ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

22 May 2014

Case F‑36/14 R

Hartwig Bischoff

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Application for interim measures — Retirement — Refusal to extend the period of service — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Application for interim measures — Urgency — None)

Application:      under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA and under Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Bischoff seeks suspension of operation of the decision of the appointing authority of the European Commission of 28 March 2014, ‘taken together’ with the decision of the Director-General of the ‘Enterprise and Industry’ Directorate-General (DG) of 7 April 2014 rejecting his application for extension of service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 1 June 2014. Mr Bischoff also seeks the adoption of interim measures required to maintain him in service.

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

Summary

1.      Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act

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

2.      Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Concept — National of a Member State employed by an international organisation — Included

(Art. 45 TFEU)

1.      The grant of suspension of the operation of an act or of another interim measure in connection with that act is justified only where there is a causal link between the act in question and the alleged serious and irreparable harm, and, more precisely, only if that act constitutes the decisive cause of that harm. The interim measures sought must be urgent in the sense that they must be necessary to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the applicant’s interests. That would not apply to a measure purported to prevent harm not resulting from the contested act.

(see para. 22)

See:

12 February 2003, C‑399/02 P(R) Marcuccio v Commission, para. 26

22 December 2011, T‑593/11 R Al-Chihabi v Council, para. 16 and the case-law cited therein

2.      An official of the European Union has the status of a migrant worker, since an EU national working in a Member State other than his State of origin does not lose his status of worker within the meaning of Article 45(1) TFEU through occupying a post within an international organisation, even if the rules relating to his entry into and residence in the country in which he is employed are specifically governed by an international agreement.

It follows that an official, who thus has the status of worker within the meaning of the FEU Treaty, will have the right, after retiring, to remain and reside within the Union, as provided for in Article 45(3)(d) TFEU and Article 17 of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221, 68/360, 72/194, 73/148, 75/34, 75/35, 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96.

(see paras 24, 25)

See:

16 December 2004, C‑293/03 My, para. 37 and the case-law cited therein

26 February 2003, T‑184/00 Drouvis v Commission, para. 70