Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2004:58
Date: 2004-03-02
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Specific cases of acts having adverse effect
Procedure: Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY - CASE T-234/02 R 
Summary 
1. Applications for interim measures - Criteria for admissibility - Admissibility of 
the main application - 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 -
Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage 
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
1. The question of the admissibility of the main action should not, as a rule, be 
examined in proceedings for interim relief but should be reserved for the 
examination of the main application, except where it appears to be prima facie 
manifestly inadmissible. To determine admissibility at the interlocutory stage, in 
cases where an application is not prima facie entirely inadmissible, would be 
tantamount to prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance on the main 
action. 
(see para. 16) 
See: T-208/00 R Barleycorn Mongolite and Boixader Rivas v Parliament and Council 
[2000] ECR-SC I-A-209 and II-941, para. 13; T-215/02 R Santiago Gómez-Reino v 
Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-199 and II-1019, para. 26 
2. An application for 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. 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. 
I-A - 322 
MICHAEL v COMMISSION 
The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to 
the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the 
party applying for them. It is for the party seeking suspension of the operation of 
a contested decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main 
proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable 
consequences. The purpose of proceedings for interim relief is not to ensure 
reparation for damage but rather to ensure that the ruling on the substance has full 
effect. 
(see paras 17, 31, 32) 
See: T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 36; 
C-65/99 P (R) Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR I-1857, para. 62; T-236/02 R 
Marcuccio v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-181 and II-941, para. 32; Santiago 
Gómez-Reino v Commission, cited above. para. 27 
I-A - 323