Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:189
Date: 2003-07-08
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Dumping;External relations;Commercial policy
Concepts: Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures;Measures of inquiry and measures of organisation of procedure
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Belgium;Spain;France;Sweden

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Prima facie case — Cumu­
lative requirements — Balancing of all the interests at stake — Provisional nature of 
the measure 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2)) 
2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — 
Standard of proof 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2)) 
II - 2307 
SUMMARY — CASE T-132/01 R 
3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — 
Pecuniary damage — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant 
company 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2)) 
4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim relief — Interim measures related to a Commission decision terminating an 
expiry review of anti-dumping measures — Conditions for granting — Balancing of 
all the interests at stake 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 384/96, Art. 11(2)) 
1. Article 104(2) of the Rules of Proce­
dure of the Court of First Instance 
provides that an application for the 
adoption of interim measures must 
state the circumstances giving rise to 
urgency and the pleas of fact and law 
establishing a prima facie case (fumus 
boni juris) for the grant of the interim 
measures applied for. Those conditions 
are cumulative, so that an application 
for interim measures must be dismissed 
if any one of them is absent. Where 
appropriate, the judge hearing such an 
application must also weigh up the 
interests involved. The measures 
sought must also be provisional inas­
much as they must not prejudge the 
points of law or fact in issue, or 
neutralise in advance the effects of the 
decision subsequently to be given in the 
main action. 
(see paras 19-20) 
2. The urgency of an application for 
interim measures is to be assessed by 
reference to the need for an interim 
order, in order to prevent the party 
seeking the interim measure from suf­
fering serious and irreparable damage. 
It is for that party to prove that it 
cannot wait for the outcome of the 
main action without suffering damage 
of that kind. It does not have to be 
established with absolute certainty that 
the harm is imminent. It is sufficient 
that the harm in question, particularly 
when it depends on the occurrence of a 
number of factors, should be foresee­
able with a sufficient degree of prob­
ability. However, the applicant must 
still prove the facts forming the basis of 
their claim that serious and irreparable 
damage is likely. 
(see paras 60-61) 
3. In the context of the examination of an 
application for interim measures by the 
judge hearing that application, damage 
II - 2308 
EUROALLIAGKS AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
of a pecuniary nature cannot, save in 
exceptional circumstances, be regarded 
as irreparable, or even as being repar­
able only with difficulty, if it can 
ultimately be the subject of financial 
compensation. Damage of a pecuniary 
nature, which would not disappear 
simply as a result of compliance by 
the institution concerned with the 
judgment in the main proceedings, 
constitutes economic loss which could 
be made good by the means of redress 
provided for in the Treaty, in particular 
in Articles 235 EC and 288 EC. 
On application of those principles, an 
interim measure is justified if it appears 
that, without that measure, the appli­
cant would be in a situation that could 
imperil its existence before final judg­
ment in the main action. In such a case 
the disappearance of the applicant 
before the decision on the substance 
of the case would make it impossible 
for that party to institute any judicial 
proceedings for compensation. 
(see paras 65-66) 
4. In the context of the examination of an 
application for suspension of operation 
of a Community decision terminating 
an expiry review of anti-dumping mea­
sures or of provisional measures in 
relation to the registration of imports 
of the product concerned, it is neces­
sary to weigh the interest of the appli­
cants, that is to say, of the representa­
tives of the Community industry, in 
obtaining one or other of the interim 
measures sought against the interest of 
the importers, exporters and users in 
the maintenance of the effects of the 
contested decision. 
(see para. 78) 
II - 2309