CELEX: 62010FO0062
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-10 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 September 2010. # Jürgen Esders v European Commission. # Public service - Application for interim measures. # Case F-62/10 R.

Reports of Cases
                     ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
                                               10 September 2010
                                                 Case F-62/10 R
                                                 Jürgen Esders
                                                         v
                                            European Commission
   (Civil service — Procedure for interim relief — Application for suspension of operation of a measure —
    Reassignment — Rules on the rotation of 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 Mr Esders, an official in the
                 Directorate-General for Communication at the Commission assigned to the
                 representation in Germany, seeks suspension of the operation of the decision of 27 July
                 2010 reassigning him to the Commission’s headquarters from 1 September 2010.
   Held:         The application for interim relief is dismissed. Costs are reserved.
                                                    Summary
   1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures —
   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 and Annex I, Art. 7(1); Rules of
   Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))
   2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Suspension of operation
   of a decision reassigning to the Commission’s headquarters an official previously assigned to 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 measures must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law
   establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for.
   The conditions of urgency and establishment of a prima facie case are cumulative, so that an
   application for interim measures must be dismissed if either of them is not satisfied. Where
   appropriate, the judge hearing such an application must also weigh up the interests involved. In the
   context of that overall examination, the judge hearing the application has a wide discretion and is free
EN
          ECLI:EU:F:2010:97                                                                               1
 ---pagebreak---                                               SUMMARY — CASE F-62/10 R
                                                 ESDERS v COMMISSION
to determine, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which
those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of Community law imposing a
pre-established scheme of analysis within which the need to order interim measures must be assessed.
                                                                                                       (see paras 41-43)
          See:
          T-173/99 R Elkaïm and Mazuel v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-155 and II-811, para. 18; T-120/01 R De Nicola v
          EIB [2001] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-783, paras 12 and 13
          F-38/06 R Bianchi v ETF [2006] ECR-SC I-A-1-27 and II-A-1-93, paras 20 and 22
2. The purpose of interim proceedings is not to secure reparation of damage but to guarantee the full
effectiveness of the judgment on the substance. In order that the latter objective may be attained, the
measures sought must be urgent in the sense that, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage
to the applicant’s interests, they must be ordered and become effective even before the decision in the
main proceedings. Moreover, it is for the party applying for interim measures to adduce proof that it
cannot await the outcome of the main action without suffering such damage.
A declaration by one or more doctors is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that, if the operation of a
decision reassigning to the Commission’s headquarters an official previously assigned to a
representation in another Member State is not suspended, he risks suffering serious and irreparable
damage. The authors of the medical certificates produced have only been able to hear the applicant’s
point of view, and there is no evidence or even assertion that they had all the information and
documents they needed in order to have an adequate understanding of the professional context
involved.
                                                                                                      (see paras 45, 47)
          See:
          C-65/99 P(R) Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR I-1857, para. 62
          Elkaïm and Mazuel v Commission, para. 25; T-320/02 R Esch-Leonhardt and Others v ECB [2002] ECR-SC I-A-325
          and II-1555, para. 27
          F-41/10 R Bermejo Garde v EESC [2010] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, para. 55
2                                                                                                  ECLI:EU:F:2010:97