Appeal brought on 17 January 2024 by OA against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2023 in Case T-39/22, OA v Parliament

(Case C-32/24 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: OA (represented by: G. Rossi, F. Regaldo, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

uphold the appeal;

set aside the judgement under appeal; and consequently

annul both Contested Decisions (save the part of the Second Contested Decision in which the Complaint on pensionable age has been upheld by the defendant);

should the Court not annul the Contested Decisions the appellant asks the Court to condemn the defendant to compensate the damages caused to the appellant, in the amount to be determined according to a formula referred to under paragraph 74 of the application before the General Court, or in any other amount the Court might have found just and fair;

condemn the defendant to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court seriously misread the applicant’s sixth plea in law, since the applicant did not claim that his pension should be “calculated by taking into account the average salary earned throughout the career”. Actually, the applicant claimed that the “pro rata 1 calculation” provided for by the third paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulation should be applied.

In stating that the third paragraph of Article 77 of the Staff Regulations applies only to officials and other servants and not to accredited parliamentary assistants, the General Court illegitimately discriminates against the latter.

The General Court disregards that Article 77, paragraph 3, of the Staff Regulations is applicable in the case of fluctuations in salaries.

The General Court, by treating in the same way the situations of the officials, who benefit from a linear progression in their salaries, and accredited parliamentary assistants, who do not, infringes the non-discrimination principle.

The General Court, by admitting that an EU Institution can state that the pension of a staff member shall be calculated according to the pro rata criterion, as governed by EU law, and then completely disregard such method, seriously undermines the application of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations within the EU law.

____________