ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

19 February 2013

Case F‑160/12 R

Bernat Montagut Viladot

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Application for interim measures — Admissibility of the application for interim measures — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list)

Application: brought under Article 270 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, whereby Mr Montagut Viladot seeks an order, in his favour, that ‘the reserve list’ for open competition EPSO/AD/206/11 to establish a reserve for the filling of posts of administrators (AD 5) in the field of economics (‘the competition at issue’) ‘should remain open’ or that the period of validity of that list should be extended.

Held: The applicant’s application for interim measures is dismissed. Costs are reserved.

Summary

Interim measures — Conditions of admissibility — Application — Formal requirements — Statement of pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for

(Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 100(2) and (3) and 104(2) and (3))

It is apparent from a reading of Article 102(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, non-compliance with which constitutes a ground of inadmissibility as a matter of public policy, and of Article 104(2) and (3) of those Rules of Procedure that an application for interim measures must, in itself, enable the defendant to prepare its observations and the judge hearing the application for interim measures to reach a decision, if necessary without any other supporting information, since the essential matters of fact and of law on which the application is based should be clear from the very wording of the application for interim measures. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice it is therefore necessary, in order for an application for interim measures to be admissible, that the essential matters of fact and of law on which it is based are stated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself.

Accordingly, an application for interim measures which fails to state the essential matters of law capable of constituting an intelligible argument that would allow the judge hearing the application to understand the applicant’s legal position and to determine the application without any other supporting information must be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see paras 11-14)

See:

25 June 2003, T‑175/03 R Schmitt v EAR, paras 15 and 20

27 April 2010, T‑103/10 P(R) Parliament v U, para. 40