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.

First plea in law, alleging lack of competence ratione materiae of the Bureau:

—

first, the Bureau’s decision of 10 December 2018 (‘the Bureau’s decision’) was taken in breach of the Statute for 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’); in particular, the Bureau’s decision contravenes the provisions of Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ be maintained;

—	secondly, the Bureau’s decision creates a tax by introducing a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of the pension, when creating a tax does not fall within the Bureau’s remit according to Article 223(2) TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements:

—	first, it is alleged that the Bureau adopted its decision without respecting the rules laid down by Article 223 TFEU;

—	secondly, the Bureau’s decision is insufficiently reasoned and is thus in breach of the obligation to state reasons, laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations:

—	first, the Bureau’s decision infringes the acquired rights and future entitlements arising both from general principles of law and from the Statute which expressly requires that they be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27);

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

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination:

—	first, the interferences with the applicant’s rights are disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the Bureau’s decision;

—	secondly, the Bureau’s decision must be declared to be inapplicable for infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures:

—	first, the Bureau’s decision infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it unlawfully has retroactive effects;

—	secondly, the Bureau’s decision infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to make provision for transitory measures.