Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2014 —
Uspaskich v Parliament

(Case T‑84/12)

Action for annulment and compensation — Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive immunity — Re-examination — Decision not to defend immunity — Inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility

1.                     Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 27-29)

2.                     Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures of the Parliament intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties — Decision waiving the immunity of an MEP — Included (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union) (see para. 39)

3.                     Actions for annulment — Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act — Inadmissibility — Meaning of confirmatory decision — Decision adopted following a re-examination of the earlier decision and on the basis of new factors — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 40)

4.                     Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Action for compensation for damage caused by an EU institution — No indications as to the damage suffered and the causal link — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 61, 68)

Re:

Firstly, an application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 1 December 2011 not to defend the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to reject his application for re-examination of the decision to waive immunity and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part inadmissible.

2. Mr Viktor Uspaskich is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

3. The Republic of Lithuania is ordered to bear its own costs.