EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 61998TO0073
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 1998. # Société chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v Commission of the European Communities. # State aid - Proceedings for interim relief - Intervention - Interim measures - Urgency - None. # Case T-73/98 R.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 1998.
Société chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v Commission of the European Communities.
State aid - Proceedings for interim relief - Intervention - Interim measures - Urgency - None.
Case T-73/98 R.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 1998.
Société chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v Commission of the European Communities.
State aid - Proceedings for interim relief - Intervention - Interim measures - Urgency - None.
Case T-73/98 R.
European Court Reports 1998 II-02769
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:1998:170
61998B0073
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 1998. - Société chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v Commission of the European Communities. - State aid - Proceedings for interim relief - Intervention - Interim measures - Urgency - None. - Case T-73/98 R.
European Court reports 1998 Page II-02769
Keywords
Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Burden of proof - Applicant's interest in obtaining the suspension requested
(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Summary
When deciding whether to grant interim measures, it is necessary to ascertain whether the applicant has established an interest in obtaining the measures requested.
Furthermore, 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 damage to the party applying for those measures. It is for the party seeking suspension of the operation of a contested decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences. In this connection, the risk of harm which is dependent on the occurrence of a number of factors must be established with a sufficient degree of probability.