T-303/04-R2
European Dynamics | 52-56 | CFIR-108
CFIR-109 | 52. It should be observed at the outset that, in the present application, which constitutes a new application in the context of the same main action as the first application, the applicant invokes Articles 108 and 109 of the Rules of Procedure and seeks interim measures which are identical to those sought in the first application, that is suspension of the operation of the award decision and the letter giving reasons.
53. However, the first application was dismissed by the Court of First Instance by the Order of 10 November.
54. To the extent that in the present application the applicant invokes, without explaining why, Article 108 of the Rules of Procedure, it should be noted that, according to that provision, on application by a party, an order may at any time be varied or cancelled on account of a change in circumstances. This provision is, however, applicable in situations where an order prescribing interim measures is in place. It cannot be applied to situations where an application has been dismissed, such situations being governed by Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure (see to that effect the order of the Court of Justice of 14 February 2002 in Case C440/01 P(R) Commission v Artegodan [2002] ECR I1489, paragraphs 62 to 64).
55. According to Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure, rejection of an application for an interim measure shall not bar the party who made it from making a further application on the basis of new facts'.
56. Since the first application was dismissed and the present application is based on the alleged existence of new facts, it follows that it can be declared admissible only if the conditions prescribed in Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure are met (see to that effect the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2001 in Case T236/00 R II Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II2943, paragraph 46). |
