29.6.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 215/46 |
Action brought on 27 April 2020 — Susta v Parliament
(Case T-241/20)
(2020/C 215/57)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Gianluca Susta (Biella, Italy) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Grosjean, lawyers)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
declare and rule that
— |
the present action is admissible; |
— |
if necessary, by way of measures of organization of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, the European Parliament is ordered to produce the opinions of the Legal Service of the European Parliament, ostensibly delivered on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, regardless of the exact date but in any event before the adoption of the decision of the Parliament’s Bureau on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2018/C 466/02, Official Journal 28 December 2018, C 466/8) (‘the IMS’); |
— |
the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the Directorate-General for Finances of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s rights to his additional (voluntary) pension, shall be annulled on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, in so far as that that decision implemented the increase in the age of entitlement to additional (voluntary) retirement due to the applicant from the age of 63 to 65 years as of 1 January 2019, as introduced by the Bureau’s decision of 10 December 2018 referred to above; |
— |
the decision taken by the Parliament’s Bureau on 10 December 2018 referred to above shall be annulled, or alternatively shall be inapplicable, by virtue of Article 277 TFEU, in so far as it modifies Article 76 of the IMS, and more particularly in so far as it increases the age of entitlement to the additional (voluntary) pension, payable as of 1 January 2019; |
— |
the Parliament shall 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 lack of competence ratione materiae of the Bureau:
|
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:
|