Action brought on 1 December 2023 – UG v Parliament

(Case T-1133/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: UG (represented by: J. Martínez Gimeno, X. Codina García-Andrade, F. Díaz-Grande Rojo and S. Fernández Tourné, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Payment Notice as regards the applicant on the grounds that: (a) Article 76(1) or (1a) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, as amended by the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 12 June 2023 ¹ amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (‘the Implementing Measures’), and (b) Article 76(2a) of the Implementing Measures, as amended by the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018, ² are unlawful; and annul all payments of entitlements under the Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme (‘AVPS’) made by the applicant subsequent to the Payment Notice for the same reason;

order the European Parliament to issue new payment notices in respect of the applicant’s entitlements under the AVPS up to the amount which would have been applicable in accordance with the wording of Article 76 of the Implementing Measures prior to the 2023 Decision and to the 2018 Decision, both in respect of the same Payment Notice and in respect of all the subsequent payment notices issued since that date;

order the European Parliament, in accordance with those new payment notices, to maintain the sums already paid to the applicant by way of AVPS entitlements and to pay the difference between the amount of the Payment Notice (and those issued up until judgment) and the amount which would have been applicable in accordance with the wording of Article 76 of the Implementing Measures prior to the 2023 Decision and to the 2018 Decision, together with statutory interest from the date on which that difference had to be paid until payment in full; and

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27(2) of Decision 2005/684/EC, ¹ Euratom of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (‘the Statute’) and Rule 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, which provide, respectively, that acquired rights and future entitlements under the AVPS are to be maintained in full and that the Bureau may only lay down criteria and conditions governing the acquisition of new rights or entitlements.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the protection of the rights acquired by the applicant prior to the adoption of the 2023 Decision, in the absence of any justification or balancing of the interests involved that would permit that amendment.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the essence of the fundamental right to property under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principle of parliamentary independence and the principle of equality. The measures adopted by the 2023 Decision rendered meaningless the applicant’s pension entitlement, which is protected by Article 17 of the Charter, because they do not comply with the minimum limit required by the case-law on Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer and, in addition, infringe the minimum essence of the applicant’s pension entitlement resulting from the AVPS. Similarly, the abovementioned measures infringe the general principle of parliamentary independence, which is embodied in the applicant’s right to a pension, and the principle of equality, by not providing for similar measures in the pension entitlements of current Members of the European Parliament.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in that the measures adopted by the 2023 Decision completely fail to balance the interests involved; they pursue an objective of general interest in the abstract, which is not legitimate in the light of the specific circumstances of the case relating to the AVPS created by the European Parliament itself and, in any event, they are much more onerous measures than those which could have been adopted.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in that the European Parliament consistently gave the applicant precise, unconditional and consistent assurances that the acquired pension rights would be respected and that it would assume its legal responsibility after exhaustion of the Fund.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s pension is a pension derived from the earlier pension of a former Member of the European Parliament, who received the pension prior to the 2018 Decision and even prior to the entry into force of the Statute, and, consequently, enjoyed a right that was fully acquired long before the 2018 Decision. Similarly, the applicant had, within the meaning of the applicable legislation, an ‘entitlement’ that was acquired prior to the 2018 Decision. Furthermore, the levy of 5% established by the 2018 Decision constitutes an infringement of the rights and principles set out in the third and fifth pleas in law (the essence of the right to property, the principle of proportionality and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations).

____________

¹ Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 12 June 2023 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2023 C 227, p. 5).

¹ Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, p. 8).

¹ OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1.