Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Decision of the European Parliament refusing to grant a Member his voluntary additional pension partly in the form of a lump sum

(Arts 230 EC and 241 EC)

2. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament changing the rules concerning the voluntary additional pension of Members and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum – Vested rights – Infringement – None

3. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament changing the rules concerning the voluntary additional pension of Members and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum – Principle of legal certainty – Principle of continuity of contracts – Infringement – None

4. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament changing the rules concerning the voluntary additional pension of Members and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum – Competence of the Bureau to adopt the change in the rules serving as the basis of that decision

(Art. 199, first para., EC)

5. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament changing the rules concerning the voluntary additional pension of Members and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum – Non-retroactivity – Principle of legal certainty – Infringement – None

6. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament changing the rules concerning the voluntary additional pension of Members and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Infringement – None

7. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament changing the rules concerning the voluntary additional pension of Members and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum – Principle of equal treatment – Infringement – None

(Council Regulation No 1292/2004)

8. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament changing the rules concerning the voluntary additional pension of Members and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum – Principle of proportionality – Infringement – None

9. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament changing the rules concerning the voluntary additional pension of Members and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum – Obligation to consult the Secretary-General of the Parliament and the College of Quaestors before adopting that decision – Infringement – None

(Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rule 21(2))

10. European Parliament – Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament changing the rules concerning the voluntary additional pension of Members and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum – Principle of good faith in the implementation of contracts – Infringement – None

Summary

1. Where an annulment action is brought against a decision of the European Parliament refusing to grant a Member of the European Parliament the possibility of receiving part of his additional (voluntary) pension in the form of a lump sum, the applicant’s pleas in support of his application must be interpreted as having been advanced exclusively in support of the plea of illegality that, from a formal perspective, he has raised separately against the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament on which the said decision was based.

Since Article 4 of the Rules Governing the Additional (Voluntary) Pension Scheme for Members (‘the Rules of 12 June 1990’), which can be found in Annex VII to the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members (‘the PEAM Rules’), which provided for the possibility of a Member of the European Parliament receiving part of his pension in the form of a lump sum, was repealed by that decision of the Bureau, the Directorate-General for Finance of the Parliament had no scope for discretion and had no other option than to reject the application made by the applicant on the basis of that provision.

(see paras 29, 31)

2. A Member of the European Parliament cannot rely on an infringement of his acquired rights to challenge the legality of a Bureau decision amending the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme for Members in Annex VII to the PEAM Rules, and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum, since the event giving rise to the entitlement to the additional pension is defined in Article 1(1) of the Rules of 12 June 1990 as the day on which the Member ceases to hold office and, not having yet ceased to hold office when that decision entered into force, he had not yet acquired his right to the said pension.

The principle that an applicant cannot claim an acquired right unless the facts giving rise to his right arose under rules in force prior to the amendment made to that scheme which he contests by his action, though stated in case-law concerning European officials, is intended to apply generally and, in particular, to Members of the European Parliament, whose additional pension scheme shares a key characteristic with the pension scheme for European officials, since both systems specify an actuarial calculation as part of which the annual contribution must correspond to one third of the pension rights acquired in the same year.

(see paras 44-46)

3. A Member of the European Parliament cannot claim infringement of the principle of legal certainty ‘attached to the additional pension contract’ and of the principle of the continuity of contracts in order to challenge the legality of the Bureau of the Parliament amending the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme for Members in Annex VII to the PEAM Rules, and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum.

The establishment of the additional pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament and, in case of need, its amendment must be regarded as measures of internal organisation intended to ensure the proper functioning of the Parliament and thus fall within the public powers with which the Parliament is entrusted in order to fulfil the tasks conferred on it by the Treaties. In any parliamentary system, a fundamental concern is to guarantee the independence, including the financial independence, of the members as representatives of the people, who are meant to act in the general interest of the people. In that regard, the guarantee of appropriate remuneration, ensuring the Member’s independence, cannot be limited to the duration of the mandate but must also cover, to an appropriate extent, a transitional period after the end of that mandate and make provision for a pension, by reference to the period during which the Member formed part of the Parliament.

It follows that the additional pension scheme in question forms part of the legal provisions designed, in the public interest, to ensure the financial independence of Members.

The rights and obligations of the Parliament and of Members under that scheme are thus governed by the provisions laid down in statutes which bind them, and are thus not contractual but rather a matter of public law. The fact that the Member joined that scheme voluntarily does not alter the nature of his relationship with the Parliament, which remains governed by public law.

(see paras 59-62)

4. A Member of the European Parliament cannot challenge the legality of a Bureau decision amending the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme for Members in Annex VII to the PEAM Rules, and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum by relying on lack of competence on the part of the Bureau to adopt that decision.

Where rules fall within the scope of measures of internal organisation of the Parliament, those rules come within the scope of the Parliament’s competence and the measures which it is for the Parliament to adopt pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 199 EC. The establishment and, as the case may be, the amendment of the additional pension scheme must be regarded as such measures.

(see para. 64)

5. A Member of the European Parliament cannot claim infringement of the principle of legal certainty in order to challenge the legality of a Bureau decision amending the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme for Members in Annex VII to the PEAM Rules, and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum, where the removal of that possibility is applied only after the date of notification of the said decision to all Members and where those Members who had ceased to hold office prior to that date, and had therefore acquired rights to the additional pension, were not affected by that decision, which was not accompanied by retroactive effects.

(see paras 65-66)

6. A Member of the European Parliament cannot claim infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in order to challenge the legality of a Bureau decision amending the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme for Members in Annex VII to the PEAM Rules, and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum, where the information upon which he relies is not precise, unconditional and consistent.

The mere fact that the possibility of receiving the additional pension in part in the form of a lump sum existed when the Member joined the additional pension scheme cannot be regarded as an assurance by the Parliament that the conditions of that scheme were not going to be amended in the future. Similarly, neither provisional calculations of his pension by the administration of the Parliament, nor illustrative calculations by the non-profit-making association ‘Fonds de pension – députés au Parlement européen’, nor recognition by the Bureau of a duty to ensure compliance with undertakings towards members of the additional pension scheme independently of the situation of the fund can be regarded as information capable of forming the basis of his legitimate expectation.

(see paras 70-75)

7. A Member of the European Parliament cannot claim infringement of the principle of equal treatment in order to challenge the legality of a Bureau decision amending the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme for Members in Annex VII to the PEAM Rules, and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum, by relying on a comparison between the amendment of the additional pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament following the entry into force of that decision and amendments to the pension scheme for Members of the Commission and of the Courts of the European Union introduced by Regulation No 1292/2004 amending Regulations No 422/67/EEC and No 5/67/Euratom determining the emoluments of the President and Members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates General and Registrar of the Court of Justice and of the President, Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance.

Unlike the amendments to the pension scheme for Members of the Commission and of the Courts of the European Union introduced by Regulation No 1292/2004, the amendments to the additional pension scheme for Members introduced following the entry into force of the Bureau’s decision of 1 April 2009 did not affect the actuarial value of the pension which the members of that scheme could expect.

Accordingly, since Members of the European Parliament, on the one hand, and Members of the Commission and of the Courts of the European Union, on the other hand, are in factual and legal situations which are essentially different as regards the impact of the respective amendments on the actuarial value of their pension rights, they could be treated differently with regard to the adoption of transitional measures.

(see paras 86-87, 89)

8. A Member of the European Parliament cannot claim infringement of the principle of proportionality in order to challenge the legality of a Bureau decision amending the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme for Members in Annex VII to the PEAM Rules, and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum, since: (1) in exercising its competence to regulate the additional pension scheme of Members, the Parliament could legitimately pursue the objectives set out in that decision; (2) the measures taken thereunder were appropriate to attain those objectives; and (3) removal of the possibility of paying part of the pension in the form of a lump sum was the least onerous measure for members of the additional pension scheme.

(see paras 93-94, 114, 116-117)

9. In order to challenge the legality of a Bureau decision amending the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme for Members in Annex VII to the PEAM Rules, and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum, a Member of the European Parliament cannot rely on an infringement of Article 29 of the PEAM Rules, according to which, in accordance with the instructions issued by the President, the Quaestors and the Secretary-General are to be responsible for the interpretation and proper implementation of the PEAM Rules, since the said Article 29 is concerned simply with the interpretation and implementation of the PEAM Rules and not their amendment, and the Bureau was competent to amend the PEAM Rules. Moreover, the decision of 1 April 2009 was adopted by the Bureau on the proposal of the Secretary-General, and, pursuant to Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, Quaestors are to attend meetings of the Bureau in an advisory capacity.

(see paras 121-123)

10. In order to challenge the legality of a Bureau decision amending the rules on the additional (voluntary) pension scheme for Members in Annex VII to the PEAM Rules, and removing the possibility of paying that pension partly as a lump sum, a Member of the European Parliament cannot rely on a breach of the principle of good faith in the implementation of contracts, since the relationship between that Member and the Parliament is a relationship governed by the statutes which bind him and the Parliament and therefore falls within the rights conferred by public law on the Parliament so that it is able to perform the tasks entrusted to it by the Treaties.

(see paras 124-126)