CELEX: 62021CN0198
Language: en
Date: 2021-03-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-198/21 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2021 by Giacomo Santini and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 February 2021 in Joined Cases T-345/19, T-346/19, T-364/19 to T-366/19, T-372/19 to T-375/19, and T-385/19, Santini and Others v Parliament

7.6.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 217/26
            
         
      Appeal brought on 29 March 2021 by Giacomo Santini and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 February 2021 in Joined Cases T-345/19, T-346/19, T-364/19 to T-366/19, T-372/19 to T-375/19, and T-385/19, Santini and Others v Parliament
      (Case C-198/21 P)
      (2021/C 217/37)
      Language of the case: Italian
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellants: Giacomo Santini, Marco Cellai, Domenico Ceravolo, Natalino Gatti, Antonio Mazzone, Luigi Moretti, Gabriele Sboarina, Lina Wuhrer, Patrizia Capraro, and Luciana Meneghini (represented by: M. Paniz, avvocato)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellants claim that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment under appeal on account of (i) the incorrect application of the general principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and proportionality, as well as the rights guaranteed under the Charter in respect of the unjustified and disproportionate infringement of the right to property, (ii) the incorrect finding that the decisions at issue could be legitimately based on Annex III to [the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament (‘the PEAM Rules’)], (iii) the incorrect categorisation of those decisions as acts of ordinary administration that are or can be delegated to the Head of Unit, and (iv) the seriously imprecise, incomplete and incorrect nature of the reasoning relating to the breach of the duty to state reasons;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul all the acts, communications and/or decisions at issue;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      The appellants rely on six grounds in support of the appeal.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  
                     First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and/or fact by finding that the decision at issue had an effect on the amount of the pension alone, not on the right to a pension and the stage at which it arose, incorrectly finding that that decision was in line with the general principles of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful because (i) it confused the right to a pension with the right to the amount of the pension, excluding the application of the principle that the right to a pension cannot be changed, although that principle was in fact applicable, (ii) it incorrectly failed to find that the action taken relating to the appellants’ life annuities resulted, not in a mere reduction of the amount, but in a total reform of the system which affected retroactively and permanently the stage at which the right to the life annuities — which had already been distributed and acquired for years and had definitively become part of the assets of the persons concerned — arose, and (iii) it incorrectly failed to find that the Parliament did not carry out any review of the conformity of the acts at issue with EU law and that no reasoning whatsoever was provided in that respect.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  
                     Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 75 of the [Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (‘the IMS’)], Article 28 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, and of Annexes I, II and III to the PEAM Rules, and also infringed the right to a pension, general principles, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful in so far as that judgment (i) incorrectly interpreted the reference standards, attributing an ongoing validity and effectiveness to Annex III to the PEAM Rules despite the express repeal thereof and notwithstanding the lack of any express provision regarding continued validity, and (ii) unlawfully failed to find that, in the present case, the requirements for the right to a pension were amended beyond the scope of Article 2 of Annex III [to those rules], in breach of the general principles of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  
                     Third ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and/or fact by finding that the decision at issue was in line with the general principles of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equality, and the right to property. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful in so far as (i) that judgment, failing to assess the specific circumstances of the present case and incorrectly interpreting the reference standards, held that the decisions at issue were in line with EU law and the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (ii) it failed to consider the evidence, including documentary evidence, demonstrating the many assurances given to the appellants regarding the maintenance of the acquired right and the immutable nature of that right, and (iii) it did not find that the decisions at issue lacked any reasoning or reason and that those decisions resulted in manifestly disproportionate and completely unjustified action being taken.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  
                     Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Articles 74 and 75 of the IMS and Annex III to the PEAM Rules. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful because it incorrectly found that the decisions at issue could be legitimately based on Annex III to the PEAM Rules when that annex was no longer in force, as it had been repealed in the meantime.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  
                     Fifth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its assessment of procedural infringements: competence. The appellants claim that the judgment [under appeal] is unlawful because it incorrectly held that the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit was competent to adopt the decisions at issue, which were, however, acts that could not be delegated as they were acts of extraordinary administration falling within the competence of the Bureau of the European Parliament.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  
                     Sixth ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law in its assessment of procedural infringements: reasoning. The appellants claim that the judgment under appeal is unlawful because (i) it incorrectly held that there was adequate reasoning, whereas in actual fact no reasoning was provided, (ii) it failed to find that the European Parliament was required to carry out a review of conformity, providing an account of that review supported by adequate reasoning, and that the Parliament had failed to conduct such a review and to provide such reasoning, and (iii) it referred to Article 1(7) of Resolution No 14/2018 — a rule that no longer exists since it was annulled by the Chamber of Deputies itself by Decision No 2/2020, which is already in effect — as an element of protection.