EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :10 1ORDER OF THE PR ESIDENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
23 February 2010
Case F-99/09 R
Elisavet P apathanasiou
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(T rade M arks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Civil service — Procedure for interim relief — Members of the temp orary staff — Indefinite contract 
with a t ermination c lause — Application for suspension o f operation o f a d ecision terminating a 
contract as a mem ber of the temp orary staff — Urgency — None)
Application:brought under Articles 278 T FEU and 157 E A, as well as Article 279 T FEU, applicable to 
the EAEC T reaty pursuant to Article 106a th ereof, in which M s Papathanasiou seeks 
suspension, first, of OHIM’s decision o f 12 March 2009 t erminating her contract as a 
mem ber of the temp orary staff with effect from 15 November 2009 , and, second, of the 
decision o f 3 August 2009 e xtending to 15 February 2010 th e no tice pe riod initially fixed 
on 15 November 2009 b y the decision o f 12 March 2009 .
Held: The application for interim relief is dismissed. Costs are reserved.
Summ ary
1. Applications for interim m easures — Suspension of operation of a m easure — Interim m easures — 
Conditions for granting — Urgency — ‘Fumus boni juris’ — Cumulative nature — Manner and order 
of examination — Discretion of the judge de aling with the application for interim relief
(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 39 a nd Annex I, Art. 7(1); Rules of 
Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))
2. Applications for interim m easures — Suspension of operation of a m easure — Interim m easures — 
Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof
(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))
3. Officials — Representation — Protection of staff representatives
(Staff Regulations, Annex II, Art. 1, sixth para.)
1. Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that applications for 
interim me asures must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and th e pleas of fact and law 
establishing a p rima facie case for the interim me asures applied for.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :10SUMM ARY—F-99/09R
PAPATHANASIOUvOHIM
The conditions of urgency and establishment of a p rima facie case ar e cumulative, so th at an 
application f or interim me asures m ust be di smissed if either of th em i s no t satisfied. Wh ere 
appropriate, the judge hearing such an application m ust also weigh up the interests involved.
In the context of that overall examination, the judge hearing the application h as a w ide discretion a nd 
is free to determine, having regard t o the specific circumstances of the case, the manner and order in 
which th ose various conditions ar e to be examined, th ere being no r ule of law imposing a 
pre-established scheme o f analysis within which the need to order interim me asures must be assessed.
(see paras 33-35)
See:
T-173/99 R E lkaïm and M azuel v C omm ission [1999 ] ECR-SC I-A-155 a nd II-811, para. 18; T-120/01 R D e Nicola v 
EIB [2001 ] ECR-SC I-A-171 a nd II-783, paras 12 a nd 13
F-38/06 R B ianchi v E TF [2006 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-27 a nd II-A-1-93, paras 20 a nd 22
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. Furthermore, 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 
damage of that kind.
The me re necessity of finding a j ob abroad d oes no t, in itself, constitute serious and irr eparable 
damage.
(see paras 41-42)
See:
C-65/99 P(R) Willeme v C omm ission [1999 ] ECR I-1857 , para. 62
Elkaïm and M azuel v C omm ission, para. 25; T-320/02 R Esch-Leonhardt and Others v E CB [2002 ] ECR-SC I-A-325 
and II-1555 , para. 27
F-19/08 R Bennett and Others v O HIM [ 2008 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-131 a nd II-A-1-713, para. 28
3. According to th e sixth p aragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to th e Staff Regulations, the fact of 
performing the duties of a mem ber of the Staff Committee m ust in no w ay be prejudicial to the person 
concerned.
In so far as the pe rformance of duties within th e Staff Committee is connected with a pe rson’s status 
as a mem ber of staff and does no t exist independently of the contract which binds the staff mem ber 
to an institution o r agency, when th e contract of a s taff mem ber who is a mem ber of the Staff 
Committee c omes to an end, his term o f office as a s taff representative w ithin th e Staff Committee 
automatically also ends as a c onsequence. It is on ly where ‘the fact’ of performing duties within th e 
Staff Committee is prejudicial to a s taff mem ber, by resulting in dismissal, for instance, that the sixth 
paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations is infringed.
(see paras 50-52)