JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
18 September 2015 (*)
(Procedure — Interpretation of a judgment)
In Case T‑1/08 INTP,
APPLICATION for interpretation of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T‑1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216),
Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o., established in Sosnowiec (Poland), represented by J. Jurczyk, lawyer,
applicant,
supported by
Republic of Poland, represented by A. Jasser, acting as Agent,
intervener,
v
European Commission, represented by K. Herrmann, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),
composed of H. Kanninen, President, I. Pelikánová (Rapporteur) and E. Buttigieg, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 7 August 2014, the Polish Republic, the intervener in the case giving rise to the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T‑1/08, ECR, ‘the judgment in the main proceedings’, EU:T:2011:216), applied, under Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991, for interpretation of point 1 of the operative part of that judgment.
2 By the judgment in the main proceedings, the General Court annulled inter alia Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 26). The appeal brought by the European Commission having been dismissed by the judgment of 21 March 2013 in Commission v Buczek Automotive (C‑405/11 P, EU:C:2013:186), the judgment in the main proceedings became definitive.
3 By its application for interpretation of the judgment in the main proceedings, the Polish Republic seeks in essence a declaration that Article 1 of Decision 2008/344 was annulled with erga omnes effect. It maintains that it is clear both from the wording of point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings and from paragraph 35 of that judgment that the annulment ordered concerns Article 1 of Decision 2008/344 in its entirety and has erga omnes effect. It asserts that that interpretation is confirmed by the case-law of the EU Courts.
4 In its observations lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 25 September 2014, the Commission contends that the application for interpretation is inadmissible. It maintains inter alia that the Polish Republic’s application seeks to obtain from the General Court an opinion on the implementation and consequences of the judgment in the main proceedings in so far as a company that was not a party to the proceedings is concerned, and not to clarify ambiguity in point 1 of the operative part of that judgment.
5 In the alternative, in the event that the application for interpretation is none the less declared admissible, the Commission requests the General Court to interpret point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings as meaning that the annulment ordered in it has only inter partes effect.
6 It should be noted that, according to settled case-law, an application for interpretation of a judgment must, in order to be admissible, concern the operative part of the judgment in question, and the essential grounds thereof, and seek to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of that judgment, in so far as that judgment was required to decide the particular case before the court concerned. According to the same line of decisions, an application for interpretation of a judgment is therefore inadmissible where it relates to matters not decided by the judgment concerned or seeks to obtain from the court in question an opinion on the application, implementation or consequences of its judgment (see orders of 14 July 1993 in Raiola-Denti and Others v Council, T‑22/91 INTP, ECR, EU:T:1993:64, paragraph 6 and the case-law cited, and of 24 July 1997 in Caballero Montoya v Commission, T‑573/93 INTP, ECR-SC, EU:T:1997:126, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
7 Furthermore, according to case-law, an intervener must be allowed to submit an application for interpretation even if the party which it supports has not done so (order of 20 April 1988 in Diezler and Others v ESC, 146/85 and 431/85 INTP, EU:C:1988:189, paragraph 4, and judgment of 19 January 1999 in Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko, C‑245/95 P-INT, ECR, EU:C:1999:4, paragraph 15). Therefore, the Polish Republic, being the intervener in Case T‑1/08, is allowed to submit an application for interpretation in the present case, even though the company Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o., being the applicant in the case giving rise to the judgment in the main proceedings, has in the meantime been removed from the commercial register.
8 The Polish Republic and the Commission disagree over the scope of point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings, more particularly over whether it has erga omnes effect or only inter partes effect.
9 The difficulty in interpreting the scope of that point may arise from the fact that, under point 2 of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings, Article 3(1) and (3) and Articles 4 and 5 of Decision 2008/344 were annulled, in so far as they concerned the applicant in the case giving rise to the judgment in the main proceedings, namely Buczek Automotive, whereas point 1 of the operative part of that judgment states merely that the Court ‘[a]nnuls Article 1 of … Decision 2008/344’.
10 Contrary to what the Commission asserts, Article 1 in its entirety of Decision 2008/344 was the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings. That is clear from paragraph 35 of the judgment in the main proceedings, in which the General Court held that Buczek Automotive had an interest in obtaining the annulment of Article 1 of the contested decision in its entirety. Consequently, the application for interpretation concerns a question that had been referred to the General Court in the case that gave rise to the judgment in the main proceedings. Furthermore, it does not appear that the Polish Republic seeks to obtain from the General Court an opinion on the application, implementation or consequences of the latter’s judgment.
11 Accordingly, the application for interpretation must be declared admissible.
12 As regards the merits, it is clear from the wording of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings that point 1 thereof annuls, without any express limitation, Article 1 of Decision 2008/344, by which the Commission declared incompatible with the internal market the State aid which the Polish Republic had awarded to Technologie Buczek Group, whilst point 2 thereof annuls the provisions of that decision relating to the obligation to recover the aid at issue solely ‘in so far as they relate to Buczek Automotive’. Accordingly, the annulment ordered in point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings is not subject to the limitation in respect of point 2 of that judgment.
13 That interpretation is moreover borne out by paragraph 35 of the judgment in the main proceedings (see paragraph 10 above).
14 It is clear from all the foregoing that point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in the main proceedings must be interpreted as annulling Article 1 of Decision 2008/344 with erga omnes effect.
15 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Polish Republic.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
hereby:
1. Declares that point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of 17 May 2011 in Buczek Automotive v Commission (T‑1/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:216) is to be interpreted as annulling Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group with erga omnes effect;
2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;
3. Orders that the original of this judgment be appended to the original of the judgment interpreted, in the margin of which reference shall be made to this judgment.
Kanninen | Pelikánová | Buttigieg |
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 September 2015.
[Signatures]