# C_2015016EN.01004501.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/45

---

Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Musso v Parliament

(Case T-772/14)

(2015/C 016/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: François Musso (Ajaccio, France) (represented by: A. Gross, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the present action and declare it to be well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the present action and declare it to be well founded;

| — | annul the decision of 22 September 2014;






  — | primarily on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, where appropriate; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 22 September 2014;

—

primarily on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, where appropriate;

| — | alternatively, on the basis of a procedural irregularity arising from a lack of precision, in that the amount receivable is not certain; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis of a procedural irregularity arising from a lack of precision, in that the amount receivable is not certain;

| — | in the alternative, order the joinder of the present case with Musso v European Parliament (register No 633447, case No T-589/14) of 8 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, order the joinder of the present case with Musso v European Parliament (register No 633447, case No T-589/14) of 8 August 2014;

| — | in the further alternative, annul the decision of 22 September 2014, resulting from the decision of 26 June 2014, which itself is liable to be annulled in the action of 8 August 2014 (Musso v European Parliament, register No 633447, Case No T-589/14);






  — | on the basis of a formal irregularity, in that the decision of 26 June 2014 has not been signed by the President; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, annul the decision of 22 September 2014, resulting from the decision of 26 June 2014, which itself is liable to be annulled in the action of 8 August 2014 (Musso v European Parliament, register No 633447, Case No T-589/14);

—

on the basis of a formal irregularity, in that the decision of 26 June 2014 has not been signed by the President;

| — | alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which serves as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which serves as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published;

| — | alternatively, on the basis that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons;

| — | alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence;

| — | alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of a vested right; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of a vested right;

| — | reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions; |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 22 September, that is to say, the contested debit note, was issued 12 years after the Parliament established its book debt in respect of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 22 September, that is to say, the contested debit note, was issued 12 years after the Parliament established its book debt in respect of the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the contested debit note in that the Parliament’s book debt is neither certain nor correct for the purposes of Article 81 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (1) and is, moreover, unverifiable. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the contested debit note in that the Parliament’s book debt is neither certain nor correct for the purposes of Article 81 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (1) and is, moreover, unverifiable.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, in that, that decision was not signed by the President of the Parliament in accordance with the Parliament's Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, in that, that decision was not signed by the President of the Parliament in accordance with the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which served as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published, in breach of Article 28 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which served as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published, in breach of Article 28 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time, in that the Parliament waited eight years before beginning the recovery procedure against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time, in that the Parliament waited eight years before beginning the recovery procedure against the applicant.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the vested right, in that the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, prejudices the pension entitlements which the applicant acquired on 3 August 1994. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the vested right, in that the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, prejudices the pension entitlements which the applicant acquired on 3 August 1994.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

---