ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

11 April 1995

Case T-82/95 R

Carmen Gómez de Enterria

v

European Parliament

‛Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Retirement in the interests of the service’

Full text in French II-297

Application for:

suspension of the operation of the decision of the President of the European Parliament retiring the applicant from her post, pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff Regulations.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Order

In July 1987 the applicant was appointed Director General of Translation and General Services of the Parliament. In November 1994 the President of the Parliament informed the applicant that it had been decided, pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff Regulations, to retire her from her post ‘in connection with reorganizational measures planned by the Secretariat-General of the European Parliament, and in the interests of the service’, but that consideration would nevertheless be given to the possibility of assigning her to another post corresponding to her grade. On 19 December 1994 the President of the European Parliament confirmed the decision retiring her from her 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 12).

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

The judge hearing an application for interim measures must make an assessment of the urgency of adopting the interim measures by examining whether implementation of the contested acts, before a decision is made on the substance, is capable of causing the party making the application to suffer irreversible damage which could not be made good, even if the Court were to annul the contested decision. In any event, despite their temporary nature, the measures sought should not be disproportionate to the defendant institution's interest in seeing those acts implemented, even where they form the subject-matter of an action (paragraph 17).

See: T-589/93 R Ryan-Sheridan v EFILWC [1994] ECRSC II-257, para. 19

As regards the financial damage alleged, if the contested decision is annulled, the applicant would be entitled to payment of all the sums which, but for that decision, she should have received between 1 April 1995 and the date of the judgment annulling the decision. Furthermore, the applicant would be entitled as from1 April 1995 to a considerable sum, pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff Regulations in conjunction with Annex IV thereto. Consequently, pending a decision on the substance, she will not be in a financial situation liable to cause her serious and irreparable damage (paragraphs 18 and 19).

As regards the applicant's submission that, if the contested decision is annulled, she may suffer damage on account of being precluded for all intents and purposes from reinstatement in her current post, or even from reassignment to another post corresponding to her grade, the Court finds that in those circumstances compliance with the Court's judgment would entail for the defendant institution a duty to adopt the measures necessary for the reestablishment of the applicant's rights (paragraph 20).

Finally, if the main action results in annulment, that will constitute appropriate reparation for any injury which may have been caused to the applicant's reputation and professional standing (paragraph 21).

See: 59/80 and 129/80 Turner v Commission [1981] ECR 1883, para. 74

The applicant has failed to prove that the operation of the contested decision is capable of causing her damage which could not be made good by compliance with a judgment of the Court in her favour, or that the damage which she may suffer would be manifestly disproportionate to the defendant institution's interest in retiring her from her post (paragraph 22).

Operative part:

The application for interim measures is dismissed.