Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 6 December 1999. – Patricia Boyes v Commission of the European Communities.

BIB.ORDER

T-81/9861998B00810006.00013502135076T

ORDER OF 6. 12. 1999 — CASE T-81/98

BOYES V COMMISSION

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber)

6 December 1999^(*)

In Case T-81/98,

Patricia Boyes, residing in Porlock, United Kingdom, represented by Becket Bedford, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and John Kelly, Sarah Ferdinand and Jatinder Sandhu, of Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill, Birmingham,

applicant,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner and Xavier Lewis, of its Legal Service, 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,

defendant,

supported by

The Grand Pub Company Ltd, a company incorporated under English law, with its registered office in London, represented by John Boyce and Bertrand Louveaux, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Hoss, 2 Place Winston Churchill,

intervener,

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission's decision of 5 March 1998 (Case IV/94.907/F3 — NAIL) rejecting the applicant's complaint under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) concerning the standard lease used by Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd for letting its licensed premises in the United Kingdom, requiring tenants to purchase certain specified types of beer exclusively from the supplier designated by the lessor, and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by reason of that decision,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber),

composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges,

Registrar: H. Jung,

makes the following

Order

1By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 27 May 1998, the applicant brought an action in her own name for annulment of the Commission's decision of 5 March 1998 (Case IV/94.907/F3 — NAIL).

2By order of 15 March 1999 The Grand Pub Company Ltd was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

3By letter of 17 March 1999 the representatives of the applicant informed the Court that she had died on 24 February 1999. They stated that they did not know whether and under what conditions the proceedings could be continued.

4By letter of the Registry of 9 April 1999 they were given until 9 June 1999 to inform the Court of the names of any successors of the applicant who wished to continue the proceedings.

5By letter of 28 May 1999 the applicant's representatives informed the Court that she had died intestate without leaving any assets and that her successors were her five children. They also stated that they would be able, if necessary, to obtain the consent of one of her five children to continuing the proceedings. They asked for an extension of time for that purpose.

6By letter of the Registry of 22 June 1999 they were informed that they had been granted until 23 August 1999 to provide the Court with the consent of that successor and with additional information concerning the succession.

7When no reply was received, the Registry by letter of 15 September 1999 invited the representatives of the applicant and the Commission to submit observations on whether the case should proceed to judgment.

8By observations lodged at the Court Registry on 30 September 1999, the Commission asked the Court to rule that there was no need to adjudicate, on the basis of the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona. The representatives of the applicant did not submit any observations.

9The Court finds that, in view of the death of the applicant and the fact that her successors have not continued the action, the application has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no need to adjudicate on it.

Costs

10Where a case does not proceed to judgment, Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure provides that the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.

11In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the parties should be ordered to bear their own costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
2.The parties, including the intervener, shall bear their own costs.