Action brought on 29 April 2020 — Watson v Parliament

(Case T-245/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Graham R. Watson (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Grosjean, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible;

where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions issued by the legal service of the European Parliament, which were allegedly delivered on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, without prejudice to the precise date, and in any event before the adoption of the decision of the European Parliament Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2018/C 466/02, OJ 2018 C 466, p. 8);

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finance, concerning the applicant’s entitlement to his additional (voluntary) pension, in so far as that decision raised the age for entitlement to the additional (voluntary) pension payable to the applicant from 63 to 65 years with effect from 1 January 2019, as introduced by the aforementioned decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018;

annul, or declare inapplicable pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, the decision of the Parliament Bureau of 10 December 2018 referred to above, in so far as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures, and more particularly, in so far as it raises the age for entitlement to the additional (voluntary) pension payable with effect from 1 January 2019;

order the Parliament to 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 decision of the Bureau of 10 December 2018 (‘the decision of the Bureau’) was adopted in infringement 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’). The decision of the Bureau infringes, inter alia, Article 27 of the Statute which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ be maintained.

Second, the decision of the Bureau creates a tax by introducing a special levy of 5% of the nominal amount of the pension although the creation of a tax does not fall within the competence of the Bureau according to Article 223(2) TFEU.

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

First, the applicant alleges that the Bureau adopted its decision without complying with the rules laid down in Article 223 TFEU.

Second, the decision of the Bureau is insufficiently reasoned and therefore it infringes the duty 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 decision of the Bureau infringes the acquired rights and future entitlements resulting both from the general principles of law and the Statute, which expressly requires that they be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27).

Second, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legitimate expectations.

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

First, the prejudice to the applicant’s rights is disproportionate to the objectives pursued by the decision of the Bureau.

Second, the decision of the Bureau must be declared inapplicable on the ground that it infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

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

First, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it has unlawful retroactive consequences.

Second, the decision of the Bureau infringes the principle of legal certainty in that it failed to take transitional measures.

____________