Competition – Payment of a fine – Bank guarantee – Procedure for interim relief – Suspension of operation.
It is only in exceptional circumstances that the judge hearing an application for interim measures should order the suspension of the applicant undertaking’ s obligation to provide a bank guarantee securing payment of a fine imposed on it.
The risk of court-ordered liquidation which the recovery of the fine or the provision of a bank guarantee might entail cannot be regarded as a circumstance giving rise to urgency, where the undertaking is subject to a procedure for the reorganization of undertakings in difficulty during the currency of which it cannot be wound up; in any event, that is to say, even if liquidation were not out of the question, it does not appear, having regard to the very substantial indebtedness of the undertaking, of which the debt due to the Commission represents only a minute proportion, and to the claims of the other creditors, that the adoption by the Commission of enforcement measures as provided for in Article 192 of the Treaty would in itself be liable to trigger such a result.
Moreover, as regards the balance of the interests concerned, a financial situation as burdened with debt as that of the applicant necessitates the provision of guarantees designed to protect the financial interests of the Community.
T-104/95,  EUECJ T-104/95
See Also – Tsimenta Chalkidos v Commission ECJ 15-Mar-2000
ECJ Competition – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Cement market – Rights of the defence – Access to the file – Single and continuous infringement – General agreement and measures of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173030