Case T-15/15: Action brought on 13 January 2015  — Costa v Parliament
Date: 2015-01-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, pension scheme, suspension of payments








C_2015081EN.01002601.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/26





Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Costa v Parliament
(Case T-15/15)
(2015/C 081/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Paolo Costa (Venice, Italy) (represented by: G. Orsoni and M. Romeo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 11 November 2014, notified on 28 November 2014, and all prior, connected or consecutive measures, to be null and void, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;










—


Order the European Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Decision No 318 189 of the President of the European Parliament of 11 November 2014 concerning the suspension of the applicant’s retirement pension with effect from June 2010 and the recovery of the payments received by the applicant between July 2009 and May 2010.
In support of his action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of rules of law, infringement of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, and infringement of Article 12 of the regulation on life-annuities applicable to Italian Members.






—


The applicant alleges, in that regard, that there has been an infringement of Article 12(2a)(v) of the regulation on life-annuities applicable to Italian Members, to which reference is made in the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, in that it has been wrongly used to support the suspension of pension payments to the President of the Venice Port Authority.










—


In addition, he maintains that the President of an Italian Port Authority does not fall within the scope of Article 12(2a)(v) of that regulation, as that position — as was acknowledged by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 10 September 2014 in Case C-270/13 [Haralambidis] — is a specialised position awarded solely on the basis of a candidate’s proven professional skills in the fields of economics and transport; it does not entail any political ties, is completely separate from government appointments of a political nature, and does not involve the performance of political functions.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law, infringement of Articles 4, 6 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union, infringement of Article 1 of the Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) concerning the protection of property, breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, and breach of the principle of good faith.






—


In that regard, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 4 and 13 TEU, which require the European Parliament — like the other EU Institutions — at all times to protect situations where legitimate expectations have been created, within the legal order of the European Union, by any of the persons who are part of that institution.










—


He also alleges breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of good faith, both of which are general and fundamental principles of EU law acknowledged and affirmed by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which requires compliance with those principles at all times in cases concerning the repayment of sums paid to an individual in good faith.










—


Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 1 of the Protocol to the ECHR concerning the protection of property, to which reference is made in Article 6 TEU and which has the same binding force as the Treaties, which requires protection of the legitimate expectation engendered in an individual regarding his lawful receipt of monies to which he is entitled.