C-68/63

cant by the Director-General of Ad­ —The first deals with the repayment ministration and not by the appointing of 25 706 Belgian francs which the ap­ authority, as powers had been delega­ plicant claims was wrongly deducted ted to that official for this purpose. from his compensation for dismissal. Moreover, as I have already said, it This sum represents the weighting was not for the Staff Committee to which he received and to which, he says intervene, in this termination.. Although he was entitled , as. a. contractual ser­ the Commission had the right under vant. This argument appears, to be in­ Article 102 to establish the applicant in correct since the grant of this, weighting a lower grade the fact that it did not results from an application of Article use this power cannot constitute a 64 of the Staff Regulations and only wrongful act or omission. In addition, applies to established servants. Although Mr Luhleich objects that the period this advance was paid to Mr Luhleich, of notice given to him was insufficient. he was warned that it in no way affec­ On this point I can only refer to my ted the outcome of the integration pro­ opinion in Joined Cases 19 and 65/63. cedure and could be recovered. This is — Finally, the applicant maintains that in fact what happened. after his dismissal took effect personal — The second claim refers to the and damaging attacks had been made payment of 1698 DM by way of against him at a press conference, by reimbursement for personal expenses in­ letter and by statement to a journalist curred, by the applicant during his from German television. Let me. say employment at Ispra. without going into further detail that The explanations; given at the hearing a consultation of the file shows these by the Agent of the Commission show 'attacks' to have been merely a question that these, sums had been used to pur­ of allegations or misunderstandings over chase equipment, and that Mr Luhleich the scope of these administrative meas­ had been repaid in kind by being al­ ures, which in no way constitute wrongr­ lowed to remove it. If I have correctly ful acts or omissions. understood the reply given by counsel There remain two subsidiary financial for the applicant the conclusions on this claims: point must be regarded as withdrawn.

HARTMUT LUHLEICH, head of group in the Chemistry Department of the Joint Nuclear Research Centre at Ispra (Italy), represented by Ernest Arendt, 1 — Language of the Case: French.

LUHLEICH v COMMISSION

Advocate of the Cour Supérieure de Justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxem­ bourg with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Arendt, 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 Manzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2. place de Metz,

ORDER OF 17. 7. 1963 — CASE 68/63

(b) Order that, until judgment be given dismiss the application for interim meas­ in the original case, the applicant is ures;' entitled to continue to carry out his Whereas the parties being duly sum­ scientific research work at the Joint moned put in an appearance before the Nuclear Research Centre and shall have President on 16 July 1963 and presen­ free access to the laboratory, the equip­ ted their oral observations; ment and the office reserved for him; Whereas during the oral procedure the alternatively, rule that the applicant defendant contended that the President shall be considered as being on paid of the Court should: leave pending a decision on the sub­ 'Formally place on record that the de­ stance of the case; fendant is disposed, on purely social (c) Alternatively, should the application grounds and without prejudice to the for the suspension of the operation of substance of the case, to grant Mr the measures not be accepted: Luhleich, by reason of the imminent award the applicant, toy way of advance birth of a second child, financial assist­ and in anticipation of his salary, com­ ance amounting to the total benefits pensation amounting to twelve monthly which would have been allocated (for payments of his salary; medical care, fees, hospital expenses) Consequently, order the defendant to under die sickness and validity pay 320 000 francs (in round figures) scheme in force in the EAEC had to the applicant; the birth taken place during his em­ ployment;' III — Reserve the costs; Whereas in explanation of this conclu­ sion the defendant declared that it has Whereas on 5 July 1963 the defendant taken into consideration the draft rules lodged its observations on the applica­ applicable to all the European Institu­ tion for the adoption of an interim tions laying down the detailed rules for measure in which it contends that the implementing Article 72 of the Staff President should: Regulations and that these draft rules 'Dismiss the application for the sus­ contain a provision prolonging the pension of the operation of the con­ period of cover of officials who are no tested decision; longer employed (Article 4);

Whereas the facts of the case show that at the present stage of the action it is impossible to form an opinion on whether the original case is well founded;

Whereas, since the family circumstances referred to by the applicant cannot lead to any other conclusion, the Commission has rightly decided to apply to him the provisions of the sickness and invalidity scheme at present being drafted;

Whereas, for this reason, it is unnecessary to grant the application for the suspension of the operation of the decision;

Whereas the applicant requests that various interim measures set out in detail in his application be adopted in his favour; Whereas the claim under II (a) of this application was withdrawn by the applicant during the oral part of the proceedings;

Whereas, once the application for the suspension of the operation of the decision has been dismissed, there are no grounds for ordering that the applicant be allowed to continue with his research work pending judgment in the original case; Whereas for the above reasons the claim under II (c) cannot be admitted during consideration of the application for suspension;

On those grounds,