Requirements for interim measures.
"36. The urgency of an application for interim meas-ures, as referred to in Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure, must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim decision in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for interim measures.
It is not sufficient for the purpose of satisfying the re-quirements of that provision merely to allege that the measure the suspension of whose operation is being sought is about to be put into effect, but it is for that party to prove that he cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of that nature. To be able to determine whether the damage which the applicant fears is serious and irreparable and therefore provides grounds for, exceptionally, suspend-ing the operation of the contested decision, the judge hearing the application must have specific evidence al-lowing him to determine the precise consequences which the absence of the measures applied for would in all probability entail (…).
37. In addition, the alleged damage must be certain, or at least shown with a sufficient degree of prob-ability, and the applicant is required to prove the facts alleged to form the basis of the likelihood of the damage.
Damage of a purely hypothetical nature, in that it is based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events, cannot justify the ordering of interim measures (…)."
Irreparable damage not substantiated.
"43. Accordingly, in the absence of specific factors put forward by the applicant, its bald assertion as to the collapse of the system of reciprocal representation agreements and the serious financial damage which it would suffer as a result, in terms of threatening its existence, does not justify suspending the operation of the contested decision.
44. (…) the applicant's obligation to review its recip-rocal representation agreements, imposed in Article 4(2) of the contested decision, cannot be regarded as causing it serious and irreparable damage."
Lack of Urgency.
"56. It follows from all the foregoing that the application for interim measures must be dismissed on the ground of lack of urgency, without there being any need to examine whether the other conditions for ordering the suspension of operation sought, in par-ticular the existence of a prima facie case, are satisfied."
IPPT20081114, CFI, Artisjus v Commission
T-411/08 R - ECLI:EU:T:2013:172
