Order — ECLI:EU:T:2001:37
Date: 2001-02-01
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Overseas countries and territories;Sugar
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded;Action for damages
Origin: Provisional data;Netherlands Antilles

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Interim mea­
sures — Conditions of granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
2. Applications for interim measures — Interim measures — Conditions of granting — 
Urgency — Account taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant 
(Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
II - 493 
SUMMARY — CASE T-350/00 R 
1. Where, in proceedings for interim 
relief, the contested act falls within an 
area in which the Community institu­
tion enjoys broad discretion, not 
merely as regards the existence of the 
conditions justifying the adoption of 
the measure in question, but also as to 
whether a safeguard measure should be 
adopted or not, and most of the pleas 
put forward by the applicant relate to 
the manner in which the Commission 
has assessed the need for the safeguard 
measure and the detailed rules 
required, and, in view of the short-
term validity of such an act, the effects 
of a decision by the judge hearing the 
application to suspend it would in 
practice be definitive, that judge may 
substitute his own assessment for that 
of the Commission only in exceptional 
circumstances where there is a prima 
facie case and clear urgency. 
(see paras 46-48) 
2. Urgency in ordering an interim mea­
sure must result from the effects pro­
duced by the contested measure and 
not from a lack of diligence on the part 
of the party seeking the measure. That 
party must, if it is not to bear the loss 
itself, show reasonable diligence in 
limiting the extent of the loss. 
(see para. 59) 
II - 494