Judgment — ECLI:EU:F:2014:246
Date: 2014-11-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible

Summary 1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2)) 2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Non-material damage not capable of being remedied by interim measures to any greater extent than in the substantive proceedings — No urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2)) 3. Application for interim measures — Community law — Application — Formal requirements — Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 35(1)(d) and 102(2) and (3)) 1. Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that applications for the adoption of interim measures must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for. The conditions of urgency and establishment of a prima facie case are cumulative, so that an application for interim measures must be dismissed if either of them is not satisfied. The judge hearing such an application must also balance the competing interests. (see paras 17-18) See: 3 July 2008, F‑52/08 R Plasa v Commission, para. 21 and the case-law cited; 15 February 2011, F‑104/10 R De Pretis Cagnodo and Trampuz de Pretis Cagnodo v Commission, para. 16 2. The purpose of interim proceedings is not to ensure that the damage is made good but to ensure that the judgment on the substance of the case takes full effect. In order that this objective may be attained the measures sought in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant’s interests must be urgent, in the sense that, they must be ordered and produce their effects before a decision is reached in the main action. Moreover, it is for the party applying for interim measures to adduce evidence that it cannot await the outcome of the main action without suffering such damage. It follows that the condition of urgency is not met where granting the interim measures sought would not remedy the alleged non-material damage to any greater extent than would the annulment of the decision at issue at the conclusion of the main proceedings. (see paras 20, 25) See: 25 March 1999, C‑65/99 P(R) Willeme v Commission, para. 62 10 September 1999, T‑173/99 R Elkaïm and Mazuel v Commission, para. 25; 19 December 2002, T‑320/02 R Esch-Leonhardt and Others v BCE, para. 27; 25 November 2003, T‑339/03 R Clotuche v Commission, para. 24 3. It follows from Article 35(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, read in conjunction with Articles 102(2) and 102(3), that an application for interim measures must be sufficient in itself to enable the defendant to prepare his observations and the judge hearing the application to rule on it, where necessary, without other supporting information, since the essential elements of fact and law on which it is founded must be set out in the text of the application itself. (see para. 32) See: 27 April 2010, T‑103/10 P(R) Parliament v U, para. 40 and the case-law cited