C-12/64
ECLI:EU:C:1964:25
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61964CO0012
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR GAND—JOINED CASES 12 AND 29/64
selves is insufficient to compel the ad sufficient ground for upholding the con ministration to hold one. Indeed I con tested decision. cur in the view that this system results The initial question, however, is on the in conferring upon the competent admissibility of those conclusions. But authority a certain discretionary power whatever the implications of the line of whether to hold a competition, but this argument based by the applicant on the does not seem to me in any way opposed provisional nature of orders in applica to the wording of Article 29. This sub tions for the adoption of an interim mission should therefore be rejected and measure which would require the ques Application 29/64 dismissed. tion of the costs to be reserved until Lastly came the conclusion attached to settlement of the case, it is sufficient Application 12/64 claiming that the part in order to set such argument aside to of the costs of the application for the refer to Article 86 of the Rules of Pro adoption of an interim measure, which cedure which states that no appeal shall the applicant was ordered to bear by the lie from an order in such an applica order of the President of the Court of tion. Since the imposition of costs was 4 May 1964, should be borne by the settled by the order, to request a modi Commission. I should like to say from fication in the allocation of these costs die outset that the dismissal of die two is to request a revision of the order. applications, if you agree with me, is a Such conclusions are not admissible.
I am therefore of the opinion that:
1. The conclusions of Applications 12/64 and 29/64 directed against Vacancy Notice No 403, the notification of posts vacant at the Commis sion of the EEC and against the provision of the order by the President of the Court of 4 May 1964 settling the costs of the application for the adoption of an interim measure should be dismissed as inadmissible;
2. The other conclusions of those applications should be dismissed as being without foundation;
3. Both parties should bear their own costs in accordance with Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 4 MAY 1964<apnote>1</apnote>
In Case 12/64 R
ERNEST LEY, an official of the Commission of the European Economic Community, represented and assisted by Marcel Slusny, Advocate of the Cour d'Appel, Brussels, lecturer at the University of Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg c/o Mrs Ley-Heinen, 27 avenue de la Gare, applicant, v
1 -Language of the Case: French.
LEY v COMMISSION
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, represented by its Legal Adviser, Louis de la Fontaine, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Henri Manzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2 place de Metz, defendant,
Application for suspension of recruitment for the post referred to in Vacancy Notice No 403 by the Commission of the EEC,
Facts
Whereas the applicant, by application the Court Registry on the same date, lodged at the Court Registry on 6 April the applicant, alleging that, on the 1964, filed an appeal concerning ground explained in the original case, — first, the annulment of Vacancy the continuation of the recruitment pro Notice No 403 and of the notifica cedure would cause him irreparable in tion of posts vacant with the Com jury, claimed that the Court should: order the Commission of the EEC to mission of the EEC published in EEC Commission Staff Information suspend recruitment for the post refer Bulletin No 16 of 29 October 1962 red to by Vacancy Notice No 403; order the costs to be reserved:' together with, so far as is necessary, annulment of the decisions of the Whereas on 17 April 1964 the defendant Commission which gave rise to those lodged its observations relating to the publications, application for the adoption of an in terim measure wherein it contended that — secondly, the annulment of the de the Court of Justice should: liberations whereby the Commission 'dismiss the application for the adoption at its meeting on 26 February 1964 of an interim measure made by Mr decided not to fill the vacant post in Ernest Ley as being unfounded in all question by promotion or transfer or its claims and conclusions, give an ap by internal competition but to solicit propriate ruling on costs;' applications from officials in other Whereas the parties, having been duly institutions of the Communities; summoned, appeared before the Presi Whereas in his application for the adop dent on 29 April 1964 and submitted tion of an interim measure, lodged at their oral observations;
Law
Whereas the applicant has not put forward any argument capable of proving that if the procedure is not suspended it is likely to cause him irreparable injury;
Whereas the applicant has alleged that if recruitment is affected during his main application it might prejudice the person appointed should that appli cation be declared to be well founded;
OPINION OF MR GAND—JOINED CASES 12 AND 29/64
Whereas the right to request the suspension of operation of a contested measure is granted to an applicant in order to protect his own interests;
Whereas, however, the defendant institution, in deciding whether or not to oppose the grant of the suspension requested, is in a position to take into consideration the harm which immediate implementation might cause to the interests of third parties;
Whereas in this case the defendant has opposed the grant of a suspension;
Whereas in the circumstances there are no grounds for ordering the suspen sion sought.
Costs
Whereas in the present case there are no grounds for reserving the decision on costs until the decision in the original case;
Whereas, since his application for the adoption of an interim measure is dis missed, the applicant must bear his own costs,
On those 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 Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community; Having regard to Articles 69, 70, 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 request is dismissed;
2. The parties must bear their own costs.
Luxembourg, 4 May 1964.
A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner
Registrar President