Order of the president of the second chamber of the Court of 2 July 1975 Raphael de Dapper and Others v European Parliament Case 54/75 R
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/61975O0054@1975-07-02/en
In Case 54/75 R RAPHAEL DE DAPPER, CORNELIS VOLGER, LEON BODSON, Officials of the European Parliament, represented by Victor Biel, Advocate at the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the said Victor Biel, 18 A, rue des Glacis applicants,v EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, represented by Alex Bonn, Advocate at the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the said Alex Bonn, 22 Côte d'Eich, defendant, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER makes the following
ORDER
Facts The facts which form the basis of the main action and the procedure may be summarized as follows: On 18 March 1975 elections were held for the Staff Committee of the European Parliament. By communication of 19 March 1975, the Scrutineers' Committee of this institution announced the results of the elections, subject to any complaints which might be lodged. By letter of 4 April 1975, ten officials of the European Parliament (including the three applicants) lodged a complaint with the scrutineers that, first, the elections had been organized illegally and secondly, that the election procedure had been carried out irregularly. They claimed that the elections of 18 March 1975 should be set aside. At its meeting on 22 April 1975, the Scrutineers' Committee decided unanimously that the elections were valid and confirmed the results. By letter of 5 May 1975, the ten officials lodged a complaint under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials with the President of the European Parliament. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 June 1975, the three applicants requested the Court to order the Parliament to examine the legality and regularity of the procedures with all the consequences arising therefrom, and in particular that the result of the elections of 18 March 1975 is null and void. By application joined to the application originating the proceedings, the applicants requested the Court, under Article 91 (4) of the Staff Regulations of Officials, to order the Parliament not to recognize the legal existence of the Staff Committee until a decision had been reached on the substance of the case. Moreover they requested that the voting papers in the custody of the Chairman of the Scrutineers' Committee be deposited at the Court Registry for any necessary scrutiny and for checking during the proceedings. In a document lodged at the Court Registry on 26 June 1975, the European Parliament concludes that it leaves it to the discretion of the Court to decide whether the request is admissible and well-founded. The parties delivered oral argument on the interlocutory application at the hearing on 2 July 1975.
Law
sec_1
sec_2
1 The ground adduced by the applicants to show that their requests are urgent is the concern to remove as quickly as possible the innumerable difficulties for all the parties involved which would inevitably arise in implementing all the proceedings in which the Staff Committee is called upon to act under the Staff Regulations.
2 The Parliament maintains that suspending all the duties of the Staff Committee whilst awaiting a decision on the substance of the case would interfere seriously with the efficiency of the institution.
3 If the applicants succeed in proving the substance of their case the nullity of the elections of 18 March 1975 will not necessarily involve the nullity of the proceedings in which the Staff Committee is called upon to act under the Staff Regulations.
4 On the other hand, if the applicants do not succeed in proving the substance of their case the interference with the efficiency of the institution caused by the lack of a Staff Committee in the meantime could never be redressed.
5 To suspend the Staff Committee from its duties whilst awaiting a decision on the substance of the case would deprive officials, in the interval, of all representation in the institution.
6 The request to suspend the Staff Committee of the European Parliament must be dismissed.
7 As regards the voting papers, however, an order must be made to deposit them at the Court Registry.
8 It is appropriate, at this stage, to reserve costs.
On those grounds, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER, as an interim ruling:
1. Dismisses the application for the suspension of the Staff Committee of the European Parliament;
2. Orders the voting papers in the election of the Staff Committee of the European Parliament of 18 March 1975 to be deposited at the Court Registry;
3. Reserves costs.
Luxembourg, 2 July 1975. A. Van Houtte Registrar A. Mackenzie Stuart President of the Second Chamber