Case T-129/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Carlos Andres and 150 other applicants against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-15/10, Andres and Others v ECB
Date: 2014-02-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: legality, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, recruitment, working conditions








C_2014159EN.01002702.xml










26.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 159/27





Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Carlos Andres and 150 other applicants against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-15/10, Andres and Others v ECB
(Case T-129/14 P)
2014/C 159/38
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Carlos Andres (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) and 150 other appellants (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 11 December 2013 in Case F-15/10;










—


Consequently, uphold the claims of the appellants at first instance and, accordingly,






—


Annul the payslips for June 2009 in so far as those payslips constitute the initial implementation in regard to the applicants of the reform of the pension scheme decided by the Governing Council on 4 May 2009 and annul, to the same extent, all subsequent payslips and all future pension statements;










—


To the extent necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the applications for administrative review and complaints brought under the grievance procedure dated 28 August and 17 December 2009 respectively;










—


Consequently,






—


Order the defendant to pay the difference between the salary and pension resulting from the decision of the Governing Council of 4 May 2009 and that paid in application of the preceding pension scheme, that difference to be increased by interest for late payment with effect from 15 June 2009 and then on the 15th of each month until the difference has been completely made up, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three points,










—


Order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, that loss to be assessed ex aequo et bono, and, on a provisional basis, at 1% of the monthly salary of each applicant;














—


Order the European Central Bank to pay all the costs;














—


Order the respondent to the appeal to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on eight pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6.8 of Annex III to the Conditions of Employment, an infringement of the principles of legality and of legal certainty and infringement of Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the powers of the Supervisory Committee, infringement of Annex III to the Conditions of Employment and of the mandate of the Supervisory Committee, and infringement of the principle of good faith.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of consultation of the Staff Committee and of the Supervisory Committee, infringement of the principle of good faith, infringement of Articles 45 and 46 of the Conditions of Employment, infringement of the Memorandum of Understanding on relations between the Executive Board and the Staff Committee of the ECB, infringement of Annex III to the Conditions of Employment and of the mandate of the Supervisory Committee, and distortion of the file.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6.3 of the pension plan, infringement of the review of the grounds of the decision of 4 May 2009, distortion of the file and infringement of the principle of sound financial management.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the review of the manifest error of assessment and distortion of the file.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, failure to state reasons, distortion of the file and infringement of the evidence.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging failure to acknowledge the difference between a contractual employment relationship and an employment relationship covered by the Staff Regulations, infringement of the fundamental terms of the employment relationship and infringement of Directive 91/533. (1)











8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights.






(1)  Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform the employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship directive (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32).