Erich Biedermann, Walter Hedderich and Alfred Wienrich v Court of Auditors of the European Communities. (Officials) [1998] EUECJ T-173/95 (9 June 1998)

Erich Biedermann, Walter Hedderich and Alfred Wienrich v Court of Auditors of the European Communities. (Officials) [1998] EUECJ T-173/95 (9 June 1998)

The Court held that the applicants were not individually and directly concerned by the contested act in a manner that would render it challengeable, and that the retroactive application of the regulation did not unlawfully infringe their rights.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] EUECJ T-173/95
Parties
Applicant: Erich Biedermann; Applicant: Walter Hedderich; Applicant: Alfred Wienrich; Respondent: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Jurisdiction
European Union
Procedural Posture
Action for Annulment / Judgment
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Officials, Pensions, Weighting, Change of Capital, Retroactive Effect, Regulation No 3161/94, Admissibility, Act Adversely Affecting an Official
European Union Law Employment Law Officials Pensions Weighting Change of Capital Retroactive Effect Regulation No 3161/94 +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erich Biedermann

Applicant

Walter Hedderich

Applicant

Alfred Wienrich

Applicant

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Annulment / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Regulation No 3161/94, which changed the weighting for pensions, could be applied retroactively to the applicants' detriment
  2. 2 Whether the contested act adversely affected the applicants and was thus open to challenge
  3. 3 Whether the action for annulment was admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicants were not individually and directly concerned by the contested act in a manner that would render it challengeable, and that the retroactive application of the regulation did not unlawfully infringe their rights.

Court Disposition

action dismissed