Avis juridique important

Order of the President of the Court of 21 August 1980. - Frans Reichardt v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 174/80 R. European Court reports 1980 Page 02665

Parties Subject of the case Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

IN CASE 174/80 R ,

FRANS REICHARDT , AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , OF 1603 , 35TH STREET N.W ., WASHINGTON ( D.C .) 20007 , U.S.A ., REPRESENTED BY MARC-ANTOINE PIERSON , OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF JEAN WELTER , 11 B AVENUE DE LA PORTE-NEUVE ,

APPLICANT ,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY JORN PIPKORN , A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MARIO CERVINO , LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,

DEFENDANT ,

APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE DEFENDANT OF 6 JUNE 1980 TERMINATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE A 5-A 4 POST OCCUPIED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE APPLICANT HIMSELF TO THE DELEGATION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES TO THE UNITED STATES IN WASHINGTON AND REASSIGNING BOTH THE POST AND ITS OCCUPANT TO DIVISION XII D 2 OF DIRECTORATE-GENERAL XII ( RESEARCH , SCIENCE AND EDUCATION ) IN BRUSSELS ,

1 HAVING REGARD TO THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE PARTIES REGARDING THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CONTESTED DECISION , IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE JUDGE HEARING THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF HIS CONSIDERATION ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS ENABLING IT TO BE ESTABLISHED WHETHER THERE IS ANY URGENCY IN STAYING THE DECISION AND TO ASSESS WHETHER ITS IMMEDIATE APPLICATION , THAT IS TO SAY BEFORE THE DECISION IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , IS LIKELY TO INVOLVE THE APPLICANT IN IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE WHICH COULD NOT BE MADE GOOD EVEN IF THE CONTESTED DECISION WERE ANNULLED OR WHICH IN SPITE OF ITS PROVISIONAL NATURE WOULD BE DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE COMMISSION ' S INTEREST , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 185 OF THE EEC TREATY , IN HAVING ITS DECISIONS APPLIED EVEN WHEN THEY ARE THE SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION TO THE COURT .

2 THE APPLICANT REFERS IN THE FIRST PLACE TO THE MATERIAL DAMAGE WHICH HE WOULD SUFFER SINCE , HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT HIS ASSIGNMENT TO WASHINGTON WAS NORMALLY TO LAST THREE YEARS , HE HAD LET FOR THE SAME PERIOD HIS HOME IN BRUSSELS WHERE HE WAS PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED AND WHITHER THE CONTESTED DECISION IS RE-ASSIGNING HIM .

3 ANY INCONVENIENCE , HOWEVER , ARISING FROM THIS SITUATION IS NOT SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE STAY WHICH IS SOUGHT . IF THE NECESSITY TO PROVIDE TEMPORARILY FOR HIS INSTALLATION AND THAT OF HIS FAMILY IN BRUSSELS WERE LIKELY TO CAUSE THE APPLICANT DAMAGE AND IN PARTICULAR EXPENSE NOT COVERED BY THE ALLOWANCES WHICH THE STAFF REGULATIONS PROVIDE IN RELATION TO INSTALLATION AND RESIDENCE , SUCH DAMAGE IS CAPABLE OF BEING MADE GOOD APPROPRIATELY BY THE POSSIBILITY OF AWARDING DAMAGES . IT SEEMS MOREOVER THAT IN ANY EVENT THE APPLICANT HAS AN INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE LETTING OF HIS HOME IN BRUSSELS UNTIL JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION WHICH HE HAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE DECISION IN QUESTION .

4 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS IN THE SECOND PLACE ' ' THAT HE HAS TAKEN MEASURES TO PROVIDE FOR THREE YEARS FOR THE LODGING OF HIS TWO DAUGHTERS WHO ARE STUDYING IN BELGIUM AND IN THE NETHERLANDS ' ' BUT IT IS NOT APPARENT WHAT IRREPARABLE DAMAGE MAY RESULT FROM THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT SITUATION UNTIL THE DECISION IN THE MAIN ACTION .

5 FINALLY , THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT IF THE CONTESTED DECISION WERE ANNULLED A SECOND RETURN TO WASHINGTON AFTER HIS RESETTLEMENT IN BRUSSELS WOULD CAUSE HIM SUCH DIFFICULTIES THAT HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ANNULMENT .

7 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES MUST BE DISMISSED .

8 AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IT IS RIGHT TO RESERVE COSTS .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE JUDGE ACTING AS PRESIDENT OF THE COURT ,

AS AN INTERLOCUTORY DECISION ,

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

1 . THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES IS DISMISSED .

2 . COSTS ARE RESERVED .