Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 September 1997. - Carla Micheli and others v Commission of the European Communities. - Community policy for research and technological development - MAST III programme - Decision adopting the list of proposals for action eligible for a Community contribution - Interlocutory proceedings - Application for suspension of operation. - Case T-183/97 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01473



Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Admissibility of the main application - Lack of relevance - Limits

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

2 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Acts adopted in exercise of a power of appraisal

(EC Treaty, Art. 190)

3 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Definition - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Decision 94/804)

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 main action is manifestly inadmissible, so as not to prejudge the Court's decision on the substance of the case.

5 Where the Community institutions have a power of appraisal, respect for the rights guaranteed by the Community legal order in administrative procedures is of fundamental importance. Those guarantees include, in particular, the duty of the competent institutions to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case, the right of the person concerned to make his views known and his right to have an adequately reasoned decision. Only in this way can the Community judicature verify whether the factual and legal elements on which the exercise of the power of appraisal depends were present; moreover, the principle that there must be a sufficiently precise statement of reasons, enshrined in Article 190 of the Treaty, is one of the fundamental principles of Community law. However, the extent of the obligation to state reasons depends on the nature of the act in question and the gravity of its consequences for those to whom it is addressed. It is sufficient for it to reveal clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the institution, without there being any need to specify the relevant elements of fact and of law.

6 The urgency of the adoption of interim measures must be assessed by examining whether the implementation of the contested measure, prior to the adoption of the decision of the Court on the main issue, is such as to give rise, for the parties requesting the measures, to serious and irreparable damage which could not be made good even if the contested decision were annulled or which, despite its interim nature, would be disproportionate to the defendant's interest in having the measures implemented, even when they are the subject of legal proceedings. It is for the applicants to prove that those conditions are satisfied.

It is necessary to dismiss an application for interim measures brought by the authors of a proposal for action submitted to the Commission in the context of a specific programme of research and technological development including demonstration provided for by Decision 94/804, seeking suspension of the operation of a decision adopting the list of proposals to be funded in that regard - which did not include that of the applicants - since (i) the suspension sought would not immediately and automatically provide them with access to Community funding; (ii) the balance of interests leans in favour of dismissing the application because the suspension requested would seriously damage the rights of the third parties whose projects are on the list and hinder Community action in the area in question; (iii) the material damage arising for the applicants in the event of suspension not being granted is remote, uncertain and aleatory in nature; and (iv) the non-material damage associated with the loss of scientific prestige owing to the exclusion of the applicants could be made good by the annulment of the contested decision in so far as it adopts the reserve list.