THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A MEETING WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CLARIFY THE FACTS IN DISPUTE .
CF . PARA . 3, SUMMARY, CASE 87/63, ( 1964 ) ECR 925 .
5 . THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD CONSTITUTE A GENERAL VALUE-JUDGMENT, FOR WHICH THE COURT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN ASSESSMENT . ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS FOR THE COURT TO CHECK WHETHER THE FACTS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD ARE MATERIALLY ACCURATE AND LOGICALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THAT JUDGMENT .
CF . PARA . 3, SUMMARY, JOINED CASES 35/62 AND 16/63 ( 1963 ) ECR 197 .
6 . CF . PARA . 4, SUMMARY, JOINED CASES 35/62 AND 16/63, ( 1963 ) ECR 197 .
A MEASURE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE UNLAWFUL CANNOT CONSTITUTE A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION AND THUS UNLAWFULLY PREJUDICE THE HONOUR AND REPUTATION OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT REFERS, UNLESS IT CONTAINS SUPERFLUOUS CRITICISMS OF THAT PERSON .
*/ 662J0035 /*.
Parties
IN JOINED CASES 19 AND 65/63
SATYA PRAKASH, DOCTOR OF NATURAL SCIENCES, MASTER OF SCIENCE, RESIDING AT 7A VIA ITALIA, CARDANA DI BESOZZO ( ITALY ), 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 ITS LEGAL ADVISER, JAN GIJSSELS, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF MR MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION :
- IN CASE 19/63 : FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE REFUSAL TO REIMBURSE REMOVAL EXPENSES AND TO PAY THE INSTALLATION ALLOWANCE;
- IN CASE 65/63 : FOR THE REVERSAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION AGAINST INTEGRATION, AND THE PAYMENT OF DAMAGES,
Grounds
P.545
I - AS TO CASE 19/63
THE APPLICANT CONTESTS A SERIES OF MEASURES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, EMANATING EITHER FROM THE AUTHORITIES AT THE ISPRA CENTRE OR FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AT THE EURATOM HEADQUARTERS, ENTAILING A REFUSAL TO REIMBURSE HIS REMOVAL EXPENSES AND TO PAY HIM THE INSTALLATION ALLOWANCE .
ON 18 APRIL 1963, AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE COMMISSION ITSELF TOOK AN EXPRESS DECISION TO THAT EFFECT .
THE APPLICANT HAS CONTESTED THIS DECISION UNDER THE FIFTH HEAD OF HIS CONCLUSIONS IN CASE 65/63 . THE DEFENDANT, IN ITS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE IN CASE 65/63, STATED THAT IT DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE SAID HEAD, AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE COURT TO RAISE THE MATTER OF ITS OWN MOTION .
FURTHERMORE, THE DECISION OF 18 APRIL 1963 MARKED THE END OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTES IN EFFECT THE ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE APPLICANT . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICATION 19/63 HAS BECOME POINTLESS .
P.546
II - AS TO APPLICATION 65/63
BASICALLY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE