decid ing whether or not to grant such interim protection Despite the specificity and clarity of the questions referred by the House of lords, the Court of Justice confined itself to answering that Community law must be interpreted as meaning that where a national court, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law must set aside that rule. Upon delivery of the ruling, the House of lords awarded the interlocutory injunctions sought by the plaintiffs The first case dealt with under a Z.A. P -type situation was Zuckerfabrik. The applicants were sugar manufacturers who sought the suspension of a payment demand by German administrative authorities concerning a special sugar levy imposed by Council Regulation 1914/87, 6 which they considered incompatible with superior Community law.The German court hearing the case granted the suspension and made a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice on the question of valid ity of the regulation and the lawfulness of the whether the suspension ordered would be compatible with the full effectiveness of Certain interim relief awarded. As regards the latter aspect, the national court intended to ascertain Community Regulations in all Member States under Article 249 of the treaty The Court ruled that Article 249(ex Article 189)of the Treaty does not preclud national courts from suspend ing the application of a national measure implementing a Community regulation. However, it established certain cond itions which have to be fulfilled for the granting such a suspension, namely (i) the national court must have serious doubts as to the valid ity of the contested regulation; (ii) where the validity of such an act is not already in issue before the Court, the national court must itself refer such a question to the Court; (ii) there must be urgency and a threat of serious and irreparable damage to the applicant; and(iv) the national court must take due account of the Community interest common market organization for bananas and a common import regime replacing ishin The Atlanta case concerned the valid ity of Council Regulation 404/93, establ existing national arrangements. The said regulation had introduced a quota to be allocated to fruit traders within the European Community for the importation of bananas from third countries and ACP countries. Bananas coming from third countries were subject to a levy whereas fruit from the ACP area was duty free. Imports exceeding the quota were subject to a different tariff depend ing on their origin a decision by the German authorities granting them provisional licenses to mpo? peal against The plaintiffs were importers of third-country bananas, who brought an apl significantly lower quantities than they had imported in previous years. The applicants contested the valid ity of the regulation discontinuing the duty-free import quota which had been allocated to them until then, on the grounds that the introduction of import quotas and their allocation among operators within the Community were discriminatory and violated their right to property and the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality At the same time, the importers applied for interim relief in the form of an order for the issuance of add itional import licenses at a reduced rate of customs duty. The nat ional court awarded such an order, not without referring to the European Court of Justice preliminary question on whether and under what cond itions a national judge may grant interim measures intended to create a new legal position Relying on its previous Zuckerfabrik ruling, the Court extended the applicability of the principles governing the suspension of enforcement of a domestic measure implementing Community legislation to interim relief in the form of a positive order to settle or regulate )1987L183/5 OJ1993,L47deciding whether or not to grant such interim protection. Despite the specificity and clarity of the questions referred by the House of Lords, the Court of Justice confined itself to answering that ‘Community law must be interpreted as meaning that where a national court, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law must set aside that rule’. Upon delivery of the ruling, the House of Lords awarded the interlocutory injunctions sought by the plaintiffs. The first case dealt with under a Z.A.P.-type situation was Zuckerfabrik. The applicants were sugar manufacturers who sought the suspension of a payment demand by German administrative authorities concerning a special sugar levy imposed by Council Regulation 1914/87,6 which they considered incompatible with superior Community law. The German court hearing the case granted the suspension and made a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice on the question of validity of the regulation and the lawfulness of the interim relief awarded. As regards the latter aspect, the national court intended to ascertain whether the suspension ordered would be compatible with the full effectiveness of Community Regulations in all Member States under Article 249 of the Treaty. The Court ruled that Article 249 (ex Article 189) of the Treaty does not preclude national courts from suspending the application of a national measure implementing a Community regulation. However, it established certain conditions which have to be fulfilled for the granting such a suspension, namely (i) the national court must have serious doubts as to the validity of the contested regulation; (ii) where the validity of such an act is not already in issue before the Court, the national court must itself refer such a question to the Court; (iii) there must be urgency and a threat of serious and irreparable damage to the applicant; and (iv) the national court must take due account of the Community interest. The Atlanta case concerned the validity of Council Regulation 404/93,7 establishing a common market organization for bananas and a common import regime replacing the existing national arrangements. The said regulation had introduced a quota to be allocated to fruit traders within the European Community for the importation of bananas from third countries and ACP countries. Bananas coming from third countries were subject to a levy, whereas fruit from the ACP area was duty free. Imports exceeding the quota were subject to a different tariff depending on their origin. The plaintiffs were importers of third-country bananas, who brought an appeal against a decision by the German authorities granting them provisional licenses to import significantly lower quantities than they had imported in previous years. The applicants contested the validity of the regulation discontinuing the duty-free import quota which had been allocated to them until then, on the grounds that the introduction of import quotas and their allocation among operators within the Community were discriminatory and violated their right to property and the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality. At the same time, the importers applied for interim relief in the form of an order for the issuance of additional import licenses at a reduced rate of customs duty. The national court awarded such an order, not without referring to the European Court of Justice a preliminary question on whether and under what conditions a national judge may grant interim measures intended to create a new legal position. Relying on its previous Zuckerfabrik ruling, the Court extended the applicability of the principles governing the suspension of enforcement of a domestic measure implementing Community legislation to interim relief in the form of a positive order to settle or regulate 6 OJ 1987, L 183/5. 7 OJ 1993, L 47