Avis juridique important

61968O0027

European Court reports 1969 Page 00274

Parties

IN CASE 27/68R

APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, LOUIS DE LA FONTAINE, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY H . PH . VISSER 'T HOOFT OF THE COMMISSION'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF EMILE REUTER, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL,

DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION OF 26 JUNE 1968 IN WHICH, ACTING UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF REGULATION NO 259/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 29 FEBRUARY 1968, IT ADOPTED A MEASURE TERMINATING THE SERVICE OF THE APPLICANT AND FOR THE SUSPENSION, AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE, OF ANY APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF HEAD OF THE COMMISSION PRESS AND INFORMATION OFFICE AT THE HAGUE ( VACANCY NOTICE COM/204 ).

Grounds

IN REGARD TO THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF THE MEASURE TERMINATING THE APPLICANT'S SERVICE, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION OF 26 JUNE 1968, ABSENCE OF SUCH SUSPENSION IS NOT, AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSES OF THE JUDGMENT TO BE DELIVERED IN THE MAIN ACTION .

IF, IN THE EVENT, THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION WERE ANNULLED BY THE COURT IN THE MAIN ACTION, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE OBLIGED TO RETAIN THE APPLICANT IN ITS SERVICE AND TO PROVIDE A POST FOR HIM WITH DUTIES CORRESPONDING TO HIS GRADE .

MOREOVER, THE DISPUTED MEASURE IS NOT OF SUCH A NATURE AS SO TO AFFECT HIS FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT THE SUSPENSION OF ITS OPERATION WOULD BE JUSTIFIED .

IN ANY CASE ARTICLES 5 AND 7 OF REGULATION NO 259/68 ENSURE THAT, WHATEVER HAPPENS, HE IS PAID A MONTHLY ALLOWANCE WHICH WILL MEET HIS NEEDS FOR A CONSIDERABLE TIME .

AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION FOR THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF ANY APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF HEAD OF THE PRESS AND INFORMATION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION AT THE HAGUE, IT IS NECESSARY TO LOOK INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DECISION TO TERMINATE HIS SERVICE AND THE IMPLIED DECISION WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, RESULTS FROM THE ABSENCE OF A REPLY ON THE COMMISSION'S PART TO THE LETTER OF 24 JUNE 1968 IN WHICH HE ASKS TO BE APPOINTED TO THE POST AT THE HAGUE .

THE PARTIES DISAGREE ON THIS POINT .

ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT THE FATE OF THESE TWO DECISIONS MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE SAME WAY BUT, ACCORDING TO THE DEFENDANT, THIS IS NOT SO .

IT IS FOR THE COURT ALONE TO SETTLE THIS QUESTION IN THE MAIN ACTION .

ON THIS POINT, WHATEVER THE DECISION IN THE MAIN ACTION, THE SUSPENSION APPLIED FOR IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT, WHEN DELIVERED, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE FULLY EFFECTIVE .

Operative part

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

HEREBY, AS AN INTERIM RULING, ORDERS :

1 . THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION AND FOR TEMPORARY MEASURE ARE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED;