Order — ECLI:EU:C:2014:1749
Date: 2014-06-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Vice-President
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal;Application for interim measures - unfounded

Summary — Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 12 June 2014 1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Judgment of the General Court under appeal — Application for interim measures, seeking to maintain the effects of a judgment of the General Court partially annulling a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Admissibility — Conditions — No requirement for the applicant to provide guarantees covering fees provided for by that regulation (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 162(2)) 2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Judgment of the General Court under appeal — Application for interim measures, seeking to maintain the effects of a judgment of the General Court partially annulling a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the arguments put forward by the applicant against the grounds invoked in support of the appeal (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 162(3)) 3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of the interests at issue — Judgment of the General Court which partially annulled legislation establishing anti-dumping rights — Application for interim measures, seeking to maintain the effects of a judgment of the General Court and satisfying the condition of a prima facie case — Circumstance not sufficient to relax the condition relating to urgency (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 162(3)) 4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Anti-dumping regulation producing effects for more than four years prior to the initiation of proceedings for interim measures — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs — Imminent expiry of anti-dumping measures — No effect — Requirement to demonstrate the likelihood of personally suffering that harm — Assessment in the light of a risk of the need to reduce jobs — Lack of urgency (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 162(3)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 13-19) 2. The conditions governing suspension of the operation of a measure and other interim measures must be satisfied in the case of an application for interim measures brought by the successful party at first instance in the context of an appeal brought by another party against a judgment of the General Court annulling a regulation. If such an appeal is not to be deprived of the suspensive effect provided for in the second paragraph of Article 60 of the Statute of the Court, those requirements must apply in the situation where a judgment of the General Court has been given in favour of the applicant at first instance. However, when applying those conditions, as they have been interpreted in the Court’s case-law, the appellate court hearing an application for interim measures cannot disregard the fact that the court at first instance ruled in favour of that applicant. Therefore, it must apply those conditions mutatis mutandis. With regard to the condition of establishing a prima facie case, it is satisfied where there is, at the stage of the interim proceedings, a major legal disagreement whose resolution is not immediately obvious. In the case of an application for interim measures made in the context of an appeal which has suspensive effect since it seeks to have set aside a judgment by which the General Court annulled a regulation, the application is made by the party which was successful at first instance. That being so, the court hearing the application for interim measures must determine whether the arguments of that party seeking to have the appeal dismissed are not without merit, in that they have a sufficient prospect of success. That means that the successful party at first instance must establish that, notwithstanding the grounds of appeal put forward by the other party, its own opposing arguments are sufficiently cogent that, prima facie, they are capable of succeeding and that, consequently, it is not obvious that the judgment under appeal must be set aside. (see paras 21, 22, 24, 25) 3. In relation to interim measures, in accordance with Article 160(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the conditions relating to a prima facie case and to urgency are distinct and cumulative. However, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that the more or less serious nature of a prima facie case is not without relevance for the assessment of urgency. The urgency that may be pleaded by an applicant must be taken into consideration by the court hearing the application for interim measures all the more if the prima facie case raised by the pleas and arguments relied on appears particularly serious. Nevertheless, with regard to an application for interim measures seeking to maintain the effects of a judgment of the General Court under appeal, the fact that that court annulled a regulation is not such as to relax the conditions required for the criterion of urgency. Therefore, the application of the contested regulation notwithstanding its annulment by the judgment under appeal does not in itself cause actionable harm. Since the EU legislature, by the adoption of Article 60 of the Statute of the Court, decided to confer suspensive effect on the bringing of an appeal against a judgment of the General Court annulling a regulation, it is not appropriate for the court hearing an application for interim measures in the context of an appeal to deprive that article of a part of its effectiveness by systematically relaxing the condition of urgency in such circumstances. (see paras 39-41) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 42-56)