Information;Order — ECLI:EU:T:2020:303
Date: 2020-07-03
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Falqui v Parliament (Case T-347/19) Language of the case: Italian Parties Applicant: Enrico Falqui (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, lawyers) Defendant: European Parliament Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested note and order the European Parliament to pay him the sums unduly withheld while the proceedings are pending. Pleas in law and main arguments The present action has been brought against Note D (2019) 14406 of 11 April 2019 of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance, concerning the redetermination of the pension which the applicant receives as a former Member of the European Parliament. In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning ‘implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’. The applicant claims in this regard that, since, pursuant to Article 75(2) of the decision of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning ‘implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’, the old-age pension rights acquired prior to the date of entry into force of the Statute ‘shall be maintained’, the previous reference by the ‘SID’ (Regolamentazione sulle Spese ed Indennità dei Deputati) (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament) to national legislation must be understood as a cross-reference (to the legislation in force at that time), as the pension rights acquired by former MEPs prior to the entry into force of the Statute cannot be altered under subsequent legislation. Second plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament failed to disapply invalid national legislation. The applicant claims in this regard that the legislation introduced by Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies is — when compared with the Italian legal system — invalid. The Italian Chamber of Deputies claimed to be recalculating the life annuities enjoyed by former members of parliament by also applying a ‘contributory’ system to the share of those annuities accrued in periods prior to 2012, which for all public and private sector employees is disbursed using a pro-rata system, and even periods prior to 1996, which for all public and private sector employees is disbursed using a ‘sistema retributivo secco’ (purely remunerative system). In order to apply retroactively a contributory system even in relation to periods in which that system did not exist in Italy, it adopted a distorted and irrational calculation system with no actuarial basis. The reform in question would also be unlawful inasmuch as the matter of MPs’ life annuities must be regulated, at least as regards its key aspects, by means of a Law and not by means of Rules of Procedure (Article 69 of the Italian Constitution). Furthermore, that reform is prejudicial to the legitimate expectation of former members of parliament that their own pension entitlement will remain stable, contrary to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, which is also a general principle of Italian law. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament unlawfully applied national legislation which is contrary to the fundamental principles of the EU legal system and in particular the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, and alleging that it failed to observe the principle of the primacy of EU law. The applicant claims in this regard that the reform of the life annuities of former Italian members of parliament re-determined the amount of those annuities ex post in a way that was completely unforeseeable, was not gradual and did not include adequate safeguard clauses, and therefore seriously infringes the principle of legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of EU law. For that reason, that reform could not be implemented by the European Parliament: indeed, according to the general principles governing relations between legal systems, the transposing of rules from one legal system to another as a result of a reference (whether a dynamic reference or a cross-reference) comes up against a specific countercheck: the reference may not operate where the rule from the legal system of origin is contrary to the fundamental principles of the receiving legal system. Furthermore, because of the primacy of EU law — which is a key principle of the European Union — if national legislation is contrary to a provision of EU legislation it must be disapplied in order to ensure the uniform protection of citizens under EU law throughout the European Union. ____________