C-10/82
ECLI:EU:C:1982:42
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61982CO0010
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
O R D E R OF T H E PRESIDENT OF T H E T H I R D CHAMBER OF THE COURT 5 FEBRUARY 1982 1
Sven-Ole Mogensen and Others v Commission of the European Communities
Case 10/82 R
In Case 10/82 R
SVEN-OLE MOGENSEN, CARL WALTENBURG, LENE ØHRGAARD and JEAN-LOUIS DELVAUX, officials of the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Jytte Thorbek, of the Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 2 Rue Goethe, applicants, v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Johannes F. Buhl, its Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Oreste Montalto, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,
defendant, APPLICATION for the adoption of interim measures, namely an injunction prohibiting the making of any appointment to the post of reviser declared 1 — Language of the Case: Danish.
ORDER OF 5. 2. 1982 — CASE 10/82 R
vacant by N o t i c e N o C O M / 1 1 4 4 / 8 0 until j u d g m e n t is given in the main action in w h i c h the applicants have challenged the lawfulness of the decision of the C o m m i s s i o n rejecting their applications for the said post,
ORDER
Facts and Issues
On 19 December 1980 the defendant should be rejected. The parties were institution published Vacancy Notice N o summoned to a hearing on 1 February COM/1144/80 indicating that a post of 1982 by the President of the Third reviser was vacant in the Danish Chamber to whom the matter was Translation Section. The four applicants assigned by a decision of the President of applied for that post. On 15 May 1981 the Court dated 12 January 1982. they were notified of a decision adopted by the appointing authority rejecting The applicants put forward the following their applications. They each lodged a arguments : complaint dated 18 March 1981 against There is urgency because the allocation that decision. That complaint was of the post in dispute to Mr E. H. would rejected by a letter of 1 December 1981. compromise the appointment of one of The applicants then submitted a joint the applicants after judgment is given on application which was recorded at the the substance of the case. Court Registry on 8 January 1982. In the meantime the Commission, by a decision For the same reason the applicants are adopted at a date which does not appear liable to suffer irreparable damage, from the file, decided to appoint to the which cannot be made good. vacant post, by way of transfer, Mr It would be contrary to the principle of E. H., a reviser with the Council, with effect from 1 January 1982. The legal certainty to fill the post in dispute. applicants submitted, by a separate document, an application for the According to the defendant: adoption of interim measures dated 22 There is no urgency in this matter as the December 1981 and recorded at the post has been filled since 1 January in Court Registry on 8 January 1982 accordance with the provisions of the claiming that the Court should prohibit Staff Regulations. the defendant from filling the post of reviser (COM/1144/80) until judgment Any damage suffered by the applicants has been given in the main action. may be compensated, for example by an award of damages. The defendant replied by a statement The suspension is not prima facie recorded at the Registry on 25 January justified, as is required by the case-law of 1982; it contended that the application the Court. for the adoption of interim measures
MOGENSEN v COMMISSION
Decision
1 A judge before whom a request for the adoption of interim measures is brought, having heard the arguments set out by the parties, must restrict the scope of his consideration exclusively to the grounds capable of establishing the existence of urgency.
2 From that point of view it must be noted first of all that the post in dispute has already been filled and that, having regard to the facts at the present time, there is no longer any reason to grant the measure requested.
3 Although that finding has no effect whatever on the judgment to be given in the main action and on any consequences which it may have, it is appro- priate to take note of the factual situation and to dismiss this application since it is now devoid of purpose.
Costs
4 In these circumstances the costs must be reserved.
On those grounds,
T H E PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
by way of interlocutory decision,
hereby orders as follows:
1. The application for the adoption of interim measures is dismissed.
ORDER OF 5. 2. 1982 — CASE 10/82 R
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 5 February 1982.
A. Van Houtte A. Touffait Registrar President of the Third Chamber