On 23 January 2009, the Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled on the factors which it takes into account when determining whether to grant an interim injunction in a case of alleged unlawful procurement and on when damages are considered to be an adequate remedy. The background to the case concerned a tender by EUPOL Afghanistan (a Police Mission established in Afghanistan by the Council) for the provision of security services. The contract was eventually awarded to ArmorGroup. A competitor, Unity (the incumbent supplier of the services to EUPOL under an earlier contract), had also submitted a tender which was rejected. Unity took an action before the CFI, seeking an interim injunction to prevent the award of the contract. The CFI refused to grant interim measures. Unity claimed that the handover to another contractor would cause serious and irreparable damage to its business since it would have to redeploy or sell-off equipment and dismiss staff. The CFI pointed out that the risks of not being awarded a contract is inherent in procurement procedures and does not of itself constitute serious damage and there was insufficient evidence of potential damage to justify interim measures. The CFI also concluded that Unity had failed to prove "urgency". If Unity could demonstrate any pecuniary loss, the suitable remedy would be damages. Consequently, the CFI concluded that a suspension of the contract could not be justified.