EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2010 :97 1ORDER OF THE PR ESIDENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
10 September 2010
Case F-62/10 R
Jürgen Esders
v
European Comm ission
(Civil service — Procedure for interim relief — Application for suspension o f operation o f a me asure — 
Reassignment — Rules on th e rotation o f officials in the Commission’s representations — Urgency — 
None)
Application:brought under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA, as well as Article 279 TFEU, applicable to 
the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which M r Esders, an official in th e 
Directorate-General for C ommunication a t th e C ommission a ssigned t o th e 
representation in Germany, seeks suspension o f the operation o f the decision o f 27 July 
2010 r eassigning him to the Commission’s headquarters from 1 September 2010 .
Held: The application for interim relief 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 — ‘Fumus boni juris’ — Urgency — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the 
interests involved
(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. Application for interim m easures — Suspension of operation of a m easure — Suspension of operation 
of a de cision reassigning to the Comm ission’s headquarters an official previously assigned t o a 
representation in another Member State — Conditions for granting
(Art. 278 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 
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.
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 th e interests involved. In th e 
context of that overall examination, the judge hearing the application h as a w ide discretion a nd is free
2 ECLI:EU:F:2010 :97SUMM ARY—CASEF-62/10R
ESDERSvCOMM ISSION
 to determine, having regard t o the specific circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which 
those various conditions are to be examined, there being no r ule of Community law imposing a 
pre-established scheme o f analysis within which the need to order interim me asures must be assessed.
(see paras 41-43)
See:
T-173/99 R Elkaïm and M azuel v C omm ission [1999 ] ECR-SC I-A-155 a nd II-811, para. 18; T-120/01 R De Nicola v 
EIB [2001 ] ECR-SC I-A-171 a nd II-783, paras 12 a nd 13
F-38/06 R Bianchi 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. Moreover, it is for the party applying for interim me asures to add uce proof that it 
cannot await the outcome o f the main action w ithout suffering such da mage.
A declaration b y on e or more doctors is no t, in itself, sufficient to establish th at, if the operation o f a 
decision r eassigning to th e C ommission’s headquarters an o fficial previously assigned to a 
representation i n another Member State is no t suspended, he risks suffering serious and irr eparable 
damage. The authors of the me dical certificates produced have on ly been able to hear th e applicant’s 
point of view, and th ere is no ev idence or eve n assertion th at they had a ll th e information a nd 
documents th ey needed in order to have a n ad equate understanding of the professional context 
involved.
(see paras 45, 47)
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-41/10 R Bermejo Garde v EE SC [2010 ] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 a nd II-A-1-0000 , para. 55