Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2016:101
Date: 2016-02-25
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: France

Action brought on 8 August 2014 — Musso v Parliament (Case T-589/14) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: François Musso (Ajaccio, France) (represented by: A. Gross, lawyer) Defendant: European Parliament Form of order sought Admit the present action and declare it well founded; Annul the decision of 26 June 2014: Principally, on the basis of the formal irregularity involving the lack of the President’s signature; In the alternative, on the basis of infringement of the rights of the defence in that the decision of 17 July 1996 serving as the basis of the decision of 26 June 2014 was not published; In the further alternative, on the basis of infringement of the adversarial principle; In the further alternative, on the basis of the insufficient statement of reasons of the decision of 26 June 2014; In the further alternative, on the basis of infringement of the reasonable time principle affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence; In the further alternative, on the basis of infringement of the principle of acquired right; Reserve to the applicant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions to be claimed; Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the instance. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law. 1. First plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the contested decision of 26 June 2014, since it was not signed by the President of the Parliament in accordance with the internal rules of the European Parliament. 2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence of the applicant, since the decision of 17 July 1996 which served as the basis for the contested decision of 26 June 2014 was not published, in breach of Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure. 3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the adversarial principle. 4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons of the contested decision. 5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the reasonable time principle, since the Parliament waited eight years before beginning the recovery proceedings against the applicant. 6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of acquired right, since the contested decision calls into question the pension rights which the applicant acquired on 3 August 1994.