16.12.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 423/63 |
Action brought on 18 October 2019 — Rübig v Parliament
(Case T-721/19)
(2019/C 423/79)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Paul Rübig (Wels, Austria) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
declare the action admissible; |
— |
where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8); |
— |
annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the Directorate General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s entitlement to his additional (voluntary) pension in September 2019 in so far as that decision introduced a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant as established by the decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above; |
— |
declare that the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 referred to above is inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, specifically, in so far as it imposes a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the additional (voluntary) pension payable 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 in law, alleging that the Bureau has no competence ratione materiae.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.
|