CELEX: 62011TN0229
Language: en
Date: 2011-04-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-229/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament

16.7.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 211/26
            
         Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Inglewood and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-229/11)
   2011/C 211/57
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Lord Inglewood (Penrith, United Kingdom), Georges Berthu (Longré, France), Guy Bono (Saint-Martin-de-Crau, France), David Robert Bowe (Leeds, United Kingdom), Brendan Donnelly (London, United Kingdom), Catherine Guy-Quint (Cournon-d’Auvergne, France), Christine Margaret Oddy (Coventry, United Kingdom), Nicole Thomas-Mauro (Épernay, France), Gary Titley (Bolton, United Kingdom), Vincenzo Viola (Palermo, Italy), and Maartje van Putten (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Forms of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament unlawful;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decisions;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Parliament to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The action is brought against the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 1 April 2009 amending the voluntary additional pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament.
   In support of their action, the applicants make four pleas in law on the substance, claiming:
   
               —
            
            
               infringement of acquired rights conferred by legal acts and the principle of legal certainty;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in that the contested decisions raised the pensionable age by three years without transitional measures;
            
         
               —
            
            
               infringement of Article 29 of the Rules on Expenses and Allowances of Members of the European Parliament, which provides that the Quaestors and the Secretary General are responsible for the interpretation and strict application of those rules;
            
         
               —
            
            
               manifest error of assessment in that the Bureau’s decision of 1 April 2009, amending the rules serving as the basis for the contested decisions, is unsound.