EN
ReportsofCases
ECLI:EU:F:2011 :183 1ORDER OF THE PR ESIDENT O F THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
16 November 2011
Case F-61/11 R
Daniele Po ssanzini
v
European Agency for the M anagement of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the 
Member States of the European Un ion (F rontex)
(Civil service — Application for interim me asures — Application for suspension o f operation — 
Inadmissibility of the main action — 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 Possanzini seeks, in essence, 
suspension o f the decisions by which Frontex refused to renew his contract as a mem ber 
of the temp orary staff.
Held: The applicant’s application for interim me asures is dismissed. Costs are reserved.
Summ ary
1. Application for interim m easures — Conditions for admissibility — Admissibility of m ain 
application — Irrelevance — Limits
(Art. 278 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 — ‘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 — Provisional nature of the measure
(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102)
1. In principle, the question o f th e ad missibility of the m ain action i s no t to be examined in 
proceedings for interim relief but is to be reserved for the examination o f the main action, unless it is 
apparent at first sight th at the main action is manifestly inadmissible. To determine admissibility at the 
interlocutory stage in cases where the ad missibility of the main action c annot prima facie be ruled out 
would be tantamount to prejudging the Tribunal’s decision on th e main action.
2 ECLI:EU:F:2011 :183SUMM ARY–CASEF-61/11
POSSANZINIvFRONTEX
Furthermore, eve n if has no t been contended by way of defence that the main action i s manifestly 
inadmissible, the judge hearing applications for interim me asures is no t prevented from ruling on th at 
point since inadmissibility in proceedings seeking review by the Court of an act constitutes a g round 
involving a q uestion o f public policy which may, and eve n must, be rai sed of their own motion b y the 
Courts of the European Union.
(see paras 17, 18)
See:
4 February 1999 , T-196/98 R Pe ña Abizanda and Others v C omm ission, para. 10, and the case-law cited therein
14 December 2006 , F-120/06 R Dálnoky v C omm ission, para. 41
2. 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 for 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.
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 prescribe interim me asures must be assessed.
Where, on a n application f or interim me asures, the judge hearing th e application b efore 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 me asure by 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.
As regards th e consequences of granting suspension o f operation o f the refusal to renew a s taff 
mem ber’s contract, th e me re suspension o f that refusal would no t change the staff mem ber’s position 
since it could no t, of itself, in any way entitle him to have h is contract renewed, nor, by the same 
token, could it allow his situation t o be reviewed. Such a s uspension w ould accordingly be devoid of 
effect and, in consequence, the person c oncerned has no i nterest in requesting it.
(see paras 41, 42, 50, 51)
See:
31 July 1989 , 206 /89 R S. v C omm ission, paras 14 a nd 15
10 September 1999 , T-173/99 R Elkaïm and M azuel v C omm ission, para. 18; 9 August 2001 , T-120/01 R De Nicola v 
EIB, para. 12; 30 April 2008 , T-65/08 R Spain v C omm ission, para. 82, and the case-law cited therein
31 May 2006 , F-38/06 R Bianchi v E TF, para. 20