Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft v Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft Case C-465/93, [1995] ECR I-3761

Banana importers challenged the quota allocations they received under the EU banana market regime. The German allocations implemented Council Regulation 404/93, whose validity the importers disputed. They wanted a national court to order additional import licences while that dispute was unresolved. Their request therefore sought a positive interim measure, rather than merely suspension of an existing national decision. Earlier proceedings concerning the same regulation raised a further difficulty: a national court could not disregard conclusions already reached by the European Court of Justice when deciding whether temporary protection was justified.

Could a national court grant positive interim relief against measures implementing an EU regulation, and how did the conditions for relief interact with previous European Court rulings?

The Court accepted that national courts could in principle grant positive interim relief which provisionally displaced the application of a challenged EU regulation to the applicant. The power was subject to demanding conditions. The court needed serious doubts about validity and, where the question was not already before the European Court, had to refer it. Urgency and a threat of serious and irreparable damage were required, together with proper regard for the Community interest. The national court also had to respect relevant European Court decisions concerning the measure. It could not revive grounds already rejected in a ruling upholding validity. A genuinely different ground required its own analysis. Temporary protection was therefore possible, but it was not a national power finally to invalidate EU legislation.

A national court may grant positive interim relief concerning a challenged EU measure where serious doubts about validity, an appropriate reference, urgency, serious and irreparable harm, and the Community interest justify it. Relevant European Court rulings must be respected, including their treatment of the grounds relied upon.

Atlanta extends the discussion of interim protection beyond simple suspension to orders requiring positive action. It illustrates the balance between protecting applicants during litigation and preserving the uniform operation of EU legislation. Compare Factortame, which concerned a domestic rule preventing interim protection against national legislation. The distinction between national legislation and an EU regulation matters: national courts cannot make a final declaration that an EU act is invalid. An exam answer should also identify what earlier proceedings actually decided before asserting that they foreclose relief.