C-27/68

In Case 27/68R

R. F. Renckens , official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented and assisted by Jacques Putzeys, Advocate at the Cour d'Appel, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 34/B/IV rue Philippe-II,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities , represented by its Legal Adviser, Louis de la Fontaine, acting as Agent, assisted by H. Ph. Visser't Hooft of the Commission's Legal Department, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Émile Reuter, Legal Adviser to the Com­ mission, 4 boulevard Royal,

defendant,

The applicant, an Adviser in Grade A3 plaint, informed the applicant that the in the Directorate-General for Informa­ decision was unchanged. tion of the Commission of the European By application lodged at the Registry Communities, based at Luxembourg, on 13 November 1968, the applicant was informed by the President of the submitted an application for the annul­ Commission by letter of 22 May 1968 ment of the decision to terminate his that, owing to rationalization of the service, of the decision rejecting his Commission's departments, he had been complaint through official channels and, placed on the list mentioned in the first finally, of the implied decision rejecting paragraph of Article 4(2) of Regulation his application for the post in the Press No 259/68. and Information Office at The Hague. On 14 June 1968, the applicant inform­ His applications for suspension of the ed the President of the Commission of operation of the decision of 26 June the objections which he felt obliged to 1968 and for the temporary suspension lodge against this procedure and on 24 of any appointment to the post at The June 1968 he asked to be assigned to Hague were lodged in separate docu­ the post of Head of Department in the ments at the Registry on 13 November Information Office at The Hague. 1968. On 26 June 1968 the Commission On 23 November 1968 the defendant adopted a measure terminating his ser­ Commission lodged its written observa­ vice within the meaning of Article 4 of tions concerning the application for the the Regulation. adoption of an interim measure con­ On 15 July 1968 the applicant submitted tending that this should be dismissed a complaint through official channels as unfounded. under Article 90 of the Staff Regula­ On 11 December 1968 the parties tions against the decision of 26 June 1968. appeared before the President of the On 31 October 1968 the President of First Chamber in the unavoidable the Commission, in reply to the com- absence of the President of the Court.

As regards the application for the temporary suspension of any appointment to the post of Head of the Press and Information Office of the Commission at The Hague, it is necessary to look into the relationship between the deci­ sion to terminate his service and the implied decision which, according to the applicant, results from the absence of a reply on the Commission's part to the letter of 24 June 1968 in which he asks to be appointed to the post at The Hague.

The parties disagree on this point.

According to the applicant the fate of these two decisions must be determined in the same way but, according to the defendant, this is not so.

It is for the Court alone to settle this question in the main action.

On this point, whatever the decision in the main action, the suspension applied for is not necessary to ensure that, when delivered, the judgment will be fully effective.

On those grounds,