Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 1964. - Satya Prakash v Commission of the EAEC. - Case 76-63.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00721

Dutch edition Page 00632

German edition Page 00767

Italian edition Page 00658

English special edition Page 00574



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

SATYA PRAKASH, DOCTOR OF NATURAL SCIENCES, ASSISTED BY ERNEST ARENDT, ADVOCATE OF THE COUR SUPERIEURE DE JUSTICE OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED ADVOCATE, 6 RUE WILLY-GOERGEN,

APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( EURATOM ), BRUSSELS, REPRESENTED BY JAN GIJSSELS, LEGAL ADVISER, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF HENRI MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,

DEFENDANT,

Grounds

WHEREAS ON 15 JULY 1963 THE APPLICANT MADE ' AN INTERPRETATIVE APPLICATION AND IN SO FAR AS NECESSARY AN APPLICATION ORIGINATING PROCEEDINGS ' ENTERED IN THE COURT LIST UNDER NO 76/63;

WHEREAS HE CLAIMS IN PARTICULAR THAT THE COURT SHOULD ' TAKE NOTE THAT HIS APPLICATION OF 27 MAY 1963, ENTERED IN THE LIST UNDER NO 65/63, REFERS TO THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EAEC OF 25 APRIL 1963...TAKEN AS A WHOLE, THAT IS TO SAY, BOTH AS REGARDS ITS REFUSAL TO INTEGRATE THE APPLICANT UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS ( OF OFFICIALS ) AND ALSO AS REGARDS ITS TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT CONSTITUTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMUNITY;

WHEREAS HE CLAIMS, ' IN SO FAR AS MAY BE NECESSARY ', THAT THE COURT SHOULD ' TAKE NOTE OF THE LODGING OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION CONSIDERED AS A PRINCIPAL DEMAND ';

WHEREAS IN ITS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE IN CASE 76/63 THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE;

WHEREAS THE DEFENDANT CONSIDERS THAT THE APPLICATION IS WITHOUT OBJECT BECAUSE A DECISION TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 102 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS WHERE THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD HAS ISSUED AN UNFAVOURABLE OPINION CONSTITUTES A REFUSAL TO INTEGRATE THE PERSON CONCERNED WHEN IT IS EXPRESSED BY THE TERMINATION OF HIS CONTRACT;

WHEREAS IN HIS REPLY IN CASES 19, 65 AND 76/63, LODGED ON 10 JANUARY 1964, THE APPLICANT STATES THAT HE WITHDRAWS FROM THE PRESENT CASE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEFENDANT AGREES WITH HIS POINT OF VIEW CONCERNING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPLICATION 65/63;

WHEREAS IN HIS REJOINDER IN CASES 19, 65 AND 76/63 THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE COURT SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THE ABOVEMENTIONED WITHDRAWAL AND ORDER THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF CASE 76/63;

WHEREAS BY ORDER DATED 10 OCTOBER 1963, THE FIRST CHAMBER DECIDED TO JOIN THE PRESENT CASE AND CASES 19 AND 65/63, BEING SUITS PENDING BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, FOR THE PURPOSES BOTH OF PROCEDURE AND JUDGMENT;

WHEREAS NEITHER THE TREATY NOR THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDE FOR ' AN INTERPRETATIVE APPLICATION ' INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF CONCLUSIONS IN AN APPLICATION WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN LODGED;

WHEREAS SUCH AN APPLICATION COULD AT MOST BE CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 91 OF THE SAID RULES OF PROCEDURE, A PROVISION WHICH THE APPLICANT DOES NOT REFER TO IN THIS CASE;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION IN QUESTION FALLS TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICATION INTRODUCING A NEW CASE;

WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 43 AND 78 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR RESCINDING THE ORDER JOINING CASE 76/63 TO CASES 19 AND 65/63 AND FOR ORDERING IT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER;

WHEREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 69(4 ) OF THE SAID RULES A PARTY WHO DISCONTINUES OR WITHDRAWS FROM PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS, UNLESS THE DISCONTINUANCE OR WITHDRAWAL IS JUSTIFIED BY THE CONDUCT OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY;

WHEREAS THE DEFENDANT HAS NEVER DISPUTED THE FACT THAT CASE 65/63 CONCERNS BOTH INTEGRATION AND TERMINATION OF CONTRACT;

WHEREAS, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT CITES CERTAIN PASSAGES OF THE INTERIM ORDER MADE IN CASE 65/63R, WITH A VIEW TO PROVING HIS INTEREST IN CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF HIS PREVIOUS CONCLUSIONS;

WHEREAS, SINCE HE COULD HAVE CLARIFIED THEM IN HIS REPLY TO BE PRESENTED IN JOINED CASES 19 AND 65/63, IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO LODGE A SEPARATE APPLICATION;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, HE MUST BE ORDERED TO BEAR HIS OWN COSTS, AND THE DEFENDANT'S COSTS MUST BE BORNE BY IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 70 AND 96(1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE;

Operative part

ORDERS :

1 . CASE 76/63 IS SEPARATED FROM JOINED CASES 19 AND 65/63;

2 . CASE 76/63 IS REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER;

3 . EACH PARTY SHALL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .