EuG · T-163/97

BIB.ORDERT-163/97T-179/9761997B01630002.00014124141307TORDER OF 16.11.1998 — JOINED CASES T-163/97 AND T-179/97 NETHERLANDS ANTILLES v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) 16 November 1998(*) In Joined Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97, Netherlands Antilles, represented by Marco Marinus Slotboom and Pierre Vincent François Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, applicant, vCouncil of the European Union, represented by Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin, Director and Legal Advisers respectively in its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Alessandro Morbilli, Director-General of the Legal Affairs Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, defendant in Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97, and Commission of the European Communities, represented by Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, defendant in Case T-163/97, supported by Kingdom of Spain, represented, in Case T-163/97, by Luis Pérez de Ayala Becerril, Abogado del Estado, of the Community Litigation Service, and, in Case T-179/97, by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, of the same Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais, intervener in Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97, Italian Republic, represented by Umberto Leanza, Head of the Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Francesca Quadri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde, intervener in Case T-163/97, and Commission of the European Communities, represented by Pieter J. Kuijper and Thomas van Rijn, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, intervener in Case T-179/97, APPLICATION in Case T-163/97, on the one hand, for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 764/97 of 23 April 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 112, p. 3), and, on the other hand, for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of that regulation and Council Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8), and, in Case T-179/97, for the annulment of the latter regulation, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, makes the following Order 1By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 23 May 1997, registered under number T-163/97, the applicant brought an action against the Council and the Commission, on the one hand, for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 764/97 of 23 April 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 112, p. 3), and, on the other hand, for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of that regulation and Council Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8, ‘Regulation No 1036/97’) 2By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 11 June 1997, registered under number T-179/97, it also brought an action against the Council for the annulment of Regulation No 1036/97. 3By orders of 5 August 1997, the Kingdom of Spain was granted leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Council and the Commission in Case T-163/97, and the Council in Case T-179/97, respectively. 4By order of 5 August 1997, the Commission was granted leave to intervene in Case T-179/97 in support of the form of order sought by the Council. 5At the request of the Council, the two cases T-163/97 and T-179/97 were joined by order of 6 August 1997 for the purposes of the written procedure, the oral procedure and the judgment. 6By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 20 August 1997, registered under number C-301/97, the Kingdom of the Netherlands brought an action against the Council for the annulment of Regulation No 1036/97. 7By order of 15 December 1997, the Italian Republic was granted leave to intervene in Case T-163/97 in support of the form of order sought by the defendants. 8Since the actions brought in Cases T-179/97 and C-301/97 both sought the annulment of Regulation No 1036/97, and Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97 had been joined, the parties were heard on the questions whether the latter two cases should be disjoined and whether the Court of First Instance should stay the proceedings or decline jurisdiction in those cases. 9It must be stated in this regard that, even though the relief sought in Case T-163/97 is not strictly identical to that sought in Case C-301/97, the applicant bases the application for compensation made to the Court of First Instance, inter aim, on the adoption of Regulation No 1036/97, the very regulation whose annulment is sought in the case pending before the Court of Justice. 10It must also be pointed out that the second paragraph of Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 46 of that Statute, precludes natural or legal persons from intervening in disputes between Member States, on the one hand, and institutions of the Community, on the other hand. The only possibility for natural or legal persons to put forward their arguments in disputes which concern them is therefore to bring an action themselves, in cases in which they have standing to do so, before the competent court (see the order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-490/93 Bremer Vulkan Verbund v Commission [1995] ECR II-477, paragraph 12). 11Since the Court of Justice has not stayed the proceedings before it in Case C-301/97, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 47 of its Statute, it is in the interests of the proper administration of justice that the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the action brought by a Member State should be able to take into consideration the various pleas in law and factual and legal arguments relied upon by the natural or legal persons concerned in support of their applications for annulment of the same act. 12In the present case, a mere stay of the proceedings pending delivery of judgment by the Court of Justice would not enable the Court of Justice to examine the pleas in law and arguments raised by the applicant in Case T-179/97 against Regulation No 1036/97. 13Accordingly, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 47 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Articles 50 and 80 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, it is appropriate to disjoin Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97, stay the proceedings in Case T-163/97 pending delivery of judgment by the Court of Justice in Case C-301/97, and, in Case T-179/97, decline jurisdiction in favour of the Court of Justice in order to enable the latter to give judgment on the applications for annulment. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) hereby orders: 1.Cases T-163/97, Netherlands Antilles v Council and Commission, and T-79/97, Netherlands Antilles v Council, are disjoined. 2.The proceedings in Case T-163/97, Netherlands Antilles v Council and Commission, are stayed pending delivery of judgment by the Court of Justice in Case C-301/97, Netherhnds v Council. 3.The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case T-179/97, Netherynds Antilles v Council, in favour of the Court of Justice in order to enable the latter to give judgment on the applications for annulment. 4.The costs are reserved. Luxembourg, 16 November 1998. H. Jung Registrar M. Jaeger President (*)Language of the case: Dutch.