EUR-Lex - 61997B0310 - EN
Avis juridique important
|
61997B0310
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 March 1998.
-
Government of the Netherlands Antilles v Council of the European Union.
-
Association of the overseas countries and territories - Decision amending at mid-term the OCT Decision - Interlocutory proceedings - Application for interim measures - Urgency - None.
-
Case T-310/97 R.
European Court reports 1998 Page II-00455
Summary
Keywords
1 Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Admissibility of the main action - Irrelevance - Limits(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) 2 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Balance of interests - Financial damage (EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 3 Association of the overseas countries and territories - Implementation by the Council - Decision 91/482 - Mid-term review - Time-limit stated - Mere guideline (Council Decision 91/482, Art. 240(3))
Summary
4 The issue of the admissibility of the main action should not, in principle, be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures.
It should be reserved for the examination of the main application, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible, so as not to prejudge the Court's decision on the substance of the case.5 The judge hearing an application for suspension of operation of a measure must first examine whether 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 implementation of that measure and conversely whether suspension of its operation would prevent it from being fully effective in the event of the main application's being dismissed. In a case involving the introduction, in the context of the association of the overseas countries and territories, of tariff quotas for imports of certain agricultural products free of customs duty, 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 measure to prevent disruption on the Community markets for the products in question without running the risk of encroaching upon that institution's power of assessment.
When assessing the balance of interests, account must therefore be taken not only of the risk that the Community's interests may be irreversibly damaged if the interim measure sought is granted but also of the Council's power of assessment.
The application cannot, therefore, be granted unless the urgency of the measures sought appears undeniable, bearing in mind that damage of a financial nature is not in principle considered to be serious and irreparable unless, in the event of the applicant's being successful in the main action, it could not be wholly made good. 6 Within the scheme of the association of the overseas countries and territories to the Community introduced by Decision 91/482, Article 240(3) empowers the Council to review that decision `before the end of the first five years', in order to take account of the experience acquired by the Commission and the relevant authorities of the overseas countries and territories, of the amendments to the Lomé Convention under negotiation between the Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and of the review of the Community's financial assistance. Since that time-limit therefore appears to be intended to allow, if necessary, some of the provisions of the decision to be adjusted in response to developments or new needs, it seems to have been chosen because it represents, in principle, the most suitable moment for effecting any adaptations or amendments of that kind.
In the context of interlocutory proceedings, therefore, it must be interpreted as constituting no more than a guideline, and it is thus impossible to rule out any possibility of review after the expiry of the first five-year period where such review could not be effected within the time-limit indicated but nevertheless meets certain of the needs for which the possibility of mid-term review was specifically envisaged.