Joined Cases T‑389/19 to T‑394/19, T‑397/19, T‑398/19, T‑403/19, T‑404/19, T‑406/19, T‑407/19, T‑409/19 to T‑414/19, T‑416/19 to T‑418/19, T‑420/19 to T‑422/19, T‑425/19 to T‑427/19, T‑429/19 to T‑432/19, T‑435/19, T‑436/19, T‑438/19 to T‑442/19, T‑444/19 to T‑446/19, T‑448/19, T‑450/19 to T‑454/19, T‑463/19 and T‑465/19
Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and Others
v
European Parliament
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition), 15 October 2020
(Institutional law – Single statute for Members of the European Parliament – Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies – Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018 on pensions ‐ Alteration in the amounts of the pensions of Italian national Members of Parliament – Corresponding alteration, by the European Parliament, in the amounts of the pensions of certain former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy – Competence of the authority which adopted the measure – Obligation to state reasons – Acquired rights – Legal certainty – Legitimate expectations – Right to property – Proportionality – Equality of treatment)
1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – National decision of a Chamber of Deputies altering the amounts of the pensions of former national Members of Parliament – Exclusion – Notes and decision of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning an alteration in the amounts of the pensions of former Members of the European Parliament, pursuant to that national decision – Inclusion
(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament Decision concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members, Art. 75; Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, Annex III, Art. 2(1))
(see paragraphs 62, 63, 65)
2. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Single statute for Members of the European Parliament – General power of the Bureau of the Parliament in respect of financial matters concerning Members – Power of the administration of the Parliament to adopt individual decisions establishing the pension rights of Members – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the adjustment of the amounts of the pensions of former Members of the European Parliament – Inclusion
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2018/1046, Art. 73(3); European Parliament Decision 2005/684; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rule 25(3))
(see paragraphs 83-88, 90-92)
3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament to adjust the amounts of the pensions of former Members of the European Parliament
(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c))
(see paragraphs 101, 109-112, 117, 118)
4. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Single statute for Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament to adjust the amounts of the pensions of former Members of the European Parliament – Alteration made pursuant to the identical pension rule – No discretion as to the method of calculating those pensions – Pension rights acquired before the entry into force of that statute – No guarantee that the amounts of the pensions will not be adjusted
(European Parliament Decision 2005/684; European Parliament Decision concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members, Arts 74 and 75; Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, Annex III, Art. 2(1))
(see paragraphs 126, 129-133, 138-145, 150-158, 160-163)
5. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Single statute for Members for the European Parliament – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament concerning the amendment of the amounts of the pensions of former Members of the European Parliament – Obligation to respect fundamental rights and general principles of EU law
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1); European Parliament Decision 2005/684; European Parliament Decision on implementing measures for the Statute for Members, Art. 75; Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, Annex III, Art. 2(1))
(see paragraphs 180-182)
6. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Single statute for Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament to adjust the amounts of pensions of former Members of the European Parliament – Identical pension rule – Non-retroactivity – Principle of legal certainty – Infringement – No infringement
(European Parliament Decision 2005/684; European Parliament Decision concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members, Art. 75; Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, Annex III, Art. 2(1))
(see paragraphs 194-204)
7. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Single statute for Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament to adjust the amounts of the pensions of former Members of the European Parliament – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Infringement – No infringement
(European Parliament Decision 2005/684; European Parliament Decision concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members, Art. 75; Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, Annex III, Art. 2(1))
(see paragraphs 205, 208-211)
8. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Single statute for Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament to adjust the amounts of the pensions of former Members of the European Parliament – Restriction of the right to property – Infringement of the principle of proportionality – No infringement
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 17(1); European Parliament Decision 2005/684; European Parliament Decision on implementing measures for the Statute for Members, Art. 75; Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, Annex III, Art. 2(1))
(see paragraphs 212-216, 219, 222-224, 227-235)
9. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Single statute for Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament to adjust the amounts of the pensions of former Members of the European Parliament – Principle of equal treatment – Infringement – No infringement
(European Parliament Decision 2005/684; European Parliament Decision concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members, Art. 75; Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, Annex III, Art. 2(1))
(see paragraphs 244, 251-254, 257, 258)
Résumé
Ms Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi and several other individuals, former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy or their surviving spouses (‘the applicants’), respectively receive a retirement pension or a survivor’s pension. Pursuant to national Decision No 14/2018, (1) the European Parliament decided to reduce the amounts of the pensions of a number of former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy (or those of their surviving spouses) with effect from 1 January 2019.
In January 2019, the Parliament informed the applicants that it would be obliged to apply Decision No 14/2018 and therefore to recalculate the amounts of their pensions, in particular in accordance with the provisions of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament (‘the PEAM Rules’), establishing the ‘identical pension rule’. (2) Under that rule, the level and conditions of the provisional pension must be identical to those applicable to the pensions for Members of the lower house of the parliament of the Member State for which the Member of the European Parliament was elected. Thus, by several notes of 11 April 2019 and the final decision of 11 June 2019 (3) (together, ‘the contested decisions’) of the Directorate-General for Finance of the Parliament (‘the authority which adopted the contested decisions’), the applicants were informed of the alteration in the amounts of their pensions, pursuant to the ‘identical pension rule’ laid down by the PEAM Rules and to Decision No 14/2018, equivalent to the amounts of reductions in similar pensions paid in Italy to former national Members of Parliament by the Chamber of Deputies. The contested decisions also stated that the amounts of the applicants’ pensions would be adjusted from April 2019 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2019.
The applicants brought actions for annulment of those decisions, relying on pleas alleging, inter alia, lack of competence of the authority which adopted the decisions, lack of legal basis, an error of law relating to the classification of Decision No 14/2018 and infringement of several general principles of EU law.
In its judgment of 15 October 2020, delivered by a chamber sitting in extended composition, the General Court dismisses those actions.
Ruling, in the first place, on the limits of its jurisdiction in an action for annulment, (4) the Court makes clear that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on the legality of Decision No 14/2018 in so far as it concerns a measure adopted by a national authority. By contrast, it finds that it has jurisdiction to examine whether Article 75 of the implementing measures for the Statute for Members, concerning in particular retirement pensions (5) (‘the Implementing Measures’) and the provisions of the PEAM Rules introducing the ‘identical pension rule’, (6) breach higher-ranking EU law. Similarly, the Court adds that it may consider whether the contested decisions and the application by the Parliament, pursuant to the identical pension rule, of the provisions of Decision No 14/2018 are consistent with EU law.
Turning, in the second place, to the plea alleging the lack of competence of the authority which adopted the contested decisions, the Court notes that the Bureau of the Parliament has a general power as regards financial matters concerning Members. (7) Thus, the Parliament’s administration may be entrusted with the power to adopt individual decisions in the field of financial matters concerning Members, since limits and detailed rules for its exercise were laid down by the Bureau of the Parliament. In view of that division of power, the Court emphasises that the Parliament may confer on its administration the power to adopt individual decisions in the area of pension rights and the determination of the amounts of pensions. Consequently, the Court finds that the authority which adopted the contested decisions was competent, in its capacity as authorising officer by subdelegation for budgetary matters relating to retirement pensions, to adopt the contested decisions.
In the third place, the Court dismisses the plea alleging misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing Measures, considering that the Parliament properly relied on that provision and the ‘identical pension rule’ to adopt the contested decisions. Thus, it notes, first of all, that the ‘identical pension rule’ remains applicable to the applicants, by way of derogation from the rules laid down by the Implementing Measures, according to which the PEAM Rules expired on the date on which the Statute for Members came into force, namely 14 July 2009. (8) Next, the Court points out that, although the two paragraphs comprising Article 75 of the Implementing Measures concern the right to a retirement pension of former Members of the European Parliament, their respective scopes are different.
First, the first subparagraph of Article 75(1) of the Implementing Measures applies to former Members who began receiving their retirement pension before the date of entry into force of the Statute for Members, that is to say before 14 July 2009, and who have continued, since that date, to be covered by the pension scheme established by Annex III to the PEAM Rules (‘Annex III’). Ruling on the situation of those Members, the Court notes that, under the ‘identical pension rule’, the Parliament is required to determine the level and conditions of the retirement pension of a former Member of the European Parliament on the basis of the level and conditions laid down in the applicable national law, in the present case, on the basis of the rules laid down in Decision No 14/2018. That obligation is binding on the Parliament, which has no leeway to use an independent method of calculation throughout the period when retirement pensions are paid, subject to compliance with higher-ranking EU law, including the general principles of law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). Furthermore, the Court finds that the reduction in the amounts of the pensions, pursuant to those rules, does not affect the pension rights acquired by the recipients of those pensions, since neither the first subparagraph of Article 75(1) nor Annex III ensure that the amount of those pensions will remain unaltered. According to the Court, the acquired pension rights referred to in Article 75 must not be confused with an alleged right to draw a fixed amount of pension.
Second, Article 75(2) of the Implementing Measures applies to former Members who began to draw their retirement pensions after the date of entry into force of the Statute for Members and guarantees that pension rights acquired prior to that date will be maintained. (9) However, the Court notes that that provision, (10) which clearly distinguishes ‘acquired old-age pension rights’ from ‘pensions’, does not guarantee the immutability of the amount of that pension, in the sense that that amount cannot be revised. Furthermore, the Court observes that the sole purpose of the two requirements which former Members must satisfy to be eligible to draw their retirement pensions (11) is to set conditions for the actual payment of those pensions without guaranteeing that their amount will remain unaltered. Moreover, both those requirements solely relate to the applicants, and not the Parliament.
In the fourth and final place, the Court dismisses the plea alleging that the Parliament infringed several general principles of EU law and the Charter. Thus, the Court points out, first of all, that the Parliament is required to calculate and, where appropriate, update the pensions of Italian former Members of the European Parliament, by drawing the appropriate conclusions from Decision No 14/2018, unless the application of that decision would result in an infringement of the Charter (12) or of those general principles. Next, ruling on the infringement of the principle of legal certainty, the Court accepts that the contested decisions produced retroactive effects, in particular prior to their date of adoption, that is to say, from 1 January 2019. However, it observes that this is explained by the Parliament’s obligation to apply the ‘identical pension rule’. (13) Pursuant to that rule and, consequently, to the provisions of Decision No 14/2018, the applicants were no longer entitled to claim, from that date, their pensions as calculated before that date. As regards the complaint of an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the Court notes that the Parliament did not deviate from the precise, unconditional assurance given to the applicants when they joined the pension scheme established in Annex III that they would be entitled to an ‘identical pension’ to that of national Members of Parliament.
Furthermore, as regards the complaint of infringement of the right to property, (14) the Court observes that, by reducing the amount of the applicants’ pensions, the Parliament neither deprived the applicants of a part of their pension rights nor altered the substance of those rights. Next, the Court finds that that restriction of the applicants’ right to property is justified, in particular in the light of the requirements laid down by the Charter. To that effect, it notes, first, that the right to property cannot be interpreted as entitling a person to a pension of a particular amount. Second, the Court points out that that restriction, provided for by law, may be justified (i) by the public interest objective pursued by Decision No 14/2018, which is to rationalise public expenditure in the context of budgetary constraints, an objective already recognised by the case-law as justifying an infringement of fundamental rights, and (ii) by the legitimate objective, expressly stated in Annex III, of granting applicants pensions the level and conditions of which are identical to those of the pension received by the Members of the Chamber of Deputies.
Finally, ruling on the infringement of the principle of equality, the Court dismisses the allegation that, in breach of that principle, the Parliament treated the applicants in the same way as former Members of the Chamber of Deputies. To that effect, it finds that the applicants have not proved that their situation is fundamentally different from that of former Members of the Chamber of Deputies. Furthermore, the Court rejects the allegation that the Parliament treated the applicants differently from other former Members of the European Parliament, elected in France or Luxembourg, who are also covered by the pension scheme established in Annex III. (15) Thus, it holds that the applicants are not in the same position as other former Members of the European Parliament elected in France or Luxembourg, since, in particular, the pensions of those former Members are not intended to be governed by the rules laid down by Italian law but by other national rules which are specifically applicable to them.