Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2007:207
Date: 2007-07-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: External relations;Free movement of capital;Common foreign and security policy
Concepts: Damage for which compensation is payable;Statement of reasons;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Rights of the defence and procedural guarantees;General;Basis of liability;Right to a judicial remedy;Fundamental rights;Rights of the defence;Judicial review;Legal basis
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden 
of proof — Purely pecuniary loss — Measure freezing assets of an individual as part 
of the fight against terrorism 
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council 
Regulation No 2580/2001) 
2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Non-material damage not 
capable of better relief in interlocutory proceedings than in the main proceedings — 
No urgency 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2580/2001) 
II - 2047 
SUMMARY — CASE T-47/03 R 
1. The urgency of an application for 
interim relief must be assessed in 
relation to the need for an interim 
order in order to avoid serious and 
irreparable damage being caused to the 
party seeking the relief. It is for that 
party to prove that it cannot await the 
outcome of the main proceedings with­
out suffering such damage. Purely 
financial damage cannot, in principle, 
be regarded as irreparable, or even 
difficult to repair, because it can be 
the subject of subsequent financial 
compensation. Nevertheless, the judge 
hearing an application for interim 
measures must determine in the light 
of the circumstances of the individual 
case whether immediate implemen­
tation of the measure which is the 
subject of the application for suspen­
sion may cause the applicant serious 
and immediate harm which no sub­
sequent decision could repair. 
In the case of an application for 
suspension of a measure freezing the 
funds of an individual as part of the 
fight against terrorism, the judge must 
ensure that the applicant has an 
amount of money which under normal 
circumstances should enable him to 
meet all the essential expenditure 
necessary to cater for his own basic 
needs and those of his family until a 
ruling is given in the main action. 
(see paras 27, 29-31) 
2. Although the grant of interim measures 
might at least partly remedy the non-
material damage alleged by an appli­
cant and resulting from the mention of 
his name in a decision concerning the 
adoption of specific restrictive meas­
ures against certain persons and bodies 
as part of the fight against terrorism, 
such grant would not do so any more 
than would an annulment of that 
decision in the judgment in the main 
action. Since the purpose of proceed­
ings for interim relief is not to ensure 
reparation for damage but rather to 
ensure the full effectiveness of the 
ruling to be given in the main case, 
the condition relating to urgency is not 
met in such a case. 
(see para. 41) 
II - 2048