Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Applications for interim measures ° Application in the context of a main action under Article 225 of the Treaty ° Whether admissible ° Special nature of the procedure to be taken into account

(EC Treaty, Arts 186, 224 and 225)

2. Applications for interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Measures which do not prejudice the decision on the substance ° Prima facie case ° Serious and irreparable harm ° Main action under Article 225 of the Treaty

(EC Treaty, Arts 224 and 225; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36, third paragraph; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2) and Art. 86(4))

Summary

1. Article 186 of the Treaty empowers the Court to prescribe any necessary interim measures in cases before it. It makes no exceptions or distinctions according to the nature of the case, and therefore an application for interim measures is possible if the main action is based on the second paragraph of Article 225 of the Treaty and seeks a declaration that a Member State has made improper use of Article 224 of the Treaty. However, the fact that the procedure under Article 225 is an expedited one compared with the procedure under Article 169, and the difficult assessments and explanations the examination of which is called for in applying Articles 224 and 225 may be taken into account when considering the actual circumstances which may make it necessary to prescribe interim measures.

2. Pursuant to Article 83(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice an order prescribing interim measures may only be made on the basis of pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the measure applied for and in the presence of circumstances giving rise to urgency, which must be considered in the light of the need for interim measures in order to prevent serious and irreparable harm resulting from the application of the measure at issue in the main action.

According to Article 86(4) of the Rules of Procedure and the third paragraph of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice an order prescribing interim measures may not prejudice the decision on the substance of the case.

In the light of those requirements the Court must dismiss an application for interim measures by the Commission seeking the suspension of measures adopted by a Member State with regard to a non-member country on the basis of Article 224 of the Treaty which may well be incompatible with the fundamental Community rules on the free movement of goods and the common commercial policy, even if the arguments advanced by the Commission appear at first sight to be sufficiently relevant and serious to constitute a prima facie case justifying the grant of the interim measure applied for, for the following reasons:

° in the first place, at the stage of an application for interim measures it is not possible to establish that the Member State has committed a manifest breach of Community law which of itself constitutes harm because without a detailed examination it is not possible to establish that the Government of that State has relied improperly on Article 224 of the Treaty or that it has made improper use of the powers provided for by that provision;

° in the second place, even if it were competent to make the political assessments indispensable to ascertain the existence of the harm occasioned to the general political guidelines laid down by the European Council, and the harm resulting from the exacerbation of international tension in the region concerned and the risk of war, which are alleged to result from the continued application of the measures adopted by a Member State with regard to a non-Member country, and, above all, of a link between that harm and the conduct of the Government of that Member State, the Court cannot in any event formulate an opinion at the stage of the proceedings on an application for interim measures because the assessments which it may make would inevitably encroach upon the scope of its powers under Articles 224 and 225 of the Treaty and thus would be liable to prejudice the outcome of the case;

° in the third place, the irreparable harm suffered by Community traders has not been established;

° lastly, since the task conferred on the Commission by Article 225, with regard to Article 224, is prima facie intended to ensure that Community interests are protected, the Court cannot take into account in the context of an application of the adoption of interim measures harm suffered by the non-Member country against which the measures considered by a Member State to be justified under Article 224 of the Treaty are directed.