Case T-74/00 R 
Artegodan GmbH 
v 
Commission of the European Communities 
(Proceedings for interim relief — Article 108 of the Rules of Procedure — 
Change in circumstances — No change) 
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 5 September 2001 II-2370 
Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
interim relief — Variation or cancellation — Condition — Change in circum­
stances — Meaning — Strict interpretation 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 107(3) and (4), 108 and 109) 
II - 2367 
SUMMARY — CASE T-74/00 R 
2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Interim relief — Variation or cancellation — Interim order not challenged within 
the time-limit — Legal certainty — Possibility of applying to the Court for cancella­
tion of the order — Limits 
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 108) 
3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
interim relief — Variation or cancellation — Power of the Court to cancel an interim 
order — Exercise limited in light of the principle of legal certainty 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 50, second para.; 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 86(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court 
of First Instance, Art. 108) 
1. As provided in Article 108 of the Rules 
of Procedure of the Court of First 
Instance, an order granting suspension 
of operation of a measure or any other 
interim relief may at any time, on 
application by a party, be varied or 
cancelled on account of a change in 
circumstances. 
The term 'change in circumstances' 
signifies that the features of the 
previously existing situation have 
changed. It contains no indication as 
to the significance and nature of the 
changes required. It cannot be inter­
preted as describing changes which are 
less significant than or different from 
those which would result from 'new 
facts'. The two terms thus do not 
display, literally, a difference in mean­
ing such that the Community legisla­
ture, by using the former, can be taken 
to have intended to lay down a less 
strict condition and confer a wider power on the Court. Also, the words 
'at any time' simply mean that an 
application under Article 108 of the 
Rules of Procedure may be brought at 
any time after the interim order has 
been made. 
In the light of Article 107(3) and (4) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of 
First Instance, the provisional nature of 
an interim order cannot justify a broad 
interpretation of Article 108 thereof. 
The fact that the effects of an interim 
order are limited in time has no bearing 
on the extent of the power to cancel it 
which the Community legislature has 
granted to the court in interim relief 
proceedings. Furthermore, the inter-
changeability, for the court in interim 
relief proceedings, of the terminology 
relating to Articles 108 and 109 of the 
Rules of Procedure tends to justify a 
strict interpretation of both articles. 
The mere reference to the concept of a 
'change in circumstances' in Arti-
II - 2368 
ARTEGODAN v COMMISSION 
cle 108 of the Rules of Procedure of the 
Court of First Instance thus cannot, by 
reason of the wording of that provision 
or having regard to its context, justify a 
broad interpretation of the power 
granted by it to the court in interim 
relief proceedings. 
(see paras 79, 86-88) 
2. The principle of legal certainty applies, 
generally, to decisions made in interim 
relief proceedings. To allow a party 
who has knowingly decided not to 
make use of the possibility available 
to it of bringing an appeal against an 
interim order of the President of the 
Court of First Instance none the less to 
apply for its cancellation would under­
mine that principle. 
(see paras 91-92) 3. It follows from the principle of legal 
certainty that the power of the court in 
interim relief proceedings to cancel an 
interim order must be subject to limited 
application. That is all the more true in 
the case of interim orders of the 
President of the Court of First Instance. 
Unlike orders made by the President of 
the Court of Justice in interim relief 
proceedings, from which, as stated in 
Article 86(1) of the Rules of Procedure 
of the Court of Justice, 'no appeal shall 
lie', those of the President of the Court 
of First Instance may always be chal­
lenged in an appeal to the Court of 
Justice. Thus, an application under 
Article 108 of the Rules of Procedure 
of the Court of First Instance cannot in 
any event replace the appeal which 
parties may bring before the Court of 
Justice, pursuant to the second para­
graph of Article 50 of the EC Statute of 
the Court of Justice, against a decision 
of the Court of First Instance taken 
under Articles 242 EC and 243 EC. 
(see para. 93) 
II - 2369