Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament

(Case C‑281/13 P)

‛Appeal — Additional pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament — Amendment to the additional pension scheme in 2009 — Decisions rejecting the appellants’ applications to benefit from the provisions in force before amendment of the scheme — Errors of law — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Principle of proportionality’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 169(2)) (see paras 39, 40)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 49, 52)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2013 in Joined Cases T‑229/11 and T‑276/11 Inglewood and Others v Parliament, by which the General Court dismissed the appellants’ action for annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament refusing to grant them their voluntary additional pension, early, at the age of 60 or in part in the form of a lump sum — Errors of law — Infringement of acquired rights — Infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, equal treatment and proportionality.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Lord Inglewood, Mr Georges Berthu, Mr Guy Bono, Mr David Robert Bowe, Mr Brendan Donnelly, Ms Catherine Guy-Quint, Ms Christine Margaret Oddy, Ms Nicole Thomas-Mauro, Mr Gary Titley, Ms Maartje van Putten and Mr Vincenzo Viola are ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2014 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament

(Case C‑281/13 P)

‛Appeal — Additional pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament — Amendment to the additional pension scheme in 2009 — Decisions rejecting the appellants’ applications to benefit from the provisions in force before amendment of the scheme — Errors of law — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Principle of proportionality’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 169(2)) (see paras 39, 40)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 49, 52)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 March 2013 in Joined Cases T‑229/11 and T‑276/11 Inglewood and Others v Parliament, by which the General Court dismissed the appellants’ action for annulment of the decisions of the European Parliament refusing to grant them their voluntary additional pension, early, at the age of 60 or in part in the form of a lump sum — Errors of law — Infringement of acquired rights — Infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, equal treatment and proportionality.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.