ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

7 January 1994

Case T-564/93 R

André Hecq

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure’

Full text in French II-1

Application for:

interim measures in the form of suspension of operation of:

— the Commission decision changing the system of appointment to the post of Political Secretary seconded to the Union of International and European Civil Servants (UIECS);

— the Commission decision requesting the applicant to return to his former post following a change in the system of appointment to the post of Political Secretary hitherto occupied by the applicant;

— the Commission decision withdrawing the facilities placed at the disposal of the UIECS in Brussels;

and, in the form of an interim order for the maintenance of the applicant in his position as Political Secretary on secondment to the UIECS and for the retention of the staff and equipment placed at his disposal by the Commission in Brussels.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

The applicant, an official of the Commission, was appointed as one of the UIECS's Political Secretaries by the Central Committee of that union. Throughout the duration of his union duties he was employed at the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration, based in Luxembourg.

The Commission subsequently informed the Trade Union or Professional Organizations (TPOs), including the UIECS, that they could thenceforth only designate one Political Secretary on secondment and asked them for their proposed nominations for secondment.

The President of the Luxembourg Commission section of the UIECS confirmed to the Commission that Mr Trentels occupied the seconded post. Accordingly, the Commission requested the applicant to return to his former post at DG XIII.

The President of the UIECS's Central Committee contested the new method of appointment of Political Secretaries and notified the designation of Mr Hecq to the Commission, which decided none the less ‘to award the seconded post to your section, namely to Mr Trentels’.

The UIECS then informed the Commission that its Central Committee had appointed Mr Hecq alone as Political Secretary and that he was to be seconded to Brussels.

The Commission then requested the UIECS to take all the necessary steps to vacate the premises it occupied in Brussels.

The members of the Luxembourg section of the UIECS, meeting at an extraordinary general meeting, voted for the creation of a new union. Following a letter from the President of the UIECS's Central Committee informing the Commission that the members of the new union, including Mr Trentels, no longer had a mandate to make statements in the name of the UIECS, the Commission immediately terminated Mr Trentels' secondment in his capacity as UIECS representative, ordered his return to the post which he had previously occupied and on the same day informed the President of the UIECS's Central Committee of this action.

The application for suspension of operation of the decisions

The President of the Court of First Instance observes that it is apparent from the application for interim measures that, in substance, it seeks the suspension of operation of the three decisions which form the subject-matter of the main proceedings (paragraph 25).

The application for suspension of the operation of the decision awarding the post of Political Secretary on secondment to the UIECS to Mr Trentels

The President of the Court of First Instance states that there is no need to give a decision on the application, which has become manifestly devoid of purpose since the Commission immediately terminated the secondment of the person concerned (paragraphs 26 and 27).

The application for suspension of the operation of the decision requesting the applicant to return to his former post and of the decision withdrawing the facilities placed at the disposal of the UIECS in Brussels

The urgency of an application for interim measures under Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent the party making the application from suffering serious and irreparable damage. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences.

The allegations of an applicant, who, without offering any evidence of the serious and irreparable nature of the damage that might be suffered, merely claims, in essence, that if interim measures were not granted, his legal interests and his future prospects, as an official and as a trade-unionist, could be irremediably damaged, amount to no more than vague and hypothetical assertions.

Since the circumstances put forward cannot be considered as the necessary, or even probable, consequences of the implementation of the contested decisions but merely as potentially capable of leading to future, and uncertain, damage the irreparable nature of which has not been proved, the President of the Court of First Instance considers that the conditions for granting the measures sought are not satisfied and accordingly dismisses the application (paragraphs 28 to 33).

See: T-24/93 R CMBT v Commission [1993] ECR II-543, para. 34; T-549/93 R D. v Commission [1993] ECR, para. 42

Operative part:

The application for interim measures is dismissed.