Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-389/19 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, July 26, 2019

• Resolution Date: July 26, 2019
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-389/19

Action brought on 27 June 2019 - Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament

(Case T-389/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Maria Teresa Coppo Gavazzi (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare non existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament redetermined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the act by which the European Parliament redetermined the rights to a retirement pension of the applicant following the entry into force on 1 January 2019 of Resolution No 14/18 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and the recovery of the amount paid, paid on the basis of the earlier determination.

In support of the action, the applicant raises four pleas in law.

By the first plea in law, the applicant claims incompetence on the part of the author of the act, infringement of essential procedural requirements and the consequent infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The applicant claims in that regard that the communication of the European Parliament is unlawful, since it is vitiated by serious and clear omissions, of a principally procedural nature, and, in particular, the decision was adopted by the Directorate-General for Finance and not by the Bureau of the European Parliament in accordance with Article 11a°(6) and Article 25(3) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The communication did not contain any justification for its adoption or for the automatic application of the Italian resolution.

By the second plea in law, the applicant claims that there is no legal basis for the contested act and that there was an error of law in the interpretation of Article 75 of the Implementing measures...