ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

25 July 1996

Case T-98/96 R

Mario Costacurta

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Decision reassigning an official — Suspension of operation’

Full text in French II-1111

Application for:

suspension of the operation of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 31 May 1996 reassigning the applicant to the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities in Luxembourg.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

Mr Costacurta is a Commission official serving with the Commission's delegation to Kinshasa (Republic of Zaire). On 4 July 1995 he submitted a request for early reassignment under the rotation system. On 5 January 1996 he was informed that the competent administrative authority had proposed that he be assigned to the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Mr Costacurta lodged an appeal against that decision on 19 January 1996, objecting that the Publications Office was not covered by the 1996 rotation exercise. On 20 May 1996 he received confirmation of the Commission's position, in respect of which he lodged a complaint on 31 May 1996. On 10 June 1996 Mr Costacurta received the appointing authority's decision of 31 May 1996 reassigning him to his post with the Publications Office as from 1 July 1996. He lodged a fresh complaint in respect of that decision.

Law

The interim measures referred to in Articles 185 and 186 of the Treaty must be of a provisional nature, that is, they must not prejudice the Court's decision on the substance of the case (paragraph 15).

See: T-52/96 R Sogecable v Commission [1996] ECR II-0000, paras 15 and 16

Under Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure, an application for interim measures must state, not only the subject-matter of the proceedings, but also the circumstances giving rise to urgency. Since, according to established case-law, urgency must be appraised in relation to the need for interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking such relief, that party is required to prove that he cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without personally suffering damage entailing for him serious and irreparable consequences. Furthermore, the measures sought must not, despite their provisional nature, be disproportionate to the defendant's interest in seeing its acts implemented, even where they form the subject-matter of an action (paragraphs 23 to 25).

See: T-102/95 R Attbineau v Commission [1995] ECRSC II-365, para. 22; T-24/96 R U v Cedefop [1996] ECRSC II-479, para. 60; T-23/96 R De Persio v Commission [1996] ECRSC II-527, paras 33 and 34

In cases such as this, concerning a decision reassigning an official, it must be borne in mind when considering the urgency requirement that the institutions have a broad discretion to organize their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them as appropriate in the light of such tasks. Consequently, in assessing the urgency of an application for interim relief in the context of a decision reassigning an official account must be taken of the fact that, although such a measure may inconvenience the official concerned, it does not in itself constitute an abnormal or unforeseeable event in that person's career. In those circumstances, suspension of the decision's operation can be justified only by imperative and exceptional circumstances which are likely to cause serious and irreparable damage to the official concerned (paragraphs 27 and 28).

See; 161/80and 162/80 Carbognaniand Coda Zabetta v Commission [1981] ECR 543, para. 28; Aubineau v Commmisssion, cited above, para. 23; U v Cedefop, cited above, para. 62; T-85/96R Clarke v Cedefop [1996] ECRSC II-0000, paras 67 and 68; T-93/96 R Presle v Cedefop [1996] ECRSC II-0000, para. 45

The applicant has in no way established that such circumstances exist in the present case and has accordingly failed to show that he risks serious and irreparable damage if the decision is implemented before judgment is delivered in the main proceedings. For the rest, it is clear from the documents before the Court that the contested decision does not involve any change in the official's grade or administrative stams. In particular, there is no basis for his complaint that he risks being permanently excluded from the rotation system. If the contested decision is annulled, the administration will review the applicant's assignment, at which time it may decide to post him to one of its delegations to a nonmember country (paragraphs 29 and 30).

Although the three-week period set for implementing the decision reassigning the applicant is manifestly brief, it cannot give rise in itself to serious and irreparable damage (paragraph 31).

Operative part:

The application for interim measures is dismissed.