Order — ECLI:EU:T:1997:120
Date: 1997-07-15
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Association Agreement;External relations;Overseas countries and territories;Rice
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;Application to intervene - successful

Summary of the O r d e r 
Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for 
granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable harm — Balancing all the interests involved 
(EC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
The judge hearing an interlocutory applica­
tion for suspension of operation of a meas­
ure must first examine whether the possible 
annulment of the contested measure by the 
Court ruling on the substance would make it 
possible to reverse the situation that would 
be brought about by the immediate imple­
mentation of that measure and conversely 
whether suspension of its operation would 
be such as to prevent it from being fully 
effective in the event of the main applica­
tion's being dismissed. 
II - 1297 
SUMMARY — CASE T-179/97 R 
In the case of a safeguard measure adopted in 
the context of the association of the overseas 
countries and territories, the judge hearing 
an application for interim measures may not, 
other than in a situation of obvious urgency, 
override the Council's assessment as to the 
choice of the most appropriate safeguard 
measure, without running the risk of 
encroaching upon that institution's power of 
assessment. 
Where the applicant has not shown that it is 
in danger of suffering serious and irreparable 
harm as a result of the application of the 
contested regulation, appropriate damages 
could be awarded if the contested regulation 
were to be annulled by the Court ruling on 
the substance. The fact that the regulation 
may have already been implemented and its 
specified period of application may have 
expired would not deprive the applicant of 
adequate protection of its rights, since the 
institution concerned would be obliged to 
take the necessary measures to comply with 
the judgment and might thus be required to 
restore the applicant to its original situation 
or to avoid the adoption of an identical 
measure. 
II -1298