BIB.ORDER
T-179/97 R61997B01790009.000112991131618TORDER OF 15.7.1997 — CASE T-179/97 R
GOVERNMENT OF THE NETHERLANDS ANTILLES v COUNCIL
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance
15 July 1997(*)
In Case T-179/97 R,
Government of the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. V. F. Bos and M. M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,
applicant,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 A. Morbilli, Director General of the Legal Affairs Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer,
defendant,supported by
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,
Kingdom of Spain, represented by R. Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais,
French Republic, represented by K. Rispal-Bellanger, Head of Subdirectorate in the Legal Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, at the hearing of the parties, by C. Chavance, Foreign Affairs Secretary in the same directorate, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II,
and
Italian Republic, represented by U. Leanza, Head of the Legal Service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by F. Quadri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde,
interveners,
APPLICATION for interim measures in the form of an order of the President of the Court of First Instance enjoining the applicant and defendant to negotiate a minimum price for imports into the Community of rice originating in the Netherlands Antilles, to replace the tariff quotas introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8), and to submit their conclusions to him within seven days,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1The Netherlands Antilles form part of the overseas countries and territories (OCTs') associated with the Community. The association of the OCTs 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.
2The processing of brown rice — rice from which the husk has been removed — from Surinam and Guyana into semi-milled rice 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.
3The 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 the Commission in response to a question put by the President at the hearing of the parties, consumption of Indica rice in the Community is estimated to be approximately 628000 tonnes in current years. As Community production of this type of rice amounts to some 369000 tonnes, the deficit in Indica rice on the Community market is in the order of 259000 tonnes. In that context, the Council has adopted a number of measures to promote the cultivation of Indica rice by Community producers.
4Undertakings established in the OCTs compete with undertakings established in non-member countries or ACP countries as regards imports of Indica rice into the Community. Imports of rice from ACP countries are subject to a tariff quota of 125000 tonnes on which the customs duty is 50%. In excess of that quota, customs duty is levied at 100%, as it is for imports from other non-member countries.
5Article 133(1) of the Treaty provides that customs duties on imports into the Member States of goods originating in the OCTs 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 OCTs are to be imported into the Community free of customs duties and charges having equivalent effect.
6By way of derogation from the principles set out in Article 101(1), Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision allows the Commission to take the necessary 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.
7Pursuant to Article 109 of the OCT Decision, together with Article 1(7) of Annex IV thereto, which is entitled ‘Safeguard measures’ and lays down the detailed rules for the implementation of Article 109, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the OCTs (OJ 1997 L 51, p. 1). That regulation introduced a tariff quota allowing imports of rice originating in the OCTs free of customs duties up to a ceiling of 8000 tonnes for rice originating in Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands and 36728 tonnes for rice originating in the other OCTs, between 1 January and 30 April 1997. An interlocutory application by Antillean Rice Mills NV, seeking suspension of operation of that regulation and lodged at the same time as an action, currently pending before the Court of First Instance, in which that company seeks the annulment of the same regulation, was dismissed by order of the President of the Court of 21 March 1997 (Case T-41/97 R Antillean Rice Mills v Council [1997] ECR II-447).
8Subsequently, pursuant to Article 109 of the OCT Decision and at the request of the Italian Government, which wished the above safeguard measures to be extended, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 764/97 of 23 April 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 112, p. 3). That regulation introduced a tariff quota for the period from 1 May to 30 September 1997, limiting imports of rice originating in the OCTs and benefiting from exemption from customs duties to 10000 tonnes for rice originating in Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands and 59610 tonnes for rice originating in the other OCTs.
9Following referral of Commission Regulation No 764/97 to the Council by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain, in accordance with Article 1 (5) of Annex IV to the OCT Decision, on ‘Safeguard measures’, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8, ‘the contested regulation’), which repeals and replaces Regulation No 764/97.
10Council Regulation No 1036/97 differs from the Commission's regulation as regards the duration of the safeguard measure introduced, which extends from 1 May to 30 November 1997. In addition, the volume of the quota laid down for Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands is increased to 13430 tonnes while that for rice originating in the other OCTs is reduced to 56180 tonnes.
11By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 11 June 1997, the Government of the Netherlands Antilles sought the annulment of Regulation No 1036/97.
12By separate application under Article 186 of the Treaty and Articles 104 and 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, it also sought the adoption of interim measures relating to the safeguard measures introduced by Regulation No 1036/97. In that interlocutory application, it seeks an order enjoining the applicant and defendant to negotiate a minimum price — to replace the tariff quota introduced by Regulation No 1036/97 — for imports into the Community of equivalent husked rice originating in the Netherlands Antilles and to submit their conclusions to the President of the Court, for his decision, within seven days from the date of the interlocutory order. According to the applicant's written observations, that minimum price should be the same as the intervention price in order to guarantee Community preference whilst at the same time ensuring that rice originating in the Netherlands Antilles will not be imported on less favourable terms than that originating in ACP States or other non-member countries. In the alternative, the Government of the Netherlands Antilles seeks the adoption of any interim measure which appears necessary and appropriate. In addition, it requested that the Council be asked to submit only oral observations, pursuant to Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure, at the hearing of the parties.
13The President, considering that it was not necessary in the circumstances of the case to accede to the request that only oral argument be heard from the Council, prescribed a period for that institution to submit written observations. It did so within that period, by document registered at the Court on 25 June 1997.
14By application lodged at the Court Registry on 26 June 1997, the Kingdom of Spain sought leave to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings in support of the defendant; by applications registered on 27 June 1997, the French Republic and the Commission did likewise. The Italian Republic also sought leave to intervene in support of the Council, by application lodged with the President at the hearing of the parties on 2 July 1997.
15The parties presented oral argument on 2 July 1997. At that hearing, the President granted the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the Commission leave to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings.
Law
16Under 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.
17Article 104(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that an application to suspend the operation of a measure is admissible only if the applicant is challenging that measure in proceedings before the Court of First Instance. According to settled case-law, the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not, in principle, be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures. It should be reserved for the examination of the main application, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible, so as not to prejudge the Court's decision on the substance of the case (see, most recently, the order in Case T-155/96 R City of Mainz v Commission [1996] ECR II-1655, paragraph 8).
18As regards substance, 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-41/97 R Antillean Rice Mills, cited above).
19In the present case, the President considers it appropriate to examine first the condition relating to urgency.
Urgency
Arguments of the parties
20The applicant claims that the interim measure sought is necessary to prevent serious and irreparable harm. By introducing a second safeguard measure, following the first measure of that kind introduced by Regulation No 304/97, the contested regulation is, in the first place, vitiated by a misuse of powers vis-à-vis the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles, in so far as its purpose is to create a barrier to trade between the OCTs and the Community, liberalized by the OCT Decision. Secondly, the harm which it is claimed is suffered by the Netherlands Antilles in the form of a barrier to that trade is caused by a failure to observe the principle of legal certainty and to comply with Articles 3(r), 131, 132(1), 133(1) and 134 of the Treaty, which seek to ensure free trade between the Community and the OCTs, including the Netherlands Antilles. The harm suffered by the Netherlands Antilles as a result of the infringement of those provisions is unquantifiable, and thus serious and irreparable.
21Thirdly, in view of the duration of proceedings before the Court of First Instance, if the urgent measure sought were not granted the applicant would lose the benefit of the guarantee afforded by Article 7(5) of the Agreement on Safeguards concluded in the context of the WTO, which states: ‘No safeguard measure shall be applied again to the import of a product which has been subject to such a measure, taken after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement, for a period of time equal to that during which such measure had been previously applied, provided that the period of non-application is at least two years’.
22Fourthly, the Netherlands Antilles suffer serious and irreparable harm as a result of the preferential treatment accorded by the Council to Community rice producers, without taking into account the interests of the Antillean undertakings affected by the safeguard measures in issue. The Council is thus in infringement of Article 3 of the Treaty, which lists the common agricultural policy and the association of the OCTs as amongst its objectives, without giving precedence to either. No financial compensation could be awarded, in the event of the annulment of the contested regulation, for the damage thus caused to the security conferred on the Netherlands Antilles by the Treaty and the OCT Decision.
23In all those regards, taken as a whole, the Netherlands Antilles suffer considerable and unquantifiable material and non-material damage as a result of investors' losing confidence in the arrangements set up by the OCT Decision. The applicant notes in particular that ‘necessary projects are provisionally in abeyance as a result of the threat that the arrangements under the Sixth OCT Decision will become less favourable because the Commission has proposed an interim revision and of the fact that they have already become so because there have been two successive safeguard measures’. Investments have come to a complete halt as a result of the uncertainty thus hanging over the undisturbed continuation of the preferential trade arrangements set up by the Sixth OCT Decision.
24In that context, the structural adaptation programme concluded by the Netherlands Antilles with the International Monetary Fund is in jeopardy. That programme was set in place for the years 1996 to 2000. It comprises a series of stages, continuation being dependent on the economic or financial results of each stage. If the results expected for 1997 were not achieved, the efforts of the Netherlands Antilles to effect structural adaptation would be irremediably undermined. The rice sector's contribution to the achievement of those results could be wiped out as a result of the safeguard measure in issue, following a first safeguard measure and, in the applicant's submission, damaging confidence in the trade arrangements set up by the OCT Decision. Subsequent financial compensation for the material damage suffered by the rice-processing industry could not reinvigorate the investment climate, currently in the doldrums. In any event, the damage resulting from the degradation of that climate cannot be quantified or, therefore, made good in full.
25In those circumstances, the balance of interests favours fixing a minimum import price for rice from the Netherlands Antilles in order to avoid causing them serious and irreparable harm without, however, depriving Community rice producers of such protection as the Council considers necessary.
26The Council challenges the applicant's arguments, which merely assert, it claims, that the applicant is suffering serious and irreparable harm as a result of alleged infringement of the provisions of the Treaty, of the OCT Decision and of general principles of Community law without, however, putting forward any substantiation for the serious and irreparable nature of the alleged harm. Furthermore, the quota laid down in the contested regulation is, viewed on an annual basis, close to the average level of imports effected between 1992 and 1995, according to the figures provided by Eurostat. Such damage as is suffered by undertakings in the rice sector is thus limited and should be regarded as a normal risk, particularly as it is in large part attributable, at least in the short term, to the fact that exports can no longer increase exponentially. Moreover, such damage can in any event be made good.
27There is no sufficient causal link between the damage allegedly due to a loss of confidence on the part of investors and the safeguard measure introduced by the contested regulation. In particular, the applicant has failed to indicate what specific effects the alleged wiping-out of the rice sector's contribution might have on the success of the structural adaptation programme in the Netherlands Antilles.
28The Council also specified in its written pleadings, and confirmed at the hearing, that the tariff quota introduced by the contested regulation had not been exhausted. On 16 June 1997, approximately 7600 tonnes of the quota for Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands and 20000 tonnes, or 35%, of the quota for the other OCTs were still available, so that exports to the Community could continue at least until the end of September 1997, since, under Article 6(2) of the contested regulation, import licences are valid from the date of their issue to the end of the third month following that date.
29Finally, as regards the balance of interests, the Council stresses the difficulties involved in determining a minimum price, which were at the root of Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93 Antillean Rice Mills and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II-2305. At the hearing of the parties, it stated in response to a question put by the President that those difficulties derived not only from the problem of determining the proper price level but also from the ease with which such a price can be circumvented in practice. It is, moreover, for the Council to assess the choice of the most appropriate safeguard measure for the purposes of the application of Article 109 of the OCT Decision. The practical result of granting the interim measure sought would be massive imports of Indica rice from the OCTs, causing irreversible damage to Community interests. In that regard, the Council states that more than 70000 tonnes of rice have been offered for intervention since the end of April 1997, and approximately 50000 bought into intervention.
Findings of the President
30It 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 orders in Joined Cases 76/89, 77/89 and 91/89 R RTE and Others v Commission [1989] ECR 1141, paragraph 15, and in Case T-41/97 R Antillean Rice Mills, cited above, paragraph 42).
31In the present case, the act in issue is a safeguard measure in the form of a tariff quota laid down for a period of seven months, from 1 May to 30 November 1997, the aim of which is to maintain Community imports of rice originating in the OCTs within limits compatible with the stability of the Community market during that period. More specifically, it is made clear in the ninth to twelfth recitals in the preamble to the contested regulation that, although the first safeguard measures, introduced in the form of a tariff quota by Regulation No 304/97, have had a favourable effect on the situation as regards Indica rice in the Community, the market price in the Community remains considerably lower than the intervention price fixed for rice in the Community. The Council concluded that, in such a context and having regard in particular to the possibility of a considerable increase in exports from the OCTs, the risk of a degradation in the rice sector was still present in the Community. It therefore considered it necessary to extend the application of the abovementioned safeguard measures for seven months.
32Without there being any need at this stage to consider whether the safeguard measure in issue is justified and prima facie effective, it is sufficiënt to note that, according to the explanations provided at the hearing by the Council and the interveners, that measure seeks to limit low-priced imports of rice originating in the OCTs in order to allow the marketing of the Community harvest of Indica rice, which is expected to be good in 1997, after several years of drought, particularly in Spain. The period during which that rice, sown from April onwards, will be sold begins in September. The contested regulation is thus intended to avoid a situation in which Community rice producers, who had been encouraged to change to Indica rice production by means of a temporary area subsidy, continue to sell large amounts into intervention and revert to producing Japonica rice, of which there is already a surplus in the Community.
33The defendant is, moreover, of the opinion that the replacement of the tariff quotas introduced by the contested regulation by a minimum import price would not make it possible to stem the massive flow into the Community of imports of Indica rice from the Netherlands Antilles, in view of the difficulties involved in ensuring that minimum prices are applied and the danger that they will be circumvented, as it explained at the hearing of the parties.
34Thus, contrary to what the applicant maintains, there is no guarantee that a minimum price, if laid down to replace the contested tariff quotas, would not definitively deprive the contested regulation of its effectiveness as regards Community preference.
35Furthermore, in any event, and regardless of the not inconsiderable difficulties involved in determining a minimum price for imports of rice into the Community in such a way as to ensure Community preference whilst still protecting the interests of the OCTs, it must be stressed that the judge hearing an application for interim measures may not, other than in a situation of obvious urgency, override the Council's assessment as to the choice of the most appropriate safeguard measure with his own, without running the risk of encroaching upon that institution's power of assessment.
36In accordance with the case-law, therefore, when assessing the balance of interests, account must be taken not only of the risk that the Community's interests may be irreversibly affected if the interim measure sought is granted but also of the Council's power of assessment in the application of Article 109 of the OCT Decision. The applicant's request cannot, therefore, be granted unless 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).
37The effects of the contested regulation on the applicant's position must therefore be examined, bearing in mind that it has consistently been held that 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 damage, even when it occurs, cannot be quantified (see the order in Cases C-51/90 R and C-59/90 R Comos-Tank and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I-2167, paragraph 24).
38In the present case, the applicant maintains that the irreversible harm it would suffer if the safeguard measure in issue were to continue to be applied comprises, essentially, the degradation of the investment climate as a result of loss of confidence on the part of investors in the association arrangements between the OCTs and the Community. It is thus not the mere financial damage which might arise from the limitation of rice exports to the Community, as it confirmed at the hearing of the parties. The rice industry, it states, is only one of the sectors affected by that crisis in confidence, extending to the whole Antillean economy, one example being the fruit juice sector.
39The President notes, first, that it has been stated by the Council in its written observations, without being challenged in that regard by the applicant, that the tariff quota in issue — 56180 tonnes for imports of rice from OCTs other than Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands — has been set at an annual level close to the average level of imports into the Community between 1992 and 1995, according to the figures provided by Eurostat.
40In those circumstances, the contested regulation does not create any barrier to the continued exportation of rice to the Community on a scale allowing the Netherlands Antilles rice industry to maintain, possibly at a reduced level, the rice processing activity which it developed following the entry into force of the association arrangements introduced by the Sixth OCT Decision of 25 July 1991, Article 6 of Annex II to which enshrines the principle of cumulative origin, by which products wholly obtained in the ACP States and processed in the OCTs are considered to have been wholly obtained in the OCTs. Thus, the contested regulation, without jeopardizing the survival of that industry, temporarily limits imports into the Community free of customs duty of rice produced in ACP countries and then husked in the Netherlands Antilles, thereby acquiring Netherlands Antilles origin, the factor which qualifies it for importation into the Community free of customs duty pursuant to Article 101 of the OCT Decision.
41In particular, it must be stressed that the contested tariff quota has not, in the present case, been exhausted. According to the information provided by the Council and the Commission, approximately 20000 tonnes of that quota were still available on 16 June 1997 for OCTs other than Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands, so that exports can continue, as the Council points out, at least until the end of September, given the fact that import licences remain valid three months from their date of issue.
42The applicant stated at the hearing of the parties, however, that no rice had been exported from the Netherlands Antilles to the Community between 12 March and 1 July 1997. In response to a question put by the President, it specified that the suspension of exports was due to the excessively high guarantee required for import certificates by the contested regulation.
43However, in its application for interim measures, the applicant seeks solely to have the tariff quota applicable to the other OCTs under the contested regulation replaced by a minimum price. It does not submit any request for an interim measure relating to the level of the guarantee referred to above. In those circumstances, if it were to be accepted that, as the applicant submits, the alleged sudden interruption in rice exports at a time when the quota was not exhausted was the result of the amount of the guarantee required, the mere granting of the measure sought, with a view to fixing a minimum price, could not in any event suffice effectively to ensure the resumption of exports as the applicant wishes.
44Moreover, the applicant's argument to the effect that the tariff quotas introduced by the contested regulation have undermined investors' confidence in the trade arrangements set up by the OCT Decision is not convincing. The adoption of safeguard measures of that type is expressly provided for in Article 109 of the OCT Decision and in no way unforeseeable for traders, who could not have been unaware of the possibility and for whom it constituted a normal risk.
45Nor does the applicant put forward any specific indication to show that the structural adaptation programme on which it agreed with the International Monetary Fund would be jeopardized if the contested tariff quota were maintained. In particular, it has specified neither the part played by the rice sector in the achievement of the objectives of that programme nor the foreseeable reduction as a result of the contested safeguard measure in that sector's contribution to its implementation. More generally, it has provided no evidence of the overall degradation in the investment climate which it claims to affect all sectors of the local economy, nor yet any specific information regarding the impact of that situation on the Netherlands Antilles economy as a whole or even the main sectors affected.
46Finally, the applicant has adduced no specific evidence from which it might be presumed that the alleged degradation in the investment climate can be ascribed especially to the adoption of the contested safeguard measure, which concerns only the rice sector. It expressly acknowledges, moreover, that the alleged uncertainty on the part of investors regarding future developments in the trade arrangements set up by the OCT Decision is explicable in particular by the proposed revision of that decision submitted by the Commission.
47It follows from all of the foregoing that the applicant has not shown that it is in danger of suffering serious and irreparable harm, in particular as regards continued investment in its territory and the implementation of its structural adjustment programme, as a result of the application of the contested regulation. It is true that the safeguard measure in issue has the effect, for the applicant, of limiting exports of rice to the Community for a further period of seven months. Such damage, however, the foreseeable order of magnitude of which has not been specified by the applicant, can be made good by an award of pecuniary damages and therefore cannot, even if it is assumed to be considerable, be of an irreversible nature.
48It is thus clear that appropriate damages could be awarded if the contested regulation were to be annulled. In any event, the fact that the regulation may have already been implemented and its specified period of application may have expired would not deprive the applicant of adequate protection of its rights, since the institution concerned would be obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment and might thus be required 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, cited above, paragraph 60).
49Consequently, in the absence of the slightest indication from which it might be established that the applicant is in danger of suffering serious and irreparable harm, 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 reparable damage which the Netherlands Antilles might surfer, 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.
50The present 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 Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the Commission are granted leave to intervene in support of the defendant in the interlocutory proceedings.
- 2.The application for interim measures is dismissed.
- 3.Costs are reserved.