C-65/63
ECLI:EU:C:1963:11
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61963CO0065
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF 14. 7. 1964 — JOINED CASES 19 AND 65/63
Whereas, since he could have clarified them in his reply to be presented in Joined Cases 19 and 65/63, it was not necessary to lodge a separate application;
Whereas, therefore, he must be ordered to bear his own costs, and the defen dant's costs must be borne by it in accordance with Articles 70 and 96 (1) of the Rules of Procedure;
On those grounds,
Having regard to Articles 43, 69 (4), 70, 78 and 95 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;
THE COURT (First Chamber)
composed of: A. Trabucchi, President, L. Delvaux and W. Strauß (Rappor teur), Judges,
Advocate-General: K. Roemer, replacing M. Lagrange, absent Registrar: A. Van Houtte
orders:
I. Case 76/63 is separated from Joined Cases 19 and 65/63; 2. Case 76/63 is removed from the Register; 3. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 14 July 1964.
A. Van Houtte A. Trabucchi Registrar President of the First Chamber
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
25 JUNE 1963<apnote>1</apnote>
SATYA PRAKASH, a scientific collaborator employed by the Physical Chemistry Department of the Ispra Research Centre (Italy), represented by Ernest Arendt, Advocate of the Cour Supérieure de Justice of the Grand Duchy of 1 — Language of the Case: French.
PRAKASH v COMMISSION
Luxembourg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of his abovementioned Counsel, 6 rue Willy-Goergen, applicant,
v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY, represented by its Legal Adviser, Jan Gijssels, acting as Agent, with an address for ser vice in Luxembourg at the offices of Henri Marzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2 place de Metz, defendant,
Application for the suspension of implementation of certain measures dis puted in the original application, and that certain interim measures be ordered,
Facts
Whereas by an application lodged at the cedure, that there be produced at Court Registry on 27 May 1963 the the oral proceedings: applicant brought an action for the 1. the applicant's original personal annulment of a decision of the Commis file, sion of the European Atomic Energy 2. the minutes of the Committee Community of 20 March 1963 refusing which make its observations upon the to integrate the applicant under the Staff expiry of the period of probation, Regulations of officials of the EAEC; 3. the report of the above Com Whereas in his application lodged at the mittee, Court Registry on 31 May 1963 the 4. the minutes of the Establishment applicant claimed that the President Board in so far as they refer to should: applicant together with the minutes of the hearings given to his I — As to the request for suspension of superiors and colleagues relating implementation: to his case, 5. the complete report of the Estab Order that the implementation of the lishment Board in so far as it decisions impugned in the original ap refers to the applicant; plication lodged at the Registry of the (b) Order that until judgment is pro Court of Justice of the European Com nounced in the original application munities on 27 May 1963 be sus the applicant shall continue to be pended; entitled to carry out his work as a II— As to the interim measures: research scientist at the Joint Nuclear Research Centre at Ispra, and shall (a) Order prior to any further steps in have free access to that part of the the case and with immediate effect, laboratory and to those instruments by virtue of the second subparagraph allotted to him as well as to his of Article 84 (2) of the Rules of Pro- office;
ORDER OF 25. 6. 1963 — JOINED-CASES 19 AND 65/63
(c) Alternatively, should the. request for measure in which it contends that the suspension not be acceded to: President should: Grant to the applicant an allowance — dismiss the request for suspension of corresponding to twelve months' implementation of the impugned salary, as a provision for an advance decision; on salary; — dismiss the request for the granting of interim measures; Therefore, order the defendant to pay — give judgment on the counterclaim the applicant the sum of three hundred and in doing so order the applicant thousand (300 000) francs, in round in the original case to perform all figures. acts arising out of the termination of the contract of employment between III — To reserve the costs him and the Community; Whereas the parties, having been duly Whereas on 12 June 1963 the defen summoned, appeared before the Presi dant lodge its observations on the appli dent on 18 June 1963 and submitted cation for the adoption of an interim their oral observations;
Law
Whereas the application for suspension of implementation of the decision of refusal to integrate the applicant as one of the defendant's officials under the Staff Regulations is in fact, as appears from the wording of the applica tion and from the arguments at the hearing, an application for the suspension of the termination of the applicant's contract of employment as provided for in Article 102 (2) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the EAEC;
Whereas, however, this termination is not referred to in the original applica tion;
Whereas the contract of employment in question provides for a period of notice of one month in case of termination, and whereas this period of notice appears to have been observed in this case;
Whereas, however, the applicant asserts that he is in a financial situation such that he cannot meet his needs prior to the judgment in the original case;
Whereas a provision for immediate sustenance can only be granted by means of an interim measure if the original application appears prima facie to be clearly well-founded;
Whereas the features of the case make it impossible at the present stage of the proceedings to form a view as to whether the original application is well founded;
PRAKASH v COMMISSION
Whereas in these circumstances the supension requested cannot be granted;
Whereas the applicant requests that various provisional steps set out in the application for the adoption of an interim measure be applied in his favour;
Whereas the request appearing at figure II, a, of this application is identical to that made by the applicant in his original application;
Whereas, therefore, it does not seem possible for the judge sitting on the application for the adoption of an interim measure to take a decision on this point, which is one for the Court dealing with the original case;
Whereas the request appearing at figure II, b, was withdrawn by the appli cant during the oral part of the proceedings;
Whereas the request appearing at figure II, c, cannot be entertained for the reasons set out above on the examination of the request for suspension;
Whereas as regards the defendant's counterclaim no decision is called for as this counterclaim was withdrawn during the oral part of the proceedings;
On those grounds,
Having regard to Articles 152, 157 and 158 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Atomic Energy Community; Having regard to Article 83, 84, 85 and 86 of the Rules of Procedure,
The President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
hereby orders:
I. The application is dismissed;
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 25 June 1963.
A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner
Registrar President