ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER
OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
14 October 2008(*)
« Intervention »
In Case T‑55/08,
Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA), established in Nyon (Switzerland), represented by A. Bell and K. Learoyd, solicitors,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Benyon and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Flynn QC and M. Lester, barrister,
defendant,
supported by
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by S. Behzadi‑Spencer, acting as Agent,
and
The Kingdom of Belgium, represented by C. Pochet, acting as Agent,
interveners,
ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/CE of 16 October 2007, on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (JO L 295, p. 12),
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER
OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
makes the following
Order
Procedure
1 On 16 October 2007, the Commission adopted a decision (the ‘contested decision’), by which it approved, for the purposes of the application of Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, the list of sporting events submitted to it by the United Kingdom.
2 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 5 February 2008, the Union des associations européennes de football (‘UEFA’), established in Nyon (Switzerland), brought an action for the partial annulment of the contested decision, which gave rise to the present proceedings.
3 By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 17 and 19 June 2008 respectively, the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Belgium applied for leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the Commission.
4 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 17 June 2008, the Vlaamse Gemeenschap (the ‘Flemish Community’), represented by J. Stuyck, lawyer, also applied for leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the Commission. That application to intervene was notified to the principal parties to the proceedings in accordance with Article 116 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. By a letter lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 23 July 2008, UEFA indicated that it opposed the application to intervene on the ground that the Flemish Community could not act as a proxy for the Belgian State and had itself no direct interest in the present proceedings.
5 By order of 29 September 2008, the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First Instance granted both the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Belgium leave to intervene in the present proceedings.
The Flemish Community’s claim to act as a proxy for the Kingdom of Belgium
6 The Flemish Community notes that in Case T-385/07, the Fédération internationale du football d’association (‘FIFA’) has challenged the decision of the Commission approving the list drawn up by the Flemish Community using very similar arguments to those put forward by UEFA in the present case. Therefore, in the absence of an intervention by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Flemish Community submits that it has an obvious interest and thus standing to intervene in the present proceedings, in support of the Commission, as the proxy of Belgium.
7 UEFA argues that the Flemish Community’s claim that it wishes to intervene in the present proceedings as a proxy for the Kingdom of Belgium is devoid of purpose since the latter has intervened in its own right. Furthermore, the Flemish Community has produced no evidence to show that it has been granted authority to make any such application on behalf of the Kingdom of Belgium. UEFA further contends that the Flemish Community cannot be treated as Member State and that it is the Kingdom of Belgium that has standing to act in that capacity before the institutions of the European Community.
8 The Court holds that the right to intervene in cases before Community Courts, which Member States enjoy by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (the ‘Statute’), can only be exercised by that Member State, through a person having authority to act as agent on its behalf. Moreover, according to established case law, the term Member State cannot include the governments of regions or other local authorities within Member States without undermining the institutional balance provided for by the EC Treaty (order in Case C‑180/97 Regione Toscana v Commission [1997] ECR I‑5245, paragraphs 6 and 8, judgment in Case C‑452/98 Nederlandse Antillen v Council [2001] ECR I‑8973, paragraph 50 and judgment in Case C‑417/04 P, Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006] ECR I‑3881, paragraph 21).
9 In the present case, as UEFA correctly points out, the Flemish Community has adduced no evidence to suggest that the Belgian government has conferred authority on the Flemish Community, or its representatives, to act on behalf of the Kingdom of Belgium for the purpose of exercising the latter’s right to intervene under the first paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute.
10 Indeed, it is apparent from the Flemish Community’s application that it wishes to intervene in the present proceedings in its own name rather than in the name of Kingdom of Belgium. That being the case, its application to intervene cannot be regarded as being made by a Member State but rather by another person claiming to have an interest in the result of the present proceedings, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute.
11 Finally, the Court recalls that in any event the Kingdom of Belgium has made a separate application for leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the Commission and that it was admitted to do so by order of 29 September 2008 (see paragraph 5 above). In those circumstances, any application to intervene on behalf of the Kingdom of Belgium would duplicate the application made by that Member State and is therefore devoid of purpose.
12 In the light of the above, in so far as the Flemish Community claims to intervene in the present proceedings on behalf of the Kingdom of Belgium, that claim must be rejected.
The Flemish Community’s interest in the result of the case
13 The Flemish Community claims that it has an interest in the outcome of the present proceedings within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute because of the similarities between the pleas and arguments raised by UEFA in the present case and those raised by FIFA in Case T‑385/07 in order to challenge the decision of the Commission approving the list of sporting events drawn up by the Flemish Community. The Flemish Community contends that a decision by the Court ruling in favour of UEFA in the present case would be very likely to have an effect on the ruling made in Case T‑385/07. The Flemish Community therefore concludes that its legal position could be directly affected by the operative part of the judgment rendered in the present proceedings.
14 UEFA observes, in substance, that the Flemish Community has no direct interest in the outcome of the present proceedings since they concern the legality of a decision of the Commission approving a list of sporting events submitted to it by the United Kingdom. According to UEFA, the similarities between the present proceedings and those in Case T‑385/07 cannot confer standing on the Flemish Community to intervene in the present case, since its legal and economic position will not be directly affected by the judgment rendered in the present proceedings. UEFA concludes that the Flemish Community seems to have sought leave to intervene in the wrong case, since all of its arguments in fact relate to Case T‑385/07.
15 The Court observes that the right to intervene provided for by the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute is open to any natural or legal person establishing an interest in the result of the case. This interest is to be defined in relation to the subject-matter of the case, which is framed by the form of order sought by the parties (order of the Court of Justice of 8 April 1981 in Joined Cases 197/80 to 200/80, 243/80, 245/80 and 247/80 Ludwigshafener Walzmühle v Council andCommission [1981] ECR 1041, at paragraph 7, and order of the President of the Court of Justice of 17 June 1997 in Joined Cases C‑151/97 P(I) and C‑157/97 P(I) National Power and PowerGen v Commission [1997] ECR I‑3491, paragraphs 51 and 52).
16 To be granted leave to intervene, a person must, therefore, establish a direct and existing interest in the grant of the form of order sought by the party whom it intends to support, and not merely in relation to the pleas in law put forward in support thereof (order in National Power andPowerGen v Commission, paragraph 15 above, paragraph 53, and the case law cited). It is therefore necessary to distinguish between those prospective interveners who establish 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 own situation and that of one of the parties to the action at issue (order in National Power and PowerGen v Commission, cited above, paragraph 53; order of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 1993 in Joined Cases T‑97/92 and T‑111/92 Rijnoudt and Hocken v Commission [1993] ECR II‑587, paragraph 22, and order of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 1993 in Case T‑87/92 Kruidvat v Commission [1993] ECR II‑1375, paragraph 12).
17 In determining whether, in the present proceedings, the Flemish Community has established such an interest, it must be recalled that UEFA seeks annulment of the contested decision, by which the Commission approved, for the purposes of the application of Article 3a (1) of Directive 89/552, the list of sporting events submitted to it by the United Kingdom. The outcome of the present case will therefore have no direct impact on the legal or economic position of the Flemish Community since the form of order sought by UEFA does not concern the legality of the list of sporting events drawn up by the Flemish Community.
18 It must also be held, in accordance with the case law cited at paragraph 16 above, that the similarities, invoked by the Flemish Community, between the present proceedings and those in Case T‑385/07, notably in terms of the pleas in law put forward, do not confer on it a direct interest in the result of the present proceedings. It follows that the arguments put forward by the Flemish Community must be rejected and that its application for leave to intervene in the present proceedings must be dismissed.
Costs
19 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.
20 In the present case, UEFA has applied for the costs it has incurred in connection with the application for leave to intervene to be paid by the applicant for leave. No other party has made any observations on the application for leave, nor any application for costs. Accordingly, the applicant for leave must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by UEFA in connection with the application to intervene. Each of the other parties shall bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
hereby orders:
1) The application for leave to intervene in Case T‑55/08, lodged by the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, is dismissed.
2) The Vlaamse Gemeenschap shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant in connection with the application to intervene.
3) The other parties shall bear their own costs, if any, in connection with the application for leave to intervene.
Luxembourg, 14 October 2008.