ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

5 October 2016 (*)

(Appeal — Intervention — Order withdrawing an application for leave to intervene — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 53(2) — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

In Case C‑319/16 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 2 June 2016,

Ukraine, represented by M. Kostytska, avocat,

applicant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, residing in Donetsk (Ukraine),

applicant at first instance,

Council of the European Union,

defendant at first instance,

European Commission,

Republic of Poland,

interveners at first instance,

THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of D. Šváby, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský and M. Vilaras (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the decision taken, after hearing the Advocate General, to give a decision on the action by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

makes the following

Order

1        By its appeal, Ukraine seeks that the order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 11 March 2015 in Yanukovych v Council (T‑348/14, not published, ‘the order under appeal’, EU:T:2015:732) be set aside. By that order, the General Court ordered that Ukraine be removed from the register as an applicant to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council of the European Union in Case T‑348/14 seeking the annulment in part of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33).

 The appeal

2        Under Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, where it is clear that the Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the Court may, after hearing the Advocate General, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.

3        It is appropriate to apply that provision in the context of the present appeal.

4        By its appeal, Ukraine submits that, on 16 September 2014, it sought leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council in Case T‑348/14 but that, on 24 December 2014, it withdrew its application before the General Court had ruled on it. Following that withdrawal, the General Court ordered, by the order under appeal, that Ukraine be removed from the register as an applicant to intervene and that it bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the applicant at first instance, namely Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, with respect to the application for leave to intervene.

5        According to Ukraine, by ordering it to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the applicant at first instance relating to the application for leave to intervene, the General Court went beyond its powers and made procedural errors.

6        In that regard, suffice it to note that, under the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, no appeal shall lie regarding only the amount of the costs or the party ordered to pay them.

7        Indeed, by its appeal, Ukraine merely challenges the costs imposed on it by the General Court in the order under appeal.

8        Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed due to a manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court.

 Costs

9        Under Article 137 of the Court’s 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 order which closes the proceedings. Since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the other parties and, therefore, before the latter could have incurred costs, Ukraine must bear its own costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:

1.      The appeal is dismissed.

2.      Ukraine shall bear its own costs.

[Signatures]


* Language of the case: English.