Removal of light panels: the only loss of the loss of profit does not justify the urgency
In this case that the firm won on behalf of the commune of CAHORS, the Administrative Court of Toulouse gives interesting indications on the elements that can be taken into consideration by the judge of the interim suspension to assess the condition of urgency to suspend a decision taken by a municipality ordering the removal of light panels located on its territory.
As a reminder, Article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice states that the judge hearing the application for interim measures may order the suspension of the execution of a decision, or of certain of its effects, when the urgency justifies it and when a means of creating, in the state of the investigation, a serious doubt as to the legality of the decision. The condition of urgency to which the imposition of a suspension order is subject must be regarded as satisfied when the contested administrative decision prejudices in a sufficiently serious and immediate manner a public interest, the situation of the applicant or the interests he intends to defend. It must be demonstrated, supporting evidence, which was not the case here.
In this case, the municipality had put in residence a company to remove several light panels implanted on its territory within a period of fifteen days, under penalty of € 200 per device in violation past this time.
This company then contested this decision while requesting its immediate suspension. In order to justify the urgency, the company argued that the pecuniary consequences of the contested decrees as well as the loss of image and confidence that they could entail with regard to its clientele were of a character that was difficult to reverse by taking advantage of the lack of annual gain related to the removal of three panels, qe the cost of dismantling, annual rents and the impossibility for it to honor orders placed with its customers
However, the judge hearing the application for interim measures will consider that the urgency is not established by taking into account the company's particularly high turnover, the large number of signs it uses elsewhere and especially in the absence of any information on the financial consequences linked to the execution of the disputed orders which can not be reduced to the demonstration of the only shortfall related to the absence of exploitation of the panels in question.