CELEX: C2004/118/33
Language: en
Date: 2004-04-30 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-111/02 P: European Parliament v Patrick Reynolds (Appeal — Officials — Secondment to a political group of the Parliament — Decision to terminate the secondment — Rights of the defence)

30.4.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 118/19
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   
   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-111/02 P: European Parliament v Patrick Reynolds (1)
   
   (Appeal - Officials - Secondment to a political group of the Parliament - Decision to terminate the secondment - Rights of the defence)
   (2004/C 118/33)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-111/02 P: European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore ) with an address for service in Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2002 in Case T-237/00 Reynolds v Parliament [2002] ECR II-163, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Patrick Reynolds, an official of the European Parliament, residing in Brussels (Belgium), (Lawyers: P. Legros and S. Rodrigues) with an address for service in Luxembourg — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:
   
               1)
            
            
               Sets aside paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 January 2002 in Case T-237/00 Reynolds v Parliament;
            
         
               2)
            
            
               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
            
         
               3)
            
            
               Reserves the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 156, 29.6.2002.