ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

12 June 2014

Case F‑49/14 R

DQ

v

European Parliament

(Civil service — Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure or application for interim measures)

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 DQ and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex request the court hearing the application for interim relief: first, to ‘annul’ the decision of an unknown date appointing the Director of the Interpretation Directorate of the Directorate-General (DG) for Interpretation and Conferences of the European Parliament as their initial assessor for the 2014 reporting period relating to the year 2013 (‘the 2014 reporting period’); second, to ‘suspend’ the 2014 reporting period until the procedure initiated under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) has ended; third, to ‘ensure’ the confidentiality of the investigation initiated as a result of their request under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations; fourth, for ‘the immediate suspension’ of the head of the Hungarian interpretation unit of the Parliament’s Interpretation Directorate (‘the Hungarian unit’); fifth, to ‘request the Parliament to take all measures necessary to guarantee their safety … at their workplace, by alerting the competent safety service, among others’.

Held:      The application for interim measures submitted by DQ and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

1.      Application for interim measures — Jurisdiction of the Court hearing the application for interim relief — Issuing of interim directions

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

2.      Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage

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

1.      It is clear from Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that the purpose of the procedure for interim relief is only to guarantee the full effectiveness of the definitive future decision. Consequently, that procedure is merely ancillary to the main action to which it is an adjunct, so that the decision made by the judge hearing an application for interim measures must by its nature be interim in the sense that it must not either prejudge the future decision on the substance of the case or render it illusory by depriving it of effectiveness.

That being so, it must be held that an application for annulment of the appointment of the Director of the Interpretation Directorate as the initial assessor for a reporting period is not interim in nature and that it thus falls outside the jurisdiction of the judge hearing the application for interim measures.

(see paras 13, 14)

See:

judgment in EMA v InterMune UK and Others, C‑390/13 P(R), EU:C:2013:795, para. 37

judgment in Alstom v Commission, T‑164/12 R, EU:T:2012:637, para. 30

2.      A lack of impartiality and a breach of the duty to provide assistance cannot be regarded as exposing, ipso facto, an applicant to the risk of serious and irreparable harm, otherwise the requirements of a prima facie case and urgency would be conflated, whereas it is clear from Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that these are two separate conditions.

(see para. 20)