# C_2019423EN.01007001.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/70

---

Action brought on 18 October 2019 — de Grandes Pascual v Parliament

(Case T-725/19)

(2019/C 423/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luis de Grandes Pascual (Guadalajara, Spain) (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare and rule that,

| — | the present action is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

the present action is admissible;

| — | so far as necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, the European Parliament is ordered to produce the opinions produced by the European Parliament’s legal service, which were apparently issued on 16 July 2018 and on 3 December 2018, without prejudice as to the precise date, but in any event were issued before the adoption of the decision of the Parliament’s Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8); |
| --- | --- |

—

so far as necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the present case, the European Parliament is ordered to produce the opinions produced by the European Parliament’s legal service, which were apparently issued on 16 July 2018 and on 3 December 2018, without prejudice as to the precise date, but in any event were issued before the adoption of the decision of the Parliament’s Bureau of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ C 466, 28.12.2018, p. 8);

| — | the contested individual decision, of which the applicant was notified by the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Finance, concerning the applicant’s rights to his Additional (Voluntary) Pension Scheme during the month of September 2019 is annulled on the basis of Article 263 TFEU inasmuch as that decision implemented the special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of the Additional (Voluntary) Pension payable to the applicant as introduced by the Bureau’s abovementioned decision of 10 December 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

the contested individual decision, of which the applicant was notified by the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Finance, concerning the applicant’s rights to his Additional (Voluntary) Pension Scheme during the month of September 2019 is annulled on the basis of Article 263 TFEU inasmuch as that decision implemented the special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of the Additional (Voluntary) Pension payable to the applicant as introduced by the Bureau’s abovementioned decision of 10 December 2018;

| — | the abovementioned decision of the Parliament’s Bureau of 10 December 2018 is declared inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU inasmuch as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, more specifically, inasmuch as it introduces a special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of Additional (Voluntary) Pensions payable as of 1 January 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

the abovementioned decision of the Parliament’s Bureau of 10 December 2018 is declared inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU inasmuch as it amends Article 76 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and, more specifically, inasmuch as it introduces a special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of Additional (Voluntary) Pensions payable as of 1 January 2019;

| — | the Parliament is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau lacked competence ratione materiae.






  — | First, the Bureau’s decision of 10 December 2018 (‘the Bureau’s decision’) was adopted in breach of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by the decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom (OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1) (‘the Statute’). The Bureau’s decision infringes, inter alia, Article 27 of the Statute, which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ be maintained. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Bureau lacked competence ratione materiae.

—

First, the Bureau’s decision of 10 December 2018 (‘the Bureau’s decision’) was adopted in breach of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by the decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005, 2005/684/EC, Euratom (OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1) (‘the Statute’). The Bureau’s decision infringes, inter alia, Article 27 of the Statute, which requires that ‘acquired rights’ and ‘future entitlements’ be maintained.

| — | Secondly, the Bureau’s decision creates a tax by introducing a special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of the pension even though the creation of a tax does not fall within the scope of the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the Bureau’s decision creates a tax by introducing a special levy of 5 % on the nominal amount of the pension even though the creation of a tax does not fall within the scope of the competence of the Bureau under Article 223(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.






  — | First, the Bureau is alleged to have adopted its decision without complying with the rules imposed under Article 223 TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

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

—

First, the Bureau is alleged to have adopted its decision without complying with the rules imposed under Article 223 TFEU.

| — | Secondly, insufficient reasons are stated for the Bureau’s decision and it is thus in breach of the obligation to state reasons provided for in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, insufficient reasons are stated for the Bureau’s decision and it is thus in breach of the obligation to state reasons provided for in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and a failure to comply with the principle of legitimate expectations.






  — | First, the Bureau’s decision infringes the acquired rights and future entitlements resulting both from general principles of law and from the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and a failure to comply with the principle of legitimate expectations.

—

First, the Bureau’s decision infringes the acquired rights and future entitlements resulting both from general principles of law and from the Statute, which expressly requires that those rights and entitlements be maintained ‘in full’ (Article 27).

| — | Secondly, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legitimate expectations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of proportionality and with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.






  — | First, the interferences with the applicant’s rights are disproportionate in relation to the objectives pursued by the Bureau’s decision. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of proportionality and with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

—

First, the interferences with the applicant’s rights are disproportionate in relation to the objectives pursued by the Bureau’s decision.

| — | Secondly, the Bureau’s decision must be declared inapplicable on the grounds that it fails to comply with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the Bureau’s decision must be declared inapplicable on the grounds that it fails to comply with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of legal certainty and as to a lack of transitional measures.






  — | First, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effects. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the principle of legal certainty and as to a lack of transitional measures.

—

First, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as it is unlawfully coupled with retroactive effects.

| — | Secondly, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as it failed to provide for transitional measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

Secondly, the Bureau’s decision fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty inasmuch as it failed to provide for transitional measures.

---