EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CA0326

Case C-326/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 — LL v European Parliament (Appeal — Action for annulment — Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Time limit for instituting proceedings — Calculation — Former Member of the European Parliament — Decision relating to the recovery of parliamentary assistance allowances — Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament — Article 72 — Complaint procedure within the European Parliament — Notification of the decision adversely affecting a Member of the European Parliament — Registered letter not collected by its addressee)

IO C 134, 16.4.2018, p. 4–5 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.4.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/4


Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 — LL v European Parliament

(Case C-326/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Action for annulment - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Time limit for instituting proceedings - Calculation - Former Member of the European Parliament - Decision relating to the recovery of parliamentary assistance allowances - Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament - Article 72 - Complaint procedure within the European Parliament - Notification of the decision adversely affecting a Member of the European Parliament - Registered letter not collected by its addressee))

(2018/C 134/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: LL (represented by: J. Petrulionis, advokatas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Toliušis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 19 April 2016, LL v Parliament (T-615/15, not published, EU:T:2016:432);

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a decision on the merits;

3.

The costs are reserved.


(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


Top