Order — ECLI:EU:C:2002:223
Date: 2002-04-11
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Dominant position
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures;Appeals
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Application for interim measures
Origin: Germany;Provisional data;United States

Summary of the Order 
1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissible — 
Appeal dismissed 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 50, 2nd para., and SI) 
I - 3401 
SUMMARY — CASE C-481/01 P(R) 
2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Suspension of operation of interim measures — Towers of the judge hearing the 
application for interim measures 
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104) 
3. Applications for interim measures •— Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Restriction of copyright — Taking 
into account the strength of the plea when assessing urgency and balancing interests — 
Error of law — None 
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
4. Appeals — Pleas in law — Error of law by the judge hearing the application for 
interim measures — Effect on the validity of the order for interim relief — Conditions 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. SO, 2nd para.) 
1. Under Article 225 EC and Article 51 of 
the Statute of the Court of Justice, an 
appeal is 'limited to points of law', to 
the exclusion of any assessment of the 
facts. That provision applies also to 
appeals brought pursuant to the second 
paragraph of Article 50 of the Statute. 
The Court of First Instance has exclus­
ive jurisdiction to find the facts, except 
where a substantive inaccuracy in its 
findings is attributable to the docu­
ments submitted to it, and to appraise 
those facts. That appraisal thus does 
not, except 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 on 
appeal. 
(see paras 53-54) 
2. In the context of an application for 
interim relief seeking the suspension of 
operation of an act of a Community 
institution, the judge hearing the appli­
cation must ascertain whether the 
applicant has shown that there is 
urgency and the pleas of fact and law 
establishing a prima facie case for the 
interim measure. 
The case-law which states that review 
by the Court, in the context of an 
action for annulment, of decisions 
based on complex economic assess­
ments is limited to verifying whether 
the procedural rules have been com­
plied with, whether the statement of 
reasons is adequate, whether the facts 
have been adequately stated, and 
whether there has been any manifest 
error of assessment or a misuse of 
powers, cannot be transposed unquali­
fied to proceedings for interim relief 
without calling into question the con-
I - 3402 
NDC HEALTH v IMS HEALTH AND COMMISSION 
ditions governing the adoption of an 
interim measure. 
Such a transposition, which would 
imply, in the context of an application 
for interim relief brought against a 
decision on interim measures, that the 
applicant must be able to show an 
especially strong prima facie case and 
demonstrate manifest errors of assess­
ment as regards the appraisal of 
urgency and, if appropriate, the bal­
ancing of interests carried out by the 
Commission, might reduce interim 
judicial protection too much and limit 
the broad discretion the judge hearing 
an application for interim relief must 
have in order to exercise the powers 
conferred on him. 
The fact that the contested decision 
relates to the adoption of interim 
measures by the Commission does not 
cast doubt on that assessment. There is 
no justification for giving such interim 
decisions of the Commission a particu­
lar status in the context of applications 
for interim measures. The judge hear­
ing the application therefore cannot, 
when considering the conditions for 
ordering such measures, attach greater 
importance to the Commission's pro­
visional assessments than to its defini­
tive ones. 
(see paras 56-59) 
3. In proceedings for interim measures, 
the conditions for the ordering of 
suspension of operation and interim 
measures must be the object of an 
overall examination in which the judge 
hearing an application for interim relief 
enjoys a wide discretion. Thus, the 
strength or weakness of the pleas relied 
on to show a prima facie case may be 
taken into consideration by the judge in 
his assessment of urgency and, if 
appropriate, of the balance of interests. 
As to the argument concerning the 
importance attached to copyright, the 
exercise of intellectual property rights 
may be subjected to restrictions 
imposed under Article 82 EC only in 
exceptional circumstances. 
Consequently, an order which takes 
account of the strength of the prima 
facie case put forward by the applicant, 
and attaches importance in particular 
to the consequences of the contested 
decision for his copyright rights, is not 
vitiated by an error of law. 
(see paras 63-65) 
I - 3403 
SUMMARY — CASE C-481/01 P(R) 
4. An error of law with respect to the 
interpretation of a provision of Com­
munity law is capable of calling into 
question the validity of an order for 
interim relief only if it is decisive for 
the assessment of one of the conditions 
for ordering interim measures. 
(see paras 81-82) 
I - 3404