61979CO0794_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 794/79 R,
B ., MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, RESIDING AT KEHLEN AND REPRESENTED BY W . H . VERMEER, ADVOCATE AT THE AMSTERDAM BAR, HAVING AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG CARE OF DR . P . STEIN, 2 AVENUE PESCATORE,
APPLICANT,
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTED BY F . PASETTI-BOMBARDELLA, DIRECTOR-
GENERAL OF ADMINISTRATION, PERSONNEL AND FINANCE, KIRCHBERG, LUXEMBOURG,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
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 .
Grounds
1 UNDER ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE IS CONDITIONAL UPON THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURE APPLIED FOR .
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
PROCEDURE CONCERNED WITH ASCERTAINING WHETHER HE WAS SUFFERING FROM AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 73 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS 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 .
5 IN NO RESPECT THEREFORE HAS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE THE PROVISIONAL CHARACTER REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 83 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPLICANT ' S INTERESTS ARE IN NO WAY PREJUDICED BY THE FACT THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION OUGHT TO HAVE ACTED AS THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS WILL ONLY BE DECIDED BY A JUDGMENT GIVEN IN THE PRINCIPAL ACTION .
6 THE APPLICATION MUST ACCORDINGLY BE DISMISSED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
7 IT IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS STAGE TO RESERVE COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE JUDGE ACTING AS PRESIDENT
BY WAY OF INTERLOCUTORY DECISION,
MAKES THE FOLLOWING
ORDER