# C_2007117EN.01000201.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/2

---

Appeal brought on 12 February 2007 by Franco Campoli against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05 Campoli v Commission

Campoli

Commission

(Case C-71/07 P)

(2007/C 117/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: (represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by M. Arpio and I. Šulce, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05;

| — | consequently, grant the applicant the benefit of the forms of order that he sought at first instance, amended in the light of the inadmissibility of the applicant's claim regarding household allowance and education allowance and therefore,






  — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 13 December 2004 dismissing his complaint, along with, first, the decision of the Appointing Authority contested in the complaint, which amended from 1 May 2004 the weighting applicable to his pension, and, second, his payslips inasmuch as they apply that decision from May 2004. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently, grant the applicant the benefit of the forms of order that he sought at first instance, amended in the light of the inadmissibility of the applicant's claim regarding household allowance and education allowance and therefore,

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 13 December 2004 dismissing his complaint, along with, first, the decision of the Appointing Authority contested in the complaint, which amended from 1 May 2004 the weighting applicable to his pension, and, second, his payslips inasmuch as they apply that decision from May 2004.

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on a number of arguments in support of his single plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and failure to observe the obligation, binding on the Community judicature, to state reasons.

The principle was allegedly disregarded, first, in that the Court of First Instance found that the legislature was entitled to amend the Staff Regulations by establishing less favourable conditions than those under the system then in force, on condition that it provide for a sufficiently long transitional period. The existence of a transitional period and the examination of whether it was of sufficient duration are factors falling outside the scope of the examination of the lawfulness of a new measure in the light of the principle of equal treatment, observance of which requires verification by the court of the absence of any arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate difference in treatment contrary to the object pursued by the Community legislature. In the present case, the judgment under appeal allegedly neither defined the object pursued by the new rules concerning the setting of the weighting nor, a fortiori, assessed whether there was any arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate difference in treatment in relation to that object. The applicant adds that setting the weighting at the average level of the cost of living of a country undermines both the objective of maintaining the purchasing power of pensioners and that of guaranteeing their freedom of movement and residence, since pensioners living in the capital of a country, or in another of its expensive towns or regions, would have lesser purchasing power than pensioners who have established their residence outside that capital or those towns or regions.

By his second submission, the applicant maintains that, contrary to the findings of the judgment under appeal, the new pension scheme effectively provides for a link to the cost of living in Brussels, so that the income of pensioners living in Belgium is set by taking into account solely the cost of living in the capital of that Member State, whilst the income of pensioners living in the capitals of other Member States is actually determined by a weighting which takes into account the average cost of living in the entire country. The applicant challenges, moreover, the finding of the Court of First Instance that the lawfulness of a Community legislative act cannot depend on the way in which it is applied in practice, since the measures implementing such an act are closely linked to the act itself, and relies on a breach of the rights of the defence and of the principle of the equality of the parties before the Community judicature, inasmuch as he knew of the measures implementing the new pension scheme only after the close of the written procedure.

By his final submission, the applicant challenges the Court of First Instance's finding that he had no legal interest in bringing proceedings pursuant to Article 241 EC by referring to the advantage conferred on pensioners living in a ‘less expensive ’Member State. In complaining of the different treatment reserved for pensioners living in a ‘less expensive ’Member State as compared with pensioners living in an ‘expensive ’Member State, he is attacking the breach of the principle of equality of purchasing power and aiming, thereby, to call into question the pension scheme resulting from the new Staff Regulations and its transitional measures.

---