Order — ECLI:EU:T:2001:277
Date: 2001-12-05
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Order 
Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim 
relief — Conditions governing admissibility — Main action prima facie admissible — 
Irrelevant — Limits — Application for suspension of operation of a Commission 
decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the abandonment 
of a proceeding in application of Article 81 EC against other undertakings and suspension 
of the proceeding against itself — Inadmissible 
(Arts 81 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2)) 
II - 3481 
SUMMARY — CASE T-216/01 R 
In principle, the issue of the admissibility of 
the main application must not be examined 
in proceedings relating to an application for 
interim measures so as not to prejudge the 
substance of that case. Where, however, it 
is contended that the main application from 
which the application for interim measures 
is derived is manifestly inadmissible, it may 
prove necessary to establish the existence of 
certain factors which would justify the 
prima facie conclusion that the main appli­
cation is admissible. 
In the absence of serious evidence enabling 
the Court to consider that the main appli­
cation is admissible, an application for 
interim measures seeking, first, suspension 
of the operation of a Commission decision 
refusing the applicant access to certain 
documents relating to the abandonment of 
a proceeding in application of Article 81 
EC against other undertakings and, second, 
suspension of the proceeding against itself, 
must be declared inadmissible. 
As to the first head of the application, a 
decision refusing the applicant access to 
certain documents relating to the abandon­
ment of a proceeding against other under­
takings, is not capable of producing legal 
effects of such a nature as to affect the 
applicant's interests immediately, before 
any decision finding an infringement of 
Article 81(1) EC and possibly imposing a 
penalty on it is adopted. 
As to the second head of the application, 
the judge hearing an application for interim 
relief cannot in principle accede to a 
request for interim measures seeking to 
prevent the Commission from exercising its 
powers of investigation after the opening of 
an administrative procedure and even 
before it has adopted the definitive acts 
whose operation is sought to be avoided. If 
such measures were adopted, the judge 
hearing the interim application would not 
be reviewing the activity of the defendant 
institution but assuming the role of that 
institution in the exercise of purely admin­
istrative powers. Consequently, the appli­
cant is not entitled to request under Arti­
cles 242 EC and 243 EC that the defendant 
institution be prohibited, even provision­
ally, from exercising its powers in the 
course of an administrative procedure. 
Such an entitlement could only be recog­
nised if the application were to present 
evidence from which the judge hearing the 
interim application could find that there 
were exceptional circumstances justifying 
the adoption of the measures requested. 
(see paras 24, 51-52, 54) 
II - 3482