CELEX: 61997TO0179
Language: en
Date: 1997-07-15 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 1997. # Gouvernement des Antilles néerlandaises v Council of the European Union. # Association of the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measure - Interlocutory proceedings - Application for interim measures - Urgency - None. # Case T-179/97 R.

Avis juridique important

|

61997B0179

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 1997.  -  Gouvernement des Antilles néerlandaises v Council of the European Union.  -  Association of the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measure - Interlocutory proceedings - Application for interim measures - Urgency - None.  -  Case T-179/97 R.  

European Court reports 1997 Page II-01297

Summary
Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable harm - Balancing all the interests involved(EC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))  

Summary

The judge hearing an interlocutory application for suspension of operation of a measure must first examine whether the possible annulment of the contested measure by the Court ruling on the substance would make it possible to reverse the situation that would be brought about by the immediate implementation of that measure and conversely whether suspension of its operation would be such as to prevent it from being fully effective in the event of the main application's being dismissed.In the case of a safeguard measure adopted in the context of the association of the overseas countries and territories, the judge hearing an application for interim measures may not, other than in a situation of obvious urgency, override the Council's assessment as to the choice of the most appropriate safeguard measure, without running the risk of encroaching upon that institution's power of assessment. Where the applicant has not shown that it is in danger of suffering serious and irreparable harm as a result of the application of the contested regulation, appropriate damages could be awarded if the contested regulation were to be annulled by the Court ruling on the substance.  The fact that the regulation may have already been implemented and its specified period of application may have expired would not deprive the applicant of adequate protection of its rights, since the institution concerned would be obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment and might thus be required to restore the applicant to its original situation or to avoid the adoption of an identical measure.