disputed legal positions or relationships. In other words, interim measures provisionally the Court clarified the cond itions laid down in Zuckerfabrik for granting interim relier ore disapplying Community legislation could also be ordered by national judges. Furtherm The Port case also related to Council Regulation 404/93, but the litigation matter was different from that in Atlanta. The applicant company claimed that the licenses it had obtained to import third-country bananas, issued on the basis of its sales figures correspond ing to the reference years of 1989, 1990 and 1991, were insufficient. It was argued that during the reference period established as a basis for fixing the quota allocated, Port had been able to import an unusually small quantity of fruit due to the breach of contract by Colombian supplier. The plaintiff further maintained that it was affected by circumstances of exceptional hardship and that a dismissal of its request of add itional licenses was likely to lead the company to bankruptcy The matter reached the Bundesverfassungsgericht(German Federal Constitutional Court), which considered that since hardship cases were contemplated in the regulation in issue, add itional import licenses should be provisionally granted to the plaintiff in order to avoid an irreparable infringement of its right to property. However, the Court of Appeal making the award ordered by germanys highest tribunal referred three questions to the European Court of Justice, one of them concerning the cond itions under which a national court is authorized to grant interim relief. The Court ratified its Zuckerfabrik and Atlanta case law as regards the power conferred on national courts to grant interim measures and the cond itions under which this can be done in disputes where the valid ity of Community legislation is in issue. However, it ruled that the case under consideration fell outside the scope of the said jud gments. The Cour stated that, given the existence of a special procedure established by article 30 of Council Regulation 404/93 for dealing with hardship cases-under which it was for the European Commission to take the necessary transitional measures in order to address the difficulties f threatening the existence of importers when an exceptionally low quota was allocated to them national judges were not authorized to grant interim relief until such time as the Commission has adopted the said measures. If the Commission did not adopt the relevant decision following the filing of a request to do so, or expressly refused to act, or adopted a measure different from that which the trader sought or considered to be necessary, then an action for failure to act or an action for annulment, as the case may be, could be brought before the Community judicature, which has exclusive jurisdiction to order the necessary interim measures pend ing a final decision Unlike Zuckerfabrik and Atlanta, Port does not involve a challenge of the validity of Community legislation. Yet, it will be considered among the Z A P -type situation cases for systemic purposes, namely only insofar as it sets the outer limit of the jurisdiction conferred on national courts to grant interim relief. After Port, such power remains confined to those disputes where the validity of Community legislation is contested Common features and differences as regards the task assigned to national judges to grant interim relief arise between the two types of situation represented by Factortame and the set of German cases, respectively. An attempt to identify such differences will be made in a comparative perspective, within the framework of the three fundamental elements dealt with in procedural law analysis, namely action, jurisdiction, and process. The substantial aspects of the cases will be touched upon only incidentally The contents of the article will therefore be divided into three sections, correspond to each of the aforementioned elements of procedural law analysis. In order to address the particular characteristics of the field in issue, the said elements have been translated into Community law terminology as the right of the individual to obtain interim relief, the power of national courts to grant interim measures', and the exercise' of such jurisdiction,disputed legal positions or relationships. In other words, interim measures provisionally disapplying Community legislation could also be ordered by national judges. Furthermore, the Court clarified the conditions laid down in Zuckerfabrik for granting interim relief. The Port case also related to Council Regulation 404/93, but the litigation matter was different from that in Atlanta. The applicant company claimed that the licenses it had obtained to import third-country bananas, issued on the basis of its sales figures corresponding to the reference years of 1989, 1990 and 1991, were insufficient. It was argued that during the reference period established as a basis for fixing the quota allocated, Port had been able to import an unusually small quantity of fruit due to the breach of contract by a Colombian supplier. The plaintiff further maintained that it was affected by circumstances of exceptional hardship and that a dismissal of its request of additional licenses was likely to lead the company to bankruptcy. The matter reached the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court), which considered that since hardship cases were contemplated in the regulation in issue, additional import licenses should be provisionally granted to the plaintiff in order to avoid an irreparable infringement of its right to property. However, the Court of Appeal making the award ordered by Germany’s highest tribunal referred three questions to the European Court of Justice, one of them concerning the conditions under which a national court is authorized to grant interim relief. The Court ratified its Zuckerfabrik and Atlanta case law as regards the power conferred on national courts to grant interim measures and the conditions under which this can be done in disputes where the validity of Community legislation is in issue. However, it ruled that the case under consideration fell outside the scope of the said judgments. The Court stated that, given the existence of a special procedure established by Article 30 of Council Regulation 404/93 for dealing with hardship cases - under which it was for the European Commission to take the necessary transitional measures in order to address the difficulties threatening the existence of importers when an exceptionally low quota was allocated to them - national judges were not authorized to grant interim relief until such time as the Commission has adopted the said measures. If the Commission did not adopt the relevant decision following the filing of a request to do so, or expressly refused to act, or adopted a measure different from that which the trader sought or considered to be necessary, then an action for failure to act or an action for annulment, as the case may be, could be brought before the Community judicature, which has exclusive jurisdiction to order the necessary interim measures pending a final decision. Unlike Zuckerfabrik and Atlanta, Port does not involve a challenge of the validity of Community legislation. Yet, it will be considered among the Z.A.P.-type situation cases for systemic purposes, namely only insofar as it sets the outer limit of the jurisdiction conferred on national courts to grant interim relief. After Port, such power remains confined to those disputes where the validity of Community legislation is contested. Common features and differences as regards the task assigned to national judges to grant interim relief arise between the two types of situation represented by Factortame and the set of German cases, respectively. An attempt to identify such differences will be made in a comparative perspective, within the framework of the three fundamental elements dealt with in procedural law analysis, namely ‘action’, ‘jurisdiction’, and ‘process’. The substantial aspects of the cases will be touched upon only incidentally. The contents of the article will therefore be divided into three sections, corresponding to each of the aforementioned elements of procedural law analysis. In order to address the particular characteristics of the field in issue, the said elements have been translated into Community law terminology as the ‘right of the individual to obtain interim relief’, the ‘power of national courts to grant interim measures’, and the ‘exercise’ of such jurisdiction