Order — ECLI:EU:T:2012:640
Date: 2012-12-03
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Staff cases;Action for damages;Application for interim measures

Summary 1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 257, third para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1)) 2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Strictly financial damage (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) 3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for admissibility — Contested decision having exhausted its effects on the date when the application for interim measures was submitted — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU) 4. Procedure — Costs — Jurisdiction of the Court hearing the application for interim relief to make an order as to costs — Exceptional nature — Manifestly unfounded application for interim relief — Included (Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 86, 91 and 94(a)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 10, 17) See: C‑149/95 P(R) Commission v Atlantic Container Line and Others [1995] ECR I‑2165, paras 17 and 18; C‑233/03 P(R) Linea GIG v Commission [2003] ECR I‑7911, paras 34 to 36; C‑403/04 P and C‑405/04 P Sumitomo Metal Industries and Nippon Steel v Commission [2007] ECR I‑729, para. 39 and the case-law cited therein T‑248/08 P Doktor v Council [2010] ECR-SC, paras 39 to 43 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 14-15, 19) See: 378/87 R Top Hit Holzvertrieb v Commission [1988] ECR 161, para. 18; C‑213/91 R Abertal and Others v Commission [1991] ECR I‑5109, para. 18; C‑471/00 P(R) Commission v Cambridge Healthcare Supplies [2001] ECR I‑2865, para. 113 T‑163/00 R Carotti v Court of Auditors [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑133 and II‑607, para. 8; T‑339/00 R Bactria v Commission [2001] ECR II‑1721, para. 94; T‑196/01 R Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission [2001] ECR II‑3107, para. 32; T‑151/01 R Duales System Deutschland v Commission [2001] ECR II‑3295, para. 187; T‑306/01 R Aden and Others v Council and Commission [2002] ECR II‑2387, para. 94; T‑181/02 R Neue Erba Lautex v Commission [2002] ECR II‑5081, para. 82; judgment of 25 April 2008 in T‑41/08 R Vakakis v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 52; T‑103/10 P(R) Parliament v U [2010] ECR-SC, para. 35 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 16) See: F‑140/11 R BK v Commission [2012] ECR-SC, para. 29 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 21-24) See: Judgments of 17 November 2006 in T‑283/06 R Dairo Air Services v Commission, not published in the ECR; 14 July 2008 in T‑254/00 R Hotel Cipriani v Commission, not published in the ECR; 18 October 2010 in T‑55/09 P Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 59; 12 April 2011 in T‑486/10 R Iberdrola v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 12; T‑256/10 P Marcuccio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC, para. 77; T‑491/11 P Marcuccio v Commission [2012] ECR-SC, para. 39