(Civil service – Procedure for interim relief – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Urgency – None)

Application: brought under Articles 242 EC, 243 EC, 157 EA and 158 EA, in which S seeks suspension of the operation of the Parliament’s decision of 27 July 2006 reassigning him to Brussels as adviser to the Director General for Information.

Held: The application for interim relief is dismissed. Costs are reserved.

Summary

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))

1.The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for those measures. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of that kind. Although it is correct that, in order to establish the existence of serious and irreparable damage, it is not necessary for the occurrence of the damage to be demonstrated with absolute certainty, it being sufficient to show that damage is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability, the applicant is required to prove the facts forming the basis of his claim that serious and irreparable damage is likely.

(see paras 30-31)

See: T-111/99 R Samper v Parliament [1999] ECR-SC I‑A‑111 and II‑609, para. 38; T‑192/01 R Lior v Commission [2001] ECR II‑3657, para. 49; T-275/02 R D v EIB [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑259 and II‑1295, paras 59 and 60

2.Under Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal applications for interim measures must state, in particular, the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for.

(see para. 38)