ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

2 October 2013

Case F‑87/13 R

Philippe Colart and Others

v

European Parliament

(Civil service — Procedure for interim relief — Application for interim measures — Urgency — Balance of interests — Elections to the Staff Committee — Executive Committee of a trade union — Rights of access to the email account of a trade union during the electoral period)

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 the applicants seek ‘an order that the Secretary-General of the European Parliament temporarily block the [email account] which it put at the disposal of the [Solidarité pour les agents et fonctionnaires européens (“SAFE”)] trade union’.

Held:      The application for interim measures submitted by Messrs Colart, Bras, Corthout, Decoutere, Dony, Garzone, Manzela and Vienne and by Ms Kemmerling-Linssen is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

1.      Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Prima facie admissibility of the main action

(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU)

2.      Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action brought by a member of a professional or trade union organisation against a measure affecting the collective interest protected by that organisation — Interest in bringing proceedings only where members of the organisation are denied the normal exercise of their trade union rights

(Staff Regulations, Arts 24b, 90 and 91)

3.      Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable harm — Balancing of all the interests involved — Request for the temporary blocking of an email account put at the disposal of a professional or trade union organisation by an institution — Grant of the measure not allowing the institution to ensure that the electoral process in the Staff Committee is conducted properly — Rejection

(Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 104(2))

1.      The question of the admissibility of the main application must not, in principle, be examined in proceedings for interim relief but must be reserved for the examination of the main application, save where that application appears, prima facie, to be manifestly inadmissible. To rule, at the stage of the proceedings for interim relief, on the admissibility of the main application, when its admissibility is not, prima facie, wholly excluded, would be tantamount to prejudging the Tribunal’s decision on that application.

(see para. 13)

See:

4 February 1999, T‑196/98 R Peña Abizanda and Others v Commission, para. 10 and the case‑law cited therein

14 December 2006, F‑120/06 R Dálnoky v Commission, para. 41; 8 September 2011, F‑51/11 R Pachtitis v Commission, para. 17

2.      An official or other staff member has, in principle, an interest in bringing proceedings against an act adversely affecting him, that is to say, against a measure producing binding legal effects of such a kind as to affect his interests directly and immediately by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position. As far as freedom of association is concerned, which is protected by the provisions of Article 24b of the Staff Regulations, such an interest would be constituted against a measure directly affecting the official or other staff member in the individual exercise of a trade union right in the context of his individual employment relationship with the institution. In other words, an official or other staff member who is a member or representative of a professional or trade union organisation cannot have an interest in bringing proceedings against an act or measure which, without affecting him either directly or personally, affects only the collective interest protected by that professional or trade union organisation in its relations with the institution. It is only where the adverse effect on the professional or trade union organisation resulting from the measure in question might be regarded, in the light of the severity of its effects, as depriving the members of that organisation of the normal exercise of their trade union rights that officials or other staff members acting in an individual capacity might claim an interest in bringing proceedings against that measure. Only in those circumstances might the official or other staff member reasonably seek an interim measure to prevent harm or the exacerbation of harm affecting him directly and personally in his interests as a member or representative of the professional or trade union organisation concerned by the measure in question.

(see para. 18)

See:

10 January 2006, C‑373/04 P Commission v Alvarez Moreno, para. 42 and the case‑law cited therein

13 December 2012, T‑199/11 P Strack v Commission, para. 127

6 May 2009, F‑137/07 Sergio and Others v Commission, paras 51 and 52; 26 February 2013, F‑124/10 Labiri v EESC, para. 42

3.      In the context of an application for interim measures, the judge hearing the application, before whom it is claimed that the applicant risks serious and irreparable harm, must in any event balance the various interests involved. In the case of a request for the temporary blocking of an email account put at the disposal of a professional or trade union organisation by an institution, until such time as it is decided which persons are entitled to speak and act on that organisation’s behalf, the request would have the effect of depriving the organisation of one of its main means of communication. It would thus be likely to put that trade union in a weaker position than the others and would not allow the institution to ensure that the process in question was conducted properly by guaranteeing its impartiality and equal treatment between its staff’s various professional and trade union organisations. Such an interim measure would therefore, through its effects on the electoral procedure, be likely to prejudice the institution’s obligations to monitor and ensure the validity of the Staff Committee’s electoral process.

(see paras 36-37)