C-19/78
ECLI:EU:C:1978:53
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61978CO0019
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF 10 MARCH 1978 <apnote>1</apnote>
Xavier Authié v Commission of the European Communities
Case 19/78 R
In Case 19/78 R,
Xavier AUTHIÉ, represented by Marcel Slusny, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Françoise Faber, 51 Avenue de la Liberté, applicant, v
Commission of the European COMMUNITIES, representend by its Legal Adviser, Raymond Baeyens, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of its Legal Adviser, Mario Cervino, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, defendant,
The President of the Second Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
makes the following
ORDER
Facts and Issues
On 22 February 1978 the applicant cruitment of administrators in Grades 7 brought an action for the annulment of and 6 of Category A (see Notice of the refusal by the Selection Board for Competition in Official Journal C 213 Competition No COM/A/154 to admit of 7 September 1977, p. 9). him to that competition, which the Commission of the European Com The reason given by the Selection munities had organized in order to Board for its refusal was that the draw up a reserve list for the future re- applicant's qualifications had been
I — Language of the Case: French.
ORDER OF 10. 3. 1978 — CASE 19/78 R
found not to be consistent with those Procedure to suspend proceedings in required. The applicant argued that the Competition No COM/A/154, the Selection Board was in breach of the written tests for which took place on 16 principle of equality in that certain and 17 January 1978 and the oral tests other candidates who, like him, had for which are to take place shortly. studied economics at university and, also like him, possessed the Certificate In a statement dated 28 February 1978 of Advanced European Studies awarded the defendant, the Commission, by the College of Europe for their part contended that the application for the had been admitted to the competition. adoption of an interim measure should The applicant also raised points be dismissed on the ground that there concerning the procedure applied by the were no circumstances such as to Selection Board, in particular the establish a prima facie case for the absence of any previous directive on the measures applied for. eligibility of candidates. Referring to the competition, the Having been duly summoned, the applicant made an interlocutory parties appeared on 10 March 1978 application on the same day for the before the President of the Second adoption of an interim measure under Chamber and submitted their obser Article 83 et seq. of the Rules of vations.
Decision
1 Under Article 83 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, suspension of operation is conditional upon the existence of circumstances giving rise to urgency and grounds establishing a prima facie case for such a measure.
2 The applicant has pleaded that the refusal to admit him to the competition is prima facie unjustified.
3 In support of that plea he has repeated the same grounds as those invoked in the main action.
4 At this stage in the proceedings the Court's final decision on those issues cannot be prejudged.
5 In order to justify the urgency of his application for the adoption of an interim measure, the applicant has stated that if he succeeded on the substance of the case, all the proceedings in the competition would have to be begun afresh, and that therefore it was preferable to suspend those
AUTHIE v COMMISSION
proceedings and not go on with the oral tests before the Court has given judgment on the substance of the case.
6 Although the applicant has emphasized his interest in being admitted to the competition, he has not however shown in what respect the continuance of proceedings in the competition would cause him irreparable damage.
7 On the most favourable view for the applicant of the decision to be taken on the substance of the case and even assuming that his application for the adoption of an interim measure is granted, suspension of the proceedings at the stage which has now been reached would not dispense with the need to repeat the written tests, which have already taken place.
8 Furthermore, suspension of the oral tests would cause considerable inconvenience and serious, harm both to the Commission and to the many candidates who have taken the written tests.
9 In the light of these circumstances it must be concluded that the conditions for the grant of the interlocutory measure sought have not been fulfilled and that the application must accordingly be dismissed.
Costs
10 In the circumstances costs should be reserved.
On those grounds,
The President of the Second Chamber
by way of interlocutory decision,
hereby orders as follows:
1. The application is dismissed.
ORDER OF 10. 3. 1978 — CASE 19/78 R
2. Costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 10 March 1978.
M. Petersen M. Sørensen
(Legal Secretary) President of the Second Chamber
Acting Registrar