# C_2018352EN.01003701.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/37

---

Action brought on 13 July 2018 — Prigent v Commission

(Case T-436/18)

(2018/C 352/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Claude Prigent (Caudan, France) (represented by: A. Bove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare this action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare this action admissible;

| — | on the substance, declare the action well-founded in law; |
| --- | --- |

—

on the substance, declare the action well-founded in law;

| — | consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 May 2018 on the basis of the principle of national solidarity as defined by the CJEU (general principle of law) and/or on the basis of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 May 2018 on the basis of the principle of national solidarity as defined by the CJEU (general principle of law) and/or on the basis of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union;

| — | remit the case to the competent authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the competent authority;

| — | order all duties ascribed by law to be undertaken; |
| --- | --- |

—

order all duties ascribed by law to be undertaken;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, and

| — | reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements and actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 2 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of national solidarity as defined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is a general principle of law. In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the view of the CJEU, a scheme concerning a specific demographic or group of workers is not a legal scheme but a professional scheme. It claims that, in the present case, in view of the discrimination between self-employed persons, who are required to subscribe to the Social Security Scheme for Self-Employed Workers (régime social des travailleurs indépendants, ‘the RSI’) even if their turnover is non-existent or they are running a deficit, and other persons such as self-employed businessmen, employees and civil servants, the scheme is evidently not a legal one.
  In addition, the applicant argues that the RSI does not comply with the solidarity principle — on which, according to the French State, the RSI, as a legal social security system, is based — in that the applicant is requested to pay minimum and fixed-sum contributions, even in the event of low income. What is more, the applicant could find himself entirely without sickness pay or pension, if insufficient contributions were paid or payments were merely made late, which is allegedly not the case for other French workers subscribed to other social security schemes. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of national solidarity as defined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which is a general principle of law. In that regard, the applicant submits that, in the view of the CJEU, a scheme concerning a specific demographic or group of workers is not a legal scheme but a professional scheme. It claims that, in the present case, in view of the discrimination between self-employed persons, who are required to subscribe to the Social Security Scheme for Self-Employed Workers (régime social des travailleurs indépendants, ‘the RSI’) even if their turnover is non-existent or they are running a deficit, and other persons such as self-employed businessmen, employees and civil servants, the scheme is evidently not a legal one.

In addition, the applicant argues that the RSI does not comply with the solidarity principle — on which, according to the French State, the RSI, as a legal social security system, is based — in that the applicant is requested to pay minimum and fixed-sum contributions, even in the event of low income. What is more, the applicant could find himself entirely without sickness pay or pension, if insufficient contributions were paid or payments were merely made late, which is allegedly not the case for other French workers subscribed to other social security schemes.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, which establishes the equality of all EU citizens, in that it is impossible to calculate the amount of the contributions to the RSI in a way that puts self-employed persons such as the applicant at a disadvantage in respect of the other groups of French workers. Therefore, when it declared that it would take no further action on his complaint, the Commission breached the principle of national solidarity, defined by the CJEU as a general principle of law, and infringed Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, which should result in the annulment of its decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, which establishes the equality of all EU citizens, in that it is impossible to calculate the amount of the contributions to the RSI in a way that puts self-employed persons such as the applicant at a disadvantage in respect of the other groups of French workers. Therefore, when it declared that it would take no further action on his complaint, the Commission breached the principle of national solidarity, defined by the CJEU as a general principle of law, and infringed Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, which should result in the annulment of its decision.

---