C_2021088EN.01003801.xml

Action brought on 26 January 2021 — QD v Parliament

(Case T-41/21)

(2021/C 88/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: QD (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul in its entirety the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 11 November 2020, communicated to the applicant on 16 November 2020, which definitively confirmed the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 May 2020, which, in turn, confirmed the communication of 11 July 2019, adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the European Parliament, concerning the fixing of the applicant’s retirement pension rights;

—	order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present proceedings seeks the annulment, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, of the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 11 November 2020, communicated to the applicant on 16 November 2020, which definitively confirmed the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 May 2020, which, in turn, confirmed the communication of 11 July 2019, adopted by the Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit of the European Parliament, concerning the fixing of the applicant’s retirement pension rights following the adoption of Deliberazione n. 14/2018 dell’Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati italiana (Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies).

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the protection of the right to property, the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment. In addition, the applicant claims that the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision, which claims to implement at EU level the new decision of the Italian Chamber of Deputies without providing any reasonable justification, is manifestly unreasonable.

Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 75 of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. That provision is a transitional measure; such measures are, by definition, rules bringing an expired system to a close, their purpose being to protect the legal situations governed by the rules that preceded them.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of various procedural requirements, with reference being made to the following in particular: the determination of the correct legal basis of the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision; the competence of the Head of Unit who adopted the measure; and a failure to state reasons. The applicant claims that the communication is based on a provision that has now been repealed and that, as it is categorised as a measure of extraordinary administration, it should have been adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament. Moreover, there is no statement of reasons in the communication definitively confirmed by the contested decision, nor is reference made in that communication to a document that might contain those reasons.