BIB.ORDER
C-155/98 P-I61998O01550027.00014937149426CJORDER OF 23. 7. 1998 — CASE C-155/98 P
ALEXOPOULOU v COMMISSION
Order of the President of the Court
23 July 1998(*)
In Case C-155/98 P,
Spyridoula Celia Alexopoulou, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Olivier Slusny, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue Fort Rheinsheim,
appellant,APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 13 February 1998 in Case T-195/96 Alexopoulou ν Commission [1998] ECR-SC II-117, seeking to have that order set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being:Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gianluigi Valsesia, Principal Legal Adviser, and Julian Currall, Legal Adviser, 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,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
after hearing Advocate General Léger,
makes the following
Order
1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 21 April 1998, Ms Alexopoulou brought an appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute and the corresponding articles of the ECSC and EAEC Statutes of the Court of Justice against the order of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 1998 in Case T-195/96 Alexopoulou ν Commission [1998] ECR-SC II-117 in so far as it dismissed her action seeking the annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 January 1996 classifying the appellant in Grade A 7, Step 5, and implicitly refusing to appoint her to Grade A 6, and the decision of 28 August 1996 rejecting a complaint against that decision.
2By application lodged at the Court Registry on 29 June 1998, Howard Batho, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Ariane Tornel and Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, applied for leave to intervene in Case C-155/98 Ρ in support of the appellant.
3Ms Alexopoulou and the Commission submitted their written observations on the application for leave to intervene, lodged at the Court Registry on 9 and 7 July 1998 respectively.
4The application to intervene was submitted in accordance with Articles 93 and 123 of the Rules of Procedure and pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.
5Under the second paragraph of Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, the right to intervene in cases before the Court is open to any person establishing an interest in the result of the case.
6The interest in question must relate to the forms of order sought by the appellant in the main proceedings whom the prospective intervener wishes to support. The intervener must also show a direct, present interest in seeing those forms of order granted.
7In this connection, the applicant to intervene explains that he was appointed as a probationer official at the Commission on 1 December 1994. Taking the view that he possessed exceptional qualifications which justified his being classified in Grade A 6, he challenged the decision of the appointing authority of 12 February 1996 definitively classifying him in Grade A 7 by bringing an action for annulment before the Court of First Instance. That action is entered in the register as Case T-147/96.
8By order of 12 May 1998, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance stayed the proceedings in Case T-147/96 pending the decision of the Court in Case C-155/98 Ρ Alexopoulou ν Commission, the present case.
9The applicant to intervene states that one of the pleas in law relied upon in the context of the action which he brought alleges infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’). He therefore claims that his interest in the result of the appeal proceedings cannot be contested because the pleas in law put forward by the appellant in support of her appeal raise questions of principle relating to the organisation of the European civil service and, more specifically, to the scope of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
10In this connection, the question arises whether, in the context of an action under Article 179 of the EC Treaty, individual officials such as the applicant to intervene can establish an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.
11For the purposes of granting leave to intervene, the Court ascertains whether the interveners are directly affected by the decision at issue and whether their interest in the result of the case is established (order in Case 25/59 Netherlands ν High Authority [1960] ECR 386, at 389). Similarly, it has held that it is necessary to establish a direct, existing interest in the grant by the Court of the order as sought and not an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward (orders in Case 111/63 Lemmerz-Werke ν High Authority [1965] ECR 677, at 718, and Joined Cases 116/77, 124/77 and 143/77 Amylum and Others ν Council and Commission [1978] ECR 893, paragraphs 7 and 9). In other orders, the Court has held that the interest necessary in this respect must not relate merely to abstract legal arguments but to the actual form of order sought by a party to the main action (orders in Joined Cases 56/64 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig ν Commission [1966] ECR 382 and 385 and Joined Cases C-151/97 P(I) and C-157/97 P(I) National Power and PowerGen ν British Coal and Commission [1997] ECR I-3491, paragraph 53).
12In the context of staff case-law, the Court has held that the concept of an interest in the result of a case must be construed as an interest in the decision on the claims relating specifically to the act whose annulment is sought (orders in Case C-76/93 P Scaramuzza ν Commission [1993] ECR I-5715 and I-5721, paragraph 9).
13If that interpretation were not accepted, any official able to show that his situation could be affected in an unspecified manner by the Court's ruling on the question of illegality raised by the main applicant could establish an interest in the result of the case. Such a situation would not be consistent with the system of remedies established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and in particular with the time-limits laid down therein (orders in Scaramuzza ν Commission, cited above, paragraph 10).
14It is therefore necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act whose annulment is sought and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties (orders in Scaramuzza ν Commission, cited above, paragraph 11).
15In the present case, the applicant to intervene has not established a direct interest in the decision classifying the appellant.
16Moreover, it must be pointed out that, where an applicant to intervene is himself a party to an action before the Court of First Instance in which proceedings are stayed pending the decision of the Court of Justice in the case in respect of which he has applied for leave to intervene, the fact that he is refused leave to intervene in that case, which involves a situation or arguments similar to his own, does not prejudice his right to a fair hearing.
17The decision of the Court in the dispute between Ms Alexopoulou and the Commission will not affect the rights which the applicant to intervene will be able to rely on in the case in which he is the applicant and in the context of which he will be able to put forward any arguments which he thinks fit in support of his plea in law based on Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
18In the light of the foregoing considerations, the applicant for leave to intervene has not established a direct, present interest in the result of the case. His application must therefore be dismissed.
19That application for leave to intervene having been dismissed, the applicant for leave to intervene must be ordered, in accordance with Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, to bear his own costs.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
hereby orders:
- 1.The application for leave to intervene is dismissed.
- 2.The applicant for leave to intervene shall bear his own costs.