Language of document : ECLI:EU:C:2017:238

Provisional text

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

7 March 2017 (*)

(Intervention at first instance — Confidentiality)

In Case C-603/16 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 24 November 2016,

Council of the European Union, represented by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocată,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia, established in Dumai (Indonesia),

PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia, established in Medan (Indonesia),

represented by P. Vander Schueren, advocaat,

applicants at first instance,

European Commission,

European Biodiesel Board (EBB), established in Brussels (Belgium),

interveners at first instance,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

having regard to the proposal of the Judge-Rapporteur, C. Lycourgos,

after hearing the Advocate General, M. Wathelet,

makes the following

Order

1        By its appeal, the Council of the European Union asks the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2016, PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council (T‑139/14, not published, EU:T:2016:499), by which the General Court annulled Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2) to the extent that it concerns PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia.

2        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 December 2016, PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia requests the Court to grant confidential treatment, vis-à-vis the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), intervener at first instance, to certain material contained in paragraphs 75, 77, 82, 89 and 90 of its application at first instance, which is included as Annex A.2 to the Council’s appeal. To that end, PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia has produced, in annex to its application for confidential treatment before the Court, a non-confidential version of the document for which that treatment is requested.

3        In the proceedings at first instance, the President of the Ninth Chamber of the General Court decided, by order of 22 September 2014, on the basis of Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, that only a non-confidential version of the documents that are the subject of the application for confidential treatment that was submitted to it, includingthe material that is also the subject of the present application for confidential treatment, contained in paragraphs 77, 82 and 89 of the application at first instance of PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia, would be communicated to the EBB, without prejudice to the possibility of the EBB opposing that application for confidential treatment. It is apparent from paragraph 21 of the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council (T‑139/14, not published, EU:T:2016:499), that that application was not challenged, with the result that the grant of confidential treatment of those procedural documents, provisionally ordered by the General Court in that order, became final.

4        Article 171(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court provides that the appeal is to be served on the other parties to the relevant case before the General Court. Moreover, in accordance with Article 172 of those rules, any party to the relevant case before the General Court having an interest in the appeal being allowed or dismissed may submit a response within two months after service on him of the appeal. It follows from those provisions that the appeal and the other procedural documents lodged before the Court are also to be served, in principle, on the parties admitted as interveners before the General Court.

5        However, in line with what was held in paragraph 5 of the order of the President of the Court of 13 December 2016, Lundbeck v Commission (C‑591/16 P, not published, EU:C:2016:967), it must be held, in a situation such as that at issue in the present case, where one party applies for confidential treatment, vis-à-vis another party that was an intervener before the General Court, for material produced before the Court of Justice that has already beengranted such treatment during the proceedings at first instance vis-à-vis that same party, that the same treatment must, in principle, be maintained for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

6        Accordingly, it is necessary to grant PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia’s application for confidential treatment in so far as it requests the Court to grant confidential treatment to the material contained in paragraphs 77, 82 and 89 of its application at first instance, vis-à-vis the EBB, intervener at first instance.

7        However, it must be noted that paragraphs 75 and 90 of the application at first instance of PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia were not granted confidential treatment in the proceedings before the General Court. As the material referred to in those paragraphs is already known to the party in respect of which PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia is making its request for confidentiality, granting such treatment to that material in the context of the present appeal would no longer serve any purpose.

8        The application of PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia must, therefore, be dismissed in so far as it requests the Court to grant confidential treatment to the material contained in paragraphs 75 and 90 of its application at first instance, vis-à-vis the EBB, intervener at first instance.

9        It follows from the foregoing that confidential treatment should be granted, vis-à-vis the EBB, to the material contained in paragraphs 77, 82 and 89 of the application at first instance of PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia in the case that gave rise to the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council (T‑139/14, not published, EU:T:2016:499), only the non-confidential version of that application having to be served, by the Registrar, on the EBB. The remainder of the application for confidential treatment should be dismissed.

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:

1.      Confidential treatment is granted, vis-à-vis the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), to the material contained in paragraphs 77, 82 and 89 of the application at first instance of PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia in the case that gave rise to the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2016, PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council (T139/14, not published, EU:T:2016:499), only the non-confidential version of that application having to be served, by the Registrar, on the EBB.

2.      The remainder of the application for confidential treatment is dismissed.

3.      The costs are reserved.


Luxembourg, 7 March 2017.


A. Calot Escobar

 

      K. Lenaerts

Registrar

 

      President


*      Language of the case: English.