Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2004:101
Date: 2004-04-01
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Effect of the outcome of the action for annulment;Individual decisions;Form of disciplinary measure;Procedure;Obligations of officials
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - successful

SUMMARY - CASE T-198/02 R 
Summary 
1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure -
Conditions for granting - Urgency - Circumstances in which the non-material 
damage cannot be remedied more satisfactorily by means of interim relief than by 
a ruling on the substance — None 
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Burden of proof -
Strictly financial harm 
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) 
and (2)) 
1. The purpose of the procedure for interim relief is not to ensure that damage is 
compensated for, but that the judgment on the substance of the case is fully 
effective. In order to achieve the latter objective, the measures sought must be 
urgent in the sense that it is necessary, to avoid serious and irreparable damage to 
the applicant's interests, that they be ordered and produce their effects before the 
decision in the main action is taken. Damage consisting of the effects which the 
implementation of a decision imposing the disciplinary measure of removal from 
post has on an official's psychological state is, in principle, an inescapable and 
immediate consequence of any decision of that type. Moreover, suspending the 
implementation of the decision at issue would not make good any non-material 
damage of that nature more than the possible future annulment of the decision at the 
end of the main action. 
(see paras 50, 52-53) 
See: C-65/99 P(R) Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR I-1857; paras 60, 61 and 62; 
T-173/99 R Elklaïm and Mazuel v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-155 and II-811, para. 
25; T-120/01 R De Nicola v EIB [2001] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-783, para. 43 
I-A - 146 
N v COMMISSION 
2. It is for the party seeking suspension of operation of a measure to prove that he 
cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering harm. Purely 
financial damage cannot, in principle, be regarded as irreparable, or even difficult 
to repair, because financial compensation can be made for it subsequently. The 
judge hearing the application for interim measures must determine in the light of the 
circumstances of the individual case whether immediate implementation of the 
decision which is the subject of the application for suspension may cause the 
applicant serious and immediate harm which even the annulment of the decision at 
the end of the main action could no longer repair. 
(see paras 50, 55, 57) 
See: 141/84 R De Compte v Parliament [1984] ECR 2575, para. 4; T-549/93 R D V 
Commission [1993] ECR II-1347, para. 45; T-203/98 R Tzikis v Commission [1999] 
ECR-SC I-A-37 and II-167, para. 50; Willeme v Commission, cited above, paras 36 and 
37; T-300/01 R De Nicola v EIB [2002] not published in the ECR, para. 59 
I-A - 147