Order of the president of the Court 13 November 1963
Grade B
mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.
Not the law itself: Judgment
Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/judgment/61963O0098@1963-11-13/en
Contents
In Joined Cases 98/63 R and 99/63 R PIERO ERBA, official of the Commission of the European Economic Community, and JEAN REYNIER, official of the Commission of the European Economic Community, applicants, represented and assisted by M. Slusny, Advocate at the Cour d'Appel, Brussels, and Head of Department at the University of Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, avocat-avoué, 6 rue Willy-Goergen, v COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY defendant, represented by its Legal Adviser, Louis de la Fontaine, appointed Agent for this purpose by the Commission, with an address for service at the offices of Henri Manzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2 place de Metz, Luxembourg, Application to suspend the operation of the measure contested in the main action,
Issues of fact Whereas the applicants have lodged applications at the Court Registry on 29 October 1963 for the annulment of vacancy notice No 1064, relating to a Grade A 3 post in the Statistical Office; And whereas in their applications for the operation of the notice to be suspended, lodged at the Court Registry on 29 October 1963, the applicants claimed that the Court should: Order the opposite parties to refrain from taking any action regarding the vacant post No 1064 pending a decision in the main action; reserve the questions of costs; Whereas the defendant submitted on 9 November 1963 its observations concerning the applications for the adoption of this interim measure, in which it contends that the Court should: Dismiss the applications made by the applicants as unfounded in their entirety; make an appropriate order as to costs; Whereas the parties, duly summoned, appeared before the President to present their oral observations on 11 November 1963; Whereas, because of their identical subject-matter, it is appropriate to join the two applications for the suspension of the operation of the measure registered under No 98/63 R and No 99/63 R, and to adjudicate upon them in the same order;
Issues of law Whereas the applications for suspension of the operation of the said measure are motivated by the fear that the defendant Commission, in the event of the Court's declaring that the applications in Cases 79/63 and 82/63, brought by the same applicants, are well-founded and confirming that Messrs Erba and Reynier are entitled to be classified in Grade A 3 with effect from 1 January 1962, might evade its obligations by claiming that it no longer has any vacant posts in Grade A 3 in the detailed list of posts mentioned in Article 6 of the EEC Staff Regulations; Whereas to avoid this danger, the applicants request that the Commission be ordered to refrain from filling the Grade A 3 post for which the competition is being held; Whereas the defendant's representative stated during the hearing that if the Court declares the applications in Cases 79/63 and 82/63 well-founded, the Commission will give effect to the judgment and classify the applicants in Grade A 3 with effect from 1 January 1962; Whereas this clear and unequivocal statement satisfies the obligations of the Commission under Article 176 of the Treaty; Whereas it is for the Commission itself to decide the manner in which it will give effect to the judgments of the Court, and there is no need to lay down in advance by means of an interlocutory order the methods for giving effect to the judgment; Whereas, moreover, the above-mentioned statement confirms that to carry out the competition procedure will not prejudice the applicants as regards their applications in Cases 79/63 and 82/63 so that in this respect their requests for the suspension of the operation of the measure are divested of all legal interest; Whereas, furthermore, in these applications for suspension of the said measure, the applicants allege in support of their requests that there are irregularities in the competition procedure as published by the Commission and they also rely on these irregularities in their claims; Whereas, however, the allegations which they make concerning these are extremely general in nature, and since an examination of them would involve fundamental legal principles, it cannot be carried out in the context of proceedings for the adoption of an interim measure; Whereas, lastly, it is not disputed in this matter that the applicants did not enter the competition mentioned above and consequently the alleged irregularities are not such as may cause them direct and personal damage; Whereas in the circumstances there is no ground for granting the suspension requested;
On these grounds, Upon reading the pleadings;Upon hearing the parties;Having regard to Articles 176, 179, 185 and 186 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and to Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community;Having regard to Articles 83, 84, 85 and 86 of the Rules of Procedure, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES makes the following ORDER
1. The applications are dismissed;
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 13 November 1963. A. Van Houtte Registrar A. M. Donner President