CELEX: C1999/160/54
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-81/99: Action brought on 12 April 1999 by Lily Karoline Schuerer against the Commission of the European Communities

C 160/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
Action brought on 12 April 1999 by Lily Karoline                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Schuerer against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                                                                          — annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
                          (Case T-81/99)                                       holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
                                                                               period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
                                                                               III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
                         (1999/C 160/54)                                       Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of
                                                                               the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No
                                                                               300762, rejecting Mr Ripa di Meana’s request for the
                   (Language of the case: French)                              provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex
                                                                               to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the current parliamentary term,
ties was brought before the Court of the First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 April 1999 by Lily Karoline
Schuerer, of Munich, represented by Hermann J. Winzen,                    — order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with an address for service in Luxem-                    proceedings.
bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Decker and Associates, 18,
avenue Marie-Thérèse.
The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant
to pay DEM 17 677,57 together with interest; and order the                Pleas in law and main arguments
defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant, an Italian Member of the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           since July 1994,contests the Decision by which the College of
                                                                          quaestors rejected his request for application of the provisional
The applicant, a former Commission official, states that,                 pension scheme laid down in Annex III to the Rules Governing
following the change of German capital which took place on                the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members.
3 October 1990, she applied for alteration of the weightings
used in calculation of her pension. She considers that she has
been adversely affected by the fact that the compensatory
                                                                          In that connection, it should be observed that, pending the
measures which, by reason of the circumstances, became
                                                                          introduction of a definitive Community pension scheme for
necessary for the first time at the end of 1990 were not
                                                                          all Members of the Parliament, on 4 November 1981 and
adopted. Provision was made for compensation to be paid up
                                                                          24-25 May 1982, the Bureau introduced and laid down rules
until the end of the year in respect of changes occurring during
                                                                          governing the abovementioned pension scheme for Members
the course of the year; however, that compensation has not
                                                                          from those countries whose national authorities do not provide
been paid to date. It is only since July 1994 that the applicant’s
                                                                          a pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament.
pension has been properly calculated and paid. Consequently,
                                                                          The scheme is administered by the European Parliament on
the applicant has suffered a net loss amounting to DEM
                                                                          behalf of the Governments of certain specified countries.
17 677,57 as a result of the incorrect calculation of her
pension from October 1990 to June 1994 (45 months).
                                                                          Given the alignment of the pension scheme in question with
                                                                          that provided for members of the Italian Parliament, the
                                                                          applicant was convinced that he had been automatically
                                                                          affiliated to the provisional scheme as from the date on which
                                                                          he took office and that the appropriate contributions had
                                                                          automatically been deducted from his allowances. However, in
Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Carlo Ripa di Meana                    1998 be became aware that in fact he enjoyed no pension
               against the European Parliament                            protection because he had not formally joined the scheme
                                                                          within the period of six months from the entry into force of
                          (Case T-83/99)                                  the new article 3 (1) of Annex III, as amended by decision of
                                                                          the Bureau of 13 September 1995. The reason stated for the
                         (1999/C 160/55)                                  contested decision of rejection was based specifically on failure
                                                                          to comply with the said time-limit.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
An action against the Commission of the European Parliament
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 April 1999 by Carlo Ripa di Meana,                      — misuse of powers in that, since it referred to the Italian
represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela                     Rules, Annex III should have provided for automatic
Donà, both of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in                    affiliation to the provisional scheme and, in any event,
Luxembourg at the offices of Ernest Arendt,8-10, rue Mathias                   could not have made the application of the scheme subject
Hardt.                                                                         to a time-limit,