## Facts

- The European Commission issued a 24 Mar. 2004 decision finding Microsoft abused a dominant position under Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU).
- The decision identified two abuses: (1) refusal to supply and license interoperability information needed for competing work group server operating systems to interoperate with Windows, and (2) tying Windows Media Player to Windows by not offering an operating system version without the media player.
- Remedies included requiring Microsoft to disclose “complete and accurate” interoperability information for competitor use, requiring a Windows version without Windows Media Player in the EEA, and imposing a substantial fine (nearly €500 million), along with a monitoring trustee mechanism.
- Microsoft filed an annulment action challenging the decision on the merits (Case T-201/04) and separately sought interim measures (Case T-201/04 R).
- In the interim proceeding, Microsoft asked the Court of First Instance to suspend operation of key parts of the Commission’s decision pending judgment on the merits, arguing that immediate compliance would cause serious and irreparable harm, including through disclosure of trade secrets and impacts on intellectual property.

## Issues

1. What cumulative conditions must be met for the Court to suspend operation of a Commission competition decision as interim relief.
2. Whether Microsoft demonstrated a prima facie case, urgency, and the likelihood of serious and irreparable harm absent suspension, including harm alleged from compelled disclosure of secret information and licensing affecting intellectual property.

## Decision

- The Court of First Instance denied Microsoft’s application for interim measures and refused to suspend the Commission’s decision.
- The Court held that the requirements for interim relief are cumulative; failure to satisfy any one condition requires dismissal.
- The Court concluded Microsoft did not sufficiently establish urgency and serious, irreparable harm from immediate compliance with the remedies.
- The Court noted that assertions based on intellectual property rights or trade secrets, without concrete substantiation, were insufficient to meet the burden of proof.
- The Court considered, where relevant, the interest in effective enforcement of EU competition law when assessing whether suspension was justified.

## Legal Principles

- Interim measures (including suspension of operation) require cumulative proof of (1) a prima facie case and (2) urgency shown by risk of serious and irreparable harm; where appropriate, the court may also weigh the interests involved.
- An obligation to license or otherwise affect intellectual property rights is assessed case-by-case and is not automatically treated as causing serious and irreparable damage.
- An obligation to disclose secret information is not, by itself, “serious damage”; the applicant bears the burden to show with specific evidence that disclosure would cause serious and irreparable harm.
- An application for interim relief must state the essential elements of fact and law within the application itself; broad reliance on annexes to supply the substance of arguments is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Court denied suspension of the Commission’s antitrust decision because Microsoft did not meet the stringent, cumulative interim-relief requirements, particularly the need to show urgency and serious, irreparable harm from immediate compliance with remedies involving interoperability disclosures and product unbundling.


Microsoft Corp. v. Comm’n of the Eur. Cmtys., Case T-201/04 R, 2004 E.C.R. II-4463 (Ct. First Instance 2004)