C-61/76
ECLI:EU:C:1976:117
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61976CO0061
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER (SECOND CHAMBER) OF THE COURT OF 15 JULY 1976 <apnote>1</apnote>
Jean Jacques Charles Geist v Commission of the European Communities
Case 61/76 R
In Case 61/76 R
JEAN JACQUES CHARLES GEIST, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Marcel Slusny, Advocate at the Cour d'Appel, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Arendt, Advocate at the Luxembourg Bar, Centre Louvigny, 34/B/IV Rue Philippe II,
applicant,
v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Sergio Fabro, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mario Cervino, Legal Adviser to the Commission, Bâtiment CFL, 9, Place de la Gare,
defendant,
Application for the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Commission of 10 December 1975 assigning the post of the applicant and the applicant himself to the EAEC establishment at Ispra.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
has made the following
1 — Language of the Case: French.
ORDER OF 15. 7. 1976 — CASE 61/76 R
ORDER
Facts
The applicant is in the service of the requested, inter alia the annulment of Commission in the capacity of a that decision. scientific official. In a separate document he submitted in By a decision of 10 December 1975, addition a request for the suspension of which took effect on 1 March 1976, the the operation of the disputed decision Director General of the Common until the Court should have decided the Research Centre altered the assignment main action. of the applicant's post and of the applicant himself by transferring the post The Commission of the European and its holder from the establishment at Communities, the defendant, in its Petten (Netherlands) to that at Ispra written observations submitted in (Italy). accordance with Article 84 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, By an application lodged in the Court submitted that this request should be Registry on 30 June 1976, the applicant rejected.
Law
1 In support of his request for suspension, the applicant contends that having been divorced and not being the guiity party he has the custody of and the responsibility for his three children who were born respectively in 1963, 1965 and 1967.
2 The disputed decision put him 'in a dramatic situation from the family point of view'.
3 In fact, it is not possible for him either to arrange for the person whom he engaged to care for the children to emigrate to Ispra or immediately to find at Ispra a person to carry out the same duties in whom he could have equal confidence.
4 Further, if the disputed decision were kept in force, even temporarily, that is to say until the Court for example, had decided on the main application, the
GEIST v COMMISSION
applicant would have to terminate the lease of the house which he is occupying in the Netherlands and find accommodation at Ispra or in the vicinity.
5 On the other hand, the suspension requested can cause no damage to the Commission, the applicant having 'been transferred to a non-existent post' and his new superiors, who were not consulted on his transfer, having accepted that they are not in a position to allocate him duties corresponding to his grade and his level.
6 It follows from Article 83 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, that the suspension of the operation of a decision can be granted only where there are circumstances giving rise to urgency and grounds 'establishing a prima facie case' for such a measure.
7 In this respect it should be accepted that the transfer from one Member State to another, as well as the personal and economic disadvantages which it may cause to the person concerned, do not amount to an abnormal event in the career of a scientific official of the EAEC, the establishments of which are spread over several Member States and which may be required to meet changes of scientific programmes requiring it to restructure its departments.
8 It appears from the main application that in 1975 — that is after his divorce and therefore at a time when his family situation was essentially the same as at present — the applicant applied for a post with the Commission's delegation in Washington, despite the fact that a transfer of residence from the Netherlands to the United States was liable to affect the life of the person concerned and the lives of his family to a greater degree than a transfer made from one Member State to another.
9 The argument of the applicant that 'the post in Washington held out the prospect of his working in much better conditions than at Petten itself, and most certainly than at Ispra' precludes acceptance of the applicant's claim to have 'established a prima facie case' for the grant of the suspension requested.
10 In fact such an allegation of necessity shows that the applicant is ready — and therefore in a position — to adjust to difficulties even greater than those
ORDER OF 15. 7. 1976 - CASE 61/76 R
of which he complains at present, once he considers that the transfer is consonant with his interests in the service.
11 Further, even supposing that the applicant has established prima facie that his integration into the departments at Ispra is a matter of some difficulty, the application for suspension contains however nothing to show in the same way that, contrary to the opinion of those responsible in the Commission and taking account of the duties at present assigned to the applicant in the establishment at Petten, his scientific abilities could be used at Petten within the framework of these duties, and in a manner compatible with the interests and the exigencies of the service.
12 In all these circumstances the present application must be rejected.
13 It is appropriate in the circumstances to reserve the costs.
On those grounds,
The President of the Second Chamber of the Court,
by way of an interim ruling, hereby
orders:
1. The application is dismissed;
2. The costs are reserved.
Done and ordered at Luxembourg on 15 July 1976.
A. Van Houtte H. Kutscher
Registrar President of the Second Chamber