Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2005:331
Date: 2005-09-21
Language of the case: Swedish
Court formation: Second Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: External relations;Free movement of capital;Common foreign and security policy
Concepts: Free movement of capital and freedom of payments;General;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Rights of the defence and procedural guarantees;Right to a judicial remedy;Right to property;Relationship to public international law;Rights of the defence;Judicial review;Legal basis
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - decision unnecessary
Origin: Sweden

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Requirements as to form — Presentation of 
applications — Summary of the pleas relied on — Pleas in law not set out in the 
application or other written pleadings — General reference to other documen­
tation — Inadmissible 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2) and (3)) 
II - 2387 
SUMMARY — CASE T-306/01 R 
2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Conditions for 
granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — 
Strictly financial damage 
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Interim relief — 
Variation or cancellation — Condition — Change in circumstances — Meaning 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 108) 
4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Interim relief — 
Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Damage 
which may be caused to a third party to be taken into consideration only when 
balancing the interests at stake 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2)) 
1. Since failure to comply with the Rules 
of Procedure of the Court of First 
Instance constitutes an absolute bar to 
proceedings, it is necessary for the 
Court to consider of its own motion 
whether the relevant provisions of 
those Rules have been complied with. 
Article 104(2) of the Rules of Pro­
cedure provides that applications for 
interim measures must state 'the pleas 
of fact and law establishing a prima 
facie case for the interim measures 
applied for'. Article 104(3) states that 
the application for interim relief is to 
be made 'by a separate document and 
in accordance with the provisions of 
Articles 43 and 44'. It follows, on 
reading those provisions of Article 104 
together, that an application for 
interim relief must be sufficient in itself 
to enable the defendant to prepare his 
observations and the judge hearing the 
application to rule on it, where necess­
ary, without other supporting infor­
mation. In order to ensure legal cer­
tainty and the proper administration of 
justice, it is necessary, if such an 
application is to be admissible, that 
the essential elements of fact and law 
on which it is founded be set out in a 
coherent and comprehensible fashion 
in the application for interim relief 
itself. While the application may be 
supported and supplemented on spe­
cific points by references to particular 
passages in documents which are 
annexed to it, a general reference to 
other written documentation, even if it 
is annexed to the application for 
interim relief, cannot make up for the 
absence of essential elements in that 
application. 
A similar interpretation applies with 
regard to the presentation of observa­
tions on an application for interim 
relief which are lodged by a defendant. 
Thus, where some of the grounds 
contained in the application for interim 
relief and in the observations submitted 
in response are not set out in a manner 
consistent with the requirements of the 
abovementioned provisions of the 
Rules of Procedure, those grounds 
cannot be taken into consideration in 
II - 2388 
ADEN AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION 
order to establish the points of fact and 
law to which they relate. 
(see paras 43, 50-54) 
2. The urgency of an application for the 
adoption of interim measures must be 
assessed in the light of the extent to 
which an interlocutory order is necess­
ary in order to avoid serious and 
irreparable damage to the party seeking 
the adoption of the interim measure. It 
is for that party to prove that he cannot 
wait for the outcome of the main 
proceedings without suffering damage 
of that nature. 
Purely financial damage cannot, in 
principle, be regarded as irreparable, 
or even as reparable only with dif­
ficulty, because financial compensation 
can be paid for it subsequently. Never­
theless, the judge hearing an appli­
cation for interim relief must determine 
in the light of the circumstances of the 
individual case whether immediate 
implementation of the measure which 
is the subject of the application for 
suspension of operation may cause the 
applicant serious and immediate harm 
which no subsequent decision could 
repair. 
(see paras 89, 92-93) 
3. Article 108 of the Rules of Procedure 
of the Court of First Instance gives the 
judge in interim relief proceedings the 
power to vary or cancel the interim 
order at any time on account of a 
change in circumstances. By a 'change 
in circumstances', what are especially 
envisaged are factual circumstances 
capable of altering the assessment 
made in each particular case of the 
criterion of urgency. 
(see para. 105) 
4. Any damage which the operation of the 
contested measure may cause to a party 
other than the party seeking the interim 
relief can be taken into consideration 
by the judge hearing the application for 
interim measures only when balancing 
the interests at stake. 
(see para. 118) 
II - 2389