Reports of Cases

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL 10 September 2010

(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

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

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

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

ECLI:EU:F:2010:97