(Case T-304/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouvement pour la liberté de la protection sociale (MLPS) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Gibaud, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—declare that the European Commission failed to act in so far as it unlawfully refrained from dealing with the complaint of the association Mouvement pour la liberté de la protection sociale (MLPS) of 21 December 2017;

—annul in full the decision of the European Commission of 7 March 2018 refusing to continue dealing with the complaint of the association Mouvement pour la liberté de la protection sociale (MLPS) of 21 December 2017;

—make an appropriate order as to costs in accordance with the law.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging, inter alia, an error of assessment in so far as the contested decision categorised French social security schemes as a ‘statutory social security schemes’ even though they are by no means schemes intended for the whole population, or even for all of those in employment, but rather schemes grouping workers according to their professional status which should, accordingly, come within the scope of Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal uniformity, in so far as France is in a situation that is strictly similar to that of Slovakia, in relation to which the General Court held that ‘in view of the profit pursued by health insurance companies and the existence of intense competition as to quality and the services offered, the activity of providing compulsory health insurance in Slovakia is economic in nature’ (judgment of 5 February 2018, Dôvera zdravotná poist’ovňa v Commission, T-216/15, not published, EU:T:2018:64, paragraph 68). According to the applicant, the situation therefore cannot be held to be otherwise in relation to France.