Case C‑78/14 P-R

European Commission

v

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias

‛Application for interim measures — Appeals — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration actions (2007-2013) — Contracts relating to the Oasis and Perform projects — Suspension of payments — Irregularities established in the course of audits of other projects — Orders for payment against the European Commission — Manifest insolvency of the recipient — Prima facie case — Serious and irreparable damage — Urgency — Balancing of interests’

Summary — Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 8 April 2014

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Application for suspension of operation of a judgment of the General Court ordering the Commission to pay amounts to a company in a financial situation close to insolvency — Need to ensure effectiveness of the forthcoming decision in the main action

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Application for suspension of operation of a judgment of the General Court ordering the Commission to pay amounts to a company in a financial situation close to insolvency — Foreseeable risk of irreversible loss of those sums to the Union budget — Loss considered serious and irreparable

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Prima facie examination of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Application for suspension of operation of a judgment of the General Court put forward as part of an appeal against that judgment — Need for a thorough examination of the admissibility and merits of the grounds put forward in the appeal — Appeal prima facie not without substance

See the text of the decision. (see para. 14)

In proceedings for interim measures, the requirement that a prima facie case must be established is satisfied where there is a major legal disagreement whose resolution is not immediately obvious, so that the appeal is not prima facie without reasonable substance. Since the purpose of the interim proceedings is to guarantee that the final decision to be taken is fully effective, in order to avoid a lacuna in the legal protection ensured by the Court, the court hearing the application for interim relief must restrict itself to assessing ‘prima facie’ the merits of the grounds put forward in the main proceedings in order to ascertain whether there is a sufficiently large probability of success of the action. The examination by the General Court of the dispute forming the subject matter of the appeal required that Court to assess a set of elements comprising points of law and legal classification, and the appraisal and findings of fact. Consequently, the assessment of the admissibility and merits of the grounds put forward in an appeal call for a thorough examination, with the result that the appeal must be regarded, at the stage of the interim proceedings, as not being without any prospect of succeeding on the merits. (see paras 15, 17)

The requirement of urgency in order for an application for interim measures to be upheld in the form of suspension of operation of a judgment of the General Court ordering a Union institution to pay amounts, together with interest, to a company is met when that company is in a financial situation close to insolvency. In that situation, payment of the amounts referred to in the judgment would risk occasioning the irreversible loss of those amounts to the Union budget. For the institution, and therefore the public finances of the Union, to suffer the loss of an amount of money that is objectively not insignificant must be regarded as constituting a serious loss for the purposes of interim proceedings. (see paras 27, 34)