ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
[Text rectified by order of 13 March 2019]
7 February 2019 (*)
(Appeal — Application to intervene — Interest in the result of the case — Granted)
In Case C‑499/18 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 27 July 2018,
Bayer CropScience AG,
Bayer AG,
established in Monheim am Rhein (Germany), represented by K. Nordlander, advokat, A. Robert and C. Zimmermann, lawyers, and by M. Zdzieborska and P. Harrison, Solicitors,
appellants,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
European Commission, represented by A. Lewis, I. Naglis, P. Ondrůšek and B. Eggers, acting as Agents,
defendant at first instance,
supported by:
Stichting De Bijenstichting, established in Vorden (Netherlands), represented by L. Smale, advocaat,
intervener in the appeal,
Association générale des producteurs de maïs et autres céréales cultivées de la sous-famille des panicoïdées (AGPM), established in Montardon (France),
National Farmers’ Union (NFU), established in Stoneleigh (United Kingdom), represented by H. Mercer QC, and N. Winter, Solicitor,
European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Abrahams, Barrister, and E. Muller, lawyer,
Rapool-Ring GmbH Qualitätsraps deutscher Züchter, established in Isernhagen (Germany),
European Seed Association (ESA), established in Brussels,
Agricultural Industries Confederation Ltd, established in Peterborough (United Kingdom), represented by P. de Jong and J. Gaul, lawyers, and by K. Claeyé, advocaat,
Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, H. Shev and J. Lundberg, acting as Agents,
Union nationale de l’apiculture française (UNAF), established in Paris (France),
Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV, established in Soltau (Germany), represented by A. Willand and B. Tschida, Rechtsanwälte,
Österreichischer Erwerbsimkerbund, established in Großebersdorf (Austria), represented by A. Willand and B. Tschida, Rechtsanwälte,
Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), established in Brussels, represented by B. Kloostra, advocaat,
Bee Life European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee Life), established in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represented by B. Kloostra, advocaat,
Buglife — The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, established in Peterborough, represented by B. Kloostra, advocaat,
[As rectified by order of 13 March 2019] Stichting Greenpeace Council, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by B. Kloostra, advocaat,
interveners at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
having regard to the proposal by L. Bay Larsen, Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Advocate General, J. Kokott,
makes the following
Order
1 By their appeal, Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer AG ask the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 May 2018, Bayer CropScience and Others v Commission (T‑429/13 and T‑451/13, EU:T:2018:280), by which the General Court dismissed the action of Bayer CropScience seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances (OJ 2013 L 139, p. 12).
2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 22 November 2018, Stichting De Bijenstichting (‘De Bijenstichting’), applied, on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, for leave to intervene in the present appeal in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission.
3 The Kingdom of Sweden, Bayer CropScience and Bayer, and the Commission submitted their written observations on that application on 7, 10 and 13 December 2018, respectively. They did not raise any objections to the granting of that application.
The application to intervene
4 Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court, other than a case between Member States, between institutions of the European Union or between those States and such institutions, may intervene in that case.
5 According to the Court’s settled case-law, the concept of an ‘interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the subject matter of the case and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the form of order sought, and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward. The words ‘result of a case’ refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the future judgment (see, inter alia, order of the President of the Court of 5 July 2018, Uniwersytet Wrocławski and Poland v REA, C‑515/17 P and C‑561/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:553, paragraph 7).
6 As regards applications to intervene lodged by environmental organisations, the requirement of a direct, existing interest in the result of the case before the Court presupposes, first, that the field of activity of those organisations, as is apparent from their purpose, enshrined as the case may be in their statutes, has a direct link to the subject matter of the case and, secondly, that the case raises questions of principle liable to affect the interests defended by the organisations in question (see, on the latter point, order of the Vice-President of the Court of 28 May 2018, BASF Grenzach v ECHA, C‑565/17 P(R), not published, EU:C:2018:340, paragraph 34).
7 In the present case, it is apparent from the present application to intervene that De Bijenstichting is a Dutch non-governmental organisation whose purpose is the protection of wild bees and honeybees.
8 In that regard, it must be noted that De Bijenstichting’s field of activity, as is apparent from its statutes, has a direct link to the subject matter of the case before the Court, in so far as that case concerns the conditions of approval for the purposes of its use in the European Union, in the context of a review under Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1), of an active substance used in plant protection products, that substance allegedly being harmful to bees. Furthermore, that case raises questions of principle concerning the conditions of approval of active substances in general, in the context of a review under that article, as well as the application of the precautionary principle in that context.
9 Therefore, De Bijenstichting must be regarded as establishing an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
10 In those circumstances, the application to intervene lodged by De Bijenstichting in support of the form of order sought by the Commission must be granted.
11 De Bijenstichting is, in accordance with Article 131(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 190(1) of those rules, entitled to receive a copy of every procedural document served on the parties, in the absence of any request by those parties seeking to have certain items or documents excluded from such communication.
12 As De Bijenstichting’s application has been lodged within the period prescribed by Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it may submit, pursuant to Article 132(1) of those rules, a statement in intervention within one month after that communication.
Costs
13 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings.
14 In the present case, as De Bijenstichting’s application to intervene has been granted, the costs relating to its intervention must be reserved.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1. Stichting De Bijenstichting is granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission.
2. The Registrar shall ensure that a copy of all procedural documents is served on Stichting De Bijenstichting.
3. A date shall be fixed by which Stichting De Bijenstichting may lodge a statement in intervention.
4. The costs relating to Stichting De Bijenstichting’s intervention are reserved.
Luxembourg, 7 February 2019.
A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |