Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Pleas directed against a ground of the judgment or order not necessary to support the operative part — Plea inoperative — (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56, first para.)

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Erroneous assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Causal link between the damage alleged and the contested act — (Art. 242 EC)

4. Applications for interim measures — Court's obligation to give reasons — Scope

5. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Prima facie case — Dismissal of the application on the ground of lack of urgency alone — Consequences in the context of an appeal — (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. In appeal proceedings, pleas directed against grounds which do not provide the necessary basis for the operative part of the judgment or order under appeal are inoperative.

see para. 16

2. Under Article 225 EC and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, any appeal is to be limited to points of law and must lie on the grounds of lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant or infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction to make findings of fact, except where the documents before it caused it to make a material error in so doing, and to assess the facts as so found. Furthermore, the Court of Justice does not in principle have jurisdiction to examine evidence which the Court of First Instance has accepted in support of its finding or assessment of the facts. Where the general principles of law and rules of procedure governing the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the weight to be attributed to the evidence adduced before it.

see para. 21

3. In interlocutory proceedings which seek the suspension of operation of an act of an institution, the existence of a causal link between the contested act and the alleged harm is relevant evidence for the purposes of assessing urgency. For a claim for interim measures to be upheld, it is necessary for the measures requested to be urgent in so far as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant's interests, they must be made and produce their effects before a decision is reached in the main action. Interim measures which would not serve to prevent serious and irreparable harm cannot a fortiori be necessary for that purpose.

see para. 26

4. A judge hearing an application for interim measures cannot be required to reply explicitly to all the points of fact and law raised in the course of the interlocutory proceedings. It is sufficient that the reasons given validly justify the order in the light of the circumstances of the case and enable the Court of Justice to exercise its powers of review.

see para. 40

5. In the context of an appeal brought against an order dismissing an application for suspension of operation of a measure on the ground of lack of urgency of the measures sought, without any consideration of whether the main action appeared prima facie well founded, pleas which relate to the existence of a prima facie case but do not call into question the lack of urgency of the measures sought cannot form grounds for setting aside, even partially, the order under appeal, since the conditions for granting suspension are cumulative.

see paras 56-58