Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CN0761

Case C-761/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2018 by Päivi Leino-Sandberg against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2018 in Case T-421/17: Leino-Sandberg v Parliament

OJ C 82, 4.3.2019, p. 10–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

4.3.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/10


Appeal brought on 3 December 2018 by Päivi Leino-Sandberg against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2018 in Case T-421/17: Leino-Sandberg v Parliament

(Case C-761/18 P)

(2019/C 82/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Päivi Leino-Sandberg (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, S. Schubert, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the order of the General Court of 20 September 2018 in Case T-421/17;

make use of its power under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, and

order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground of appeal: errors of law in the contested order when it holds that there is no longer a purpose to the action, and therefore no need to adjudicate. The appellant submits that the contested order incorrectly does not apply the legal test set out in Case C-57/16 P, ClientEarth v. Commission (EU:C:2018:660) under which it should have concluded that because the European Parliament has not withdrawn the contested decision, the purpose of the action remained.

Second ground of appeal: errors of law and procedure in the contested order when it holds that there is no longer an interest in bringing proceedings. The appellant submits that the contested order misapplies the legal test set out in established case-law, including Case C-57/16 P, under which it should have concluded that the unlawfulness is liable to recur in the future, irrespective of the particular circumstances of the case, and that therefore the interest in bringing proceedings remained.


Top