C-17/64

Community, represented by Alex Bonn, Adovcate of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of his said counsel, 22 Côte-d'Eich.

applicant,

v

High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community , repre­

sented by its Legal Adviser, Pierre Lamoureux, appointed as Agent to this

intent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at its offices, 2 Place de Metz,

applicant instituted proceedings where­ — annul the decision of the defendant

by he claimed inter alia that the Court contained in the note of 13 April 1964 should: addressed to the applicant by the — annul the notice of competition num­ Directorate-General of the Finance bered HA/B/2/2P issued by the High Department of the Directorate-

1— Language of the Case: French. 2—

The applicant withdrew in the original case; the case was struck off the register by Order of the Court (First Cham­ ber) of 30 September 1964.

ORDER OF 29.5.1964 — CASE 17/64R

General of Person el; Whereas on 15 May 1964, the defendant lodged its observations on the applica­

sion of execution lodged at the Court sions; Registry on 8 May 1964, the applicant that the Court claimed should: Make an appropriate order as to costs;' 'Order that execution of the decisions taken and any procedure subsequent to Whereas, on being duly summoned, the the disputed notice of competition be parties appeared before the President suspended until a decision in the original on 27 May 1964 and presented their oral action is given; observations;

Order that the costs be reserved;'

Issues of law

Whereas the applicant has based his claim for suspension of execution on the argument that, in appointing a third party to the post in question during the proceedings relating to his application against the notice of competition numbered HA/B/2/AP (sic), there is a risk of creating a situation which can be rectified only with difficulty:

Whereas the applicant claimed in the original case mat the Court should

that fol­ rule annulment should embrace procedure any any subsequently lowed by the defendant to fill the vacant post in dispute; Whereas, moreover it is still open to the applicant to make a fresh application against the appointment of another person in the meantime on the basis of the same grounds of complaint as in the present ap licaton;

Court ofJustice of the European Coal and Steel Community;

Having regard to Articles 83, 84, 85 and 86 of the Rules of Procedure of Court ofJustice of the European Communities;

SUSS v HIGH AUTHORITY

orders:

1. The application is dismissed; 2. The costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 29 May 1964.