Case T‑43/15 R

(publication by extracts)

CRM Srl

v

European Commission

‛Application for interim measures — Registration of a protected geographical indication — ‘Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola’ — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency’

Summary — Order of the President of the General Court, 24 April 2015

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Lack of diligence by the applicant taken into account

   (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 510/2006, Art. 5(5) and (6); Commission Regulation No 1174/2014)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs

   (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2))

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of an action for compensation

   (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2))

1.  When suspension of the operation of an EU measure is sought, the grant of the interim measure requested is justified only where the act at issue constitutes the decisive cause of the alleged serious and irreparable harm. The harm must result from effects produced by the disputed measure alone and not from a lack of diligence on the part of the party seeking the interim measure. If it has not demonstrated the full level of diligence that ought to be demonstrated by a prudent and well-informed undertaking, the party seeking interim measures must bear even harm which it claims is liable to jeopardise its existence or to alter irrevocably its position on the market.

   In the case of an application for interim measures citing serious and irreparable harm, both financial and non-financial, and resting on the premiss that Regulation No 1174/2014, registering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, prohibits the applicant from using a geographical designation, thereby placing it at a disadvantage in comparison with its competitors, an applicant must be regarded as not having demonstrated the reasonable diligence to be expected of a prudent and well-informed trader if it fails to avail itself of the opportunity, provided by Article 5(5) and (6) of Regulation No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, to obtain permission to continue to use the designation in question during a transitional period.

   (see paras 29-32)

2.  In interim proceedings, where the applicant is a member of a group of companies and intends validly to invoke the risk of serious and irreparable financial loss, the onus is on it to state the size, overall turnover and characteristics of the group to which it belongs. The assessment of the applicant’s precise financial situation depends on whether it objectively has access to additional funds derived from, inter alia, the financial resources of the group to which it belongs. The conditions governing the applicant’s membership of its group therefore constitute essential elements for the purpose of assessing the urgency of the application for interim measures.

   (see paras 44, 45)

3.  Although, in interim proceedings, the applicant may encounter certain difficulties in accurately quantifying its financial loss, the EU judicature would, in any future compensation dispute, be entitled to calculate the loss caused to the applicant by means of an abstract assessment based on the likely developments of its market shares and profits in the normal course of events. With regard to the quantification of loss, the assessment of the facts by the EU judicature is not open to appeal, and it has a margin of appreciation as to the method to be adopted to determine the extent of any reparation. It may even rely on estimates based on mean statistical values, it being understood that the applicant must prove the data on which those estimates are based.

   (see paras 51, 52)