Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Provisional measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Serious and irreparable harm — Balancing of all the interests involved — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2))

2. Applications for interim measures — Criteria for admissibility — Admissibility of the main application — Irrelevance — Limits — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(1))

3. Actions for annulment — Final decision of the Commission concerning State aid — Action by an association responsible for defending the collective interests of undertakings — Own interest in bringing proceedings to defend its position as a negotiator — Whether admissible — (Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Definition — (Art. 242 EC)

Summary

1. The judge hearing an application for interim relief may order suspension of operation or other interim measures if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie , in fact and in law (fumus boni juris ) and that it is urgent in so far as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the applicant's interests, it must be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. If appropriate, the judge hearing the application for interim measures also weighs up the interests involved.

see para. 97

2. The issue of the admissibility of the main application should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. However, where the contention is that the main action is manifestly inadmissible, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to establish whether there is a prima facie case for finding that there is a certain probability that the main application is admissible.

see para. 98

3. Although the defence of general and collective interests of a category of persons is not sufficient to establish the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by an association, an association responsible for defending the collective interests of undertakings is nevertheless able to bring such an action against a final decision of the Commission concerning State aid if it can prove an interest of its own in bringing the action, in particular because its position as a negotiator has been affected by the measure of which the annulment is sought.

see para. 101

4. Where, in connection with an application for suspension of operation, the judge hearing the application for interim relief, before whom the risk of serious and irreparable damage to the applicant is pleaded, weighs up the various interests involved, he must determine whether the possible annulment of the decision at issue by the Court giving judgment in the main action would make it possible to reverse the situation that would be brought about by its immediate implementation and, conversely, whether suspension of operation of that decision would be such as to prevent the contested decision from being fully effective in the event of the main application being dismissed.

see para. 142