EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2011 :184 1ORDER OF THE PR ESIDENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
16 November 2011
Case F-67/11 R
Luigi M ar cuc cio
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Application for interim me asures — Application for suspension o f operation o f a 
measure — Urgency — None — Balancing of interests)
Application:brought u nder Articles 278 T FEU and 157 E A and Article 279 T FEU, applicable to th e 
EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which M r Marcuccio seeks, in essence, 
suspension o f operation o f the rejection o f his application o f 28 February 2011 s eeking, 
inter alia, the ad option o f me asures to comply with p aragraph 2 of the operative p art of 
the judgment of 9 June 2010 i n Case F-56/09 M arcuccio v C omm ission.
Held: The applicant’s application for interim me asures is dismissed. Costs are reserved.
Summ ary
1. Application for interim m easures — Suspension of operation of a m easure — Interim m easures — 
Conditions for granting — ‘Prima facie case’ — Urgency — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the 
interests involved — Manner and order of examination — Discretion of the judge de aling with the 
application for interim relief
(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))
2. Application for interim m easures — Suspension of operation of a m easure — Interim m easures — 
Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — 
Financial loss
(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))
1. Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that applications for 
the ad option o f interim me asures must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of 
fact and law establishing a p rima facie case for the interim me asures applied for.
The conditions relating to urgency and the prima facie me rits of the application (fumus boni juris) are 
cumulative, which me ans that an application f or interim me asures must be dismissed where on e of 
those conditions is no t satisfied. Wh ere appropriate, the judge hearing an application for interim relief 
must also balance the interests involved.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2011 :184SUMM ARY–CASEF-67/11
MARCUCCIOvCOMM ISSION
In the context of that overall examination, the judge hearing the application h as a w ide discretion a nd 
is free to determine, in the light of the specific circumstances of the case, the manner in which it must 
be ascertained whether those various conditions are satisfied, and the order in which this examination 
is to be carried out, th ere being no r ule of law imposing a p re-established scheme o f analysis within 
which the need to order interim me asures must be assessed.
Where, on a n application f or interim me asures, the judge hearing the application, before whom it is 
claimed th at the applicant risks serious and irr eparable harm, balances the various interests involved, 
he must determine, inter alia, whether annulment of the contested decision b y the ruling in th e main 
action w ould m ake i t possible for th e situation w hich w ould have b een brought a bout by th e 
imme diate operation o f the me asure to be reversed and, conversely, whether suspension o f operation 
of the me asure would prevent it from b eing fully effective in th e eve nt of the m ain action b eing 
dismissed.
Where the me re suspension o f the contested decision w ould no t change the applicant’s position s ince 
it could no t, of itself, in any way entitle him to have th e photographs of the documents destroyed, as he 
requests, such a s uspension w ould be devoid o f effect and, in consequence, the applicant has no 
interest in requesting it. The court hearing th e application f or interim relief admittedly also has the 
power to order interim me asures other than th e suspension o f operation o f me asures provided for in 
Article 279 T FEU, but no s uch me asure would amount to a r eversal of the situation m aking the main 
action r edundant.
(see paras 15-17, 26, 27)
See:
13 January 1978 , 4/78 R S alerno v C omm ission, para. 2; 31 July 1989 , 206 /89 R S . v C omm ission, paras 14 a nd 15
30 April 2008 , T-65/08 R Spain v C omm ission, para. 82, and the case-law cited therein
3 July 2008 , F-52/08 R P lasa v C omm ission, paras 21 a nd 22, and th e case-law cited th erein; 15 February 2011 , 
F-104/10 R de P retis Ca gnodo and Trampuz de P retis Ca gnodo v C omm ission, para. 16
2. The purpose of interim proceedings is no t to secure reparation o f damage but to guarantee th e full 
effectiveness of the judgment on th e substance. In order that the latter objective m ay be attained, the 
measures sought m ust be urgent in th e sense that, in order to avoid serious and irr eparable da mage 
to the applicant’s interests, they must be ordered and become e ffective eve n before the decision in the 
main proceedings. It is for the party applying for the grant of interim me asures to add uce proof that it 
cannot await the outcome o f the main action w ithout suffering serious and irr eparable da mage of that 
kind.
With regard t o financial loss resulting from th e refusal to pay the compe nsation a nd pe nalty payments 
applied for, in order to prove th at th e condition o f urgency is satisfied, the court hearing th e 
application for interim me asures must be given specific and precise information, supported by detailed 
documents, establishing th e applicant’s financial situation a nd enabling th e court to assess th e 
consequences likely to result from th e absence of the me asures sought.
(see paras 19, 21)
See:
25 March 1999 , C-65/99 P (R) Willeme v C omm ission, para. 62
10 September 1999 , T-173/99 R Elkaïm a nd M azuel v C omm ission, para. 25; 19 December 2002 , T-320/02 R 
Esch-Leonhardt and Others v E CB, para. 27
27 April 2010 , T-103/10 P(R) Parliament v U , para. 37