ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

31 March 1995

Case T-40/95 R

Philippe Guebels

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post’

Full text in French II-271

Application for:

suspension of the operation of a decision to remove the applicant from his post, without withdrawal of entitlement to retirement pension, as a disciplinary measure.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

On 24 May 1991, the applicant, an official of the Commission in Grade C 4, took part in the written accountancy and auditing tests in open competition EUR/B/21, organized by the Commission and the Court of Auditors. By memorandum of 19 February 1992, the appointing authority opened disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, who was suspected of having communicated with other candidates during the course of the competition. On 18 January 1995, following those disciplinary proceedings, in view of the facts found against the applicant and of the aggravating circumstances of the case, the appointing authority imposed the disciplinary measure provided for in Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations, namely removal from his post.

Law

It is for the party seeking the grant of interim measures to prove that he cannot await the outcome of the main action without suffering damage that would have serious and irreparable consequences (paragraph 21).

See: T-146/94R Williams v Court of Auditors [1994] ECRSC II-571, para. 12

As a matter of principle, purely financial damage cannot be regarded as irreparable, or even as being reparable only with difficulty, since it can ultimately be made good by financial compensation (paragraph 39).

See: Williams v Court of Auditors, cited above, para. 18

However, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to assess, in the light of the specific circumstances of the case, whether enforcement of the contested decision might cause the applicant damage so serious that it could no longer be made good by the annulment of that decision once the proceedings in the main action are completed (paragraph 40).

The purpose of granting interim measures is not to offset the consequences which may ensue for the party who applies for them in the event of the application in the main proceedings being dismissed but to avoid that party suffering grave and irreparable harm before a decision is given on the merits (paragraph 43).

Given the income and fixed expenses of the applicant and his wife, the applicant has not adduced sufficient proof that serious and irreparable harm will be caused pending the final decision in the main proceedings (paragraph 45).

It follows from the balancing of the parties' interests that suspension of the operation of the contested measure, thus requiring the Commission to maintain a work relationship with an official who has been removed from his post following a disciplinary procedure on grounds considered to be serious, could be justified in relation to the damage alleged by the applicant only in exceptional circumstances. The application for suspension of the operation of the contested decision must therefore be dismissed at the present stage (paragraph 47).

See: Williams v Court of Auditors, cited above, para. 23

However, an order on an application for interim measures may be amended or revoked if circumstances change (paragraph 48).

See: T-549/93 R D v Commission [1993] ECR II-1347, para. 50

The Commission has, moreover, envisaged granting the applicant assistance under Article 76 of the Staff Regulations in the event of his financial situation deteriorating should the proceedings become protracted (paragraph 48).

Operative part:

The application for interim measures is dismissed.