Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 15 July 1976. - Jean-Jacques Charles Geist v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 61-76 R I.
European Court reports 1976 Page 01349
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 61/76 R
JEAN JACQUES CHARLES GEIST , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY MARCEL SLUSNY , ADVOCATE AT THE COUR D ' APPEL , BRUSSELS , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR ARENDT , ADVOCATE AT THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , CENTRE LOUVIGNY , 34/B/IV RUE PHILIPPE II ,
APPLICANT ,
V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY SERGIO FABRO , A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MARIO CERVINO , LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION , BATIMENT CFL , 9 , PLACE DE LA GARE ,
DEFENDANT ,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 10 DECEMBER 1975 ASSIGNING THE POST OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT HIMSELF TO THE EAEC ESTABLISHMENT AT ISPRA .
Grounds
1 IN SUPPORT OF HIS REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION , THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT HAVING BEEN DIVORCED AND NOT BEING THE GUILTY PARTY HE HAS THE CUSTODY OF AND THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS THREE CHILDREN WHO WERE BORN RESPECTIVELY IN 1963 , 1965 AND 1967 .
2 THE DISPUTED DECISION PUT HIM ' IN A DRAMATIC SITUATION FROM THE FAMILY POINT OF VIEW ' .
3 IN FACT , IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM EITHER TO ARRANGE FOR THE PERSON WHOM HE ENGAGED TO CARE FOR THE CHILDREN TO EMIGRATE TO ISPRA OR IMMEDIATELY TO FIND AT ISPRA A PERSON TO CARRY OUT THE SAME DUTIES IN WHOM HE COULD HAVE EQUAL CONFIDENCE .
4 FURTHER , IF THE DISPUTED DECISION WERE KEPT IN FORCE , EVEN TEMPORARILY , THAT IS TO SAY UNTIL THE COURT FOR EXAMPLE , HAD DECIDED ON THE MAIN APPLICATION , THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO TERMINATE THE LEASE OF THE HOUSE WHICH HE IS OCCUPYING IN THE NETHERLANDS AND FIND ACCOMMODATION AT ISPRA OR IN THE VICINITY .
5 ON THE OTHER HAND , THE SUSPENSION REQUESTED CAN CAUSE NO DAMAGE TO THE COMMISSION , THE APPLICANT HAVING ' BEEN TRANSFERRED TO A NON-EXISTENT POST ' AND HIS NEW SUPERIORS , WHO WERE NOT CONSULTED ON HIS TRANSFER , HAVING ACCEPTED THAT THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO ALLOCATE HIM DUTIES CORRESPONDING TO HIS GRADE AND HIS LEVEL .
6 IT FOLLOWS FROM ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT , THAT THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A DECISION CAN BE GRANTED ONLY WHERE THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND GROUNDS ' ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE ' FOR SUCH A MEASURE .
7 IN THIS RESPECT IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT