On 11 July 2008, cinema group UGC submitted a complaint accompanied by a request for interim measures seeking the suspension of the construction by its competitor Kinepolis of a new cinema complex on the Médiacité site in Liège. According to UGC, Kinepolis had abused its dominant position by acquiring the contract with the developers of this site and thus squeezing UGC out of the local market. In November 2008, the Competition Prosecutor rejected the request for interim measures, considering it had not been established that UGC had a direct and immediate interest in the matter. According to the Competition Prosecutor, the suspension of the construction would not affect UGG's position because UGC would not, in any event, be able to construct and exploit a cinema complex on the Médiacité site. The Competition Prosecutor also stated that there was no urgent need to suspend the construction as there was no risk of serious, imminent and irreparable harm.

Further to an appeal lodged by UGC, on 14 April 2009, the President of the Competition Council annulled the Competition Prosecutor's decision. In his decision, the President first expanded on the concept of “interest” to request interim measures, and also stated that it is sufficient that the party requesting such measures adduces facts that justify the proposed measures. The President continued by stating that the question whether or not the existence of these facts can be assumed or whether they justify upholding the request, is part of the assessment of the merits of the case. The President also considered that the Prosecutor should have provided separate reasoning in relation to the absence of an interest, on the one hand, and the lack of a risk of serious, imminent and irreparable harm, on the other hand. On this basis, the Council ruled that the Competition Prosecutor should not have concluded that UGC lacked an interest in the matter. Further, the President held that the Competition Prosecutor should not have come to the conclusion, on the basis of the information contained in the file, that the suspension of the construction works could no longer be ordered in an effective manner. Finally, the President ruled that the Competition Prosecutor's finding that there was no risk of serious, imminent and irreparable harm was not sufficiently reasoned.

Following the annulment, the request for interim measures must be re-examined by another Competition Prosecutor. After receipt of the Competition Prosecutor's new report, the President of the Council will then decide whether or not to suspend the construction of the Médiacité cinema complex needs pending the Council's decision on the merits of the abuse of dominance complaint.