CELEX: C2006/060/102
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-11 00:00:00
Title: Case F-127/05: Action brought on  21 December 2005  — Nanbru v European Parliament

11.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 60/55
            
         Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Nanbru v European Parliament
   (Case F-127/05)
   (2006/C 60/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Nicole-Kiwi Nanbru (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the European Parliament, notified to the applicant on 3 May 2005, giving new notification of her retirement pension rights as from 1 January 2005;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Restore the applicant to her pension rights as stated by continuous, consistent and checked figures supplied in writing (mails or notes) and confirmed orally by the DG Personnel of the European Parliament, awarding her a differential sum of EUR 634.40 per month until the expiry of her retirement pension;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Compensate for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally assessed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 250 000.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a temporary servant of the European Parliament in retirement since 1 January 2005, challenges the decision of that institution to reduce the amount of her pension from what had been indicated to her at the time when she was considering whether it was appropriate to retire and, if appropriate, request transfer to the Community system of her pension rights acquired in Belgium.
   Concerning the application for annulment, the applicant argues that, even if it is possible for an administrative authority to replace an illegal decision, in this case the new decision fixing her pension rights at a lower level than previously anticipated was not taken within a reasonable time. In those circumstances, the confidence she might legitimately have as to the amount of her pension had been breached.
   She argues that the non-material damage arises from the whole of the faults committed by the European Parliament throughout the case.