Case T-127/01: Action brought on 12 June 2001 by C. Ripa di Meana against the European Parliament
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, Member of the European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), pension scheme, regional election, regional government

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/23

Action brought on 12 June 2001 by C. Ripa di Meana
against the European Parliament

(Case T-127/01)

(2001/C 245/37)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
12 June 2001 by C. Ripa di Meana, represented by W. Viscar-
dini and G. Donà, Lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— first, annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the
decision of
the European Parliament — section for
financial rules relating to Members — of 26 March 2001,
reference no 106721 (sent by ordinary post and received
by the applicant on 4 April 2001), informing him of the
suspension, following his election to the Regional Council
of Umbria, of the pension he received as a former Member
of the European Parliament;

— in the alternative, annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC
Treaty, the decision of the European Parliament — section
for financial rules relating to Members — of 26 March
2001, reference no 106721, in so far as it concerns the
suspension of his pension based in the legislation in force
between 1979 and 1984;

— in any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the

costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who also brought Case T-83/99 (1), challenges
the European Parliament’s decision to suspend, following his
election to the Regional Council of Umbria, the pension which
he received as a former Member of the European Parliament.
That decision was adopted on the basis of Article 12 of the
Regolamento per gli Assegni Vitalizi dei Deputati (the Italian
regulation on life-annuities applicable to Members of the
Lower Chamber of the Italian Parliament). In this connection,
it is apparent that Article 2(1) of Annex III to the Rules
Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to
Members of the European Parliament refers to the Italian
regulation in so far as concerns the amount of, and detailed
procedures relating to, the provisional pension.

In support of his claim, the applicant argues that:

— Article 2(1) of Annex III does not refer, purely and simply,
to the Italian regulation, but merely aligns the amount of
the pension for Italian Members of the European Parlia-

ment with the amount which Italian Members of Parlia-
ment receive from the Italian Parliament. Consequently,
the European Parliament should not be allowed to
restrict entitlement to retirement pensions by unlawfully
applying to its own Members the suspension of the
pension of Members of the national Parliament provided
for in Article 12 of the Italian regulation;

— suspending the pension which the applicant receives on
account of services provided to the Parliament in the past,
and in respect of which he paid contributions, for the
simple reason that he currently receives a salary from
another ‘employer’, not only unfairly penalises him,
but also results in unjust enrichment of the European
Parliament;

— the European Parliament manages an autonomous pen-
sion scheme and thus cannot have recourse to the
intentions expressed by other political authorities in
connection with other autonomous pension schemes
provided for other parties;

— the Community legislation at issue does not prohibit
the accumulation of pensions due to Members of the
European Parliament with income earned from other
activities;

— in any event, even if application, by analogy, of Article 12
of the Italian regulation is lawful, suspension of the
pension due to a former Member of
the European
Parliament can only be justified if he is elected to his
national Parliament. It cannot be justified if he is elected
to a regional council;

— on 1 January 1998, when the Italian regulation came into
force, the applicant had already acquired his entitlement
to the pension by virtue of the legislation in force between
1979 and 1984.

— Consequently, even if application, by analogy, of
Article 12 of the Italian regulation is lawful, the suspen-
sion at issue in the present case is only justifiable in
respect of pensions based on the legislation in force
between 1994 and 1999 and not in respect of pensions
based on the legislation in force between 1979 and 1984.

(1) Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99 Ripa di Meana and

Others v European Parliament [2000] ECR II-3493.