ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
(50)

In view of the detrimental effects on competition, negotiated procedures without prior publication of a contract notice should be used only in very exceptional circumstances. This exception should be limited to cases where publication is either not possible, for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by events unforeseeable for and not attributable to the contracting authority, or where it is clear from the outset that publication would not trigger more competition or better procurement outcomes, not least because there is objectively only one economic operator that can perform the contract. This is the case for works of art, where the identity of the artist intrinsically determines the unique character and value of the art object itself. Exclusivity can also arise from other reasons, but only situations of objective exclusivity can justify the use of the negotiated procedure without publication, where the situation of exclusivity has not been created by the contracting authority itself with a view to the future procurement procedure. Contracting authorities relying on this exception should provide reasons why there are no reasonable alternatives or substitutes such as using alternative distribution channels including outside the Member State of the contracting authority or considering functionally comparable works, supplies and services. Where the situation of exclusivity is due to technical reasons, they should be rigorously defined and justified on a case-by-case basis. They could include, for instance, near technical impossibility for another economic operator to achieve the required performance or the necessity to use specific know-how, tools or means which only one economic operator has at its disposal. Technical reasons may also derive from specific interoperability requirements which must be fulfilled in order to ensure the functioning of the works, supplies or services to be procured. Finally, a procurement procedure is not useful where supplies are purchased directly on a commodity market, including trading platforms for commodities such as agricultural products, raw materials and energy exchanges, where the regulated and supervised multilateral trading structure naturally guarantees market prices.’
7

Article 17 of Regulation No 1896/2006, headed ‘Effects of the lodging of a statement of opposition’, provides: ‘1. If a statement of opposition is lodged within the time limit laid down in Article 16(2), the proceedings shall continue before the competent courts of the Member State of origin unless the claimant has explicitly requested that the proceedings be terminated in that event. The proceedings shall continue in accordance with the rules of: (a) the European Small Claims Procedure laid down in Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 1)], if applicable; or (b) any appropriate national civil procedure. 2. Where the claimant has not indicated which of the procedures listed in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 he requests to be applied to his claim in the proceedings that ensue in the event of a statement of opposition or where the claimant has requested that the European Small Claims Procedure as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 be applied to a claim that does not fall within the scope of that Regulation, the proceedings shall be transferred to the appropriate national civil procedure, unless the claimant has explicitly requested that such transfer not be made. 3. Where the claimant has pursued his claim through the European order for payment procedure, nothing under national law shall prejudice his position in subsequent civil proceedings. 4. The transfer to civil proceedings within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 shall be governed by the law of the Member State of origin. 5. The claimant shall be informed of whether the defendant has lodged a statement of opposition and of any transfer to civil proceedings within the meaning of paragraph 1.’
19

According to that court, the dispute before it falls within the scope of the Brussels Ia Regulation, since it seeks a declaration of the existence of a legitimate right to an invention and is therefore civil and commercial in nature. However, that court is uncertain as to whether the Swedish courts have jurisdiction to hear a dispute seeking to establish the existence of the right to an invention arising from the alleged status of inventor or co-inventor. In its view, Article 24(4) of that regulation provides, ‘in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of … patents’, for exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the registration has been applied for or has taken place. That exclusive jurisdiction is justified by the fact, first, that those courts are best placed to hear cases in which a dispute concerns the validity of a patent or the existence of its deposit or registration and, second, that the grant of patents necessitates the involvement of the national administrative authorities, which indicates that the grant of a patent falls within the exercise of national sovereignty. However, while it is clear from the case-law of the Court that proceedings concerning exclusively the question of who is the holder of a patent right does not fall within that exclusive jurisdiction, that case-law does not provide any direct guidance as to the applicability of that Article 24(4) in this case.
29

Furthermore, although the Court has indeed held that an operator who, at his or her own risk, purchases defaulted debts at a price below their face value does not effect a supply of services ‘for consideration’ within the meaning of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), when the difference between the face value of those debts and their purchase price reflects the actual economic value of the debts at the time of their assignment (judgment of 27 October 2011, GFKL Financial Services, C‑93/10, EU:C:2011:700, paragraph 26), the fact remains that, in the case in the main proceedings, the sub-participant does not purchase at its own risk defaulted debts at a price below their face value. Moreover, as the tax authority also states in its answer to the questions put by the Court, having regard to the specific features of the sub-participation agreement, the amount of the financial contribution made available to the originator is generally determined differently from the price paid by an assignee for the assignment of claims.
3

Recitals 12, 16 and 28 of Directive 2011/7 state: ‘(12) Late payment constitutes a breach of contract which has been made financially attractive to debtors in most Member States by low or no interest rates charged on late payments and/or slow procedures for redress. A decisive shift to a culture of prompt payment, including one in which the exclusion of the right to charge interest should always be considered to be a grossly unfair contractual term or practice, is necessary to reverse this trend and to discourage late payment. Such a shift should also include the introduction of specific provisions on payment periods and on the compensation of creditors for the costs incurred, and, inter alia, that the exclusion of the right to compensation for recovery costs should be presumed to be grossly unfair. … (16) This Directive should not oblige a creditor to claim interest for late payment. In the event of late payment, this Directive should allow a creditor to resort to charging interest for late payment without giving any prior notice of non-performance or other similar notice reminding the debtor of his obligation to pay. … (28) This Directive should prohibit abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvantage of the creditor. As a result, where a term in a contract or a practice relating to the date or period for payment, the rate of interest for late payment or the compensation for recovery costs is not justified on the grounds of the terms granted to the debtor, or it mainly serves the purpose of procuring the debtor additional liquidity at the expense of the creditor, it may be regarded as constituting such an abuse. … In particular, the outright exclusion of the right to charge interest should always be considered as grossly unfair, whereas the exclusion of the right to compensation for recovery costs should be presumed to be grossly unfair. This Directive should not affect national provisions relating to the way contracts are concluded or regulating the validity of contractual terms which are unfair to the debtor.’
4

Article 6(1) to (3) of that directive states: ‘1. For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types … and the species … present on the sites. 2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive. 3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site … the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’
Order of the Court of 30 October 1962. - Milchwerke Heinz Wöhrmann & Sohn KG, Alfons Lütticke GmbH v Commission of the European Economic Community. - Joined cases 31/62 and 33/62.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00991

Dutch edition Page 01029

German edition Page 01053

Italian edition Page 00961

English special edition Page 00511



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 31/62

MILCHWERKE HEINZ WOHRMANN & SOHN KG, WESEL/RHEIN, APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, DEFENDANT,

Grounds

P.512

WHEREAS AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE COURT TAKES THE VIEW THAT IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE ACTION FOUNDED UPON ARTICLE 184 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY IS ADMISSIBLE;

WHEREAS IF THERE SHOULD IN FACT PROVE TO BE AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE, THE ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED AS BEING INADMISSIBLE;

WHEREAS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT IS ENTITLED UNDER ARTICLE 92 OF ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER AT ANY TIME WHETHER SUCH AN ABSOLUTE BAR EXISTS;

WHEREAS IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO HEAR THE ORAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ON THIS POINT UNDER ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE;

Operative part

THE COURT

COMPOSED OF : A . M . DONNER, PRESIDENT, L . DELVAUX AND R . ROSSI ( PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS ), O . RIESE, CH . L . HAMMES ( RAPPORTEUR ), A . TRABUCCHI AND R . LECOURT, JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : K . ROEMER

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

HEREBY ORDERS :

THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY ABSOLUTE BAR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE, WHICH THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER OF ITS OWN MOTION, SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF ORAL PROCEEDINGS .
Order of the Court of 25 September 1963. - Application for authorization to notify the European Economic Community of an assignment of salary. - Case 85-63.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00395

Dutch edition Page 00411

German edition Page 00419

Italian edition Page 00389

English special edition Page 00195



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 85/63

APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO NOTIFY THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF SALARY;

Grounds

WHEREAS, BY AN APPLICATION DATED 16 AUGUST 1963, GRANDS MAGASINS A L'INNOVATION S.A ., OF 111 RUE NEUVE, BRUSSELS, HAS REQUESTED THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COURT TO NOTIFY THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF SALARY IN ITS FAVOUR BY MRS YVO CENCINI, NEE EDDA DANESI, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE SAID COMMUNITY, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT, UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT, BY ITS NOTIFICATION TO THE THIRD PARTY WHOSE DEBT IS ASSIGNED WOULD CONSTITUTE A MEASURE OF CONSTRAINT AFFECTING THE PROPERTY AND ASSETS OF THE COMMUNITY;

WHEREAS, HOWEVER, UNDER ARTICLES 1689 ET SEQ . OF THE BELGIAN CIVIL CODE, WHICH IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, THE OBLIGATION IS UNCHANGED BY ASSIGNMENT AND CONTINUES IN FULL IN THE PERSON OF THE DEBTOR TOGETHER WITH ALL THE OBLIGATIONS SUBSIDIARY THERETO AND ANY PLEAS WHICH MAY BE AVAILABLE BETWEEN THE DEBTOR AND THE ASSIGNOR;

WHEREAS, FOR THIS REASON, NOTIFICATION OF THE ASSIGNMENT TO THE PERSON WHOSE DEBT IS ASSIGNED CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN OBSTACLE TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS, AND WHEREAS THEREFORE THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR AUTHORIZATION BY THE COURT;

WHEREAS THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT SHOULD THEREFORE BE DISMISSED;

Operative part

THE COURT

RULES THAT THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR GRANTING THE AUTHORIZATION SOUGHT;

AND ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS .
Order of the Court of 3 June 1964. - Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L.. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Giudice conciliatore di Milano - Italy. - Case 6/64.



European Court reports

French edition Page 01194

Dutch edition Page 01255

German edition Page 01307

Italian edition Page 01177

English special edition Page 00614



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 6/64

REFERENCE TO THE COURT BY THE GIUDICE CONCILIATORE, MILAN ( FIRST CHAMBER ) FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE IT BETWEEN

FLAMINIO COSTA

AND

ENEL

Grounds

WHEREAS EDISON, A COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES, LODGED AN ' APPLICATION TO INTERVENE ' AT THE REGISTRY ON 20 MAY 1964, WITH THE AIM OF SUPPORTING BEFORE THE COURT THE CONCLUSIONS OF MR COSTA, THE PLAINTIFF BEFORE THE MILAN COURT;

WHEREAS BEFORE ANY OTHER STEP IS TAKEN IN THE CASE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SETTLED;

WHEREAS BY ARTICLE 92 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ' THE COURT MAY AT ANY TIME OF ITS OWN MOTION CONSIDER WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY ABSOLUTE BAR TO PROCEEDING WITH A CASE ';

WHEREAS ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY DOES NOT ENVISAGE CONTENTIOUS PROCEEDINGS DESIGNED TO SETTLE A DISPUTE BUT PRESCRIBES A SPECIAL PROCEDURE WHOSE AIM IS TO ENSURE A UNIFORM INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW BY COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE NATIONAL COURTS AND WHICH ENABLES THE LATTER TO SEEK THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY PROVISIONS WHICH THEY HAVE TO APPLY IN DISPUTES BROUGHT BEFORE THEM;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, THE PROCEDURE APPLICABLE BEFORE THE COURT DERIVES FROM THE SPECIAL RULES PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 20 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE, IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ' APPLICATION TO INTERVENE ' BY THE EDISON COMPANY MUST BE EXAMINED;

WHEREAS BY THE ABOVE PROVISION ' THE PARTIES, THE MEMBER STATES, THE COMMISSION AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THE COUNCIL SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SUBMIT STATEMENTS OF CASE OR WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT ';

WHEREAS SUCH A SPECIAL PROVISION WOULD BE POINTLESS IF THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY WERE CONFERRED ON ALL PERSONS INTERESTED UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE STATUTE;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, ARTICLE 92 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MUST BE APPLIED AS THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR ALLOWING THE INTERVENTION OF A THIRD PARTY WHICH, AS IS THE POSITION WITH EDISON, IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ACTION BEFORE THE COURT MAKING THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING AND SO HAS NOT THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT STATEMENTS OR WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS;

WHEREAS NO DECISION NEED BE MADE ON COSTS AS NONE HAVE BEEN INCURRED;

Operative part

THE COURT

COMPOSED OF : A . M . DONNER, PRESIDENT, CH . L . HAMMES AND A . TRABUCCHI, PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS, L . DELVAUX AND R . LECOURT ( RAPPORTEUR ), JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : K . ROEMER

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

HEREBY ORDERS :

1 . THE INTERVENTION OF THE EDISON COMPANY IS INADMISSIBLE;

2 . NO DECISION NEED BE MADE ON COSTS .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EAEC - INVIOLABILITY OF PREMISES AND BUILDINGS OF THE COMMUNITY - LEGAL ENTRY BY A NATIONAL AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT INSPECTION - ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE OF CONSTRAINT

( PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 1 )

2 . PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EAEC - AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND A MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE PROTOCOL AND TO SUPPLEMENT IT - RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES FLOWING FROM THE PROTOCOL - REDUCTION THEREOF NOT PERMISSIBLE - REQUEST FOUNDED DIRECTLY ON THE PROTOCOL - ADMISSIBILITY

3 . PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EAEC - ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE OF CONSTRAINT - AUTHORIZATION BY THE COURT - REQUEST - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF AUTHORIZATION

( PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EAEC, ARTICLE 1 )

Summary

1 . AN ENTRY BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF A TAX AUTHORITY OF A MEMBER STATE UPON THE PREMISES OF A COMMUNITY INSTITUTION IN ORDER TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTION CONSTITUTING THE PRELIMINARY PHASE IN THE PREPARATION OF AN ASSESSMENT TO A DUTY CONSTITUTES AN ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE OF CONSTRAINT REQUIRING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COURT .

2 . AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND A MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AND IF NEED BE TO SUPPLEMENT IT CANNOT DIMINISH THE RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES WHICH FLOW DIRECTLY FROM THE SAID PROTOCOL IN FAVOUR OF THE MEMBER STATES AND THEIR AGENCIES, AS WELL AS OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS AND OF INDIVIDUALS . THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A REQUEST FOUNDED DIRECTLY UPON THE PROTOCOL CANNOT THEREFORE BE CALLED IN ISSUE BY SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREED BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE GOVERNMENT OF A MEMBER STATE .

3 . AN AUTHORITY WHICH UNDER ITS NATIONAL LAW IS COMPETENT TO CARRY OUT AN ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE OF CONSTRAINT IS, BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EAEC, ENTITLED TO REQUEST THE AUTHORIZATION FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE IN THAT ARTICLE . THE AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED FROM THE COURT MAY BE GRANTED WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE OF CONSTRAINT DOES NOT RAISE DIFFICULTIES WHICH MIGHT PLACE IN JEOPARDY THE FUNCTIONING, INDEPENDENCE OR SECURITY OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTION .
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 1975 (as amended by Order of 10 July 1975). - Francine Henrich v European Parliament. - Case 80-74.



European Court reports 1975 Page 00963



Parties

Grounds



Parties

++++

IN CASE 80/74

FRANCINE HENRICH

V

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Grounds

WHEREAS BY LETTER RECEIVED AT THE REGISTRY ON 26 JUNE 1975 THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED THE COURT TO ORDER THAT THE CASE BE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER;

WHEREAS BY MEMORANDUM LODGED ON 3 JULY 1975 THE DEFENDANT HAS INFORMED THE COURT THAT IT OFFERS NO OBJECTION TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE ACTION BY THE APPLICANT AND HAS ASKED THAT THE COSTS BE BORNE BY HER;

HEREBY ORDERS :

1 . CASE 80/74 IS REMOVED FROM THE COURT REGISTER;

2 . EACH PARTY SHALL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .

( HEAD 2 OF THE OPERATIVE PART IS AS AMENDED BY THE ORDER OF 10 . 7 . 1975 ).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT - NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS - NOTICE TO THE INSTITUTION TO ACT - REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF A MEASURE - CONCEPTS - REQUEST FOR A FINDING THAT AID GRANTED BY A STATE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET - BAR - INADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY , SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS OF ART . 175 )

Summary

A PERSON OTHER THAN A MEMBER STATE WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN NOTICE BY THE COMMISSION , AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ) OF THE EEC TREATY , TO SUBMIT HIS COMMENTS ON AID CONTEMPLATED BY A MEMBER STATE AND WHO HAS AVAILED HIMSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO FIND THAT THE AID IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ), IS NOT ENTITLED TO BRING AN ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT IF THE COMMISSION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THAT REQUEST WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS .

IN FACT SUCH A REQUEST ON THE ONE HAND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ' ' INVITATION ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 OF THE TREATY SINCE THE COMMISSION HAS A REASONABLE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE THE PROCEDURE INITIATED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 93 AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 , SINCE IT IS NOT INTENDED TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO ADDRESS AN ACT TO THE APPLICANT .
Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 1980. - B v European Parliament. - Case 731-79 R II.



European Court reports 1980 Page 00829



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Parties

IN CASE 731/79 R II

B ., A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , RESIDING AT KEHLEN , REPRESENTED BY W . H . VERMEER , OF THE AMSTERDAM BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG C/O DR P . STEIN , 2 AVENUE PESCATORE ,

APPLICANT ,

V

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , REPRESENTED BY F . PASETTI-BOMBARDELLA , DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF ADMINISTRATION , PERSONNEL AND FINANCE , KIRCHBERG , LUXEMBOURG , ASSISTED BY FRANCIS HERBERT , OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE EUROPEAN CENTRE , KIRCHBERG ,

DEFENDANT ,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT , PURSUANT TO THE RULES ON THE INSURANCE OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AGAINST THE RISK OF ACCIDENT AND OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A MEDICAL BOARD TO ASSESS THE OCCUPATIONAL NATURE OF THE APPLICANT ' S ILLNESS ,

Grounds

THE ABOVE-MENTIONED LETTERS OF 21 AND 31 JANUARY 1980 DO NOT IN ANY WAY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSTANCE AND FORM IMPOSED BY ARTICLE 83 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES INTENDED EITHER TO BRING ABOUT THE SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF A MEASURE OR TO CAUSE THE COURT TO PRESCRIBE INTERIM MEASURES RELATING TO THE MAIN ACTION BEFORE IT .

THE APPLICANT HAS NOT EVEN INDICATED WHETHER IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE FACTS WHICH HE HAS MENTIONED HE HAS APPLIED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 17 TO 21 OF THE RULES ON THE INSURANCE OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AGAINST THE RISK OF ACCIDENT AND OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE RULES .

Decision on costs

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN THIS CASE THERE ARE GROUNDS , NOT FOR RESERVING THE COSTS , BUT FOR MAKING AN ORDER FOR COSTS AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED BY AN OFFICIAL .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE JUDGE ACTING AS PRESIDENT

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED .

2 . THE PARTIES SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .