Short answer
The Court of Justice or General Court may suspend the application or enforcement of a contested EU act and may prescribe another necessary temporary measure connected to a case before it. The applicant ordinarily must establish a prima facie case, urgency involving serious and irreparable harm, and a balance of interests favouring relief. Starting the main action does not itself suspend the act.
A national court can also protect a party while an EU-law question is unresolved. If the dispute concerns the interpretation of EU law or the compatibility of national law with it, the court must set aside a domestic rule that is the sole obstacle to interim relief it otherwise would grant. If the validity of an EU act is challenged, the test is stricter: the national court needs serious doubts about validity, must normally refer validity to the Court of Justice, must find urgency and a threat of serious and irreparable harm, and must protect the EU interest. It may suspend a national implementing measure or make a positive temporary order, but it cannot itself invalidate the EU act.
The first question is which court has the main case
“The CJEU” is the institution comprising the Court of Justice and the General Court. Interim jurisdiction follows the main proceedings. An EU court acts under Articles 278 and 279 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and its Rules of Procedure. A national court applies domestic remedial procedure subject to EU requirements of effective protection. A validity challenge adds safeguards because only the Court of Justice may declare an EU act invalid.
EU acts remain effective unless an EU court orders otherwise
Articles 278 and 279 TFEU establish both the default and the available powers:
Actions brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have suspensory effect. The Court may, however, if it considers that circumstances so require, order that application of the contested act be suspended.
The Court of Justice of the European Union may in any cases before it prescribe any necessary interim measures. —
Filing an annulment action therefore does not freeze the contested act. Article 278 supports a stay; Article 279 permits a prohibitory or positive order needed to preserve the eventual judgment's effectiveness.
The order cannot decide the merits. It normally lapses with the final judgment and may be varied if circumstances change. Execution may depend on security. In exceptional urgency, the President may act before the opponent responds, but that initial decision may be changed or cancelled.
What an applicant must establish before an EU court
The Court of Justice and General Court Rules use materially parallel requirements. Following the 2024 amendments, the relevant General Court provision is Article 156(4). A June 2026 order quotes it as follows:
Applications for interim relief must state the subject matter of the proceedings, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for. —
The application must be tied to admissible main proceedings. To seek suspension, the applicant must have challenged the act; another interim measure must relate to the main party's case.
In Commission v Ortis, Case C-54/25 P(R), the Court of Justice restated the three-part test: a prima facie case in fact and law (fumus boni juris); urgency to avoid serious and irreparable harm before judgment; and, where appropriate, a favourable balance of interests. The conditions are cumulative. Failure to prove urgency can end the application without examination of the others.
Financial loss is not automatically irreparable. The evidence must show why judgment or compensation later could not adequately repair it. The order must preserve, not prejudge, the final decision.
National courts can protect rights during an interpretation dispute
A national court may stay a decision, suspend a national measure, grant an injunction or otherwise preserve the position while awaiting an EU-law interpretation. National procedure supplies the form and ordinary criteria, but cannot neutralise EU law.
In Factortame and Others, Case C-213/89, national law prevented the court from granting relief against the government while claimed EU rights remained unresolved. The Court of Justice held:
The full effectiveness of Community law would be just as much impaired if a rule of national law could prevent a court seised of a dispute governed by Community law from granting interim relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed under Community law. It follows that a court which in those circumstances would grant interim relief, if it were not for a rule of national law, is obliged to set aside that rule. —
The holding removes a national-law obstacle; it does not guarantee an injunction. The national court still applies lawful criteria, which must not disadvantage EU claims compared with similar domestic claims or make EU rights impossible or excessively difficult to protect.
A validity challenge follows the stricter Zuckerfabrik test
Different concerns arise when the applicant says that an EU regulation, decision or other act is invalid. A national court may reject an invalidity argument, but it may not declare an EU act invalid. If serious doubts remain and validity matters to the result, the issue belongs in an Article 267 reference to the Court of Justice.
The national court is not powerless. In Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest, Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89, the Court allowed suspension of national measures implementing an EU regulation, subject to uniform conditions:
Suspension of enforcement of a national measure adopted in implementation of a Community measure may be granted by a national court only if that court entertains serious doubts as to the validity of the Community measure and, should the question of the validity of the contested measure not already have been brought before the Court of Justice, itself refers that question to the Court of Justice, if there is urgency and a threat of serious and irreparable damage to the applicant and if the national court takes due account of the Community's interests; —
The quotation retains the historical “Community” terminology; the doctrine now operates within EU law. The court must explain its serious doubts and consider the measure's effectiveness, the cumulative effect of similar orders, and financial risk to the Union. Security may be appropriate.
In Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I), Case C-465/93, the Court confirmed that a national court may also regulate the disputed positions positively and provisionally. It must respect existing EU-court decisions on the act's lawfulness or comparable relief. Its order lasts only until the Court of Justice resolves validity.
A practical interim-relief checklist
Before deciding what can be ordered, identify:
- The pending main case. Is it a direct EU action, an appeal, an infringement case or a national dispute?
- The disputed issue. Is the court interpreting EU law, comparing national law with EU law, or questioning the validity of an EU act?
- The precise temporary order. Would a stay suffice, or is a positive or prohibitory order needed to preserve the future judgment's effectiveness?
- The prima facie legal basis. What provisions and verified facts make the claim sufficiently serious at this stage?
- The timing and harm. Will serious damage occur before final judgment, and why could money or later corrective action not repair it?
- Competing interests. What would relief do to the EU measure, third parties and consistent application across Member States?
- Existing EU-court decisions. Has an EU court already addressed the act's validity or comparable interim relief?
- Duration and safeguards. When should relief lapse, and is security or another condition needed?
Conclusion
EU and national courts can prevent a future judgment from becoming useless, but their powers are not interchangeable. The Court of Justice or General Court may suspend a contested EU act or prescribe another necessary measure in proceedings before it, subject to a prima facie case, urgency and the balance of interests.
A national court may grant the interim relief available in the domestic dispute and must disapply a national rule that alone blocks effective protection of claimed EU rights. When validity of an EU act is disputed, however, the court must use the narrower Zuckerfabrik and Atlanta route: serious doubts, a validity reference where required, serious and irreparable harm, protection of the EU interest and compliance with existing EU-court decisions. The national measure can preserve the position; it cannot become a national declaration that the EU act is invalid.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.