Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2006:89
Date: 2006-02-09
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Provisional measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Serious and 
irreparable harm — Balancing of all the interests involved 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2» 
I - 6887 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-182/03 R AND C-217/03 R 
2. Applications for interim measures — Criteria for admissibility — Admissibility of the 
main application — Irrelevance — Limits 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(1)) 
3. Actions for annulment — Final decision of the Commission concerning State aid — 
Action by an association responsible for defending the collective interests of under­
takings —· Own interest in bringing proceedings to defend its position as a 
negotiator — Whether admissible 
(Art. 230, fourth para., EC) 
4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Definition 
(Art. 242 EC) 
1. The judge hearing an application for 
interim relief may order suspension of 
operation or other interim measures if 
it is established that such an order is 
justified, prima facie, in fact and in law 
(fumus boni juris) and that it is urgent 
in so far as, in order to avoid serious 
and irreparable harm to the applicant's 
interests, it must be made and produce 
its effects before a decision is reached 
in the main action. If appropriate, the 
judge hearing the application for 
interim measures also weighs up the 
interests involved. 
(see para. 97) 
2. The issue of the admissibility of the 
main application should not be exam­
ined in proceedings relating to an 
application for interim measures, so 
as not to prejudge the substance of the 
case. However, where the contention is 
that the main action is manifestly 
inadmissible, it is for the judge hearing 
the application for interim measures to 
establish whether there is a prima facie 
case for finding that there is a certain 
probability that the main application is 
admissible. 
(see para. 98) 
3. Although the defence of general and 
collective interests of a category of 
persons is not sufficient to establish 
the admissibility of an action for annul­
ment brought by an association, an 
association responsible for defending 
the collective interests of undertakings 
is nevertheless able to bring such an 
action against a final decision of the 
Commission concerning State aid if it 
I - 6888 
BELGIUM AND FORUM 187 v COMMISSION 
can prove an interest of its own in 
bringing the action, in particular 
because its position as a negotiator 
has been affected by the measure of 
which the annulment is sought. 
(see para. 101) 
4. Where, in connection with an appli­
cation for suspension of operation, the 
judge hearing the application for 
interim relief, before whom the risk of 
serious and irreparable damage to the 
applicant is pleaded, weighs up the 
various interests involved, he must 
determine whether the possible annul­
ment of the decision at issue by the 
Court giving judgment in the main 
action would make it possible to 
reverse the situation that would be 
brought about by its immediate imple­
mentation and, conversely, whether 
suspension of opera t ion of that 
decision would be such as to prevent 
the contested decision from being fully 
effective in the event of the main 
application being dismissed. 
(see para. 142) 
I - 6889