ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
10 February 2004
Case T-394/03 R
Flavia Angeletti
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Procedure for interim relief – Urgency – None)
Full text in French II - 0000
Application: for suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of 17 October 2003, as corrected on 27 October 2003.
Held: The application for interim relief is dismissed. The costs are reserved.
Summary
1. Interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative nature
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
2. Interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Strictly financial damage
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
1. Under Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance an application for interim measures must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application to suspend the operation of a measure must be dismissed where one of them is absent.
(see para. 23)
See: T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 18
2. The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim order in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measure. It is for the party requesting suspension of the operation of the contested decision to adduce proof that he cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering such damage.
Purely financial damage cannot as a matter of principle be regarded as irreparable or even difficult to repair, because financial compensation can be made for it subsequently.
However, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether the immediate execution of the decision giving rise to the application for suspension of operation may cause the applicant grave and imminent damage that even the annulment of the decision at the close of the main proceedings would be unable to repair.
In order to satisfy the burden of proof required to demonstrate the urgency of obtaining the suspension of operation applied for, it is not sufficient to claim that the operation of the contested measure would produce serious and irreparable damage. It must also be shown that the effects of the measure actually constitute serious and irreparable damage. To that end the information put forward must be substantiated by evidence and must allow the judge hearing the application for interim measures to obtain an accurate picture of the applicant’s situation.
(see paras 26-27, 29, 31)
See: T-549/93 R D v Commission [1993] ECR II-1347, para. 45; Willeme v Commission, paras 36 and 37; T-373/00 R Tralli v ECB [2001] ECR-SC I-A-19 and II-83, para. 26
Top