C-794/79

v

European Parliament, represented by F. Pasetti-Bombardella, Director- General of Administration, Personnel and Finance, Kirchberg, Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for an interim order on the defendant to assist the applicant in procuring a group policy of insurance against the risk of permanent invalidity.

The Judge acting as President

in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 11 and Articles 90 (2) and 96 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

The applicant also asked that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs. By an application lodged with the Registry on 7 November 1979 the applicant presented to the Court of Justice an action seeking to have the defendant obliged to assist him, under In its observations lodged on 19 Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of November 1979 the European Par- liament, the defendant, asks for the Officials, in a dispute taking place dismissal of the application for the between him and the agent for the adoption of an interim measure. It is insurer with whom the group insurance submitted that the applicant has not sub- policy had been taken out, concerning stantiated the need for his application. the possibility of converting the life Furthermore, it is said to be impossible insurance which the applicant had pre- viously taken out into an insurance to intervene in the manner desired by the which also covered a permanent applicant because, as appeared from Case No 731/79, between the same invalidity. parties, presently before the Court, a procedure directed towards ascertaining whether it is impossible for the applicant By a separate document accompanying to continue to perform his duties by the aforementioned application, the reason of permanent invalidity is in applicant submitted in addition an progress. The principle action is neither application for the adoption of an admissible nor sound on its merits; on interim measure, couched in the same the one hand, it was not preceded by a terms as the principal application, complaint within the meaning of Article seeking to have the defendant ordered, 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations of by way of an interim measure, "to afford Officials and, on the other hand, on no the applicant appropriate assistance in view has the applicant any right to regard to the problems and differences require that he be assisted in the arising between him and the insurer (and negotiation of a contract of invalidity its representatives) or at least to bring its insurance, since at the time when that influence to bear on that broker and that negotiation began the problem of his insurer in order that the contract of incapacity for duty was already under invalidity insurance requested by the discussion.

2 The application for the adoption of an interim measure was presented on the basis of Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations, which permits, in exceptional cases, the immediate ordering of interim measures without the need to await, as required by the general rule, the prior decision by the appointing authority on the complaint adressed to it by the applicant.

3 The plea of inadmissibility based on the fact of the principal action's not having been preceded by the making of a complaint within the meaning of Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations is not to be upheld. Principal action should be brought, that fact is not sufficient ground for doubt as to the admissibility of the principle action in order to hold that the application for the adoption of an interim measure is inadmissible.

4 However, the application must be dismissed. That which is sought by the application for the adoption of an interim measure is, in effect, identical to that which is sought by the principal action, which, in essence, is directed towards settling the question of whether the Parliament has failed in an obligation to render assistance in terms of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations in the event of its being established that that institution failed in a duty incumbent upon it by not giving its support to an application by the applicant to benefit from a group invalidity insurance to be taken out with a private company, at a time when he was, at his own request, the subject of a

ORDER OF 5. 12. 1979 — CASE 794/79 R

procedure concerned with ascertaining whether he was suffering from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regu- lations of Officials of the European Communities, and when, furthermore, he was the subject of a procedure concerned with the possible cessation of his duties at the European Parliament on the ground of permanent invalidity within the meaning of Articles 53 and 59 of the same Staff Regulations.

by way of interlocutory decision,

makes the following

ORDER

1. The application for the adoption of an interim measure is dismissed;

2. Costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 5 December 1979.