CELEX: 61983CO0171
Language: en
Date: 1983-09-20 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of 20 September 1983. # Commission of the European Communities v French Republic. # State aids - Interim measures. # Case 171/83 R.

Avis juridique important

|

61983O0171

Order of the Court of 20 September 1983.  -  Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.  -  State aids - Interim measures.  -  Case 171/83 R.  

European Court reports 1983 Page 02621 Spanish special edition Page 00649

SummaryPartiesSubject of the caseGroundsOperative part
Keywords

1 . AIDS GRANTED BY STATES - DRAFT AID PROGRAMMES - NOTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION - IMPLEMENTATION BEFORE COMPATIBILITY HAS BEEN CHECKED - PROHIBITION - PLANNED AID REGARDED AS COMPATIBLE BY THE MEMBER STATE - IRRELEVANCE  ( EEC TREATY , ART . 93 ( 3 ))   2 . AIDS GRANTED BY STATES - AID PROJECTS - NOTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION - IMPLEMENTATION BEFORE COMPATIBILITY HAS BEEN CHECKED - PROHIBITION - DATE OF TAKING EFFECT   ( EEC TREATY , ART . 93 ( 3 ))   3 . AIDS GRANTED BY STATES - AID PROJECTS - NOTIFICATION TO THE COMMISSION - FAILURE TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE FOR CHECKING COMPATIBILITY , ENABLING EACH PARTY TO STATE ITS CASE - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT ON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR PRELIMINARY CHECK ON COMPATIBILITY - CONDITIONS - PRIOR NOTICE TO COMMISSION   ( EEC TREATY , ART . 93 ( 3 ))    

Summary

1 . THE FINAL SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 93 OF THE TREATY IS THE MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING THE MACHINERY FOR REVIEW LAID DOWN BY THAT ARTICLE WHICH , IN TURN , IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROTECTING THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET . IT FOLLOWS THAT , EVEN IF THE MEMBER STATE TAKES THE VIEW THAT THE PLANNED AID IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET , THAT FACT CANNOT AUTHORIZE IT TO DEFY THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 93 .  2 . THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 93 OF THE TREATY IS EFFECTIVE THROUGHOUT THE PRELIMINARY PHASE CONSISTING IN THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE DRAFT AID PROGRAMME , WHILST REQUIRING THE COMMISSION TO CONCLUDE THE INVESTIGATION WITHIN TWO MONTHS .     3 . IF THE COMMISSION , AFTER BEING INFORMED BY A MEMBER STATE OF A       DRAFT AID PROGRAMME , FAILS TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ), SUCH A STATE MAY , AT THE EXPIRATION OF A PERIOD SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE AID TO UNDERGO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION , PUT THE PROPOSED AID INTO EFFECT .    THE REQUIREMENTS OF LEGAL CERTAINTY DICTATE THAT THE MEMBER STATE SHALL , ONCE THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PERIOD HAS ELAPSED , GIVE PRIOR NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION BEFORE PUTTING THE PROPOSED MEASURES INTO EFFECT .    

Parties

IN CASE 171/83 R COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY MARIE-JOSE JONCZY AND GIULIANO MARENCO , MEMBERS OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , ACTING AS AGENTS , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF ORESTE MONTALTO , A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,   APPLICANT ,   V  FRENCH REPUBLIC , REPRESENTED BY G . GUILLAUME , DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS AT THE MINISTERE DES RELATIONS EXTERIEURES ( MINISTRY FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS ), ACTING AS AGENT , ASSISTED BY GERARD BOIVINEAU , PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS , ACTING AS DEPUTY AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS EMBASSY , 2 RUE BERTHOLET ,   DEFENDANT ,    

Subject of the case

APPLICATION , AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS , FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES UNDER ARTICLE 186 OF THE EEC TREATY , TO RESTRAIN THE IMPLEMENTATION BY THE FRENCH REPUBLIC OF AID TO THE TEXTILE AND CLOTHING INDUSTRY ,  

Grounds

1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 4 AUGUST 1983 , THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BROUGHT AN ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY , SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE FRENCH REPUBLIC , BY BRINGING INTO FORCE , BY A DECREE OF 7 JUNE 1983 PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OFFICIEL DE LA REPUBLIQUE FRANCAISE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC ) NO 131 OF 8 JUNE 1983 UNDER NO 8-458 , THE MEASURES GRANTING AID TO THE TEXTILE AND CLOTHING INDUSTRIES , NOTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION ON 5 MAY 1983 , HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY .    2 THE FRENCH MEASURES IN DISPUTE CONSIST IN THE EXTENSION TO A SECOND YEAR - WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS - OF A SYSTEM ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED FOR ONE YEAR BY AN ORDER OF 1 MARCH 1982 . UNDER THE ORDER THE STATE TAKES OVER SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS DUE FROM EMPLOYERS WHO SIGN A CONTRACT FOR A DURATION OF 12 MONTHS , WHEREBY THEY ENTER INTO CERTAIN COMMITMENTS CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT IN THEIR UNDERTAKINGS . IN ITS DECISION , NO 83-245 OF 12 JANUARY 1983 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 137 , 26 . 5 . 1983 , P . 24 ), THE COMMISSION CALLED ON THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT TO ABOLISH THE SCHEME THEREBY ESTABLISHED , WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM 21 JANUARY 1983 , THE DATE OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION .        3 IN ITS APPLICATION THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT , ACCORDING TO THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , IT ENJOYS A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE NOTIFICATION OF THE DRAFT AID PROGRAMME , WITHIN WHICH TO FORM AN INITIAL OPINION ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME WITH THE TREATY AND , IF NECESSARY , TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ). THE COMMISSION RECALLS THAT , IN THIS CASE , IT HAD SENT AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTIFICATION TO THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT , STATING THAT THE PERIOD IN QUESTION STARTED TO RUN FROM 6 MAY 1983 . HOWEVER , THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTED THE MEASURES PLANNED BY THE DECREE PUBLISHED ON 8 JUNE 1983 ; HENCE , WITH EFFECT FROM THAT DATE , IT HAD BEEN GRANTING , IN CONNECTION WITH THE RENEWED CONTRACTS , AID WHICH WAS ILLEGAL UNDER COMMUNITY LAW .    4 THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS THAT THE TWO-MONTH PERIOD CITED BY THE COMMISSION SERVES MERELY AS A GUIDELINE . IN THIS CASE IT WAS ESSENTIAL , IN THE INTERESTS OF THE RECIPIENT UNDERTAKINGS AND FOR THE SAKE OF THE COHERENCE OF THE AID SCHEME AS A WHOLE , THAT AN EXTENSION SHOULD BE EFFECTED , OFFERING AS IT DID A SOLUTION WHEREBY CONTINUITY WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO A MINIMUM . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , AND REGARD BEING HAD TO THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN ACQUAINTED WITH THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE RELEVANT AID SCHEME SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE ORDER OF 1 MARCH 1982 ESTABLISHING THE SCHEME FOR THE FIRST YEAR , THE COMMISSION NEEDED LESS THAN A MONTH TO DELIVER ITS OPINION ON THE CONTESTED DECREE . THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT WAS THEREFORE QUITE JUSTIFIED IN IMPLEMENTING THE DECREE WHEN , A MONTH LATER , THE COMMISSION HAD STILL NOT TAKEN ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ) OF THE TREATY .    5 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON THE SAME DAY AS THE MAIN ACTION WAS BROUGHT , THE COMMISSION , ACTING UNDER ARTICLE 186 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 83 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , APPLIED FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES REQUIRING THE FRENCH REPUBLIC TO REFRAIN FROM ANY RENEWAL OF CONTRACTS CONCLUDED WITH UNDERTAKINGS REGARDING THE AID SCHEME IN QUESTION , AND TO SUSPEND PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACTS ALREADY RENEWED .    6 IN THE OBSERVATIONS WHICH IT SUBMITTED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS , THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT DENIES THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR ORDERING THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES , AND IN PARTICULAR THOSE SOUGHT BY THE COMMISSION , ARE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES .        7 UNDER ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IT IS THE DUTY OF THE APPLICANT TO STATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURES APPLIED FOR .    8 AS REGARDS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR GRANTING SUCH INTERIM MEASURES AS MIGHT PROVE NECESSARY , THE PARTIES BASICALLY REPEATED THE ARGUMENTS WHICH THEY HAVE PUT FORWARD IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS .    9 IN THAT CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND , FIRST , THAT UNDER ARTICLE 3 ( F ) OF THE EEC TREATY THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMUNITY SHALL INCLUDE THE INSTITUTION OF A SYSTEM ENSURING THAT COMPETITION IN THE COMMON MARKET IS NOT DISTORTED , AND , SECONDLY , THAT IN THAT CONNECTION ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE EEC TREATY DECLARES ANY AID GRANTED BY A MEMBER STATE WHICH DISTORTS OR THREATENS TO DISTORT COMPETITION BY FAVOURING CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS OR THE PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN GOODS TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET .    10 IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROHIBITION EFFECTIVE , ARTICLE 93 LAYS ON THE COMMISSION A SPECIFIC DUTY OF SUPERVISION AND , ON THE MEMBER STATES , CLEAR-CUT OBLIGATIONS DESIGNED TO FACILITATE THE TASK OF THE COMMISSION AND TO AVOID THE LATTER ' S BEING CONFRONTED WITH A FAIT ACCOMPLI .    11 AS FAR AS PLANS TO GRANT OR ALTER AID ARE CONCERNED , ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ) STATES THAT THE COMMISSION IS TO BE INFORMED IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO ENABLE IT TO SUBMIT ITS COMMENTS AND FURTHER REQUIRES THE COMMISSION , IF IT CONSIDERS THAT THE PLAN NOTIFIED IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET , TO INITIATE WITHOUT DELAY THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN PARAGRAPH ( 2 ), WHICH PERMITS EACH PARTY TO STATE ITS CASE ; LASTLY , PARAGRAPH ( 3 ) UNEQUIVOCALLY PROHIBITS ANY MEMBER STATE FROM PUTTING ITS PROPOSED MEASURES INTO EFFECT UNTIL THE PROCEDURE HAS RESULTED IN A FINAL DECISION .    12 AS THE COURT HAS STRESSED , INTER ALIA IN ITS ORDER OF 21 MAY 1977 ( CASES 31/77 R AND 53/77 R COMMISSION V UNITED KINGDOM ( 1977 ) ECR 921 ), THE FINAL SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 93 IS THE MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING THE MACHINERY FOR REVIEW LAID DOWN BY THAT ARTICLE WHICH , IN TURN , IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROTECTING THE     PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET . IT FOLLOWS , AS THE COURT FURTHER HELD IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT , THAT , EVEN IF THE MEMBER STATE TAKES THE VIEW THAT THE PLANNED AID IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET , THAT FACT CANNOT ENTITLE IT TO DEFY THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 93 .    13 AS BOTH PARTIES HAVE RECALLED , THE COURT HAS HELD , INTER ALIA IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 11 DECEMBER 1983 ( CASE 120/73 LORENZ V GERMANY ( 1973 ) ECR 1471 ), THAT IF THE COMMISSION , AFTER BEING INFORMED BY A MEMBER STATE OF A DRAFT AID PROGRAMME , FAILS TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ), SUCH A STATE MAY , AT THE EXPIRATION OF A PERIOD SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE AID TO UNDERGO A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION , PUT THE PROPOSED AID INTO EFFECT . IN THAT JUDGMENT , THE COURT STRESSED THAT THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 93 IS EFFECTIVE THROUGHOUT THE PRELIMINARY PHASE CONSISTING IN THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE DRAFT AID PROGRAMME , WHILST REQUIRING THE COMMISSION TO CONCLUDE THE INVESTIGATION WITHIN A PERIOD WHICH THE COURT , ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLES 173 AND 175 OF THE TREATY , SET AT TWO MONTHS .    14 HOWEVER , IT IS ALSO APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THAT , IN THE LAST-NAMED JUDGMENT , THE COURT STATED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF LEGAL CERTAINTY DICTATE THAT THE MEMBER STATE SHALL , ONCE THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PERIOD HAS ELAPSED , GIVE PRIOR NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION BEFORE PUTTING THE PROPOSED MEASURES INTO EFFECT .    15 IN THIS CASE , IT IS COMMON GROUND NOT ONLY THAT THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT , WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY CONTESTING THE TWO-MONTH PERIOD MENTIONED BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT AND WITHOUT REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO EXPEDITE ITS INVESTIGATION , PUT THE AID PROGRAMME INTO EFFECT WELL BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD , BUT ALSO THAT IT GAVE NO PRIOR NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION .    16 IT IS NOT NECESSARY , AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS , TO DETERMINE WHETHER , IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE COMMISSION COULD OR SHOULD HAVE CONCLUDED ITS PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WITHIN A SHORTER PERIOD THAN THAT INDICATED IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT ; IT FOLLOWS , HOWEVER , FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE     COMMISSION ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR GRANTING THE MEASURES SOUGHT , AS IS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 83 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .    17 IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER NEXT WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS ALSO BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN DEMONSTRATING THE URGENCY OF THE MATTER , THAT IS TO SAY , THE NEED TO ORDER THE MEASURES REQUESTED , IN ORDER TO PREVENT SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE HARM DUE TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE DISPUTED PRACTICES FROM OCCURRING WHILST THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING .    18 IN THAT CONNECTION , THE COMMISSION EMPHASIZES THAT THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY THE TEXTILE AND CLOTHING INDUSTRIES ARE EXPERIENCING DIFFICULTIES AND COMPETITION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IS INTENSE . UNDERTAKINGS OF BOTH THOSE INDUSTRIES IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATES WHICH DO NOT BENEFIT FROM AID PROVISIONS COMPARABLE TO THE FRENCH MEASURES ARE LIABLE TO ENCOUNTER , ON THEIR DOMESTIC MARKETS , COMPETITION WHICH IS DISTORTED BY THOSE MEASURES , AND THERE IS A DANGER THAT TRADE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY MAY BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED . MOREOVER , IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RULE OUT THE THREAT OF AN EXAGGERATED RESPONSE FROM THE OTHER MEMBER STATES IN WHICH A CONSIDERABLE SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY IS IN DANGER OF BEING DISTURBED BY THE FRENCH MEASURES .    19 THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT OBSERVES THAT ON THAT SUBJECT THE COMMISSION ARGUES BY WAY OF ASSERTIONS UNSUPPORTED BY FACTS . IN ACTUAL FACT THE COMMISSION IS NOT , AT PRESENT , IN A POSITION TO APPRAISE THE EFFECTS - WHETHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE - OF ANY AID SCHEME WHATEVER IN THE SECTOR UNDER CONSIDERATION , AS IS BORNE OUT BY A QUESTIONNAIRE ON AID IN FAVOUR OF THE TEXTILE AND CLOTHING INDUSTRY , SENT BY THE COMMISSION TO THE MEMBER STATES IN JUNE 1983 . FOR ITS PART , THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT CLAIMS TO BE IN A POSITION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AID SCHEME WHICH IT SET UP IN 1982 HAS NOT SO FAR HAD ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON THE FOREIGN TRADE OF OTHER MEMBER STATES IN THE INDUSTRY UNDER CONSIDERATION . AS EVIDENCE , IT SUBMITS STATISTICAL INFORMATION ON TRENDS OF TRADE BETWEEN THOSE STATES AND THE FRENCH REPUBLIC IN THE TEXTILE AND CLOTHING INDUSTRY IN 1982 AND DURING THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS OF 1983 . FURTHERMORE , THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF THE AID SCHEME ESTABLISHED IN 1982 WAS TO MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT AND NOT TO REVERSE CURRENTS OF TRADE .        20 IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION , IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THAT , EVEN BEFORE THE PRESENT WORLD ECONOMIC CRISIS , THE COMMUNITY ' S TEXTILE AND CLOTHING INDUSTRY HAD ENCOUNTERED STRUCTURAL DIFFICULTIES DUE , IN PARTICULAR , TO COMPETITION FROM THE INDUSTRIES OF CERTAIN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES . THE CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE DIFFICULTIES ARE SERIOUSLY AGGRAVATED IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES BY THE CRISIS WHICH HAS LED TO A VERY HIGH RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN MOST SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY .    21 WHILST IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO COMBAT SUCH A SITUATION AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL , AT LEAST BY AN EFFECTIVE COORDINATION OF NATIONAL MEASURES , IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS NOT YET INTRODUCED ANY POLICY IN THAT RESPECT . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , ONLY CLOSE COOPERATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION , WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 93 , AFFORDS THE MEANS OF FORESTALLING THE RISK THAT AID PROVISIONS INTRODUCED UNILATERALLY BY THOSE STATES MAY DISTURB TRADE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE REPERCUSSIONS ON THE MARKETS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES BY AGGRAVATING THE PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY THEIR INDUSTRIES .    22 IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MEASURES AT ISSUE CONSTITUTE SUCH A RISK IT IS SUFFICIENT TO OBSERVE BOTH THE SIZE OF THE AID GRANTED , WHICH MAY AMOUNT TO 12% OF THE TOTAL REMUNERATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE SOCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS PAYABLE BY THE EMPLOYER IN QUESTION ARE CALCULATED , AND THE FACT THAT THE COMMITMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE UNDERTAKINGS RELATE NOT ONLY TO THE TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE OF EMPLOYMENT BUT ALSO TO INVESTMENT AND HENCE TO IRREVOCABLE MEASURES HAVING LONG-TERM EFFECTS SUCH AS TO MAKE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY POLICY STILL MORE DIFFICULT .    23 THE EXISTENCE OF THE RISK IS NOT , AT ALL EVENTS , BELIED BY THE STATISTICS PUT FORWARD BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT . AS THE COMMISSION HAS RIGHTLY REMARKED , THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR THE CONCLUSION OF CONTRACTS UNDER THE SYSTEM AT ISSUE INDICATES THAT THE EFFECTS OF THAT SYSTEM ARE FELT AFTER A LAPSE OF TIME AND , FURTHERMORE , THE SUBSIDIES GIVEN TO INVESTMENT ARE ONLY GRADUAL IN THEIR EFFECTS .    24 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CONDITION REGARDING THE URGENCY OF THE INTERIM MEASURES SOUGHT IS SATISFIED .        25 THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT RAISES THE OBJECTION THAT THE GRANT OF INTERIM MEASURES IS LIABLE , IN ITS TURN , TO CAUSE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE HARM TO THOSE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HAVE ALREADY HONOURED , IN WHOLE OR IN PART , THEIR COMMITMENTS UNDER THE CONTRACTS CONCLUDED PURSUANT TO THE SCHEME IN QUESTION , AND WHICH WOULD FIND THEMSELVES DEPRIVED OF THE FUNDS NEEDED FOR FINANCING THOSE COMMITMENTS .    26 WITH RESPECT TO THAT OBJECTION AND WITH A VIEW TO APPRAISING AT THE INTERLOCUTORY STAGE THE VARIOUS INTERESTS INVOLVED , REGARD SHOULD BE HAD , FIRST , TO THE FACT THAT FRENCH UNDERTAKINGS , DURING THE PROCEDURE INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ) IN RELATION TO THE ORIGINAL SCHEME , CANNOT , ESPECIALLY AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE DECISION OF 12 JANUARY 1983 , HAVE REMAINED UNAWARE OF THE PRECARIOUS NATURE OF THE SCHEME , WHICH THE MEASURES AT ISSUE HERE SERVE , IN ESSENTIALS , TO EXTEND ; AND SECONDLY TO THE FACT THAT EVEN THE PROVISIONAL MAINTENANCE OF THE SCHEME WOULD BE LIABLE TO AFFECT COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE COMMON MARKET IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD BE MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT TO REVERSE . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT ' S OBJECTION CANNOT PREVAIL .    27 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT , PENDING DELIVERY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , IT IS NECESSARY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 186 OF THE EEC TREATY THAT THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ANY RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACTS UNDER DISPUTE AND SHOULD WITHIN ONE MONTH SUSPEND PERFORMANCE OF THOSE CONTRACTS ALREADY RENEWED .    

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT ,   BY WAY OF INTERLOCUTORY DECISION ,   HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :       1 . PENDING JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS THE FRENCH REPUBLIC SHALL :    ( A ) AS FROM NOTIFICATION OF THIS ORDER , REFRAIN FROM RENEWING ANY CONTRACTS CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE STATE AND EMPLOYERS PURSUANT TO ORDER NO 82-204 OF 1 MARCH 1982 ON THE TAKING OVER BY THE STATE OF CERTAIN SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS IN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS IN THE TEXTILE AND CLOTHING INDUSTRIES ;    ( B)WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM NOTIFICATION OF THIS ORDER , SUSPEND THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN RENEWED .