C-98/63
ECLI:EU:C:1963:46
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61963CO0098
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR ROEMER — JOINED CASES 79 AND 82/63
A 3 with effect from 1 January 1962 if taken into account in making the
they were successful in Cases 79 and decision as to costs. In my opinion it is 82/63. This sequence of events shows us reasonable and in accordance with the
that the applications in Cases 98 and meaning of Article 69 (4) to order the 99/63 would not have been made if the Commission to bear the costs incurred Commission had at an earlier date given by the applicants in Cases 98 and 99/63, the above-mentioned assurance that it that is to say, since the applicants' would meet the demands made in the prospects of success are not relevant to
applications, for it was this assurance the decision as to costs —
the whole of
that led the President of the Court to the costs of the action.
declare in the proceedings for suspension The same considerations apply with
that the applicants had not proved that regard to the costs of the proceedings for
they had an interest in suspending the suspension. However, since here a judi operation of the notice such as required cial decision of the Court was involved,
the protection of the Court. given in fact against the applicants, Commis Article 69 Thus we can ascertain that the Commis Thus (3), and not Article 69 (4), is sion was responsible for the outcome in the relevant provision.
Cases 98 and 99/63, a fact which can be
III —
Summary and Conclusion
Finally, to sum up: the first of the applicants' conclusions, for the annulment
of the decision integrating them, is unfounded and should be dismissed. Their remaining principal conclusions are, however, well-founded. The Court of Justice must accordingly annul the Decision by the Commission refusing to
classify the applicants in Grade A 3 with effect from 1 January 1962. This satisfies at the same time the applicants' request for a declaration from the Court.
The costs of the action are to be borne by the Commission, as in the case of
Maudet, since the applicants were successful in the essentials of their con
clusions. According to Article 69 (3) and (4) of the Rules of the proceedings in Cases 98 and 99/63, and in Cases 98 and 99/63 R.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 1 13 NOVEMBER 1963
2 In Joined Cases 98/63 R and 99/63 R
PIERO Erba , Commission European Economic Com official of the of the
munity,
1 — Language of the Case: French. 2 — The applications in Cases 98/63 and 99/63, brought by the same applicants as in Cases 79/63 and 82/63, were for the annulment of the Decision of the Commission of the European Economic Communities to publish vacancy notice no 1064. The first-mentioned cases were removed from the register of the Court by an Order of 12 March 1964.
REYNIER v COMMISSION
and
Jean Reynier , official of the Commission of the European Economic
Community,
represented and assisted by M. Slusny, Advocate at the Cour d'Appel, Brussels, and Head of Department at the University of Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, avocat-
avoué, 6 rue Willy-Goergen,
applicants,
v
Commission of the European Economic Community
defendant,
by its Legal Adviser, Louis de la Fontaine, appointed Agent for represented
purpose by the Commission, with an address for service at the offices of this
Henri Manzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European
Executives, 2 place de Metz, Luxembourg,
Application to suspend the operation of the measure contested in the main
action,
Issues of fact
Whereas the applicants have lodged ap contends that the Court should:
plications at the Court Registry on
29 October 1963 for the annulment of 'Dismiss the applications made by the
vacancy notice No 1064, relating to a applicants as unfounded in their en
Grade A 3 post in the Statistical Office; tirety; And whereas in their applications for the operation of the notice to be suspen make an appropriate order as to costs;' ded, lodged at the Court Registry on
29 October 1963, the applicants claimed Whereas the parties, duly summoned, that the Court should: appeared before the President to present 'Order the opposite parties to refrain their oral observations on 11 November from taking any regarding the action 1963; vacant post No 1064 pending a decision in the main action; Whereas, because of their identical
subject-matter, it is appropriate to join
reserve the questions of costs;' the two applications for the suspension of
the operation of the measure registered
Whereas the defendant submitted on under No 98/63 R and No 99/63 R, and 9 November 1963 its observations con to adjudicate upon them in the same
cerning the applications for the adoption order; of this interim measure, in which it
ORDER OF 13.11.1963 — JOINED CASES 79 AND 82/63
Issues of law
Whereas the applications for suspension of the operation of the said measure are motivated by the fear that the defendant Commission, in the event of the Court's declaring that the applications in Cases 79/63 and 82/63, brought by the same applicants, are well-founded and confirming that
Messrs Erba and Reynier are entitled to be classified in Grade A 3 with
effect from 1 January 1962, might evade its obligations by claiming that it no longer has any vacant posts in Grade A 3 in the detailed list of posts
mentioned in Article 6 of the EEC Staff Regulations;
Whereas to avoid this danger, the applicants request that the Commission
be ordered to refrain from filling the Grade A 3 post for which the competi
tion is being held;
Whereas the defendant's representative stated during the hearing that if the Court declares the applications in Cases 79/63 and 82/63 well-founded, the Commission will give effect to the judgment and classify the applicants in Grade A 3 with effect from 1 January 1962;
Whereas this clear and unequivocal statement satisfies the obligations of the Commission under Article 176 of the Treaty;
Whereas it is for the Commission itself to decide the manner in which it will to the judgments of the Court, and there is no need to lay down in give effect
advance by means of an interlocutory order the methods for giving effect to the judgment;
Whereas, moreover, the above-mentioned statement confirms that to carry out the competition procedure will not prejudice the applicants as regards
their applications in Cases 79/63 and 82/63 so that in this respect their
requests for the suspension of the operation of the measure are divested of all legal interest;
Whereas, furthermore, in these applications for suspension of the said
measure, the applicants allege in support of their requests that there are
irregularities in the competition procedure as published by the Commission
and they also rely on these irregularities in their claims;
Whereas, however, the allegations which they make concerning these are
general in nature, and since an examination of them would in extremely volve fundamental legal principles, it cannot be carried out in the context of
proceedings for the adoption of an interim measure;
REYNIER v COMMISSION
Whereas, lastly, it is not disputed in this matter that the applicants did not enter the competition mentioned above and consequently the alleged
irregularities are not such as may cause them direct and personal damage;
Whereas in the circumstances there is no ground for granting the suspension
request d;
On these grounds,
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties;
Having regard to Articles 176, 179, 185 and 186 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and to Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community;
Having regard to Articles 83, 84, 85 and 86 of the Rules of Procedure,
The President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
makes the following
ORDER
1. The applications are dismissed;
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 13 November 1963.
A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner Registrar President