3 August 2012

Case F‑57/12 R

Luigi Marcuccio


European Commission

(Civil service — Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — None — Court costs — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

Application: brought under Articles 278 TFEU and 157 EA and Article 279 TFEU, applicable to the EAEC Treaty pursuant to Article 106a thereof, in which Mr Marcuccio essentially seeks suspension of operation, first, of the Commission’s decision rejecting his request of 19 October 2011 to be compensated for the sum of EUR 1 661 which he considered was wrongly deducted from his disability allowance, second, of the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the complaint contained in his letter of 20 October 2011, and third, of any decision on the basis of which the Commission deducted the sum of EUR 1 661 from his disability allowance for the months of June, July, August and September 2011.

Held: The applicant’s application for interim measures is dismissed. He is ordered to pay the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000. Costs are reserved.


1.      Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for admissibility — Contested decision partly spent when the application for interim measures was brought — Application inadmissible

(Art. 278 TFEU)

2.      Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Application — Formal requirements — Detailed statement of the subject-matter

(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 35(1)(d) and 102(3))

3.      Judicial proceedings — Court costs — Costs incurred by the Civil Service Tribunal as a result of an action which is an abuse of process by an official — Order for the official to refund those costs — Applicability in the context of an application for interim measures

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 94)

1.      Where part of a contested decision is spent on the date when an application for interim measures is brought, the heads of claim relating to that part are inadmissible.

(see para. 23)


28 February 2012, F‑140/11 R BK v Commission, para. 29 and the case-law cited therein

2.      An application for interim measures which, in the absence of further particulars as to its subject-matter, is vague and imprecise in nature does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 35(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, to which Article 102(3) of those Rules of Procedure refers, and is therefore inadmissible.

(see para. 24)


2 July 2004, T‑422/03 R II Enviro Tech Europe and Enviro Tech International v Commission, para. 59

3.      Under Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, if the Tribunal has incurred avoidable costs, in particular where the action is manifestly an abuse of process, it may order the party who caused such costs to be incurred to refund them in whole or in part, but the amount of that refund may not exceed EUR 2 000. As that provision does not contain an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which the Tribunal may incur avoidable costs as a result of the conduct of a party, it may be applied to the examination of an application for interim measures.

(see para. 30)