Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[Keywords](#IX)
  
[Summary](#SM)

## Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Incorrect assessment of the facts - Inadmissible - Appeal dismissed

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 50, 2nd para., and 51)

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of operation of interim measures - Powers of the judge hearing the application for interim measures

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104)

3. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Restriction of copyright - Taking into account the strength of the plea when assessing urgency and balancing interests - Error of law - None

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

4. Appeals - Pleas in law - Error of law by the judge hearing the application for interim measures - Effect on the validity of the order for interim relief - Conditions

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 50, 2nd para.)

## Summary

1. Under Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal is limited to points of law, to the exclusion of any assessment of the facts. That provision applies also to appeals brought pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Statute.

The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, except where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts. That appraisal thus does not, except where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal.

( see paras 53-54 )

2. In the context of an application for interim relief seeking the suspension of operation of an act of a Community institution, the judge hearing the application must ascertain whether the applicant has shown that there is urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure.

The case-law which states that review by the Court, in the context of an action for annulment, of decisions based on complex economic assessments is limited to verifying whether the procedural rules have been complied with, whether the statement of reasons is adequate, whether the facts have been adequately stated, and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers, cannot be transposed unqualified to proceedings for interim relief without calling into question the conditions governing the adoption of an interim measure.

Such a transposition, which would imply, in the context of an application for interim relief brought against a decision on interim measures, that the applicant must be able to show an especially strong prima facie case and demonstrate manifest errors of assessment as regards the appraisal of urgency and, if appropriate, the balancing of interests carried out by the Commission, might reduce interim judicial protection too much and limit the broad discretion the judge hearing an application for interim relief must have in order to exercise the powers conferred on him.

The fact that the contested decision relates to the adoption of interim measures by the Commission does not cast doubt on that assessment. There is no justification for giving such interim decisions of the Commission a particular status in the context of applications for interim measures. The judge hearing the application therefore cannot, when considering the conditions for ordering such measures, attach greater importance to the Commission's provisional assessments than to its definitive ones.

( see paras 56-59 )

3. In proceedings for interim measures, the conditions for the ordering of suspension of operation and interim measures must be the object of an overall examination in which the judge hearing an application for interim relief enjoys a wide discretion. Thus, the strength or weakness of the pleas relied on to show a prima facie case may be taken into consideration by the judge in his assessment of urgency and, if appropriate, of the balance of interests.

As to the argument concerning the importance attached to copyright, the exercise of intellectual property rights may be subjected to restrictions imposed under Article 82 EC only in exceptional circumstances.

Consequently, an order which takes account of the strength of the prima facie case put forward by the applicant, and attaches importance in particular to the consequences of the contested decision for his copyright rights, is not vitiated by an error of law.

( see paras 63-65 )

4. An error of law with respect to the interpretation of a provision of Community law is capable of calling into question the validity of an order for interim relief only if it is decisive for the assessment of one of the conditions for ordering interim measures.

( see paras 81-82 )

[Top](#document1)