Order — ECLI:EU:T:2001:210
Date: 2001-09-12
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;External relations;Fruit and vegetables;Commercial policy;Bananas
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
Origin: Germany;Italy

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Prima facie case — Provi­
sional nature of the measure 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2)) 
2. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Admissibility of 
the main application — Irrelevant — Limits 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(1)) 
II - 2415 
SUMMARY — CASE T-139/01 R 
3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable harm — Stan­
dard of proof 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2)) 
4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable harm — Pecuni­
ary damage — Market developments 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2)) 
1. Article 104(2) of the Rules of Proce­
dure of the Court of First Instance 
provides that applications for interim 
measures must state the circumstances 
giving rise to urgency and the pleas of 
fact and law establishing a prima facie 
case for the interim measures sought. 
The measures applied for must be 
provisional, in that they must not 
prejudge the decision on the substance. 
(see para. 45) 
2. The issue of the admissibility of the 
main action should not, in principle, be 
examined in interlocutory proceedings 
in order to avoid prejudging that 
action. None the less, since the appli­
cation for interim relief is related to the 
main action, it is appropriate, where it 
is contended that the latter is mani­
festly inadmissible, to establish whe­
ther there exist any grounds for con­
cluding provisionally in favour of its 
admissibility. 
(see para. 49) 
3. The urgency of an application for 
interim relief 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 relief. It is for the party who pleads 
serious and irreparable damage to 
prove its existence. It is enough for 
the harm, particularly where it depends 
on the occurrence of a number of 
factors, to be foreseeable with a suffi­
cient degree of probability. 
(see para. 87) 
4. In the context of the assessment of an 
application for interim relief by the 
II - 2416 
COMAFRICA AND DOLE FRESH FRUIT EUROPE v COMMISSION 
Court hearing the application, damage 
of a purely financial nature cannot, 
save in exceptional circumstances, be 
regarded as irreparable, or even as 
being irreparable only with difficulty, 
if it can ultimately be the subject of 
financial compensation. Damage of a 
financial nature that is not eliminated 
by the implementation by the institu­
tion concerned of the judgment in the 
main action constitutes an economic 
loss which may be made good by the 
means of redress provided for in the 
Treaty, in particular Articles 235 EC 
and 288 EC. 
If a contested measure is liable to cause 
irreversible market developments on a 
market on which the applicant is 
already active, the losses which would 
thereby ensue for the applicant, though 
financial in nature, may nevertheless 
exceptionally be regarded as irrepar­
able for the purposes of the application 
for interim relief. 
(see paras 89, 94) 
II - 2417