ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

31 July 2002

Case T-191/02 R

Giorgio Lebedef

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Procedure for interim relief — Framework agreement of 1974 between the Commission and the trade unions and staff associations — Termination — Admissibility — Prima facie case’

Full text in French   II-741

Application for:

suspension of the operation of the Commission's decision of 5 December 2001 by which, inter alia, it terminated the framework agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning relations between the Commission and the trade unions and staff associations, and adopted the Operational rules concerning the consultation levels, body and procedures' agreed between the Commission and the majority of the trade unions and staff associations on 19 January 2000.

Held:

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

Summary

1. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Admissibility of the main action — Irrelevance — Limits

   (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Prima facie case — Cumulative nature

   (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

3. Applications f or interim measures — Interim measures — Application made under Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations — Time-limit

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 91(4))

4. Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Decision concerning the institution's relations with the trade unions and staff associations — Excluded — Exception — Infringement of individual rights of trade-union representatives within consultation bodies

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

5. Officials — Rights and obligations — Trade-union law — Relations between the administration and the trade unions and staff associations — Right to terminate a framework agreement in the absence of any express provisions on termination

1.  The issue of the admissibility of the main action must not as a matter of principle be examined in a procedure for interim relief, but must be reserved for the examination of the main application, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible. To rule on admissibility at the interlocutory stage where an application is not, at first sight, clearly inadmissible would be tantamount to prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance on the main action.

   (see para. 20)

   See: T-196/98 R Peña Abizando and Others v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-5 and II-15, para. 10, and the case-law cited; T-208/00 R Barleycorn Mongolite and Boixader Rivas v Parliament and Council [2000] ECRSC I-A-209 and II-941, para. 13

2.  Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that an application for an interim measure must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for suspension of the operation of a measure must be dismissed if any one of them is absent.

   (see para. 21)

   See: T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 18

3.  Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations must be interpreted in such a way as to ensure that the official concerned is afforded the most extensive interim judicial protection. It follows that an application for interim measures made under that provision may be lodged at any time within the period of four months from the date of submission of the complaint.

   (see para. 57)

4.  Measures which produce binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately affecting the applicant's interests by significantly altering his legal situation constitute acts or decisions against which actions for annulment may be brought. In so far as it results in the exclusion from the consultation body of the trade union which was represented on it by the applicant, a decision by which the institution terminates the framework agreement governing its relations with the trade unions and staff associations affects the applicant's particular situation by withdrawing from him individual rights arising from his position as a trade-union representative within that body. Consequently, termination of the framework agreement adversely affects him and creates in his favour an interest in contesting, with a view to its annulment, the decision implementing it.

   However, the adoption of operational rules, the sole purpose of which is to govern the collective labour relations between the administration of an institution on the one hand and the trade unions and staff associations on the other and which do not provide for any specific rights for the officials representing those organisations within the consultation bodies, cannot, as such, adversely affect those officials.

   (see paras 59, 65, 68-70)

   See: 32/68 Grasselli v Commission [1969] ECR 505, paras 4 to 7; 17/78 Deshormes v Commission [1979] ECR 189, para. 10; T-576/93 to T-582/93 Browet and Others v Commission [1994] ECR II-677, para. 44; T-391/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-269 and II-787, para. 34; T-293/94 Vela Palacios v ESC [1996] ECRSC I-A-305 and II-893, para. 22; T-349/00 Lebedef v Commission [2001] ECRSC I-A-225 and II-1031, para. 30

5.  Even though a framework agreement concerning relations between an institution and the trade unions and staff associations contains no provisions on the procedure for termination, and in particular on the period of notice to be complied with, that absence cannot mean that the framework agreement cannot be terminated.

   An agreement concluded between the administration and the trade unions and staff associations for an indefinite period must be able to come to an end, in the absence of specific provisions, by termination either by the administration or by all the signatory trade unions and staff associations, subject to a reasonable period of notice.

   (see paras 81-83)