- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
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.
ECLI:EU:T:1997:46
61997TO0041
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
61997B0041
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.