Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought – Brief presentation of the arguments – Whether permissible – Conditions

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Admissibility of main action – Not relevant – Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Availability of other options to the Commission or the Member States – Urgency ruled out

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. The conditions laid down in Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance require that the essential elements of fact and law on which an application for suspension of operation is based be set out in a coherent and comprehensible fashion in the application for interim measures itself. Nevertheless, if the application – in spite of its brevity and its confused presentation – contains a series of pleas in law and arguments designed to show that the conditions relating to the existence of a prima facie case and to urgency are satisfied, thus enabling the opposing party properly to present observations and the Court hearing the application to examine them, it cannot be concluded that the application must be dismissed as inadmissible on the ground that it does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

(see paras 37-38)

2. The admissibility of the main action must not, in principle, be examined in relation to an application for interim measures so as not to prejudge the merits of the case. Nevertheless, where it is contended that the main action to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding that the main action is prima facie admissible.

(see para. 39)

3. The urgency of an application for the adoption of interim measures must be assessed in the light of the extent to which an interlocutory order is necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking the adoption of the interim measure. In particular, if the occurrence of the damage depends on a series of factors, it is sufficient to show that damage is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability. However, if the damage alleged is vague, hypothetical and unsubstantiated, it is so uncertain that it cannot in any event justify the grant of suspension sought.

An application for suspension of operation is divested of urgency where the option is available of challenging before the courts national measures implementing the contested measures, and where that is a more appropriate and adequate way of protecting the applicants’ interests and/or where the institution responsible for the measures in question is empowered, even obliged, to check their implementation and, if necessary, to punish any adverse effects on the interests purportedly defended by the application for suspension. Furthermore, if suspension of operation will not necessarily have the effect of altering the current situation and of obviating the alleged damage, it is doubtful whether such suspension is necessary.

(see paras 48, 50-51, 60-62)