant’s rights to his (voluntary) supplementary pension, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, in so far as that decision implemented the increase in the age of entitlement to receive the (voluntary) supplementary retirement pension owed to the applicant from 63 to 65 as from 1 January 2019, as introduced by the abovementioned decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018;

—annul or declare inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU the abovementioned decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018, in so far as it modifies Article 76 of the IMS, and more specifically in so far as it raises the age of entitlement to the (voluntary) supplementary pension payable as from 1 January 2019;

—order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea, alleging that the Bureau lacks competence ratione materiae.

—first, the Bureau’s decision of 10 December 2018 (‘the Bureau’s decision’) was taken in breach of the Statute of Members of the European Parliament adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom, (OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1) (‘the Statute’). The Bureau’s decision is inter alia contrary to the provisions of Article 27 of the Statute, which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘rights in the course of acquisition’ be maintained.

—secondly, the Bureau’s decision creates a tax by introducing a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, even though the creation of a tax does not fall within the Bureau’s competence under Article 223(2) TFEU.

2.Second plea, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

—first, the Bureau adopted its decision without respecting the rules laid down by Article 223 TFEU.

—secondly, the Bureau’s decision lacks a sufficient statement of reasons and thus infringes the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3.Third plea, alleging infringement of acquired rights and rights in the course of acquisition and of the principle of legitimate expectations.

—first, the Bureau’s decision infringes the acquired rights and rights in the course of acquisition stemming both from general principles of law and from the Statute, which expressly requires that they be ‘entirely’ maintained (Article 27).

—secondly, the Bureau’s decision infringes the principle of legitimate expectations.

4.Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

—first, the infringements of the applicant’s rights are disproportionate in relation to the objectives pursued by the Bureau’s decision.

—secondly, the Bureau’s decision must be declared inapplicable on the ground that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination.

5.Fifth plea, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and a lack of transitional measures.

—first, the Bureau’s decision infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it improperly has retroactive effect.

—secondly, the Bureau’s decision disregards the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to provide for transitional measures.