Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2012:35


20 March 2012

Case F‑2/12 R

Emil Hristov


European Commission

European Medicines Agency

(Civil service — Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — None)

Application: brought under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA, as well as Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty by virtue of Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Hristov seeks the suspension of the decision of the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA.

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


1.      Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief

(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 102(2) and 103(1))

2.      Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Applicant’s interest in obtaining the relief sought

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

1.      Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that applications for the adoption of interim measures must state, in particular, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for.

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. 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 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 law imposing a pre-established scheme of analysis within which the need to order interim measures must be assessed.

(see paras 11-13)


3 July 2008, F‑52/08 R Plasa v Commission, paras 21 and 22 and the case-law cited therein; 15 February 2011, F‑104/10 R de Pretis Cagnodo and Trampuz de Pretis Cagnodo v Commission, para. 16

2.      The purpose of interim proceedings is not to secure reparation of damage but to guarantee the full effectiveness of the judgment on the substance. In order that the latter objective may be attained, the measures sought must be urgent in the sense that, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant’s interests, they must be ordered and become effective even before the decision in the main proceedings. Moreover, it is for the party applying for interim measures to adduce proof that it cannot await the outcome of the main action without suffering such damage.

The serious and irreparable damage alleged can be taken into account by the judge hearing the application for relief, in the context of his examination of the urgency requirement, only to the extent that it is likely to be caused to the interests of the party seeking the relief.

(see paras 15, 18)


25 March 1999, C‑65/99 P(R) Willeme v Commission, para. 62

10 September 1999, T‑173/99 R Elkaïm and Mazuel v Commission, para. 25; 19 December 2002, T‑320/02 R Esch-Leonhardt and Others v ECB, para. 27

14 July 2010, F‑41/10 R Bermejo Garde v EESC, para. 28 and the case-law cited therein