Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2005:123
Date: 2005-04-12
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Act adversely affecting the official;Freedom of trade union activity;Effects of a judgment annulling a measure
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-191/02 R 
Summary 
1. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Admissibility 
of the main action — Irrelevance — Limits 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 
104(1)) 
2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure -
Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Prima facie case — 
Cumulative nature 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 
104(2)) 
3. Applications f or interim measures — Interim measures — Application made under 
Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations - Time-limit 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(4)) 
4. Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Concept - Decision 
concerning the institution's relations with the trade unions and staff associations — 
Excluded - Exception - Infringement of individual rights of trade-union 
representatives within consultation bodies 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 90) 
5. Officials — Rights and obligations — Trade-union law — Relations between the 
administration and the trade unions and staff associations - Right to terminate a 
framework agreement in the absence of any express provisions on termination 
I-A - 140 
LEBEDEF v COMMISSION 
1. The issue of the admissibility of the main action must not as a matter of principle 
be examined in a procedure for interim relief, but must be reserved for the 
examination of the main application, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter 
is manifestly inadmissible. To rule on admissibility at the interlocutory stage where 
an application is not, at first sight, clearly inadmissible would be tantamount to 
prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance on the main action. 
(see para. 20) 
See: T-196/98 R Peña Abizando and Others v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-5 and 
II-15, para. 10, and the case-law cited; T-208/00 R Barleycorn Mongolite and Boixader 
Rivas v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR-SC I-A-209 and II-941, para. 13 
2. Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that an application for an 
interim measure must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas 
of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for. 
Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for suspension of the 
operation of a measure must be dismissed if any one of them is absent. 
(see para. 21) 
See: T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 18 
3. Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations must be interpreted in such a way as to 
ensure that the official concerned is afforded the most extensive interim judicial 
protection. It follows that an application for interim measures made under that 
provision may be lodged at any time within the period of four months from the date 
of submission of the complaint. 
(see para. 57) 
I-A - 141 
SUMMARY — CASE T-191/02 R 
4. Measures which produce binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately 
affecting the applicant's interests by significantly altering his legal situation 
constitute acts or decisions against which actions for annulment may be brought. In 
so far as it results in the exclusion from the consultation body of the trade union 
which was represented on it by the applicant, a decision by which the institution 
terminates the framework agreement governing its relations with the trade unions 
and staff associations affects the applicant's particular situation by withdrawing from 
him individual rights arising from his position as a trade-union representative within 
that body. Consequently, termination of the framework agreement adversely affects 
him and creates in his favour an interest in contesting, with a view to its annulment, 
the decision implementing it. 
However, the adoption of operational rules, the sole purpose of which is to govern 
the collective labour relations between the administration of an institution on the one 
hand and the trade unions and staff associations on the other and which do not 
provide for any specific rights for the officials representing those organisations 
within the consultation bodies, cannot, as such, adversely affect those officials. 
(see paras 59, 65, 68-70) 
See: 32/68 Grasselli v Commission [1969] ECR 505, paras 4 to 7; 17/78 Deshormes v 
Commission [1979] ECR 189, para. 10; T-576/93 to T-582/93 Browet and Others v 
Commission [1994] ECR II-677, para. 44; T-391/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] 
ECR-SC I-A-269 and II-787, para. 34; T-293/94 Vela Palacios v ESC [1996] ECR-SC 
I-A-305 and II-893, para. 22; T-349/00 Lebedef v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-225 
and II-1031, para. 30 
I-A - 142 
LEBEDEF v COMMISSION 
5. Even though a framework agreement concerning relations between an institution 
and the trade unions and staff associations contains no provisions on the procedure 
for termination, and in particular on the period of notice to be complied with, that 
absence cannot mean that the framework agreement cannot be terminated. 
An agreement concluded between the administration and the trade unions and staff 
associations for an indefinite period must be able to come to an end, in the absence 
of specific provisions, by termination either by the administration or by all the 
signatory trade unions and staff associations, subject to a reasonable period of 
notice. 
(see paras 81-83) 
I-A - 143