ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

27 May 2011

Joined Cases F‑5/11 R and F‑15/11 R

Peter Mariën

v

European Commission (F‑5/11 R)

and

European External Action Service (EEAS) (F‑15/11 R)

(Civil service — Procedure for interim relief — Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate on the application for suspension of a decision)

Applications:      brought under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA, and also under Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Mariën seeks, inter alia, suspension of the decision of 11 January 2011 by which the Head of the European Union Delegation in Kabul (Afghanistan) asked him to move from the hotel in which he was staying temporarily and into the secure residential compound recently built for Delegation staff.

Held:      There is no need to adjudicate on the claim for suspension of the decision of 11 January 2011 by which the Head of the European Union Delegation in Kabul (Afghanistan) asked Mr Mariën to move from the hotel in which he was staying temporarily and into the secure residential compound recently built for Delegation staff. The remainder of the claims of the applications for interim relief in Joined Cases F‑5/11 R and F‑15/11 R are rejected. The costs are reserved.

Summary

1.      Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Contested decision having exhausted its effects during the proceedings — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 278 TFEU)

2.      Officials — Rights and obligations — Special derogating provisions applicable to officials posted to a non-Member country — Provision of official accommodation — Obligation to live there

(Staff Regulations, Annex X, Art. 5(1))

1.      Where a contested decision has exhausted its effects during the proceedings, there is no longer any need for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to adjudicate on the claim for suspension of that decision, without prejudice to the decision that will be taken by the Union judicature in the main action regarding the applicant’s interest in seeking annulment, with retrospective effect, of the contested decision in respect of the period during which it produced its effects.

(see paras 39, 42)

2.      It is clear from Article 5(1) of Annex X to the Staff Regulations that the obligation incumbent on a staff member to reside in the accommodation which is provided for him is not conditional upon his agreement. In particular, in circumstances where the obligation is formulated by the competent authority in terms of choosing between two or more specified places of accommodation, it is not open to the staff member to unilaterally attach to the options available conditions or variations desired by him.

(see para. 40)