- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-439/09: Action brought on 23 October 2009 — Purvis v Parliament
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0439
62009TN0439
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
16.1.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 11/32
(Case T-439/09)
2010/C 11/61
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: John Robert Purvis (Saint Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
—Declare that the decisions of the Bureau of the Parliament of 9 March and 1 April 2009 are unlawful in so far as they amend the additional pension scheme and abolish the special methods of payment of the additional pension to Members or former Members of the Parliament who voluntarily joined that optional pension scheme;
—Annul the Parliament’s decision of 7 August 2009, which refused the applicant 25 % of his pension in the form of a lump sum;
—Order the Parliament to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action has been brought against the Parliament’s decision of 7 August 2009, which was taken to implement the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme in Annex VIII to the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, as amended by the Parliament’s decision of 9 March 2009, and which dismissed the applicant’s application for payment, in part (25 %) in the form of a lump sum and in part in the form of an annuity, of his additional pension as from August 2009.
In support of his action, the applicant relies as regards the substance of the case on four pleas in law alleging:
—Infringement of the applicant’s acquired rights and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;
—Infringement of the general principles of equal treatment and of proportionality;
—Breach of Article 29 of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament which provides that the Quaestors and the Secretary-General are responsible for monitoring the interpretation and the strict application of those rules;
—Breach of good faith in the implementation of contracts and nullity of purely enabling clauses.