AT ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IN CASE 28/65, NAMELY THAT OF THE POWERS VESTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE REGULATIONS, IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO SCIENTIFIC EMPLOYEES AT EURATOM, AND THEREFORE CONCERNS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE WITHOUT PROVING THE URGENCY OF THE INTERIM MEASURE SOUGHT;
WHEREAS THE APPLICANT SAYS THAT THE SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF THE DECISION ALLOCATING HIM TO BRUSSELS IS PRIMA FACIE JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION SEEKS TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PERFORM DUTIES OF A TEMPORARY NATURE;
WHEREAS AT THIS INTERLOCUTORY STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE EAEC EXPRESSLY DISPUTES THIS POINT WHICH IS ONE FOR THE COURT TO ASSESS WHEN IT CONSIDERS THE APPLICATION IN CASE 28/65;
WHEREAS THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS ' INCONSISTENT AND ILLOGICAL ', AND ENDEAVOURS TO SUPPORT HIS STATEMENT BY REFERRING TO VARIOUS FACTS AND DOCUMENTS;
WHEREAS THIS GROUND, TOO, CONCERNS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE;
WHEREAS THE APPLICANT REFERS TO HIS ENFORCED SEPARATION FROM HOME AND FAMILY AND THE SERIOUS FINANCIAL, HUMAN AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WHICH THIS ENTAILS;
WHEREAS AT THIS INTERLOCUTORY STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED THE INSTALLATION ALLOWANCE, AND TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMMISSION'S STATEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT'S TRAVEL AND REMOVAL EXPENSES WILL BE REIMBURSED AS SOON AS HIS FAMILY JOINS HIM;
WHEREAS NONE OF THE SUBMISSIONS RAISED PROVES THE URGENCY OF THE MEASURE SOUGHT;
WHEREAS SUCH URGENCY SEEMS IN ANY CASE TO BE DENIED BY THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF THE DISPUTED DECISION GOES BACK TO 7 OCTOBER 1964 WHILST THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION WAS MADE SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, ON 9 JUNE 1965;
WHEREAS WHATEVER THE GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT AGAINST THIS DECISION, WHICH HAS MOREOVER BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AND WHICH THE JUDGE HEARING AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE CANNOT DECIDE IN ADVANCE, THE GROUNDS SET OUT ABOVE ARE NOT, AS THEY STAND, SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF A DECISION WHICH SEEMS DESIGNED TO CHANGE THE APPLICANT'S PLACE OF WORK AND - WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE - APPEARS TO BE AN ACT FALLING WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S SPHERE OF RESPONSIBILITY;
WHEREAS AT THIS STAGE, THEREFORE, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF 7 OCTOBER 1964;
Operative part
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING INTERIM ORDER :
1 . THE APPLICATION TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION ADOPTED ON 7 OCTOBER 1964 BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED;
2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .