INTERIM MEASURES WAS REGISTERED AT THE COURT AFTER THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED HER OBSERVATIONS .
11 IT MUST BE STATED IN REPLY TO THAT SUBMISSION THAT, AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS ORDER OF 11 APRIL 1960 ( CASES 3/58*R AND OTHERS, BARBARA ERZBERGBAU AG V HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE ECSC (( 1960 )) ECR 221 ), IN PRINCIPLE IT IS FOR AN APPLICANT TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO LODGE AN APPLICATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A DECISION AND TO DECIDE AT WHAT STAGE OF THE PROCEDURE TO LODGE IT . IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO MANIFEST OBJECTION, HAVING REGARD TO THE STAGE REACHED IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS, TO EXAMINING THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE DECISIONS IN QUESTION .
12 IN THE THIRD PLACE, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DENIES THAT THE MATTER IS URGENT, IN SO FAR AS A LITIGANT CANNOT BE ENTITLED TO CREATE FALSE URGENCY BY LODGING AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES AT A LATE STAGE . IN THIS CASE, THE DATE FOR THE APPLICANT' S TRANSFER TO BRUSSELS WAS FIXED AS LONG AGO AS 16 JULY 1986 AND WAS CONFIRMED BY A LETTER DATED 29 OCTOBER 1986 FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE EPP GROUP .
13 IT MUST BE STATED IN REPLY TO THAT SUBMISSION THAT URGENCY IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE SPEED WITH WHICH A MEASURE IS TO BE APPLIED FOR AND TAKEN BUT BY THE EXTENT TO WHICH A PERSON MAY NEED TO OBTAIN THE ADOPTION OF A MEASURE WHICH IS NECESSARY AT THE PRESENT TIME TO AVOID CERTAIN DAMAGE . THE FACT THAT THE TRANSFER DECISION WAS ADOPTED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO DOES NOT EXCLUDE URGENCY, SINCE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOW THAT THE URGENCY OF THE SITUATION IS MERELY INCREASING AS TIME PASSES; PROCEDURAL EXIGENCIES PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM OBTAINING THE REQUESTED MEASURE IN TIME BY MEANS OF A JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN ACTION AND AS A RESULT HER INTERESTS ARE LIKELY TO BE JEOPARDIZED . IN THIS CASE, THE TRANSFER DATE IS FIXED AS 1 JULY 1987 AND THE MAIN ACTION IS NOT GOING TO BE HEARD IN THE NEAR FUTURE . THE URGENCY OF THE MATTER IS THEREFORE INCONTESTABLE .
14 MOREOVER, IT MUST BE STATED THAT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISIONS IN QUESTION IN THE MAIN ACTION, BASED IN PARTICULAR ON THE BREACH OF THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH SPECIFIES LUXEMBOURG AS THE PLACE WHERE THE APPLICANT' S DUTIES ARE TO BE PERFORMED, ARE NOT, AT FIRST SIGHT, ALTOGETHER WITHOUT FOUNDATION .
15 AS REGARDS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INTERIM MEASURE SOUGHT, THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT IF SHE WERE TRANSFERRED BEFORE A DECISION WAS GIVEN ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE HER RIGHTS WOULD BE IRRETRIEVABLY PREJUDICED; THE TRANSFER WOULD ENTAIL A HIGHLY INCONVENIENT MOVE TO BRUSSELS FOR HER, AS WELL AS HER BEING SEPARATED FROM HER HUSBAND, WHOSE EMPLOYMENT REQUIRES HIM TO REMAIN IN LUXEMBOURG . THE APPLICANT EMPHASIZES THAT IN HER PRESENT STATE OF HEALTH,