Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:210
Date: 2002-09-11
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Animal feedingstuffs;Approximation of laws
Concepts: General;Applications by natural or legal persons;Rights of the defence and procedural guarantees;Legal certainty;Powers of the Community institutions;Provisions on agriculture and the general rules of the Treaty;Food additives;Principle of proportionality;Precautionary principle
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Consideration of 
the admissibility of the main application — Inappropriate — Limits 
(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of 
the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) 
2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim 
relief — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — 
Pecuniary damage 
(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of 
the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
II - 2027 
SUMMARY — CASE T-70/99 R 
3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests at stake — Priority to be 
given to protection of public health over economic considerations 
(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of 
the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
1. The issue of the admissibility of the 
main action should not be examined in 
proceedings for interim relief, so as not 
to prejudge the Court's decision on the 
substance of the case. It may never­
theless appear necessary, when it is 
contended that the main application to 
which the application for interim mea­
sures relates is manifestly inadmissible, 
to establish whether there are any 
grounds for concluding that the main 
application is prima facie admissible. 
2. The urgency of an application for 
interim measures must be assessed in 
relation to the necessity for an interim 
order to prevent serious and irrepar­
able damage to the party applying for 
those measures. It is for the party 
seeking suspension of operation of an 
act to prove that it cannot wait for the 
outcome of the main proceedings with­
out suffering damage that would entail 
serious and irreparable consequences. 
The Court hearing an application for 
interim measures may, in its considera­
tion of the criterion of urgency, take 
such damage into account only in so far 
as it may be caused to the interests of 
the party seeking interim relief; any 
damage caused to another party may 
be taken into consideration only when 
the Court comes to balance the inter­
ests at stake. 
Damage of a purely pecuniary nature 
cannot, save in exceptional circum­
stances, be regarded as irreparable or 
even as being reparable only with 
difficulty, if it can ultimately be the 
subject of financial compensation. 
3. When the Court hearing an application 
for suspension of operation of a mea­
sure weighs the various interests at 
stake, it must determine whether 
annulment of the contested act by the 
Court hearing the main action would 
allow the situation brought about by its 
immediate implementation to be 
reversed and, conversely, whether sus­
pension of the operation of that act 
would be such as to prevent its being 
fully effective in the event of the main 
application being dismissed. 
There can be no question but that the 
requirements of the protection of pub­
lic health must take precedence over 
economic considerations. In addition, 
where there is uncertainty as to the 
existence or extent of risks to human 
health, the institutions may take pro­
tective measures without having to 
wait until the reality and seriousness 
of those risks become fully apparent. 
II - 2028 
ALPHARMA V COUNCIL 
The Court must therefore dismiss the 
application for suspension of operation 
of Regulation No 2821/98 withdraw­
ing antibiotics such as bacitrin zinc 
from the list of additives the incorpora­
tion of which in feedingstuffs is author­
ised at Community level, since there is 
a risk that the use of such substances 
would increase antimicrobial resistance 
in human medicine, with very serious 
consequences for public health. 
I I -2029