Order — ECLI:EU:C:2001:183
Date: 2001-03-23
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures;Appeals
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Application for interim measures
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Order 
1. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissible 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) 
2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for non-
enforcement of the right to immediate payment of a fine — Conditions for granting — 
Serious and irreparable damage — Consideration of the objective interests of an 
association of undertakings in its survival independently of the interests of its 
members — Interests of the association not independent of those of its members — 
Excluded 
(Art. 242 EC) 
I - 2559 
SUMMARY — CASE C-7/01 P(R) 
1. The findings of the judge hearing an 
application for interim measures as to 
the binding character of the decisions 
of an association of undertakings with 
regard to its members cannot be chal­
lenged on appeal. Under Article 225 
EC and Article 51 of the EC Statute of 
the Court of Justice, an appeal is to be 
limited to points of law and lies on 
grounds of lack of competence of the 
Court of First Instance, a breach of 
procedure before it which adversely 
affects the interests of the appellant or 
the infringement of Community law by 
the Court of First Instance. 
(see paras 38, 45) 
2. Where a dispute concerns an infringe­
ment of the competition rules brought 
about by the decision of an association 
of undertakings and where, in that 
context, it is found that the objective 
interests of the association are not 
independent of those of its member 
undertakings, the interest which the 
association has in surviving cannot be 
assessed by the judge hearing an appli­
cation for suspension of the operation 
of a Commission decision imposing a 
fine on that association independently 
of the interest of those undertakings. 
To hold otherwise would, in practice, 
result in systematically granting sus­
pension of operation to any association 
of undertakings which brings proceed­
ings for annulment of a Commission 
decision imposing a fine on it calcu­
lated by reference to the combined 
turnover of its member undertakings. 
Such an approach cannot be endorsed, 
in particular in the very specific context 
of an application for exemption from 
the obligation to provide a bank guar­
antee as a condition of the Commis­
sion's not immediately recovering a fine 
imposed by it. Such an application will 
only be granted in exceptional circum­
stances. 
Moreover, a mere unilateral refusal on 
the part of the members of that asso­
ciation of undertakings cannot suffice 
to preclude the members' financial 
situation from being taken into 
account. The extent of the alleged 
harm cannot depend on the unilateral 
intention of the members of the asso­
ciation which seeks suspension where 
the interests of the association and 
those of its members are merged. 
(see paras 42-44, 46) 
I - 2560