CELEX: 61982CO0173
Language: en
Date: 1982-11-29 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Judge designated by the President of the Court of 29 November 1982. # Gilbert Castille v Commission of the European Communities. # Case 173/82 R.

Avis juridique important

|

61982O0173

Order of the Judge designated by the President of the Court of 29 November 1982.  -  Gilbert Castille v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Case 173/82 R.  

European Court reports 1982 Page 04047

SummaryPartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES - SUSPENSION OF OPERATION - INTERIM MEASURES - CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING  ( RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 83 ( 2 ))    

Summary

AN APPLICATION TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF A MEASURE AND OTHER INTERIM MEASURES MAY BE GRANTED BY THE JUDGE HEARING THE CASE IF , ON FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS , A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS ESTABLISHED , IF THEY ARE URGENT IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS NECESSARY , SO AS TO AVOID GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE HARM , FOR THEM TO BE ADOPTED AND TAKE EFFECT PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT ON THE  SUBSTANTIVE ACTION AND IF THEY ARE PROVISIONAL IN THE SENSE THAT THEY DO NOT PREJUDGE THE SUBSTANTIVE DECISION , THAT IS TO SAY THEY DO NOT DECIDE AT THIS STAGE POINTS OF LAW OR FACT IN ISSUE , OR NULLIFY IN ADVANCE THE EFFECTS OF THE DECISION TO BE DELIVERED SUBSEQUENTLY ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ACTION .    

Parties

IN CASE 173/82 R GILBERT CASTILLE , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , RESIDING AT 40 RUE MERTENS , BRUSSELS , ASSISTED AND REPRESENTED BY MARCEL SLUSNY OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT , CENTRE LOUVIGNY , 34/B/IV , RUE PHILIPPE-II ,   APPLICANT ,   V  COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , JOSEPH GRIESMAR , ACTING AS AGENT , ASSISTED BY DANIEL JACOB , OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , 93 AVENUE BRILLAT-SAVARIN , BRUSSELS , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ORESTE MONTALTO , A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ' S LEGAL DEPARTMENT , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,   DEFENDANT ,    

Subject of the case

APPLICATION TO SUSPEND PROMOTIONS TO GRADE A 4 IN RESPECT OF 1982 ,  

Grounds

1 ARTICLE 185 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT ACTIONS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE SHALL NOT HAVE SUSPENSORY EFFECT . HOWEVER , THE COURT MAY , IF IT CONSIDERS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO REQUIRE , ORDER THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION TO BE SUSPENDED . IT MAY ALSO PRESCRIBE ANY OTHER INTERIM MEASURE WHICH IT CONSIDERS NECESSARY .    2 ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT PROVIDES THAT AN APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF OPERATION AND FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES MAY BE GRANTED ONLY WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GIVE RISE TO URGENCY AND THERE ARE GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE GRANT OF SUCH MEASURES .    3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , AN APPLICATION FOR MEASURES OF THAT KIND MAY BE GRANTED BY THE JUDGE HEARING IT IF , ON FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS , A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS ESTABLISHED , IF THEY ARE URGENT IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS NECESSARY , SO AS TO AVOID GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE HARM , FOR THEM TO BE ADOPTED AND TAKE EFFECT PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ACTION AND IF THEY ARE PROVISIONAL IN THE SENSE THAT THEY DO NOT PREJUDGE THE SUBSTANTIVE DECISION , THAT IS TO SAY THEY DO NOT DECIDE AT THIS STAGE POINTS OF LAW OR FACT IN ISSUE , OR NULLIFY IN ADVANCE THE EFFECTS OF THE DECISION TO BE DELIVERED SUBSEQUENTLY ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ACTION .    4 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE THAT MORE THAN 112 OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED BY DEPARTMENTS OF THE COMMISSION FOR PROMOTION TO GRADE A 4 AND THAT OF THOSE 50 MAY BE PROMOTED ACCORDING TO BUDGETARY AVAILABILITY . EXCESSIVE DELAY IN PROCEEDING WITH THOSE PROMOTIONS WOULD PREJUDICE THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE AND CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD ADMINISTRATION . TO OUTWEIGH THOSE EFFECTS IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE APPLICANT ' S CASE TO BE SUPPORTED BY CONVINCING ARGUMENTS .        5 IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE THAT HIS APPLICATION IS WELL FOUNDED . IN ANY EVENT THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT ANY DAMAGE WHICH MIGHT BE SUFFERED BY THE APPLICANT FROM BEING PROPERLY MADE GOOD .    6 FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE THE MEASURE APPLIED FOR CANNOT THEREFORE BE GRANTED .    

Decision on costs

COSTS  7 IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO RESERVE COSTS .    

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE JUDGE DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT ,   BY WAY OF INTERIM DECISION ,   HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :   1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED .   2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .