EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 16 July 1999. # Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the European Communities. # Procedure for interim relief - Urgency. # Case T-143/99 R.

ECLI:EU:T:1999:153

61999TO0143

July 16, 1999
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Avis juridique important

61999B0143

European Court reports 1999 Page II-02451

Summary

Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage which may be imminent - Meaning - Burden of proof (EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable harm to the party applying for those measures. It is for the party seeking the measures to prove that he cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering harm of that nature.

To be able to determine whether the harm which the applicant fears is serious and irreparable and therefore provides grounds for, exceptionally, suspending the operation of a decision, the court hearing the application must have hard evidence allowing it to determine the precise consequences which the absence of the measures applied for would in all probability entail. However, it does not have to be established with absolute certainty that the harm invoked is imminent. It is sufficient that the harm, particularly when it depends on the occurrence of a number of factors, should be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia