ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
3 March 2015 (*)
(Appeal — Application to intervene — Interest in the result of the case — Dismissal)
In Case C‑673/13 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 17 December 2013,
European Commission, represented by B. Smulders, P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
appellant,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),
Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), established in Brussels (Belgium),
represented by B. Kloostra, advocaat,
applicants at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
having regard to the proposal from A. Tizzano, Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Advocate General, P. Cruz Villalón,
makes the following
Order
1 By its appeal, the European Commission seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission (T‑545/11, EU:T:2013:523), by which the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011 refusing to grant Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) access to volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report (‘volume 4’) issued by the Federal Republic of Germany as rapporteur Member State for the active substance glyphosate under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’), inasmuch as the contested decision refuses access to the parts of that volume containing information relating to emissions into the environment: the ‘identity’ and quantity of all of the impurities in the active substance notified by each operator, set out in part C.1.2.1 of the first sub-document (pp. 11 to 61 of that volume), in part C.1.2.1 of the second sub-document (pp. 1 to 6 of that volume) and in part C.1.2.1 of the third sub-document (pp. 4 and 8 to 13 of that volume); the impurities present in the various batches and the minimum, median and maximum quantities of each of those impurities, set out, for each operator, in the table included in part C.1.2.2 of the first sub-document (pp. 61 to 84 of that volume) and in part C.1.2.4 of the third sub-document (p. 7 of that volume); and the composition of the plant protection products developed by the operators, set out in part C.1.3, entitled ‘Detailed specification of the preparations (Annex III A 1.4)’, of the first sub-document (pp. 84 to 88 of volume 4).
2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 15 April 2014, the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) applied for leave to intervene in the present appeal in support of the form of order sought by the Commission. By letter lodged on 5 May 2014, the Commission stated that it had no observations to make on that application to intervene.
3 ECHA states that it has an interest in the result of the case because the Court’s decision will have an impact on its practice in handling requests for access to documents.
4 In support of its application, ECHA submits that it is responsible for managing the technical, scientific and administrative aspects of, first, Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1) and, secondly, Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).
5 ECHA submits that information submitted to and held by it under those regulations will in some instances be similar to the information received and held by the Commission under Directive 91/414.
6 The application to intervene was made pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in accordance with Articles 130 and 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
7 Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, the right to intervene in a case before the Court is open to any person establishing an interest in the result of that case.
8 According to settled case-law, the concept of ‘an interest in the result of the case’, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, must be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward (orders in Lemmerz-Werke v High Authority, 111/63, EU:C:1964:82; Amylum and Others v Council and Commission, 116/77, 124/77 and 143/77, EU:C:1978:81, paragraphs 7 and 9; and Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB, C‑28/13 P, EU:C:2013:744, paragraph 8).
9 It is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act annulment of which 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 (order in Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission, C‑133/12 P, EU:C:2013:886, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited).
10 Thus, the mere fact of being in a similar situation gives the applicant for leave to intervene only an indirect interest in the result of the case (Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB, EU:C:2013:744, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).
11 In the present case, it must be recalled that the contested decision annulment of which was sought at first instance concerns the Commission’s refusal to grant access to specific documents, referred to in paragraph 1 of the present order.
12 ECHA therefore invokes only an indirect interest in the result of the case because of a potential similarity between information which it might be required to manage and that contained in the documents to which Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe requested access.
13 It follows that the application to intervene submitted by ECHA must be dismissed.
Costs
14 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since ECHA has been unsuccessful but no party has applied for costs to be awarded against it, ECHA must be ordered to bear its own costs.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1. The application to intervene submitted by the European Chemicals Agency is dismissed.
2. The European Chemicals Agency shall bear its own costs.
[Signatures]