Order — ECLI:EU:C:2001:710
Date: 2001-12-14
Language of the case: French
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures;Appeals
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - successful;Application for interim measures
Origin: Belgium;Spain;France;Sweden

Summary of the Order 
1. Appeals — Grounds — Plea alleging incorrect appraisal of the facts — Inadmissi­
ble — Whether the Court of Justice may review the appraisal of the evidence — 
Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) 
I - 10367 
SUMMARY — CASE C-404/01 P(R) 
2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — 
Burden of proof 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2)) 
3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim measures — Interim measures linked to a Commission decision terminating 
a procedure for reviewing antidumping measures which are soon to expire — 
Conditions for granting — Specific injury 
(Arts. 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2)) 
4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — 
Whether damage irreparable — Assessment solely on the basis of the uncertainty of 
obtaining compensation for pecuniary damage if an action for damages is brought — 
Not permissible 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2)) 
1. The Court of First Instance has exclu­
sive jurisdiction, firstly, to find the 
facts, save where a substantive inaccu­
racy in its findings is attributable to the 
documents submitted to it and, sec­
ondly, to appraise those facts. That 
appraisal thus does not, save where the 
clear sense of the evidence has been 
distorted, constitute a point of law 
which is subject, as such, to review by 
the Court of Justice in an appeal. 
(see para. 57) 
2. The purpose of interlocutory proceed­
ings is to guarantee the full effective­
ness of the definitive future decision, in 
order to ensure that there is no lacuna 
in the legal protection provided by the 
Court of Justice. It is for the purpose of 
attaining that objective that urgency 
must be assessed in the light of the need 
for an interlocutory order in order to 
avoid serious and irreparable damage 
to the party seeking the interim relief. It 
is for the party claiming serious and 
irreparable damage to establish its 
existence. While it is not necessary for 
it to be absolutely certain that the 
damage will occur, a sufficient degree 
of probability being enough, the appli­
cant is none the less required to prove 
the facts which are considered to 
establish the prospect of such damage. 
(see paras 61-63) 
3. When a decision terminating a review 
of anti-dumping measures is adopted 
on the ground that it is not in the 
Community interest to maintain them, 
the resulting injury to the Community 
industry is an effect inherent in that 
decision. In order to suspend the impo-
I - 10368 
COMMISSION v EUROALLIAGES AND OTHERS 
sition of a definitive anti-dumping duty 
with a view to preventing serious and 
irreparable injury to the party seeking 
suspension, that party cannot merely 
plead the effects inherent in the impo­
sition of such a duty but must demon­
strate injury which is specific to itself. 
The same principles must apply when 
the position is reversed, that is to say, 
when, in an appeal against a decision 
of the Community institutions not to 
introduce an anti-dumping duty, Com­
munity undertakings are seeking to 
establish that it is urgent to adopt 
interim measures. 
(see paras 66-67) 
4. The uncertainty of obtaining compen­
sation for pecuniary damage if an 
action for damages is brought cannot 
in itself be regarded as a factor capable 
of establishing that such damage is 
irreparable. At the interlocutory stage, 
the possibility of subsequently obtain­
ing compensation for pecuniary 
damage if an action for damages is 
brought following annulment of the 
contested measure is necessarily uncer­
tain. Interlocutory proceedings are not 
intended to replace the action for 
damages in order to remove that 
uncertainty. Their purpose is only to 
guarantee the full effectiveness of the 
definitive future decision that will be 
made in the main action. 
(see paras 71-73) 
I - 10369