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) >> Xavier Authie v Commission of the European Communities. [1978] EUECJ C-19/78R (10 March 1978)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1978/C1978R.html
Cite as: [1978] EUECJ C-19/78R

[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.

61978O0019
Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 10 March 1978.
Xavier Authié v Commission of the European Communities.
Case 19/78 R.
European Court reports 1978 Page 00679

IN CASE 19/78 R ,
XAVIER AUTHIE , REPRESENTED BY MARCEL SLUSNY , OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF FRANCOISE FABER , 51 AVENUE DE LA LIBERTE ,
APPLICANT ,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTEND BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , RAYMOND BAEYENS , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER , MARIO CERVINO , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,
DEFENDANT ,

1UNDER ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT , SUSPENSION OF OPERATION IS CONDITIONAL UPON THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUCH A MEASURE .

2THE APPLICANT HAS PLEADED THAT THE REFUSAL TO ADMIT HIM TO THE COMPETITION IS PRIMA FACIE UNJUSTIFIED .

3IN SUPPORT OF THAT PLEA HE HAS REPEATED THE SAME GROUNDS AS THOSE INVOKED IN THE MAIN ACTION .

4AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS THE COURT ' S FINAL DECISION ON THOSE ISSUES CANNOT BE PREJUDGED .

5IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE URGENCY OF HIS APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE , THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT IF HE SUCCEEDED ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE , ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COMPETITION WOULD HAVE TO BE BEGUN AFRESH , AND THAT THEREFORE IT WAS PREFERABLE TO SUSPEND THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND NOT GO ON WITH THE ORAL TESTS BEFORE THE COURT HAS GIVEN JUDGMENT ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .

6ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS EMPHASIZED HIS INTEREST IN BEING ADMITTED TO THE COMPETITION , HE HAS NOT HOWEVER SHOWN IN WHAT RESPECT THE CONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE COMPETITION WOULD CAUSE HIM IRREPARABLE DAMAGE .

7ON THE MOST FAVOURABLE VIEW FOR THE APPLICANT OF THE DECISION TO BE TAKEN ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE AND EVEN ASSUMING THAT HIS APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE IS GRANTED , SUSPENSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE STAGE WHICH HAS NOW BEEN REACHED WOULD NOT DISPENSE WITH THE NEED TO REPEAT THE WRITTEN TESTS , WHICH HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE .

8FURTHERMORE , SUSPENSION OF THE ORAL TESTS WOULD CAUSE CONSIDERABLE INCONVENIENCE AND SERIOUS HARM BOTH TO THE COMMISSION AND TO THE MANY CANDIDATES WHO HAVE TAKEN THE WRITTEN TESTS .

9IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF THE INTERLOCUTORY MEASURE SOUGHT HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED AND THAT THE APPLICATION MUST ACCORDINGLY BE DISMISSED .

COSTS
10IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES COSTS SHOULD BE RESERVED .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER
BY WAY OF INTERLOCUTORY DECISION ,
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED .

2 . COSTS ARE RESERVED .

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