CELEX: 61997TO0041
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-21 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 1997. # Antillean Rice Mills NV v Council of the European Union. # Association of the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measure - Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Urgency - None. # Case T-41/97 R.

Avis juridique important

|

61997B0041

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 1997.  -  Antillean Rice Mills NV v Council of the European Union.  -  Association of the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measure - Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Urgency - None.  -  Case T-41/97 R.  

European Court reports 1997 Page II-00447

Summary
Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Financial loss - Limited duration of the contested measure(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))  

Summary

In the context of the examination of the urgency of a request for suspension of the operation of a measure, financial loss is in principle not considered to be serious and irreparable unless, in the event of the applicant's being  successful in the main proceedings, it could not be wholly recouped.  That might be so in particular where the damage threatened the very existence of the undertaking in question or where, once having occurred, it could not be quantified.Where the applicant has not demonstrated that it is in danger of suffering irreversible damage as a result of the application of the contested regulation, appropriate compensation could be awarded were the contested regulation to be annulled by the Court in the main proceedings, even if that regulation is applicable only for a limited period. The circumstance that a regulation had already been implemented and its period of application had expired would not deprive the applicant of adequate protection of its interests, since the institution concerned would have to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment and might thus be required to take adequate steps to restore the applicant to its original situation or to avoid the adoption of an identical measure.