BIB.ORDER
T-41/97 R61997B00410009.0001449146820TORDER OF 21.3.1997 — CASE T-41/97 R v
ANTILLEAN RICE MILLS v COUNCIL
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance
21 March 1997(*)
In Case T-41/97 R,
Antillean Rice Mills NV, a company constituted under the law of the Netherlands Antilles, established in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, represented by W. Knibbeler, of the Amsterdam Bar, and K. J. Defares, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,
applicant,supported by
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by M. Fierstra, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue C. M. Spoo,
intervener,
Council of the European Union, represented by R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of B. Eynard, Director-General of the Legal Affairs Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer,
defendant,supported by
Italian Republic, represented by F. Quadri, Avvocato dello Stato, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde,
and
Commission of the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
interveners,
APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 51, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for adoption of any necessary or appropriate measure,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1Antillean Rice Mills NV (‘ARM’) processes brown rice, from which the husk has been removed, from Surinam and Guyana, to make semi-milled rice in the Netherlands Antilles. Semi-milled rice is a semi-finished product obtained by removal of part of the pericarp. It is generally sold with a view to further processing into milled rice, from which the whole of the husk and the pericarp have been removed. ARM also produces milled rice.
2The Netherlands Antilles form part of the overseas countries and territories (‘OCT’) associated with the Community. The association of the OCT with the Community is governed by Part Four of the EC Treaty and by Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1, ‘the OCT Decision’), which was adopted pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 136 of the Treaty.
3The processing of brown rice from Surinam and Guyana into semi-milled rice by ARM in the Netherlands Antilles is sufficient for it to be regarded as originating in the Netherlands Antilles under the rules laid down in Annex II to the OCT Decision.
4Since 1992, ARM has exported the semi-milled rice which it produces to the Community. It sells it to European rice mills which polish it to make milled rice. The rice is of the long grain, or Indica, variety. At the hearing, ARM stated, in response to questions, that its exports amounted to 12930 tonnes in 1994, 62001 tonnes in 1995 and 68186 tonnes in 1996. In addition, 10% of its overall activity is accounted for by the production of milled rice sold on the local market. Finally, since 1 January 1997, it has exported 12000 tonnes of rice to the Community.
5The Community produces a surplus of semi-long grain, or Japónica, rice. There is a deficit, however, in Indica rice, which accounts for only 20% of Community production. According to the information provided by ARM, imports of Indica rice in 1996 reached the equivalent of approximately 365000 tonnes of milled rice. In that context, the Council has adopted a number of measures to promote the cultivation of Indica rice by Community producers.
6Undertakings, like ARM, established in the OCT compete with undertakings established in non-member countries or ACP countries as regards imports of Indica rice into the Community. According to ARM, the equivalent of 164000 tonnes of Indica milled rice was exported from the OCT to the Community in 1995, and of 177000 tonnes in 1996.
7Article 133(1) of the Treaty provides that customs duties on imports into the Member States of goods originating in the OCT are to be completely abolished in conformity with the abolition of customs duties between Member States in accordance with the Treaty. Article 101(1) of the OCT Decision provides that products originating in the OCT are to be imported into the Community free of customs duties and charges having equivalent effect.
8By derogation from the principles set out in Article 101(1), Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision allows the Commission to take safeguard measures ‘if as a result of the application of [that] Decision serious disturbances occur in a sector of the economy of the Community or of one or more of its Member States, or their external financial stability is jeopardized, or if difficulties arise which may result in a deterioration in a sector of the Community's activity or in a region of the Community’. Under Article 109(2), for the purpose of implementing Article 109(1), priority is to be given to such measures as would least disturb the functioning of the association and the Community. Such measures are not to exceed the limit of what is strictly necessary to remedy the difficulties that have arisen.
9Pursuant to Article 109 of the OCT Decision and at the request of the Italian and Spanish Governments, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 21/97 of 8 January 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the OCT (OJ 1997 L 5, p. 24). That regulation introduced a tariff quota allowing imports of rice originating in the OCT and benefiting from exemption from customs duties up to a ceiling of 4594 tonnes for rice originating in Montserrat, 1328 tonnes for rice originating in the Turks and Caicos Islands and 36728 tonnes for rice originating in the other OCT.
10In Regulation (EC) No 115/97 of 22 January 1997 on the issue of import licences for rice falling within CN code 1006 originating in the OCT, under the safeguard measures introduced by Regulation (EC) No 21/97 (OJ 1997 L 20, p. 30), the Commission noted that the quantities applied for on 9 January 1997 exceeded the quantities available for ‘other OCT’ origins. It decided that 56.7% of applications lodged on that date would be granted and that no import licences would be issued under the tariff quota for applications lodged from 10 January 1997.
11Following referral of Commission Regulation No 21/97 to the Council by the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 1(5) of Annex IV to the OCT Decision, which is entitled ‘Safeguard measures’ and lays down the detailed rules for the implementation of Article 109, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the OCT (OJ 1997 L 51, p. 1, ‘the contested regulation’), which repeals and replaces Regulation No 21/97.
12Council Regulation No 304/97 differs from the Commission's regulation on the single matter of the volume of the quota laid down for Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Article l(l)(a) provides for a quota of 8000 tonnes for rice originating in those countries, made up of 4594 tonnes originating in Montserrat and 3406 tonnes originating in Montserrat or the Turks and Caicos Islands. For rice originating in the other OCT, Regulation No 304/97 maintains the tariff quota at the same level, namely 36728 tonnes.
13By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 27 February 1997, ARM sought the annulment of Regulation No 304/97.
14By separate application under Articles 185 and 186 of the Treaty, lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, it also sought suspension of operation of the contested regulation as regards consignments of rice originating in the Netherlands Antilles processed by the applicant in the Netherlands Antilles and, in the alternative, the adoption by the President of the Court of First Instance of any measure considered by him to be necessary or appropriate. In that interlocutory application, the applicant also requested suspension of operation of the contested regulation with regard to it, without waiting for the Council's observations, pending the decision on the application for interim measures.
15The President of the Court took the view that the circumstances of the case did not call for that request for immediate suspension to be granted pursuant to Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, and prescribed a period for the Council to submit its written observations, which it did within that period by document registered at the Court on 7 March 1997.
16By applications lodged at the Court Registry on 17 March 1997, the Kingdom of the Netherlands applied to intervene in support of the applicant and the Commission applied to intervene in support of the Council. The Italian Republic also applied to intervene in support of the Council by application lodged with the President at the hearing on 19 March 1997.
17The parties presented oral argument on 19 March 1997. At that hearing, the President granted the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission leave to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings.
Law
18Under Article 186 of the Treaty, taken together with Article 4 of Council Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities (OJ 1988 L 319, p. 1), as amended by Council Decision 93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 8 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 144, p. 21) and Council Decision 94/149/ECSC, EC of 7 March 1994 (OJ 1994 L 66, p. 29), the Court of First Instance may, if it considers that circumstances so require, prescribe any necessary interim measures in any cases before it.
19The second paragraph of Article 104(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance spécifies that an application for the adoption of any interim measure referred to in Article 186 of the Treaty is admissible only if it is made by a party to a case before the Court of First Instance and relates to that case. Article 104(2) provides that applications for interim measures must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for. The measures sought must be provisional in that they must not prejudge the decision on the substance (see the order in Case T-41/96 R Bayer v Commission [1996] ECR II - 381, paragraph 13).
20In the present case, the President considers it appropriate to examine first the condition relating to urgency.
Urgency
Arguments of the parties
21The applicant claims that the interim measure sought is necessary to prevent serious and irreparable harm. The tariff quota introduced by the contested regulation was exhausted by the second day of its being in force. The effect of that safeguard measure is to bring ARM's activity practically to a halt until 30 April 1997.
22In that context, if the interim measures sought are not granted, the risk of serious and irreparable harm derives in the first place from the applicant's need to make prompt arrangements for laying off 80 employees. The applicant sought authorization for that purpose from the Department of Labour and Social Affairs in Bonaire by letter of 24 January 1997 (Annex 8 to the application for interim measures).
23Before it began exporting semi-milled rice to the Community, ARM employed some 22 staff in the production of milled rice for the local Netherlands Antilles market. Since 1992, its exports to the Community free of import duties have led it to increase its workforce to 117 employees. The contested safeguard measure renders the employees taken on since 1992 ‘superfluous overnight’.
24By laying off those employees, the applicant claims, it will lose the know-how and expertise built up since 1992, since they may be expected to find work elsewhere, in some cases outside the Netherlands Antilles.
25Secondly, the applicant asserts, it will rapidly lose its outlets in the Community. Half of its turnover comes from processing brown rice into semi-milled rice for the Netherlands undertaking Nidera, which informed it by letter of 29 January 1997 (Annex 9 to the application for interim measures) that it could be forced to terminate their business relationship if the safeguard measure in issue were not suspended within eight weeks. In addition, the European Rice Milling Group ‘Euryza’, the main Community buyer of semi-milled rice processed by ARM in its own name, informed it by letter of 24 January 1997 (Annex 10 to the application for interim measures) that the safeguard measure had caused it considerable loss of market shares and that it would look for other suppliers because of the applicant's inability to ensure continuity of supply following the introduction of that safeguard measure. At the hearing, the applicant stressed that, if the application for suspension were dismissed, those rice mills would terminate their business relations with ARM and obtain their supplies from non-member countries at lower prices.
26The fact that the safeguard measure is of relatively short duration does not detract from the urgency of the need to grant the measure sought. It is clear, moreover, from the preamble to the contested regulation that a new safeguard measure will be adopted at the end of that period, causing undertakings uncertainty as to the subsequent legal situation.
27In view of those considerations, the applicant submits, the balance between the competing interests favours suspension of the contested regulation. The only consequence of such a measure would be to reestablish the flow of trade as it existed in previous years. That would enable part of the Community's deficit in Indica rice to be made up. The Council could pay close attention to developments on the Community rice market and carefully assess any measures of commercial policy to be taken with regard to non-member countries to protect the Community rice market.
28The applicant further points out that the contested safeguard measure does not produce the effect which the Council wished to achieve. According to a summary in the Weekly Rice Market News (Annex 16 to the main application), price fluctuations for milled rice of Community origin are marginal whereas the price of milled rice processed from semi-milled rice originating in the OCT went up by more than US $100 between 6 and 10 January 1997.
29In those circumstances, suspension of operation of the contested safeguard measure could not harm the Community's interests. The prices at which rice of OCT origin is offered could not give rise to any disturbance on the Community rice market since that rice is, the applicant asserts, appreciably more expensive than Community rice. Suspension of the contested regulation would harm only rice-processing undertakings established in non-member countries, which now profit from the safeguard measure, contrary to the order of preferences established in favour of Community products and products originating in the OCT.
30In any event, the suspension sought would not prevent the Council from adopting other, less radical, measures such as the fixing of a minimum price for rice originating in the OCT. A measure of such a type would avoid the uncertainty as to the legal situation prevailing following exhaustion of the quota introduced by the safeguard measure. That uncertainty had the effect of bringing exports of rice from the OCT to a complete standstill overnight.
31In that regard, the applicant submits that there is no legal basis in the Community legislation for applying to rice originating in the OCT the system applicable to products originating in non-member countries. It is therefore out of the question to impose a levy on Community imports of products originating in the OCT. Nor can the contested regulation be interpreted as introducing a prohibition on imports into the Community of rice originating in the OCT — which would run completely counter to the privileges enjoyed by the OCT in relation to non-member countries.
32In its oral observations made in support of the applicant at the hearing, the Kingdom of the Netherlands stated that ARM was the largest rice mill established in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. Since mid-February, the flow of exports from the Netherlands Antilles to the Netherlands had come to a complete halt. To maintain such a situation would cause irreversible damage to the Netherlands Antilles economy, which is already delicate. It would irremediably jeopardize the structural adaptation programme set up in the Netherlands Antilles, in the framework of the obligations of the Netherlands under Article IV of the Agreements setting up the International Monetary Fund.
33The Council, supported by the Italian Republic and by the Commission, which endorsed all of its submissions at the hearing, rejects the arguments put forward by the applicant and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It challenges, in the first place, the claim that the applicant was obliged to discontinue its activity specifically because the tariff quota had been exhausted two days after its introduction. It is not impossible that the applicant and/or its customers had simply forgotten to submit applications for import licences diligently, despite having already been informed in late 1996 that safeguard measures would probably be introduced. The origin of the alleged harm would thus lie in the lack of diligence on the part of the applicant or its customers, thus breaking the causal link between the contested regulation and that harm.
34The Council goes on to challenge the serious nature of the alleged harm. Licences issued in December 1996 were valid and transferable until the end of February 1997. Nor can it be ruled out that the applicant's mill has been used for processing by rice traders holding licences. Finally, at the hearing, the Council specified that the level of the contested quota was determined on the basis of the average imports of rice of OCT origin between 1992 and 1995 — a period marked by a succession of two good and two bad years for Community production.
35Furthermore, the Council states, the applicant provides only minimum information as regards its annual production and use of capacity. It has made no statement as to the possibility of its continuing production at a lower level than during the previous period. It has given no information as to its turnover or as to profits and/or assets acquired since 1992. It is thus to be doubted that it cannot operate at reduced capacity for four months and even, perhaps, bear real losses during that period. In that regard, the Council points out that Community imports of rice originating in the OCT doubled in December 1996 over December 1995, in particular once it had been disclosed that the Commission would be introducing safeguard measures.
36Nor, moreover, is the alleged harm irreversible. As regards the claim that know-how will be lost as a result of the alleged need to lay off 80 employees, the Council submits that, even on such an assumption, the applicant could retain its know-how with the 37 employees who, it claims, are required for current production.
37As regards the risk of definitively losing its outlets in the Community, the Council states, the applicant has not proved that it will not be able, in particular by means of pricing policy, to resume its exports in due course.
38Finally, as regards the balance of interests, the Council maintains that the suspension sought would prejudge the Court's decision on the main case, since Indica rice would have been placed on the Community market. That would jeopardize the drive to persuade Community growers to convert to Indica rice. The balance to be established should therefore be between the economic and social development of Community growers and the interest of a single undertaking in avoiding a possible temporary reduction in its level of production.
39In its oral observations made at the hearing in support of the Council, the Italian Republic, which is the main rice-producing country in the Community, stressed that the safeguard measure in question is an emergency measure applicable for a limited period. The balance of interests should be between mere loss of earnings suffered by a single undertaking and the preservation of the Community's interests in the rice-cultivation sector. In particular, the effect of Community aid granted to promote cultivation of Indica rice has been set at nought by massive imports of low-priced rice from the OCT, going beyond what was intended when the OCT Decision was adopted. Conversely, the harm suffered by the Netherlands as a result of the contested regulation is limited because, according to the figures provided by the Commission at the hearing, import licences for rice from the OCT as a whole were issued in December 1996 for unusual quantities — around 67000 tonnes.
40The Commission also stated at the hearing that, contrary to what the applicant asserts, the contested safeguard measure is gradually producing the desired effects. The price of Indica rice on the Community market, which had been ECU 320 peltonne — thus appreciably lower than the intervention price of ECU 350 per tonne — from the third week of November to the first week of January, reached ECU 335 throughout the period from mid-January to the end of February and has since been rising slightly. That price increase is due to the fact that the effect of the licences issued in December and, up to the quota ceiling, until 9 January, which are valid for two months, is disappearing.
41With regard to the uncertainty alleged by the applicant as to the legal position applicable after exhaustion of the quota, the Commission objected at the hearing that, whilst that exhaustion has led to discontinuation of the issue of import licences, rice originating in the OCT may none the less be imported under the levy system set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organization of the market in rice (OJ 1995 L 329, p. 18) for imports originating in non-member countries, which is applicable to imports originating in the OCT on the basis of the safeguard measure in issue.
Findings of the President
42It has consistently been held that the judge hearing an application for interim measures must first examine whether the possible annulment of the contested measure by the Court would make it possible to reverse the situation that would be brought about by the immediate implementation of that measure and conversely whether suspension of its operation would be such as to prevent it from being fully effective in the event of the main application's being dismissed (see, in particular, the order in Joined Cases 76/89, 77/89 and 91/89 R RTE and Others v Commission [1989] ECR 1141, paragraph 15).
43In the present case, the measure in issue is a safeguard measure in the form of a tariff quota introduced for a period of four months from 1 January to 30 April 1997 for the purpose of keeping, during that specific period, Community imports of rice originating in the OCT within limits compatible with the stability of the Community market, as is clear from the 12th recital in the preamble to the contested regulation. Having regard to the very nature of that measure, it is immediately clear that granting the suspension sought would be likely to produce irreversible effects in the event of the Court's confirming the contested regulation in the main proceedings, as Indica rice originating in the OCT would have been placed on the market during the period with which the safeguard measure is concerned.
44Without there being any need at this stage to consider whether the safeguard measure in issue is justified and prima facie effective, it is sufficient to note that, according to the explanations provided by the Council and the Commission, in particular at the hearing, that measure was introduced with the aim of remedying the instability of the market for Community-produced Indica rice, which was being sold, during the last six weeks of 1996, at a price very considerably lower than the intervention price. It seeks to limit low-priced imports of rice originating in the OCT in order to encourage producers of Japónica rice to change over to Indica rice, in particular before the beginning of the sowing season, which begins in April.
45In those circumstances, granting the suspension sought would be likely to prejudge the decision of the Court in the main proceedings by definitively depriving the safeguard measure of its effectiveness.
46In accordance with the case-law, account must therefore be taken, when weighing up the competing interests, of the irreversible nature of any suspension of operation of the contested regulation, and the application must be granted only if, in particular, the urgency of the measures sought appears undeniable (see the order in Case T-179/96 R Antonissen v Council and Commission [1997] ECR II-425, paragraph 22).
47It is thus necessary to examine the effects of the application of the contested regulation on the applicant's situation, bearing in mind at the outset that, according to settled case-law, damage of a financial nature is not in principle considered to be serious and irreparable unless, in the event of the applicant's being successful in the main action, it could not be wholly recouped. That may be so in particular if the alleged damage threatens the very existence of the undertaking in question or if the damage, even when it occurs, cannot be quantified (see the order in Joined Cases C-51/90 R and C-59/90 R Comos-Tank and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I-2167, paragraph 24).
48In the present case, the applicant claims, in substance, that if the safeguard measure in issue continues to be applied it will be compelled to lay off 80 employees out of a total workforce of 117 and will irreversibly lose its market shares in the Community.
49In the circumstances of this case, that argument is not convincing. As regards, in the first place, the redundancies envisaged by the applicant if the safeguard measure is not suspended, the President considers that, in all apparent likelihood, such a measure is not inevitable as a consequence of the application of the tariff quota in issue. It is clear, first, from the applicant's answers to the questions put at the hearing that it was not compelled to cease production following the adoption of the safeguard measure in issue. It has continued its production for the local market, which, it states, represents 10% of its activity. In addition, the applicant confirmed that its financial position was healthy and that it had accumulated profits over the last five years. It has, moreover, exported some 12000 tonnes of rice to the Community since 1 January 1997.
50In those circumstances, it seems implausible that the applicant should be unable to bear the financial burden entailed by a temporary plethora of staff, even if, during the period covered by the safeguard measure, its production activity were appreciably reduced in relation to the same period in previous years. It must also be observed that, according to the applicant's statements at the hearing, rice mills must in any event be able to show a very high degree of flexibility in the use of their production capacity, since whole consignments of rice are processed in a few weeks and a considerable slowing-down of activity at certain periods is thus in no way unusual.
51In any event, even on the assumption that the applicant may be compelled to lay off 80 employees out of a total workforce of 117 — which cannot, as established above, be an inevitable consequence of the contested safeguard measure — it would not thereby lose its know-how, since it would retain 37 skilled staff. In that connection, it should be noted that ARM has taken on most of its workforce since 1992, including, as it stated itself at the hearing, employees from other OCT who have ‘emigrated’ to the Netherlands Antilles in order to take up employment. That rapid increase in its workforce, which comprised 22 employees before it began exporting to the Community in 1992, seems to belie the applicant's assertions regarding the difficulty of recruiting qualified staff.
52As regards, in the second place, the alleged danger of irremediable loss of its market shares, the applicant has not adduced any sufficient evidence from which the truth of its allegations might be established. It has merely produced two letters from its main customers in the Community, Euryza and Nidera, dated 24 and 29 January respectively, stating that they might have to look for other suppliers if the safeguard measure were not suspended. However, it appears from the applicant's statements at the hearing that it has a steady business relationship with those undertakings, which obtain supplies from it on a regular and stable basis both because of the quality of its processing and because of its reputation even though, as it has itself agreed, they could buy rice on the world market at prices lower than it can charge.
53It is also to be noted that the applicant did not have to break off business relations with its main customers completely from January 1997, since it has exported some 12000 tonnes of rice to the Community since then — an amount sold in four months which is not negligible when compared with the total quantities exported in previous years, which were 68200 tonnes in 1996, 62000 tonnes in 1995 and 48800 tonnes in 1994 according to the figures supplied by the applicant at the hearing. When asked what proportion of those annual exports related to the first four months of the year, with a view to making a more accurate comparison, the applicant was, however, unable to provide any information.
54In that context, it seems implausible that its principal customers will not agree to maintain their business relations with the applicant after the expiry of the period of application of the contested safeguard measure.
55In any event, even on the assumption that the applicant's main customers may enter into steady business relationships with other suppliers, it seems unlikely, in the light of the development of its business since 1992, that it will lose its markets irreversibly, since it has shown itself capable of developing its export activities particularly rapidly and moving into new markets. In that regard, the applicant has not put forward any evidence to suggest that, given the competitive advantages which have enabled it to gain a position on the market in recent years, it would not be able to find new outlets in the Community on the expiry of the period of application of the safeguard measure.
56It follows from all of the foregoing that the applicant has not demonstrated that it is in danger of suffering irreversible harm as a result of the application of the contested regulation. That regulation cannot entail an inevitable threat to the retention of the applicant's know-how or market position. Rather than loss of know-how and market shares, it appears that the implementation of the safeguard measure entails financial losses for ARM, related to a considerable reduction in its activity over a limited period. Such pecuniary damage, the degree or extent of which the applicant has not specified, cannot, even on the assumption that it is considerable, be irreversible.
57It is thus clear that appropriate compensation could be awarded were the contested regulation to be annulled. Furthermore, in any event, the fact that the regulation had already been implemented and its period of application had expired would m no way 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 (see Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93 Antillean Rice Mills and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II-2305, paragraph 60).
58Consequently, in the absence of any undeniable risk of serious and irreversible harm for the applicant, the need to uphold the Community's interest in the immediate application of the measures adopted in order to ensure stability on the market in the rice-growing sector and the need not to prejudge the Court's decision on the main application must prevail over the risk of purely financial loss suffered by a single undertaking, without there being any need to examine the substantive pleas in law and arguments put forward by the applicant to justify granting the interim measure sought.
59The application for interim measures must therefore be dismissed.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
hereby orders:
- 1.The Kingdom of the Netherlands is granted leave to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the applicant.
- 2.The Italian Republic and the Commission are granted leave to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the defendant.
- 3.The application for interim measures is dismissed.
- 4.Costs are reserved.