# C_2019093EN.01006701.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/67

---

Action brought on 28 December 2018 — AG v Europol

(Case T-756/18)

(2019/C 93/87)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: AG (represented by: C. Abrar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 2 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 2 July 2018;

| — | order the defendant to issue to the applicant a duly reasoned and lawful decision on his claim for a share of the Europol Pension Fund; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to issue to the applicant a duly reasoned and lawful decision on his claim for a share of the Europol Pension Fund; and

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: general infringement of the obligation to state reasons






  — | In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant submits that his request concerning (i) the transfer of an administrative act by which the defendant applied Decision (EU) 2015/1889 (1) to the applicant and (ii) the statement of the reasons on which that administrative act is based together with an explanation as to why a significant part of the assets of the pension fund was distributed to the Member States, was implicitly rejected. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: general infringement of the obligation to state reasons

—

In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant submits that his request concerning (i) the transfer of an administrative act by which the defendant applied Decision (EU) 2015/1889 (1) to the applicant and (ii) the statement of the reasons on which that administrative act is based together with an explanation as to why a significant part of the assets of the pension fund was distributed to the Member States, was implicitly rejected.

| — | In that regard, it is claimed that the defendant failed to fulfil its duties in accordance with the principles of good European administrative practice and in accordance with Article 296 TFEU. The applicant also has an interest in bringing proceedings because only a reasoned decision on his rights to the Europol Pension Fund would enable him to assess the lawfulness of the allocation and the implementation of any further claims. |
| --- | --- |

—

In that regard, it is claimed that the defendant failed to fulfil its duties in accordance with the principles of good European administrative practice and in accordance with Article 296 TFEU. The applicant also has an interest in bringing proceedings because only a reasoned decision on his rights to the Europol Pension Fund would enable him to assess the lawfulness of the allocation and the implementation of any further claims.

| 2. | Second plea in law: collateral review of Decision (EU) 2015/1889






  — | In the context of the second plea in law, it is submitted that the supposed basis of the decision not taken could also transpire in the course of judicial review to be vitiated by an error of assessment and therefore unlawful. To that extent, it is particularly necessary to have an explanation as to why significant parts of the Europol Pension Fund were distributed to the EU Member States. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: collateral review of Decision (EU) 2015/1889

—

In the context of the second plea in law, it is submitted that the supposed basis of the decision not taken could also transpire in the course of judicial review to be vitiated by an error of assessment and therefore unlawful. To that extent, it is particularly necessary to have an explanation as to why significant parts of the Europol Pension Fund were distributed to the EU Member States.

| — | It is further submitted that the Court could, in the interests of procedural economy and for the avoidance of any further judicial proceedings, issue to the defendant indications as to the unlawfulness of Decision (EU) 2015/1889, since the collateral review of that decision might not succeed in the absence of a reasoned decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is further submitted that the Court could, in the interests of procedural economy and for the avoidance of any further judicial proceedings, issue to the defendant indications as to the unlawfulness of Decision (EU) 2015/1889, since the collateral review of that decision might not succeed in the absence of a reasoned decision.

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1889 of 8 October 2015 on the dissolution of the Europol Pension Fund (OJ 2015 L 276, p. 60).

---