Refusal to suspend an administrative process initiated by the CSSF

In an order dated 23 April 2021, the president of the administrative court dismissed an application seeking the suspension of pre-litigation proceedings (if not an extension of the deadline for taking a position) brought against the directors of an investment fund, who risked losing their professional reputation for up to 10 years.

To this end, the applicants pointed to the refusal to disclose the entire administrative file, which in their view justified a suspension of the CSSF process.

Faced with these requests, the administrative judge recalled in particular:

1) that he does not have the power to suspend a negative decision (the refusal to disclose the file);

2) that he cannot interfere with the decision on the merits, as his measures must remain reversible (which is not the case with a time limit starting from the possible decision to communicate the file on the merits);

The solution would certainly have been different if, instead of a request for a stay, the judge had been seised of a request for a “safeguard measure” within the meaning of the law of 21 June 1999 on the rules of procedure before the administrative courts.