ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
11 February 2014 (*)
(Intervention – Request for confidentiality)
In Case T‑394/13,
Photo USA Electronic Graphic, Inc., established in Jiugong (China), represented by K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by S. Boelaert and B. O’Connor, acting as Agents, and by S. Gubel, lawyer,
defendant,
supported by
European Commission, represented by J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents,
interveners,
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1), in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 2 August 2013, the applicant brought an action seeking annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1) (‘the contested regulation’).
2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 8 November 2013, Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie a.i.s.b.l., Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV applied for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council of the European Union.
3 In its observations lodged at the Court Registry on 19 December 2013, the Council did not raise any objection to that application to intervene.
4 In its observations lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, the applicant, without raising objections regarding the application to intervene submitted by Cerame-Unie, Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie, stated, in essence, that, given, first, that Ancàp establishes its interest in the result of the case by the fact that it brought and supported the complaint on the basis of which the Commission initiated the proceedings at issue and that it had participated in those proceedings as a European Union producer and, second, that the identity of the complainants is unknown, Ancàp’s application to intervene should be supported by documentary evidence of its participation in the investigation.
5 In addition, by letter also received at the Court Registry on 19 December 2013, the applicant requested that, in accordance with Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure, certain documents and information in the application and the defence be excluded from the file communicated to Ancàp, Cerame-Unie, Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie, if their applications to intervene should be granted. To that end, the applicant produced a non-confidential version of the documents in question.
6 Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case other than a dispute between Member States, between institutions of the Union or between Member States and institutions of the Union, may intervene in that case.
7 It is settled case-law that the concept of an interest in the result of the case, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute and 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. The expression ‘result’ is to be understood as meaning the operative part of the final judgment which the parties ask the Court to deliver. It is necessary, in particular, to ascertain whether the intervener is directly affected by the contested decision and whether his interest in the result of the case is established (see order in Case T‑15/02 BASF v Commission [2003] ECR II‑213, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
8 It is equally settled case-law that representative associations whose object is to protect their members in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members are also allowed to intervene. More particularly, an association may be granted leave to intervene in a case if it represents an appreciable number of operators active in the sector concerned, its objects include that of protecting its members’ interests, the case may raise questions of principle affecting the functioning of the sector concerned and the interests of its members may therefore be affected to an appreciable extent by the judgment to be given (see order of the President of the First Chamber in Case T‑253/03 Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission [2007] ECR II‑479, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).
9 Finally, it should be noted, that, having regard to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the case-law does not make the grant of leave to intervene conditional on participation by the applicant to intervene in the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested act (see, by analogy, order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of 20 April 2005 in Case T‑196/04 Ryanair v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 20).
10 In the present case, as regards Ancàp’s application to intervene, suffice it to state that Ancàp is a European Union producer of ceramic products and thus establishes an interest in the result of the case within the terms of the aforementioned case-law. The possible annulment of the contested regulation, in its entirety or in part, would alter significantly the conditions of competition between the European Union industry and that of China within the sector in question, and consequently Ancàp’s position on the European Union market.
11 It is therefore appropriate to grant Ancàp leave to intervene, without it being necessary to rule on the question whether it participated in the investigation.
12 As regards the application to intervene made by Cerame-Unie, Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie, it must be noted that it is not disputed, first, that Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie are associations, under Italian law and German law respectively, which represent and promote the professional interests of their members and, second, that those members are Italian and German producers of ceramic products, which may be affected by the judgment to be given (see paragraph 10 above).
13 As regards Cerame-Unie, this is an international non-profit association which has among its objects the study of the various aspects of the ceramic industry and their development within the framework of European economic integration, as well as the promotion and defence of the interests of that industry. Its members are national producers of ceramics and national associations defending them, including Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie.
14 It is therefore appropriate to grant Cerame-Unie, Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie leave to intervene.
15 As the respective applications to intervene are to be granted under the conditions laid down in Article 116(2) to (4) of the Rules of Procedure, transmission to Ancàp, Cerame-Unie, Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie of the procedural documents served on the parties must, at this stage, be limited to the non-confidential version produced by the applicant. A decision on the merits of the request for confidential treatment shall, if necessary, be taken at a later stage in the light of any observations which may be submitted on that issue.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRD CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. Ancàp SpA, Cerame-Unie a.i.s.b.l., Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie eV are granted leave to intervene in Case T‑394/13 in support of the form of order sought by the Council of the European Union.
2. The Registrar shall send copies of all the procedural documents served on the parties to Ancàp, Cerame-Unie, Confindustria Ceramica and Verband der Keramischen Industrie.
3. A period shall be prescribed within which the interveners may submit any observations which they may have on the request for confidential treatment. The decision on the merits of that request is reserved.
4. A period shall be prescribed within which the interveners may submit a statement in intervention, without prejudice to the possibility of supplementing it later if necessary, further to a decision on the merits of the request for confidential treatment.
5. The costs relating to the applications made by the interveners are reserved.
Luxembourg, 11 February 2014.