Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> JeaC-Jacques Charles Geist v Commission of the European Communities. [1976] EUECJ C-61/76R (21 December 1976)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1976/C6176R_rev.html

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

61976O0061(01)
Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 21 December 1976.
Jean-Jacques Charles Geist v Commission of the European Communities.
Case 61-76 R II.
European Court reports 1976 Page 02075

IN CASE 61/76 R II
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 ERNEST ARENDT , ADVOCATE OF 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 DEPARTMENT 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 ,

APPLICATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION WHEREBY THE APPLICANT CAN DEVOTE ONLY 10 % OF HIS TIME TO HIS WORK WITH A GROUP OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY ( IAEA ) TO STUDY THE STATUS AND PROSPECTS OF THERMAL BREEDER REACTORS ,

1 RECOURSE TO INTERIM MEASURES UNDER ARTICLES 83 TO 88 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IS CONDITIONAL UPON ESTABLISHING THE URGENCY OF THE MEASURES REQUESTED .

2 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE DECISION OF WHICH THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE SUSPENSION WAS ALREADY IN FORCE WHEN HIS MAIN APPLICATION WAS LODGED , AND THAT AT THAT TIME THE IAEA HAD ALREADY ADOPTED DEFINITIVE MEASURES ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT ' S SUPERIORS .

3 IT IS THUS IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE MATTER IS URGENT .

4 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER AT THIS STAGE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION AGAINST THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR THE INTERIM MEASURE REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT ,
BY WAY OF AN INTERIM RULING , HEREBY
ORDERS :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED ;

2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010