e-Re is a In e nacional de la P o ección Social, ISNN 2445-3269. 2016, Vol. I, Nº 1
Página 134
INTERIM MEASURES AND EU LEGISLATION
1
MEDIDAS PROVISIONALES Y LEGISLACIÓN DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA
P o . D . Ana Ma ía Choc ón Gi áldez
Uni e si y o Se ille
ABSTRACT
In he EU Cha e o Fundamen al Righ s he e a e igh s ela ed o Jus ice and o he
e ec i e emedy. The la e is he mos ele an as i se es as a e e ence o he
emaining igh s es ablished in A icle 47 conce ning pa ies' p ocedu al gua an ees and
pa icula ly, he igh o de ence du ing ial
The aim o he p oceeding o in e im measu es is o gua an ee he ull e ec i eness o
he ECJ's u u e inal decision in o de o a oid he lack o judicial p o ec ion ha shall
be ensu ed by his Cou .
KEY WORDS: In e im measu es, umus boni iu is, cou o jus ice.
RESUMEN
En e los de echos ecogidos en la Ca a de De echos Fundamen ales igen es en la
Unión Eu opea se hallan aquellos elacionados con el alo Jus icia y, como no podía
se de o o modo, el de echo a la u ela judicial e ec i a ocupa un luga p io i a io ya
que si e de pó ico al es o de de echos que se con ienen en el a ículo 47 elacionados
con las ga an ías p ocesales de las pa es y, en pa icula , con el de echo de de ensa
La inalidad de las medidas p o isionales es ga an iza la plena e icacia de la u u a
decisión de ini i a al obje o de e i a una laguna en la p o ección ju isdiccional que
depa a el T ibunal de Jus icia.
PALABRAS CLAVES: medidas p o isionales, umus boni iu is, ibunal de jus icia.
1
This epo has been ca ied ou unde he p ojec inanced by he Spanish Economy Minis y “bes legal-
p ocedu al p ac ices in he ield o labou and Eu opean law o educe labou li iga ion expendi u e a
ze o cos (I+D DER 2012-32111).
e-Re is a In e nacional de la P o ección Social, ISNN 2445-3269. 2016, Vol. I, Nº 1
Página 135
SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PROVISIONAL MEASURES AND THE RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF MEASURES.
IV. TYPES OF MEASURES THAT MAY BE ADOPTED.
A. THE INTERIM MEASURE SUSPENDING THE CONTESTED ACT
B. OTHER MEASURES FOR GUARANTEEING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
FUTURE DECISION ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER
V. REQUIREMENTS
VI. PROCEEDING
VII. CONCLUSIONS
e-Re is a In e nacional de la P o ección Social, ISNN 2445-3269. 2016, Vol. I, Nº 1
Página 136
I. INTRODUCTION
Acco ding o A icles 278 and 279 o he T ea y on he Func ioning o he Eu opean
Union (TFEU) ac ions b ough be o e he Cou o Jus ice o he Eu opean Union shall
no ha e suspenso y e ec . The Cou may o de , howe e , i i conside s ha
ci cums ances so equi e, he suspension in execu ing he ac appealed o adop o he
necessa y measu es. Consequen ly, we i s ly highligh ha he g an ing o p o isional
measu es is an exemp ion o he gene al ule acco ding o which ac s adop ed by he EU
ins i u ions bene i om a p esump ion o legali y and shall be in p inciple en o ceable.
As we will see, A icles 278 and 279 a e de eloped in he Rules o P ocedu e o he
Cou o Jus ice (25 Sep embe 2012), and also in he P ac ice Di ec ions o Pa ies
Conce ning Cases b ough be o e he Cou (25 No embe 2013). He e he mos
s iking aspec s o he p ocedu e o o de ing p o isional measu es a e de ailed
(applica ion's equi emen s, condi ions, decision o he Cou ...). Also he Rules o
P ocedu e o he Gene al Cou (2 May 1991) conside hese A icles.
II. PROVISIONAL MEASURES AND THE RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY
The aim o he p oceeding o in e im measu es is o gua an ee he ull e ec i eness o
he ECJ's u u e inal decision in o de o a oid he lack o judicial p o ec ion ha shall
be ensu ed by his Cou . This s a emen is ei e a ed in ECJ's case law when assessing
applica ions o in e im measu es (O de o he Vice-P esiden o he ECJ o 21 Janua y
2014,1 Case C-574/13, ECJ 2014/36). I also p o ides us wi h an oppo uni y o e lec
on he so-called in e im measu es a he Eu opean le el.
In he EU Cha e o Fundamen al Righ s he e a e igh s ela ed o Jus ice and o he
e ec i e emedy. The la e is he mos ele an as i se es as a e e ence o he
emaining igh s es ablished in A icle 47 conce ning pa ies' p ocedu al gua an ees and
pa icula ly, he igh o de ence du ing ial
2
.
I mus be ecalled ha he p o isional p o ec ion which always happens a a na ional
le el, is he e o e s ongly linked wi h he need o achie ing e ec i eness in he
e ec i e emedy. In o he wo ds, p o ec i e measu es a e in ended o ensu ing he
e ec i eness o decla a ion p ocedu es and igh s en o cemen as he pe iod ha akes
be ween bo h o hem may dis o he cou 's u u e uling.
The e o e, he legal basis o hese measu es is he need o gua an eeing he e ec i eness
o he cou 's u u e uling as he e is a isk o obs uc ing he e ec i e emedy which
could be g an ed o he pa y eques ing he in e im measu e. The ECJ has emphasized
2
A icle 47 o he EU Cha e o Fundamen al Righ s s a es: “E e yone whose igh s and eedoms
gua an eed by he law o he Union a e iola ed has he igh o an e ec i e emedy be o e a ibunal in
compliance wi h he condi ions laid down in his A icle. E e yone is en i led o a ai and public hea ing
wi hin a easonable ime by an independen and impa ial ibunal p e iously es ablished by law.
E e yone shall ha e he possibili y o being ad ised, de ended and ep esen ed. Legal aid shall be made
a ailable o hose who lack su icien esou ces in so a as such aid is necessa y o ensu e e ec i e
access o jus ice”. OJEU, no. 83, 30 Ma ch 2010.
e-Re is a In e nacional de la P o ección Social, ISNN 2445-3269. 2016, Vol. I, Nº 1
Página 137
his conce n in i s no o ious Fac o - ame uling (19 June 1990, Case C-213/89)
3
. This
uling o e s a wide in e p e a ion o adop ing in e im measu es by na ional judges in
o de o gua an ee he e ec i eness o he Communi y Law p o ec ion. These judges
may no espec he e en ual p ohibi ions o adop ing hese measu es imposed by
Na ional Law.
Mo e ecen ly and a e he Lisbon T ea y en e ed in o o ce (2009), he EU Cha e o
Fundamen al Righ s has he same legal alue as he T ea ies. The O de o he Vice-
P esiden o he ECJ o 20 No embe 2013 (Case C- 390/13, TJ 3013/795) de e mines,
on he basis o his Cha e , he need o eques ing he measu e agains he imminen
isk o any se ious and i epa able ha m o he e ec i e emedy s a ed in A icle 47 o
his Cha e . I would hen be a “p o isional p o ec ion linked o he e ec i e judicial
p o ec ion”
4
.
Ne e heless, i canno be said ha ejec ing a eques o a p o ec i e measu e is an
in ingemen o he undamen al igh o e ec i e emedy ecognised in A icle 47.
These measu es a e egula ed a he EU le el and subo dina ed o ce ain equi emen s
o hei adop ion and o an speci ic p ocedu al egime
5
.
I should be no ed ha EU ules e e o “p o isional measu es”, bu he uling o Cou
o Jus ice o he Eu opean Communi ies o 26 Ma ch 1992 (Case C-261/90) de ined
“p o isional, including p o ec i e, measu es” as measu es which “a e in ended o
p ese e a ac ual o legal si ua ion so as o sa egua d igh s he ecogni ion o which is
sough elsewhe e om he cou ha ing ju isdic ion as o he subs ance o he ma e ”.
In any case, he legal egula ion o p o isional measu es is linked o he p o ec i e
measu es' equi emen s ( umus boni iu is and pe iculum in mo a) and o he speci ic
cha ac e s o hese measu es; e en i a p o ec i e e ec ha expands he p o isional
p o ec ion is de i ed om hem. Fu he mo e, he mos ecognised scien i ic doc ine
ea hem as p o ec i e measu es despi e ha EU ules e e o hem as p o isional
measu es
6
.
3
An exhaus i e analysis o his uling in Ga cía de En e ía, E.: La ba alla po las medidas cau ela es,
Ci i as. Mad id. 2006, p. 97. See also he ulings o he cases Zucke ab ik (21 Feb ua y 1991) and
A lan a (9 No embe 1995).
4
Ga cía Valdecasas and Fe nández R.; and Ca pi Badía, J.Mª.; “El T ibunal de Jus icia de la Unión
Eu opea. Algunas conside aciones espec o a su papel en el ma co la cons ucción eu opea”, Re is a
Ju ídica de Cas illa León, n. 3, 2004, p. 38.
5
We a e e e ing o A icles 279 and 379 o he TFEU and o A icles 104 . o he Rules o P ocedu e o
he Gene al Cou .
6
Pas o Bo goñón, B.; and Van Ginde ach e , E.; El p ocedimien o de medidas cau ela es an e el T ibunal
de Jus icia y el T ibunal de P ime a Ins ancia de las Comunidades Eu opeas. Ci i as. Mad id. 1993.
e-Re is a In e nacional de la P o ección Social, ISNN 2445-3269. 2016, Vol. I, Nº 1
Página 138
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF MEASURES.
As we hink abou he cha ac e is ics o in e im measu es we can see ha EU
egula ions es ablish ha hose ha a e de i ed om p o ec i e measu es shall be
applied o p o isional measu es. This occu s wi h he ea u es o p o isionali y and
ins umen ali y. As an example, he O de o he Vice-P esiden o he Cou o Jus ice
o 19 Decembe 2013 (Case C-426/13, ECJ 2013/848) es ablishes ha : he judge
hea ing an applica ion o in e im elie had powe s whose impac is-à- is he
ins i u ions o he Eu opean Union wen beyond he e ec s a aching o a judgmen
annulling a measu e, p o ided ha hose in e im measu es apply only o he du a ion o
he p oceedings on he subs ance (…). So hey a e empo ally subo dina ed o a
judgemen .
Bu also, i he e is a equi ed ea u e o p o ec i e measu es his is he so-called
ins umen ali y. This means ha he measu e canno au onomously exis as i is
subo dina ed o a p oceeding on he subs ance. Simila ly, he uling o he Spanish
Cons i u ional Cou 39/1995 o 13 Feb ua y (Appeal 1995/39) s a es ha p o ec i e
measu es an icipa e in some way he e ec s o he inal decision. This is why p o ec i e
measu es ha p oduce consequences ha ne e could de i e om a inal decision shall
no be adop ed. Is he e o e in e es ing o highligh ha he ECJ has poin ed ou in he
so called Case C-426/13 wo ea u es ha shall be equi ed o p o isional measu es: a)
no p ejudicing he decision o he Cou on he subs ance o he case and b) no
obs uc ing he e ec o he p oceeding on he subs ance
7
.
Conce ning he i s ea u e, he ECJ s a es ha he ju isdic ion o he compe en judge
o adop ing he eques ed measu es is limi ed o whe he he legally es ablished
equi emen s o hei adop ion a e ul illed o no . Bu i we conside hose as eal
p o ec i e measu es we will inally accep ha i is possible o adop measu es wi h
simila o iden ical con en o he p oceeding on he subs ance one. Howe e , he
in e im measu e s ic sensu p o ides a p o ec ion o ce ain in e es s ha a e no
g an ed by he p o ec i e measu e adop ed o gua an ee he e ec i eness o a uling ha
upholds he plain i claim
8
.
Wi h ega ds o he second ea u e, i is clea ha he adop ed measu e canno neu alise
o obs uc he e ec s o he decision ha p ecisely hey a e in ended o gua an ee.
IV. TYPES OF MEASURES THAT MAY BE ADOPTED.
7
See A icle 162.4 o Rules o P ocedu e o he Cou o Jus ice.
8
Con inuing wi h he Case C-426/13, he Membe S a e applied o he p o isional measu e “ o he
pu poses o p o ec ing human heal h and, speci ically, child en’s heal h” which we e he ecipien s o he
oys wi h con o e sial ma e ials; being his conce n pa o he p oceeding on he subs ance. Ei he way,
he Rules o P ocedu e o he Cou o Jus ice is no p ecisely igo ous when ea ing in e im measu es as
i conside s as such measu es he applica ions o suspend he en o cemen o a decision o he Cou o o
any measu e adop ed by he Council, he Eu opean Commission o he Eu opean Cen al Bank, submi ed
pu suan o A icles 280 TFEU and 299 TFEU, A icle 164 TEAEC, o A icle 81 TEAEC; as hey a e no
adop ed o gua an ee he e ec i eness o he u u e inal decision.

e-Re is a In e nacional de la P o ección Social, ISNN 2445-3269. 2016, Vol. I, Nº 1
Página 139
The measu es ha may be adop ed acco ding o A icles 278 and 279 o TFEU a e
ca ego ised in wo main componen s:
•
The i s one es ablishes an speci ic in e im measu e, his is, he suspension o
he en o cemen o he con es ed ac .
•
The second one e e s o o he measu es ha wi hou being speci ied a e
necessa y acco ding o he compe en opinion o he cou .
Wi h ega ds o ex A icles 242 and 243 (nowadays A icles 278 and 279) i has been
c i icised ha he e is no an exhaus i e lis o he possible measu es by which he judge
may o de any ac ion as i deems app op ia e
9
. In con as , ou na ional legisla ion
es ablishes a ca alogue o speci ic measu es ha may be adop ed. This lis o measu es
is closed wi h a gene ic p o ec i e clause (A icle 727.11 o he Ci il P ocedu al Ac -
Law 1/2000): i is possible o adop “ hose o he measu es ha in o de o p o ec ce ain
igh s a e legally es ablished o a e necessa y o ensu ing he p o ec ion o he e ec i e
emedy ha may be g an ed in he judgmen upholding he plain i 's claim”.
So i we analyse i and we ob ia e he e iden di e ences, he scheme is essen ially
main ained: speci ic measu e -which is he one used in p ac ice-, and measu es
conside ed necessa y in o de o achie e he speci ic aim o he in e im measu e.
Be o e b ie ly explaining hese wo componen s, we mus highligh ha om a legal
poin o iew, he eques o p o isional measu es is ecognised in he ame o he so-
called di ec ac ions. The e o e is usual hei app oach by a sepa a e documen in cases
o ac ions o annulmen (and o ailu e) b ough agains he EU Ins i u ions by he
Membe S a es, by he EU Ins i u ions hemsel es and by any na u al o legal pe son i
he decision is add essed o hem.
A. THE INTERIM MEASURE SUSPENDING THE CONTESTED ACT
An applica ion o suspend he ope a ion o any measu e adop ed by an ins i u ion shall
be admissible only i he applican has challenged ha measu e in an ac ion be o e he
Cou (A icle 160.1 o he Rules o P ocedu e o he Cou o Jus ice) and only i i is
made by a pa y o a case be o e he Cou and ela es o ha case
10
.
Ne e heless, his equi emen is no always s ongly equi ed and he e o e he O de
o he Vice-P esiden o he Cou o Jus ice o 7 Ma ch 2013 in he Case C-551/12
(ECJ 2013/157) es ablishes ha “whils , in he p esen case, he applica ion o in e im
measu es does no o mally seek suspension o he ope a ion o a measu e, he in e im
measu es sough esemble such a suspension since he appellan seeks o ob ain an
9
Giménez Sánchez, I: La e icacia de las sen encias dic adas po el TJCE. A anzadi. Pamplona. 2003, p.
180.
10
Villagómez Ceb ián, M,: De echo P ocesal Comuni a io. Ti an Lo Blanch. Valencia. 2001, p. 292.
e-Re is a In e nacional de la P o ección Social, ISNN 2445-3269. 2016, Vol. I, Nº 1
Página 140
addi ional pe iod o mo e han wo yea s in o de o choose be ween he wo op ions
laid down in he commi men s gi en by i wi h ega d o he Nes -Ene gie p ojec ”.
In con as , we can see in he O de o he Vice-P esiden o he Cou o Jus ice o 21
Janua y 2014 conce ning he Case C-574/12 (ECJ 2014/36) ha he ac whose
suspension is eques ed co esponds o he con es ed ac in he main appeal. In his case,
he Membe S a e b ings an ac ion o annulmen o he Decision o he Commission on
he eco e y o a bene i a a na ional le el (a bene i g an ed by he S a e) and,
simul aneously is ecommended o suspend he Decision conce ned as an in e im
measu e, un il he Gene al Cou decides on he subs ance o he appeal, as unde s ands
ha “gi ing immedia e e ec o he con es ed decision, which o de ed he eco e y
om he Socié é Na ionale Co se Médi e anée (SNCM) o mo e han EUR 220 million
and he cancella ion o all paymen s a e he da e o no i ica ion o he decision, would
ine i ably b ing abou he insol ency and liquida ion o ha company and hus cause
se ious, i epa able and immedia e ha m o ha Membe S a e.
B. OTHER MEASURES FOR GUARANTEEING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
FUTURE DECISION ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER
As we said, unde A icle 279 TFEU o he in e im measu es can be adop ed bu only in
wo speci ied cases (A icle 160.2 Rules o P ocedu e o he Cou o Jus ice):
1. I hey a e applied by a pa y o a case be o e he Cou
2. I hey a e ela ed o ha case.
These equi emen s means ha hey ha e o be simila measu es as he ones adop ed o
he en o cemen o he judgemen upholding he pe i ione 's claim
11
. Indeed, adop ing a
measu e which p o isionally allows o main ain s ic e na ional p o isions han hose
ules es ablished a he EU le el on oys' ma e ials is add essed by he O de o he
Vice-P esiden o he Cou o Jus ice o 19 Decembe 2013 (Case C-426/13, ECJ
2013/848). He e suspending he en o cemen o an ac in he sense es ablished in A icle
278 TFEU is no pu sued, bu ins ead o he in e im measu e ha g an s an enhanced
p o ec ion o he ecipien s o he oys is sough , in he sense s a ed in A icle 279
TFEU.
V. REQUIREMENTS
A icles 160.3 o he Rules o P ocedu e o he Cou o Jus ice and 107 o he Rules o
P ocedu e o he Gene al Cou s a e ha adop ing in e im measu es is subjec ed o he
“ci cums ances gi ing ise o u gency and he pleas o ac and law es ablishing a p ima
acie case o he in e im measu e applied o ”. Also we mus highligh ha “ he
execu ion o he o de may be made condi ional on he lodging by he applican o
secu i y, o an amoun and na u e o be ixed in he ligh o he ci cums ances”. This
way he so-called equi emen s o he p o ec i e measu es ha a e es ablished in ou
na ional legisla ion (A icle 728 o he Ci il P ocedu al Ac ) co espond wi h he
11
Villa Gómez Ceb ián, M.; Op. ci . p. 293.
e-Re is a In e nacional de la P o ección Social, ISNN 2445-3269. 2016, Vol. I, Nº 1
Página 141
appea ance o a p ima acie case o “ umus boni ju is” and u gency o “pe iculum in
mo a”.
In he EU case-law, he compe en judge may o de he suspension o he ope a ion o
an ac o o he in e im measu es when concu ing he ollowing equi emen s:
1. The u gency, his means ha in o de o a oid se ious and i epa able ha m o
he applican 's in e es s, he measu e shall be adop ed and p oduce i s e ec s
be o e a decision is eached in he main ac ion
12
. The u gency mus he e o e be
assessed wi h ega ds o he need o p o isionally p o ec ing he applican 's
in e es s and is ela ed o he chances o a se ious and i epa able ha m
13
.
2. Fumus boni iu is, which is ul illed when he applican p o es ha he g an ing
o he in e im measu e is jus i ied p ima acie, in ac and in law
14
.
In ha o de , he applican shall p o e o he compe en au ho i y he ul ilmen o bo h
equi emen s bu is no necessa y o p o e ha in all cases he ha m is going o
ine i ably be p oduced, bu ha he e is a easonable chance ha his ha m may occu
15
.
In o he wo ds, i is no necessa y ha he imminence o he dange is p o ed wi h
absolu e ce ain y; bu only ha his damaging e ec is o eseen wi h a su icien deg ee
o p obabili y. This does no p e en o equi ing he applican o he measu e o p o e
he ac s ha a e he basis o he belie ha he men ioned ha m is going o happen. This
is also equi ed when undamen al igh s a e a s ake and e en conside ing he
ein o ced p o ec ion g an ed by he T ea y o Lisbon. In his sense, he ECJ s a ed ha
“i is no su icien o allege in ingemen o undamen al igh s o he pu poses o
es ablishing ha he ha m which could esul would necessa ily be i epa able”
16
.
As a as he umus boni iu is p inciple is conce ned, i is only equi ed o jus i y p ima
acie ha he eques ed measu e is app op ia ed o i s aimed pu pose o gua an eeing
he e ec i eness o he inal decision. Exceeding ha limi in ol es a conside a ion o
he e idence un ela ed o he one ha shall pe o m he compe en judge.
12
Fo mo e in o ma ion on he concep o se ious and i epa able damage see Pas o Bo goñón, B. and
Van Ginde ach e , E.; Op. ci . p. 97.
13
C . he pe iculum in mo a es ablished in A icle 728 o he Ci il P ocedu al Ac : “P o ec i e measu es
shall only be adop ed when he applican jus i ies ha si ua ions ha can show up when pending he
p oceeding could impede o obs uc he e ec i eness o he emedy g an ed by an e en ual judgemen
upholding he pe i ione 's claim”.
14
C . he umus boni iu is es ablished in A icle 728 o he Ci il P ocedu al Ac : “The applican o he
p o ec i e measu es shall a ach o his applica ion he da a, g ounds and documen a y jus i ica ion so he
Cou can in o m wi hou p ejudicing on he subs ance o he ma e a p o isional judgemen a ou able
o his applica ion”.
15
See also he Case o he EU Commission agains ANKO AE An ip osopeion, Empo ioukai
Viomichanias. O de o 8 Ap il 2014. ECJ 2014 161 and he men ioned case-law.op. ci . pg.. 97. See also
he Case o he EU Commission agains ANKO AE An ip osopeion, Empo ioukai Viomichanias. O de
o 8 Ap il 2014. ECJ 2014 161 and he men ioned case-law.
16
See O de o he P esiden o he ECJ o 15 Ap il 1998, Cama /Commission, C-43/98).
e-Re is a In e nacional de la P o ección Social, ISNN 2445-3269. 2016, Vol. I, Nº 1
Página 142
One o he mos complex issues in p oceedings o in e im measu es is p ecisely he
p o isional assessmen ha he judge has o ca y ou o upholding he applica ion o
p o isional measu es. He e we mus highligh :
•
The need o aking in o conside a ion in a comp ehensi e manne he applica ion
o in e im measu es. The condi ions o umus boni iu is, he u gency and he
ha m ha may be p oduced a e cumula i e equi emen s, so ha an applica ion
o in e im measu es mus be dismissed i any one o hem is absen (O de o
he P esiden o Cou o Jus ice o 14 Oc obe 1996, Case C-268/96).
•
The need o balancing he con lic ing in e es s and a ou ce ain o hem
ins ead o he o he s
17
. This assessmen will lead he judge o in e im measu es
o compa e o colla e be ween he con lic ing in e es s.
VI. PROCEEDING
The applica ion o suspending he ope a ion o an ac o o he adop ion o o he
in e im measu es shall s a e he subjec -ma e o he p oceedings, he ci cums ances
gi ing ise o u gency and he pleas o ac and law es ablishing a p ima acie case o
he in e im measu e applied o (A icle 160.3 o he Rules o P ocedu e o he Cou o
Jus ice and 104.2 o he Rules o P ocedu e o he Gene al Cou ). The applica ion shall
be made by a sepa a e documen
18
. These ules ou he possibili y o applying o he
measu e join ly wi h he main applica ion; which is allowed by ou Ci il P ocedu al
Ac
19
.
17
The balancing o in e es s in ou na ional legal sys em is linked o he adop ion o p o ec i e measu es
when adminis a i e ac s a e unde appeal. In his sense, he “p o isional suspension o he ac unde
appeal o he con es ed adminis a i e decisions” is o eseen as an speci ic measu e; and in gene al e ms,
“all hose measu es ha gua an ee he e ec i eness o he inal decision” a e g an ed. (A icle 129 and
130 o he Law 29/1998 o 13 July go e ning Adminis a i e Ju isdic ion.
18
The Rules o P ocedu e o he Cou o Jus ice es ablishes he con en o he applica ion o di ec
ac ions:
a) he name and add ess o he applican ;
b) he name o he pa y agains whom he applica ion is made;
c) he subjec -ma e o he p oceedings, he pleas in law and a gumen s elied on and a summa y o hose
pleas in law;
d) he o m o o de sough by he applican ;
e) when app op ia e, any e idence p oduced o o e ed.
19
A icle 730.2 o he Ci il P ocedu al Ac s a es: “p o ec i e measu es may also be eques ed be o e
submi ing he applica ion i he applican a he same ime alleges and p o es u gency o necessi y
easons”.