Avis juridique important

61965O0034

European Court reports French edition Page 00783 Dutch edition Page 00777 German edition Page 00813 Italian edition Page 00731 English special edition Page 00541

Parties

IN CASE 34/65

HANS DIETER MOSTHAF, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EAEC,

APPLICANT,

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY,

DEFENDANT,

Grounds

WHEREAS BY LETTER OF 15 FEBRUARY 1966 THE APPLICANT HAS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 42(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT THAT PART OF THE REJOINDER WHICH CONCERNS THE DEFINITION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE APPLICANT IS INADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEFENDANT IS THEREBY DEFINING ITS POSITION FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE ARGUMENTS SET OUT IN THE APPLICATION;

WHEREAS, BY THE DEFINITION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE APPLICANT SET OUT IN THE REJOINDER THE DEFENDANT CONTESTS THE DEFINITION OF THESE DUTIES AND POWERS ALREADY SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT;

WHEREAS THIS STATEMENT BY THE DEFENDANT THEREFORE CONSTITUTES A MERE DENIAL, TO WHICH THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 42(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE CANNOT APPLY;

WHEREAS THE APPLICANT IN THE ALTERNATIVE REQUESTS PERMISSION TO SUBMIT HIS WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT;

WHEREAS, HOWEVER, FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE THERE IS NO OCCASION TO PROLONG THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE, SINCE THE PROVISION IN THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 42(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS INSTANCE;

WHEREAS, MOREOVER, EACH PARTY IS AT LIBERTY TO DEVELOP DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE ANY ARGUMENTS WHICH IT THINKS EXPEDIENT;

Operative part

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS DISMISSED.