76In the fourth place, it should be noted that the rules relating to the AVPS were modified a number of times, including in 2009 and 2018, due to the deterioration of the Fund’s economic and financial situation. The reforms of 1 April 2009 and 10 December 2018 were disputed by AVPS beneficiaries and were the subject of the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 18 October 2011, Purvis v Parliament (T‑439/09, EU:T:2011:600), and of 13 March 2013, Inglewood and Others v Parliament (T‑229/11 and T‑276/11, EU:T:2013:127), and also of 15 September 2021, Ashworth and Others v Parliament (T‑720/19 to T‑725/19, not published, EU:T:2021:580), of 15 September 2021, Arnaoutakis and Others v Parliament (T‑240/20 to T‑245/20, not published, EU:T:2021:590), of 9 March 2023, Grossetête v Parliament (C‑714/21 P, not published, EU:C:2023:187), and of 9 March 2023, Galeote and Watson v Parliament (C‑715/21 P et C‑716/21 P, not published, EU:C:2023:190). It should also be noted that, during the debates that preceded the adoption of the reform of 10 December 2018, the Bureau had noted that that reform would be insufficient. It had called upon the Secretary-General of the Parliament to propose additional measures by the end of 2020, including a freeze or reduction in the updating of pension amounts, and to explore other measures aimed at finding a more long-term solution for the Fund.