IN REGARD TO THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF THE MEASURE TERMINATING THE APPLICANT'S SERVICE, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION OF 26 JUNE 1968, ABSENCE OF SUCH SUSPENSION IS NOT, AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSES OF THE JUDGMENT TO BE DELIVERED IN THE MAIN ACTION .
IF, IN THE EVENT, THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION WERE ANNULLED BY THE COURT IN THE MAIN ACTION, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE OBLIGED TO RETAIN THE APPLICANT IN ITS SERVICE AND TO PROVIDE A POST FOR HIM WITH DUTIES CORRESPONDING TO HIS GRADE .
MOREOVER, THE DISPUTED MEASURE IS NOT OF SUCH A NATURE AS SO TO AFFECT HIS FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT THE SUSPENSION OF ITS OPERATION WOULD BE JUSTIFIED .
IN ANY CASE ARTICLES 5 AND 7 OF REGULATION NO 259/68 ENSURE THAT, WHATEVER HAPPENS, HE IS PAID A MONTHLY ALLOWANCE WHICH WILL MEET HIS NEEDS FOR A CONSIDERABLE TIME .
AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION FOR THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF ANY APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF HEAD OF THE PRESS AND INFORMATION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION AT THE HAGUE, IT IS NECESSARY TO LOOK INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DECISION TO TERMINATE HIS SERVICE AND THE IMPLIED DECISION WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, RESULTS FROM THE ABSENCE OF A REPLY ON THE COMMISSION'S PART TO THE LETTER OF 24 JUNE 1968 IN WHICH HE ASKS TO BE APPOINTED TO THE POST AT THE HAGUE .
THE PARTIES DISAGREE ON THIS POINT .
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT THE FATE OF THESE TWO DECISIONS MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE SAME WAY BUT, ACCORDING TO THE DEFENDANT, THIS IS NOT SO .
IT IS FOR THE COURT ALONE TO SETTLE THIS QUESTION IN THE MAIN ACTION .
ON THIS POINT, WHATEVER THE DECISION IN THE MAIN ACTION, THE SUSPENSION APPLIED FOR IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT, WHEN DELIVERED, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE FULLY EFFECTIVE .
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
HEREBY, AS AN INTERIM RULING, ORDERS :
1 . THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION AND FOR TEMPORARY MEASURE ARE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED;
2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
