ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

14 June 2012

Case F‑38/12 R

BP

v

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

(Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Non-renewal of contract — Reassignment — Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — None)

Application: brought under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA and Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which BP seeks, primarily, suspension of the decisions of 27 February 2012, by which the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) decided, first, not to renew her contract as a member of the contract staff, and, second, to transfer the applicant to another post within the FRA until expiry of that contract (‘the contested decisions’).

Held: BP’s application for interim measures is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

1.      Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Suspension of operation of a reassignment decision — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Definition

(Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))

2.      Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Strictly financial damage

(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 102(2))

1.      Having regard to the broad discretion which the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union have to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and reassign their staff accordingly, a re-assignment decision, even if it causes inconvenience for the officials or agents concerned, does not constitute an abnormal and unforeseeable event in their careers. In those circumstances, suspension of operation can be justified only by imperative and exceptional circumstances likely to cause the official or agent in question serious and irreparable damage.

(see para. 24)

See:

12 July 1996, T‑93/96 R Presle v Cedefop, para. 45

2.      Purely financial damage cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable, or even as being reparable only with difficulty, since, as a general rule, it can be the subject of subsequent financial compensation.

Even in the event of purely financial damage, an interim measure is justified if it appears that, without that measure, the party seeking it would be in a position that could imperil his financial viability, since he does not have an amount of money which under normal circumstances should enable him to meet all the expenditure necessary for satisfying his own basic needs until judgment is given on the main action.

However, in order to be able to determine whether the alleged damage is serious and irreparable and therefore provides grounds for, exceptionally, the suspension of the operation of the contested decision, the judge hearing the application must, in all cases, have clear and precise indications, supported by detailed documents that show the financial situation of the party seeking the relief and which allow him to ascertain the consequences that would probably ensue in the absence of the measures applied for.

(see paras 30-32)

See:

27 April 2010, T‑103/10 P(R) U v Parliament, paras 35 to 37