# C_2011232EN.01003301.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/33

---

Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Carlotti v Parliament

(Case T-276/11)

(2011/C 232/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie-Arlette Carlotti (Marseilles, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the decision taken by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 1 April 2009 amending the additional voluntary pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament to be unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the decision taken by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 1 April 2009 amending the additional voluntary pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament to be unlawful;

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks annulment of the decision of 28 March 2011 refusing the applicant entitlement to her additional pension at the age of 60 (with effect from February 2012), taken on the basis of the decision of the European Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the additional voluntary pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament.

In support of her action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law alleging:

| — | infringement of acquired rights conferred by legal acts and of the principle of legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of acquired rights conferred by legal acts and of the principle of legal certainty;

| — | infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality, in so far as the decision of 1 April 2009 and the contested decision raise the age at which the pension may be drawn by three years and do so without making any transitional provision; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of proportionality, in so far as the decision of 1 April 2009 and the contested decision raise the age at which the pension may be drawn by three years and do so without making any transitional provision;

| — | infringement of Article 29 of the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances of Members of the European Parliament, which provides that the quaestors and the Secretary-General are to be responsible for the interpretation and strict enforcement of those rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 29 of the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances of Members of the European Parliament, which provides that the quaestors and the Secretary-General are to be responsible for the interpretation and strict enforcement of those rules;

| — | manifest error of assessment vitiating the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the rules serving as a basis to the contested decision in that it is based on an unfounded assessment of the financial situation of the pension fund; |
| --- | --- |

—

manifest error of assessment vitiating the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the rules serving as a basis to the contested decision in that it is based on an unfounded assessment of the financial situation of the pension fund;

| — | breach of good faith in the performance of the contracts and nullity of the purely discretionary clauses. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of good faith in the performance of the contracts and nullity of the purely discretionary clauses.

---