1 UNDER ARTICLE 185 OF THE EEC TREATY , ACTIONS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE DO NOT HAVE SUSPENSORY EFFECT . THE COURT MAY , HOWEVER , IF IT CONSIDERS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO REQUIRE , ORDER THAT APPLICATION OF THE CONTESTED MEASURES BE SUSPENDED . IT MAY ALSO , UNDER ARTICLE 186 OF THE TREATY , PRESCRIBE ANY NECESSARY INTERIM MEASURES .
2 UNDER ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A MEASURE AND THE DECISION TO ADOPT INTERIM MEASURES ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND OF GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE GRANT OF SUCH A MEASURE .
3 MEASURES OF THAT KIND MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELIED UPON TO OBTAIN THEM ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR GRANTING THEM . MOREOVER , THEY MUST BE URGENT IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO BE ADOPTED AND TO TAKE EFFECT BEFORE THE COURT GIVES ITS DECISION ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE PARTY WHICH SEEKS THEIR ADOPTION FROM SUFFERING SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE . FINALLY , THE MEASURES MUST BE OF AN INTERIM NATURE INASMUCH AS THEY MUST NOT PREJUDICE THE DECISION ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
4 THE APPLICANTS RIGHTLY CONTEND THAT THE FIRST OF THOSE CONDITIONS HAS BEEN FULFILLED . THE PURPOSE OF THE TWO REGULATIONS CONTESTED IN THE MAIN ACTION IS TO ANNUL THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF PUTTING UP FOR SALE CERTAIN QUANTITIES OF OLIVE OIL OF WHICH THE APPLICANTS ARE TO ALL APPEARANCES THE RIGHTFUL PURCHASERS . THE COMMISSION ITSELF ADMITS THAT CONTRACTS OF SALE ARE INVOLVED AND THAT THEIR CANCELLATION IMPAIRS THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED THEREUNDER . IN THAT REGARD IT REFERS TO CERTAIN CONCEPTS RELATING TO POWERS OF EXPROPRIATION WITHOUT , HOWEVER , AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS , SPECIFYING THE LEGAL BASIS OF SUCH POWERS UNDER COMMUNITY LAW . IT ALSO STATES THAT ANY RIGHTS VESTED IN THE APPLICANTS WILL BE PROTECTED BY PROCEDURES FOR COMPENSATION ON THE SUBJECT OF WHICH , HOWEVER , THE CONTESTED REGULATIONS ARE SILENT .
5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DECISION TO BE GIVEN ON THE MAIN ACTION , IT APPEARS THAT THE CHALLENGE BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE LEGALITY OF THE COMMISSION ' S MEASURES , WHICH HAVE THE SCOPE AND THE EFFECTS DESCRIBED ABOVE , IS BASED ON SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS SUCH AS TO MAKE THE LEGALITY OF THOSE MEASURES SEEM DOUBTFUL TO SAY THE LEAST .
6 WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF URGENCY AND THE NEED TO PREVENT SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE , THE APPLICANTS CONTEND IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT UNDER REGULATION NO 2239/81 , THE FINAL DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF FRESH APPLICATIONS TO PURCHASE IS 24 AUGUST 1981 . THEY ALSO MAINTAINED THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT SALE BY TENDER WITHOUT HARMING THEIR INTERESTS SINCE IF THEIR TENDERS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED CONDITIONALLY THEY WOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS VALID , WHEREAS IF THEY WERE NOT MADE SUBJECT TO ANY RESERVATION , THOSE TENDERS WOULD ENTAIL A WAIVER OF THE RIGHTS WHICH THEY ACQUIRED UNDER THE PREVIOUS SALE .
7 THAT ARGUMENT IS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED MEASURES . THE COMMISSION HAS AGREED THAT FORMAL NOTE SHOULD BE TAKEN OF ITS DECLARATION THAT THE APPLICANTS ' PARTICIPATION IN THE INVITATION TO TENDER PROVIDED FOR BY REGULATION NO 2239/81 ENTAILS NO WAIVER WHATSOVER ON THEIR PART OF ANY RIGHTS WHICH THEY MAY DERIVE FROM THE SALE WHICH TOOK PLACE UNDER THE REPEALED REGULATION . IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE FORMAL NOTE OF THAT DECLARATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANTS AND TO TAKE STEPS TO ENABLE THEM TO PARTICIPATE , IF THEY SO DESIRE , IN THE FRESH TENDERING PROCEDURE ON CONDITIONS SUCH AS TO SAFEGUARD ALL THEIR RIGHTS .
8 THE APPLICANTS THEN CONTEND THAT IF THEY ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE PART IN THE PLANNED INVITATION TO TENDER NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS OF THE GOODS UNDER THE PREVIOUS SALE , THEY WILL INCUR AN EXTREMELY HEAVY FINANCIAL BURDEN IN ADDITION TO THE ONEROUS COMMITMENTS WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY UNDERTAKEN IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE QUANTITIES IN QUESTION . THEY ALSO STATE THAT THE INVITATION TO TENDER IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO TAKE PART , ALTHOUGH RESTRICTED TO THE SIX UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH THE LOTS WERE ALLOCATED UNDER THE CANCELLED SALE , IS ORGANIZED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS UNCERTAIN WHETHER THEY WILL AGAIN BE SUCCESSFUL IN PURCHASING ONE OF THE LOTS WHICH WAS PUT UP FOR SALE THE FIRST TIME . THEY ADD THAT THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THAT UNCERTAINTY ARE AGGRAVATED BY THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH THEY WOULD EXPERIENCE IN PROCURING ELSEWHERE THE RAW MATERIAL WHICH THEY REQUIRE .
9 IT IS CLEAR FROM THOSE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE ACTUALLY FACED WITH A SERIOUS AND IMMEDIATE LOSS , THE EFFECTS OF WHICH CANNOT BE OFFSET BY THE PROSPECT OF AN UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IN THE FUTURE WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THEY ARE BEING DEPRIVED OF THEIR PROPERTY . THE SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE NATURE OF THE LOSS ALLEGED IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF CERTAIN MEASURES OR FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES MUST BE ASSESSED IN CONCRETO . THE MERE FACT THAT UNDER THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES MAY BE BROUGHT WHERE LOSS HAS BEEN SUSTAINED DOES NOT , CONTRARY TO THE VIEW APPARENTLY SUGGESTED BY THE COMMISSION , NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE ALLEGED LOSS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS IRREPARABLE . IN THE PRESENT CASE , A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE IMMEDIATE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE HARM INFLICTED ON THE APPLICANTS ' LEGAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION AND THE COMPENSATORY EFFECTS OF A FUTURE AWARD OF DAMAGES AGAINST THE COMMUNITY LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR PREVENTING , AT LEAST IN PART , AN IMMEDIATE LOSS BY THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES INSTEAD OF RELYING EXCLUSIVELY ON THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS BY MEANS OF AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES .
10 HOWEVER , THOSE CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE SUSPENSION , WITHOUT QUALIFICATION , OF THE OPERATION OF THE TWO CONTESTED REGULATIONS AS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANTS . ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANTS THEMSELVES , SUCH A MEASURE SHOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF COMPELLING AIMA , BY A COURT ORDER IF NECESSARY , TO DELIVER THE LOTS OF OLIVE OIL TO THE TENDERERS DESIGNATED BY LOTS ON 1 JUNE 1981 UNDER THE REPEALED REGULATION . CONSEQUENTLY , SUCH A MEASURE WOULD IN FACT PREJUDGE THE OUTCOME OF THE MAIN ACTION AND DEPRIVE IT OF ANY PURPOSE .
11 FURTHERMORE , IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES THAT THE SIX LOTS OF OLIVE OIL PUT UP FOR SALE IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION NO 71/81 ARE LARGELY INTERCHANGEABLE ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE THAT NOT ALL THE LOTS CONTAIN OIL OF THE SAME NATURE AND QUALITY . IT IS NECESSARY IN THIS REGARD TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN THE GOODS WERE PREVIOUSLY PUT UP FOR SALE , EACH OF THE APPLICANTS HAD OFFERED TO PURCHASE THE SIX LOTS AND THAT THE ALLOCATION OF ONE LOT TO EACH APPLICANT TOOK PLACE BY THE DRAWING OF LOTS . MOREOVER , ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 6 OF REGULATION NO 2239/81 , THE RE-OPENING OF THE SALE BY TENDER IS ORGANIZED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ENSURE THAT THE SIX SUCCESSFUL TENDERERS OBTAIN ONLY A SINGLE LOT EACH .
12 ACCORDINGLY , IT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE LOSS DESCRIBED ABOVE TO ENSURE , FIRST , THAT THE APPLICANTS MAY DECIDE FREELY WHETHER OR NOT IT IS IN THEIR INTEREST TO TAKE PART IN THE FRESH INVITATION TO TENDER , WITHOUT ANY FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE ON THEIR PART DEPRIVING THEM OF THE POSSIBILITY OF RELYING UPON A RIGHT TO RECEIVE ONE OF THE LOTS IN QUESTION . SECONDLY , IT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE , IF THEY DECIDE TO TAKE PART , THAT THEY MAY RETAIN OR ACQUIRE ONE OF THE LOTS PUT UP FOR SALE ON FINANCIAL TERMS WHICH DO NOT ENTAIL A PROVISIONAL INCREASE - AT LEAST AN APPRECIABLE ONE - IN THE COSTS WHICH THEY HAVE INCURRED SO FAR .
13 THAT OUTCOME MAY , IN SUBSTANCE , BE ARRIVED AT IF , FIRST OF ALL , CARE IS TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT THE LOTS PUT UP FOR SALE AGAIN CANNOT , IF THEY ARE NOT ACQUIRED BY ONE OF THE FIVE APPLICANTS , BE SOLD TO THIRD PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT HAS RULED ON THE MAIN ACTION AND IF , SECONDLY , THE APPLICANTS MAY RETAIN OR ACQUIRE ONE OF THE LOTS IN QUESTION ON SUCH TERMS AS TO ENSURE THAT THE DEFINITIVE FINANCIAL BURDEN IS NOT BORNE BY THEM UNTIL THE COURT HAS RULED ON THE MAIN ACTION .
14 ACCORDINGLY , IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THAT OBJECTIVE , IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE FORMAL NOTE , BY THIS ORDER , OF CERTAIN DECLARATIONS BY THE COMMISSION AND TO ORDER THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF REGULATION NO 2239/81 WITHIN THE LIMITS SET OUT BELOW .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
BY WAY OF INTERLOCUTORY DECISION ,
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . FORMAL NOTE IS TAKEN , FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANTS , THAT THE COMMISSION HAS STATED THAT THE APPLICANTS ' PARTICIPATION IN THE TENDERING PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2239/81 OF 3 AUGUST 1981 ENTAILS NO WAIVER WHATSOEVER ON THEIR PART OF ANY RIGHTS WHICH THEY MAY DERIVE FROM THE SALES WHICH WERE CANCELLED BY COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2238/81 OF THE SAME DATE REPEALING COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 71/81 OF 12 JANUARY 1981 .
2 . FORMAL NOTE IS TAKEN , FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANTS , OF THE COMMISSION ' S STATEMENT THAT IF ONE OR MORE OF THE LOTS WERE NOT TO BE ALLOCATED UNDER THE TENDERING PROCEDURE IN QUESTION , THOSE LOTS WOULD NOT BE DISPOSED OF WITHOUT A NEW DECISION BY THE COMMISSION OF WHICH THE APPLICANTS WOULD BE INFORMED IN DUE TIME . CONSEQUENTLY , THE COMMISSION IS HEREBY PROHIBITED FROM DISPOSING OF , OR ALLOWING THE DISPOSAL OF , ANY UNALLOCATED LOTS BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS GIVEN IN THE MAIN ACTION , UNLESS PERMISSION IS OBTAINED FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT BY MEANS OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE .
3 . THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2239/81 OF 3 AUGUST 1981 SHALL BE PARTIALLY SUSPENDED INASMUCH AS THE APPLICANTS WHO , SUBJECT TO THE ABOVEMENTIONED RESERVATION OF THEIR VESTED RIGHTS , PARTICIPATE IN THE SALE BY TENDER BY SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS TO PURCHASE NOT LATER THAN 2 P.M . ON 24 AUGUST 1981 AND WHO MUST BE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT THEIR TENDERS SUBJECT TO THE SAID RESERVATION OF THEIR RIGHTS , SHALL , IN RESPECT OF THE LOT TO BE ALLOCATED TO EACH OF THEM ON THE BASIS OF THEIR TENDERS , BE REQUIRED TO PAY TO AIMA FOR EACH PART OF THAT LOT , AS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 9 OF THE REGULATION , AT THE TIME OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THAT PART , ONLY SO MUCH OF THE PRICE TENDERED AS IS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SALE UNDERTAKEN UNDER REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 71/81 . PAYMENT OF THE REMAINDER SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THE COURT HAS GIVEN JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN ACTION , UNLESS IN THE MEANTIME ANY AMENDMENT IS OBTAINED FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT BY MEANS OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE . THE COMMISSION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT AIMA DELIVERS THE GOODS ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED CONDITIONS .
4 . THE GUARANTEE TO BE PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 4 ( 5 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2239/81 OF 3 AUGUST 1981 SHALL ALSO BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID ON A PROVISIONAL BASIS AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT OF ANY TENDER WHICH MAY BE ACCEPTED , AS PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 6 OF THAT REGULATION .
5 . THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2239/81 OF 3 AUGUST 1981 SHALL PROCEED SUBJECT TO THE ABOVEMENTIONED CONDITIONS .
6 . THE COSTS , INCLUDING THOSE OF THE INTERVENTION , ARE RESERVED .
