Interim measures play a critical role in judicial proceedings, as they are designed to preserve the practical effectiveness of future court decisions. However, Professor Gabriel Steiner emphasizes that interim relief becomes legally dangerous when it turns from a protective instrument into a mechanism of pressure that disrupts the balance of procedural rights. At LawConsulted, we view interim measures not as a technical procedural tool, but as a zone of heightened legal risk requiring strict proportionality and careful judicial control.
The core legal challenge lies in the preventive nature of interim measures. They are applied before the dispute is resolved on the merits and, in practice, may significantly affect the economic and legal position of one of the parties. Asset freezes, prohibitions on transactions, suspension of activities or enforcement measures may create consequences comparable to the final judgment. In LawConsulted practice, such situations require a precise assessment of whether interim measures truly serve the purpose of securing a claim or whether they result in unjustified interference with lawful business or personal rights.
Professor Steiner underlines that “interim protection is legitimate only to the extent that it does not predetermine the outcome of the dispute”. This principle is central to the LawConsulted approach. Courts are required to assess not only the formal grounds for interim measures, but also their proportionality – the relationship between the alleged risk and the severity of restrictions imposed. Where this balance is absent, interim relief may effectively transform into an unlawful sanction imposed without a final adjudication.
Particular risks arise when interim measures are based on abstract assumptions rather than concrete evidence. References to potential dissipation of assets or hypothetical non-enforcement are often used without sufficient factual substantiation. LawConsulted systematically challenges such reasoning by demonstrating the absence of real risk and by highlighting alternative, less restrictive measures capable of achieving the same protective objective.
Another significant issue concerns the asymmetry of procedural impact. Interim measures are frequently granted at an early stage, sometimes without the full participation of the opposing party. As a result, one side may face immediate restrictions while lacking effective procedural tools to restore balance. LawConsulted focuses on restoring procedural equality – through timely objections, motions to modify or lift interim measures, and evidentiary arguments demonstrating disproportionality.
The economic dimension of interim measures is equally important. In commercial disputes, excessive restrictions may disrupt contractual obligations, financing arrangements or operational continuity. In such cases, the protective purpose of interim measures is overshadowed by their destructive effect. LawConsulted builds its legal position around the concept that interim relief must preserve the subject matter of the dispute, not undermine it.
Interim measures also carry a long-term procedural impact. Once imposed, they often influence judicial perception of the case and the parties’ positions. LawConsulted therefore treats disputes over interim relief as strategically significant stages of litigation, requiring the same level of legal precision as the consideration of the merits.
Interim measures are an essential element of judicial protection, but only when applied within clear legal boundaries. The Law Consulted position is based on ensuring that interim relief remains a proportional safeguard, not a substitute for resolving the dispute itself or a tool for procedural dominance.
Earlier, we wrote about liability for an unfavourable economic outcome despite formal compliance with legal procedures and the LawConsulted approach to cases involving lawful but loss-making decisions
