## Facts

- The European Commission found Microsoft dominant in client PC operating systems and strong in work group server operating systems.
- In a 24 March 2004 decision, the Commission identified two abuses of dominance: (i) refusing to supply and license interoperability information needed for rival servers to interoperate with Windows clients/servers; and (ii) tying Windows Media Player to the Windows client OS.
- The Commission imposed a substantial fine and required Microsoft, under short deadlines, to disclose and license interoperability information on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and to offer a fully functioning Windows version without Windows Media Player (while allowing a bundled version).
- The Commission also required oversight by an independent monitoring trustee with access to Microsoft information and source code to supervise compliance.
- Microsoft filed an action seeking annulment of the Commission decision and separately applied for interim measures to suspend the main remedial obligations and the trustee mechanism pending the merits outcome.

## Issues

1. Whether Microsoft showed a prima facie case creating serious doubt as to the legality of the Commission’s findings and remedies.
2. Whether immediate compliance would cause serious and irreparable harm, including through compelled disclosure/licensing of protected confidential information and intellectual property, forced unbundling, and monitoring by a trustee.
3. Whether the balance of interests favored suspension, considering the public interest in effective competition enforcement.

## Decision

- The court rejected Microsoft’s application for interim measures in full.
- The court held that interim relief requires cumulative proof of a prima facie case, urgency (serious and irreparable harm), and a favorable balance of interests; failure on any element requires dismissal.
- Even assuming the presence of complex legal and economic questions, Microsoft did not establish serious and irreparable harm from the challenged obligations.
- The balance of interests weighed against suspension because delaying implementation risked prolonging harm to competition in the relevant markets.

## Legal Principles

- Interim measures are exceptional and require cumulative satisfaction of: (i) prima facie case, (ii) urgency shown by serious and irreparable harm, and (iii) a balance of interests favoring relief.
- An applicant must set out the essential factual and legal grounds in the interim application itself; broad incorporation by reference to annexes is insufficient.
- Compelled disclosure of confidential information or licensing affecting intellectual property does not, by itself, establish serious and irreparable harm; the applicant must show concretely how the disclosure would cause harm that cannot later be remedied.
- Financial harm generally is not irreparable because it is ordinarily compensable; only exceptional circumstances convert financial loss into irreparable damage.
- In reviewing measures tied to complex economic or technical assessments, the court does not substitute its assessment for the authority’s; it focuses on procedural regularity, factual accuracy, and absence of manifest error or misuse of powers, particularly at the interim stage.

## Conclusion

The court denied interim relief because Microsoft did not provide specific, concrete proof of serious and irreparable harm from the interoperability, unbundling, and trustee obligations, and the public interest in timely competition enforcement outweighed Microsoft’s asserted risks.


Microsoft Corp. v. Comm’n of the Eur. Cmtys. (Microsoft Corp. v. Comm’n), Case T-201/04 R (Gen. Ct. 2004)