Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 1965. - Satya Prakash v Commission of the EAEC. - Case 65-63 R.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00723

Dutch edition Page 00635

German edition Page 00770

Italian edition Page 00660

English special edition Page 00576



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

SATYA PRAKASH, A SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATOR EMPLOYED BY THE PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT OF THE ISPRA RESEARCH CENTRE ( ITALY ), REPRESENTED 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 HIS ABOVEMENTIONED COUNSEL, 6 RUE WILLY-GOERGEN,

APPLICANT,

V

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

DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN MEASURES DISPUTED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, AND THAT CERTAIN INTERIM MEASURES BE ORDERED,

Grounds

WHEREAS THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION OF REFUSAL TO INTEGRATE THE APPLICANT AS ONE OF THE DEFENDANT'S OFFICIALS UNDER THE STAFF REGULATIONS IS IN FACT, AS APPEARS FROM THE WORDING OF THE APPLICATION AND FROM THE ARGUMENTS AT THE HEARING, AN APPLICATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE TERMINATION OF THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 102(2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS OF THE EAEC;

WHEREAS, HOWEVER, THIS TERMINATION IS NOT REFERRED TO IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION;

WHEREAS THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IN QUESTION PROVIDES FOR A PERIOD OF NOTICE OF ONE MONTH IN CASE OF TERMINATION, AND WHEREAS THIS PERIOD OF NOTICE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN THIS CASE;

WHEREAS, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT ASSERTS THAT HE IS IN A FINANCIAL SITUATION AS SUCH THAT HE CANNOT MEET HIS NEEDS PRIOR TO THE JUDGMENT IN THE ORIGINAL CASE;

WHEREAS A PROVISION FOR IMMEDIATE SUSTENANCE CAN ONLY BE GRANTED BY MEANS OF AN INTERIM MEASURE IF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION APPEARS PRIMA FACIE TO BE CLEARLY WELL-FOUNDED;

WHEREAS THE FEATURES OF THE CASE MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO FORM A VIEW AS TO WHETHER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IS WELL FOUNDED;

WHEREAS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE SUSPENSION REQUESTED CANNOT BE GRANTED;

WHEREAS THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT VARIOUS PROVISIONAL STEPS SET OUT IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE BE APPLIED IN HIS FAVOUR;

WHEREAS THE REQUEST APPEARING AT FIGURE II, A, OF THIS APPLICATION IS IDENTICAL TO THAT MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT SEEM POSSIBLE FOR THE JUDGE SITTING ON THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE TO TAKE A DECISION ON THIS POINT, WHICH IS ONE FOR THE COURT DEALING WITH THE ORIGINAL CASE;

WHEREAS THE REQUEST APPEARING AT FIGURE II, B, WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT DURING THE ORAL PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS;

WHEREAS THE REQUEST APPEARING AT FIGURE II, C, CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION;

WHEREAS AS REGARDS THE DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM NO DECISION IS CALLED FOR AS THIS COUNTERCLAIM WAS WITHDRAWN DURING THE ORAL PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS;

Operative part

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

HEREBY ORDERS :

1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED;

2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .