- 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 Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 1999. # Leon Van Parijs NV, Pacific Fruit Company NV, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA and Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH v Commission of the European Communities. # Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Application for additional import licences - Procedure for interim relief - Manifestly inadmissible. # Case T-11/99 R.
ECLI:EU:T:1999:86
61999TO0011
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
61999B0011
European Court reports 1999 Page II-01355
Summary
Keywords
1 Procedure - Procedure before the Court of First Instance - Parties entitled to protection against the misuse of procedural documents - Scope (Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance, Art. 5(3))
2 Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Consideration of the admissibility of the main application - Inappropriate - Limits (EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
3 Applications for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Financial damage (EC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Summary
1 Under the rules governing procedure before the Court of First Instance and the third subparagraph of Article 5(3) of the Instructions to the Registrar, parties are entitled to protection against the misuse of procedural documents. It follows that the parties to a case are entitled to use the procedural documents of other parties only for the purpose of pursuing their own case.
2 In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main application is not to be examined in proceedings for interim relief, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. None the less, where it is contended that the main application to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish whether there are any grounds for a prima facie finding that the main application is admissible. In that regard, it is particularly important to ensure that the applicants do not obtain, through proceedings for interim relief, the benefit of measures to which they would not be entitled if their action were declared inadmissible by the Court when it examines the substance of the case.
3 The condition (for the grant of interim relief) relating to the existence of a risk of serious and irreparable damage is not satisfied where the applicant undertaking alleges solely damage of a financial nature and does not adduce any evidence to justify a prima facie finding that the damage in question would be such as to threaten its survival or to cause it serious and irreparable harm and that it could not therefore be fully compensated in the event of the main action succeeding.