ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
21 November 2007
Case F-98/07 R
Nicole Petrilli
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Application for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation and interim measures – Urgency – None)
Application: brought under Articles 242 EC, 243 EC, 157 EA and 158 EA, in which Mrs Petrilli seeks, first, suspension of the operation
of the Commission’s decision of 20 July 2007 dismissing her request, brought on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations,
for the renewal of her contract as a member of the contract staff, and second, the grant of interim measures.
Held: The application for interim measures is dismissed. The costs are reserved.
Summary
1.      Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima
facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
2.      Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Serious and irreparable damage
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
3.      Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Serious and irreparable damage
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
1.      The conditions for granting interim measures relating to urgency and the establishment of a prima facie case are cumulative,
so that an application for interim measures must be rejected if one of them is absent.
In the context of that overall examination, the judge hearing the application for interim relief enjoys a wide margin of discretion
and remains free to determine, in light of the particular features of the case, the way in which those different conditions
have to be verified and the order of priority of that examination, since there is no rule of Community law imposing on him
a predetermined analytical model for assessing the need for an interim decision.
(see paras 19-20)
See:
T-120/01 R De Nicola v EIB [2001] ECR-SC I‑A‑171 and II‑783, paras 12 and 13
2.       The purpose of interim proceedings is not to secure reparation of damage but to guarantee the full effectiveness of the judgment
on the substance. In order that the latter objective may be attained, the measures sought must be urgent in the sense that,
in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant’s interests, they must be ordered and become effective even
before the decision in the main proceedings. It is for the party applying for the grant of interim measures to adduce proof
that it cannot await the outcome of the main action without suffering serious and irreparable damage of that kind.
(see paras 29, 33)
See:
C-65/99 P(R) Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR I‑1857, para. 62
T-173/99 R Elkaïm and Mazuel v Commission [1999] ECR‑SC I‑A‑155 and II‑811, para. 25; T-320/02 R Esch-Leonhardt and Others v ECB [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑325 and II‑1555, para. 27
3.      The loss of an opportunity to occupy a post to be filled in a Community institution amounts to material rather than non‑material
damage.
Purely financial damage cannot, in principle, be regarded as irreparable, or even difficult to repair, because financial compensation
can be made for it subsequently.
(see paras 35-36)
See:
T-549/93 R D v Commission [1993] ECR II‑1347, para. 45; T-10/02 Girardot v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-129 and II‑A‑2‑609, para. 56 and the case-law cited therein