Cases T-219/09 and T-326/09

Gabriele Albertini and Others and

Brendan Donnelly

v

European Parliament

(Actions for annulment – Additional pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament – Amendment of the additional pension scheme – Measure of general scope – No individual concern – Inadmissibility)

Summary of the Order

1.      Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Not possible to base an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU

(Art. 230, fourth and fifth paras EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)

2.      Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision of the European Parliament amending the rules on the additional pension scheme for Members – Action brought by a Member – Not individually affected – Inadmissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

3.      Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned – Not permissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

1.      The question of the admissibility of an application must be resolved on the basis of the rules in force at the date on which it was submitted, and that the conditions for admissibility of an action are judged at the time of bringing the action, that is, the lodging of the application. Accordingly, the admissibility of an action brought before the date of entry into force of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 1 December 2009, must be assessed on the basis of Article 230 EC and not on the basis of Article 263 TFEU.

(see para. 39)

2.      For it to be possible for a measure of general application to be of individual concern to a natural or legal person, the latter must be affected by the measure at issue by virtue of certain attributes which are peculiar to that person or circumstances must exist in which that person is differentiated from all other persons.

In that connection, the fact that the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the Rules governing the additional (voluntary) pension scheme contained in Annex VIII to the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament affects the rights which the applicants will, in future, be able to assert by virtue of their membership of the additional pension fund is not sufficient to differentiate them, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, from any other operator, since they are in an objectively determined situation comparable with that of any other Member of the European Parliament who belongs to that pension fund.

It is true that the fact that a Community institution is required, by specific provisions, to take account of the consequences for the situation of certain individuals of the act they are intending to adopt may be such as to distinguish them individually. However, at the time when the decision in question was adopted, the Bureau was not required by any provision of Community law to take account of the applicants’ particular situation.

(see paras 45-46, 48-49)

3.      According to the system of judicial review of legality established by the Treaty, a natural or legal person can bring an action challenging a regulation only if that person is concerned both directly and individually. Although this last condition must be interpreted in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection by taking account of the various circumstances that may distinguish an applicant individually, such an interpretation cannot have the effect of setting aside the condition in question, expressly laid down in the Treaty, without going beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty on the Community Courts.

Similarly, application of the principles of the sound administration of justice and of procedural economy cannot justify a declaration as to the admissibility of an action which does not satisfy the conditions of admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, since that would go beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty on the EU courts. Indeed, none of those principles may serve as the basis for a derogation from the jurisdiction conferred on those courts by the Treaty.

(see paras 52, 54)