Information;Order — ECLI:EU:T:2022:92
Date: 2022-02-23
Language of the case: English
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases;Application for interim measures - inadmissible;Action for damages

summary of the pleas in law and arguments relied on. 10 It follows from a combined reading of those provisions of the Rules of Procedure that an application for interim measures must be sufficient in itself to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the judge hearing the application to rule on it, where necessary, without other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, it is necessary, if such an application is to be admissible, that the essential elements of fact and law on which it is founded be set out coherently and comprehensibly in the application for interim measures itself. While the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to particular passages in documents which are annexed to it, a general reference to other written documentation, even if annexed to the application for interim measures, cannot make up for the absence of essential elements in that application (see order of 4 December 2015, E-Control v ACER, T‑671/15 R, not published, EU:T:2015:975, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited). 11 Moreover, paragraph 223 of the Practice Rules for the Implementation of the Rules of Procedure expressly states that the application for interim measures must be intelligible in itself, without necessitating reference to the application lodged in the main proceedings, including the annexes thereto. 12 Since failure to comply with the Rules of Procedure constitutes an absolute bar to proceedings, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to examine of his or her own motion, if necessary, whether the applicable provisions of those rules have been complied with (see order of 14 February 2020, Vizzone v Commission, T‑658/19 R, not published, EU:T:2020:71, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited). 13 In the present case it must be noted that, in the application for interim measures, the applicant makes no argument in respect of the prima facie case requirement or the balancing of competing interests. 14 As regards the prima facie case requirement, it should be noted that the extremely laconic argument set out by the applicant in the application for interim measures does not allow the President of the Court to make a legal assessment of whether the pleas for annulment put forward in the main action are prima facie well founded. 15 The application for interim measures does not mention any provision of EU law which the College of the EPPO has allegedly infringed and, a fortiori, fails to specify the causal link between that alleged infringement and the alleged damage. It follows that the application for interim measures is not intelligible in itself without referring to the application in the main proceedings. 16 That absence of sufficient explanation, in the application for interim measures, of the constituent elements of a possible prima facie case cannot be compensated for by the reference made to the application in the main proceedings. 17 In that regard it is sufficient to note that it is not for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to seek, in place of the party concerned, those matters contained in the annexes or in the main application which would support the application for interim measures. For such an obligation to be imposed on the judge hearing the application for interim measures would, moreover, render ineffective the provision of the Rules of Procedure which requires that the application for interim measures be made by a separate document (see order of 29 July 2010, Cross Czech v Commission, T‑252/10 R, not published, EU:T:2010:323, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited). 18 It follows that, as regards the prima facie case requirement, the present application for interim measures does not comply with the requirements of Article 156(4) of the Rules of Procedure and that, as a result, it must be dismissed as inadmissible, without there being any need to serve it on the defendant. 19 Pursuant to Article 158(5) of the Rules of Procedure, the costs must be reserved. On those grounds, THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT hereby orders: 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed. 2. The costs are reserved. Luxembourg, 23 February 2022. E. Coulon M. van der Woude Registrar President * Language of the case: English.