*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. – CFI (order), 26 June 2006, Olympiakes Aerogrammes v Commission, Case T-416/05 R – CFI (Ord.), 2 August 2006, Aughinish Alumina v Commission, Case T-69/06 R The limited scope of the chronic presence does not allow the two orders mentioned, which dismiss applications for interim relief on the ground that evidence of the urgency requirement has not been adduced by the applicant, to be given the comment they deserve. It should be noted, however, that they do contain some points of interest. In the first of them, the President of the Court of First Instance held, in particular, that 'in the field of State aid, where [the Member State concerned][has not] yet
CASE COMMENT: PROCEDURES - STATE AID - LITIGATION - INTERIM MEASURES - URGENCY - PROOF - ABSENCE
Proof: The CFI dismisses actions for interim measures brought against European Commission decisions ordering the recuperation of an aid due to the absence of proven urgency (Olympiakes Aerogrammes v. Commission)
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.