Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2021:715
Date: 2021-10-20
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

summary procedure, would scarcely be such as to reinstate the reputation of the applicant (see, by analogy, order of 22 December 2011, Al-Chihabi v Council, T‑593/11 R, not published, EU:T:2011:770, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited). 37 This is all the more so the situation given the specific circumstances of the present case. It is apparent from the case file that the relationship between the applicant and the Head of the EU Delegation in [confidential] has deteriorated over time and has become very tense. This is documented in the latter’s email of 26 April 2018 to the applicant and copied to two other officials of that Delegation, in which he wrote, amongst other things: [confidential] 38 Furthermore, if the Court were to annul the contested decisions, the Commission would be required, according to Article 266 TFEU, to take the necessary measures to comply with that judgment. Accordingly, it cannot be held that the implementation of the contested decisions would deprive the applicant of any chance to be restored in his current position or assigned to a similar position relating to the European Union’s external action. 39 In the second place, the applicant submits that the implementation of the contested decisions would damage the image of the European Union in [confidential] and would adversely affect other members of staff of the EU Delegation in [confidential], who were also suffering from arbitrary decisions by the Head of the EU Delegation in [confidential]. 40 In that respect, suffice it to state that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the party requesting the interim measures is bound to show that it cannot await the conclusion of the main action without personally suffering damage which will have serious and irreparable consequences for it (see order of 12 June 2014, Commission v Rusal Armenal, C‑21/14 P‑R, EU:C:2014:1749, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited). 41 Accordingly, the applicant cannot invoke damage that allegedly would be caused to the reputation of the European Union in [confidential] or to other members of staff. 42 In the third place, the applicant submits that he would suffer further harm, such as higher relocation costs. He estimates the financial damage resulting from the contested decisions to range from EUR 20 000 to EUR 30 000. 43 In that respect, suffice it to state that, according to the case-law recalled in paragraph 22 above, damage of a pecuniary nature cannot, otherwise than in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable since, as a general rule, pecuniary compensation is capable of restoring the aggrieved person to the situation that prevailed before he suffered the damage. 44 However, the applicant has not produced any element that would make it possible to assess his financial situation and the reality of the alleged damage. 45 Accordingly, the President of the General Court is not in a position to conclude that exceptional circumstances are present which would allow the alleged damage, albeit pecuniary in nature, to be classified as irreparable. 46 It follows from all of the foregoing that the application for interim measures must be rejected for lack of urgency, without it being necessary to examine the condition relating to a prima facie case or the need to weigh up the interests involved. 47 By virtue of Article 158(5) of the Rules of Procedure, it is appropriate to reserve the costs. On those grounds, THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT hereby orders: 1. The application for interim measures is rejected. 2. The costs are reserved. Luxembourg, 28 November 2018. E. Coulon M. Jaeger Registrar President * Language of the case: English. 1 Confidential data omitted.