ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

21 December 1995

Case T-220/95 R

Christophe Giménez

v

Committee of the Regions of the European Union

‛Officials — Competitions — Non-admission to tests — Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of competition procedure’

Full text in French II-921

Application for:

suspension of a competition procedure, alternatively of the appointment procedures anticipated in consequence of that competition.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

By the decision contested in the main proceedings, the selection board in a competition organized by the Committee of the Regions, which was described in the notice of competition as an internal competition, rejected the application by the applicant, a member of the temporary staff of the Economic and Social Committee, on the ground that he did not form part of the common organizational structure of those two committees, as provided for by Protocol No 16 annexed to the Treaty on European Union.

Legal considerations

It is apparent from the arguments advanced by the applicant that his application is intended to safeguard the possibility of his actually taking part, on equal terms with the other candidates, in the tests in the competition at issue if and when judgment is delivered in his favour in the main proceedings (paragraph 35).

It is for the judge hearing an application for interim measures to examine the urgency of the matter, having regard to the obligation incumbent on the selection board and the appointing authority to adopt the measures necessary to comply with such a judgment (paragraph 38).

See: C-254/95 PR Parliament v Innamorati [1995] ECR I-2707, para. 18

The Court finds that the threat that the applicant may suffer irreparable damage, which is an essential element of any finding as to the existence of urgency, is not conceivable in any of the situations which might arise in consequence of delivery of judgment in the main proceedings, even if the defendant were reasonably to choose not to call in question the results of the competition as a whole or the ensuing appointments. In those circumstances, it would have to find a solution which was fair to the applicant and which restored his rights. In any event, it would be obliged, subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, to make good any additional damage which might result from the illegal act thus annulled (paragraph 38).

See: T-589/93 R Ryan-Sheridan v EFILWC [1994] ECR-SC II-257, para. 10; C-242/90 P Commission v Albani and Others [1993] ECR I-3839, paras 13 and 17; C-412/92 P Parliament v Meskens [1994] ECR I-3757, para. 24

Next, the judge hearing the application for interim measures considers whether, by reason of a manifest error on the part of the selection board, the application in the main proceedings is so clearly well founded that a finding to that effect in itself justifies the grant of the interim measure applied for, even though any damage which the applicant may suffer is not of a serious and irreparable kind (paragraph 39).

See: T-156/94 R Armrain v Commission ( 1994] ECR II-715. para. 28 et seq.

By rejecting the application of the applicant on the ground indicated, the selection board did not commit any such error, as regards the interpretation of the concept of the common structural organization or as regards its application to the present case, or by virtue of its having considered that only candidates forming part of that structure were to be admitted to the competition (paragraphs 40 to 44).

Operative part:

The application for interim measures is dismissed.