Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62011TN0229

    Case T-229/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament

    SL C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 26–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.7.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 211/26

    Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament

    (Case T-229/11)

    2011/C 211/57

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicants: Lord Inglewood (Penrith, United Kingdom), Georges Berthu (Longré, France), Guy Bono (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France), David Robert Bowe (Leeds, United Kingdom), Brendan Donnelly (London, United Kingdom), Catherine Guy-Quint (Cournon-d’Auvergne, France), Christine Margaret Oddy (Coventry, United Kingdom), Nicole Thomas-Mauro (Épernay, France), Gary Titley (Bolton, United Kingdom), Vincenzo Viola (Palermo, Italy), and Maartje van Putten (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Parliament

    Forms of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    declare the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament unlawful;

    —

    annul the contested decisions;

    —

    order the Parliament to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The action is brought against the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament.

    In support of their action, the applicants make four pleas in law on the substance, claiming:

    —

    infringement of acquired rights conferred by legal acts and the principle of legal certainty;

    —

    infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in that the contested decisions raised the pensionable age by three years without transitional measures;

    —

    infringement of Article 29 of the Rules on Expenses and Allowances of Members of the European Parliament, which provides that the Quaestors and the Secretary General are responsible for the interpretation and strict application of those rules;

    —

    manifest error of assessment in that the Bureau’s decision of 1 April 2009, amending the rules serving as the basis for the contested decisions, is unsound.
    Top