CELEX: 62014TN0342
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-342/14 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2014 by CR against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014 in Case F-128/12, CR v Parliament

7.7.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 212/42
            
         Appeal brought on 19 May 2014 by CR against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014 in Case F-128/12, CR v Parliament
   (Case T-342/14 P)
   2014/C 212/54
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: CR (Malling, France) (represented by A. Salerno, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought by the appellant
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014;
            
         
               —
            
            
               itself settle the dispute between the appellant and the European Parliament, by annulling the decision which the appellant challenged before the Civil Service Tribunal, in so far as that decision requires him to reimburse all the sums which he unlawfully received in respect of family allowances; or
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant contests the rejection of the objection of illegality brought against the last sentence of the second paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials. In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to respond to the appellant’s arguments as regards the disproportionate nature of the absence of any limitation period should the appointing authority be able to establish that the person concerned deliberately misled the administration with a view to obtaining payment of the sum in question.