Order — ECLI:EU:T:2017:542
Date: 2017-07-21
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Subject matter: Energy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded
Origin: Poland

Summary — Order of the President of the General Court, 21 July 2017 1. 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 — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief — Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) 2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Damage capable of occurring only after the expiry of several contracts –Duration of those contracts exceeding the average duration of proceedings before the General Court — No urgency (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 156 and 160) 3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Dismissal of application — Possibility of bringing a new application — Condition — New facts (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 160) 4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Commission decision amending the conditions for derogation from EU rules for the operation of a gas pipeline — No proof that situations arising under the legal regime made possible by that decision irreversible — No urgency (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 22-25) 2. The urgency of an application for interim measures 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 before judgment is delivered on the principal action for annulment. It is for that party to adduce sound evidence that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings if it is not to suffer personally harm of that kind. The applicant fails to adduce such sound evidence where the harm alleged cannot occur before the expiry of several contracts, the duration of which exceeds the estimated duration of the procedure before the General Court and which could be renewed. Failure to perform the relevant contractual obligations would give rise to specific legal remedies which it would be for the applicant to implement if necessary. In the case of infringement of the contractual obligations, it would, moreover, be possible for the applicant to have recourse to Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure. (see paras 34, 36, 37) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 39) 4. The purpose of the procedure for interim relief is to guarantee the full effectiveness of the future final decision, in order to prevent a lacuna in the legal protection afforded by the EU judicature. For the purpose of attaining that objective, 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. That party must demonstrate that it cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering serious and irreparable damage. In the case of an application for suspension of operation of a Commission decision amending the conditions for derogation from EU rules in relation to the operation of a gas pipeline, the party applying for interim relief demonstrates an incorrect understanding of the specific legal system created by the Treaties where it alleges a risk of long-term reservations of gas transport capacities by the pipeline liberated by the contested decision, having the effect of fixing the situation. If the contested decision were annulled, the conditions for use of the pipeline, as authorised by that decision, would no longer apply. Since no private law measure based on those conditions could be implemented, the consequences described by the applicant could potentially materialise only during the period preceding the delivery of the judgment of the General Court closing the main proceedings. (see paras 27, 41, 42, 44, 46)