ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
3 March 2015 (*)
(Appeal — Application to intervene — Interest in the result of the case — Dismissal)
In Case C‑673/13 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 17 December 2013,
European Commission, represented by B. Smulders, P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
appellant,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),
Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), established in Brussels (Belgium),
represented by B. Kloostra, advocaat,
applicants at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
having regard to the proposal from A. Tizzano, Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Advocate General, P. Cruz Villalón,
makes the following
Order
1 By its appeal, the European Commission seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission (T‑545/11, EU:T:2013:523), by which the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011 refusing to grant Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) access to volume 4 of the Draft Assessment Report (‘volume 4’) issued by the Federal Republic of Germany as rapporteur Member State for the active substance glyphosate under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’), inasmuch as the contested decision refuses access to the parts of that volume containing information relating to emissions into the environment: the ‘identity’ and quantity of all of the impurities in the active substance notified by each operator, set out in part C.1.2.1 of the first sub-document (pp. 11 to 61 of volume 4), in part C.1.2.1 of the second sub-document (pp. 1 to 6 of volume 4) and in part C.1.2.1 of the third sub-document (pp. 4 and 8 to 13 of volume 4); the impurities present in the various batches and the minimum, median and maximum quantities of each of those impurities, set out, for each operator, in the table included in part C.1.2.2 of the first sub-document (pp. 61 to 84 of volume 4) and in part C.1.2.4 of the third sub-document (p. 7 of volume 4); and the composition of the plant protection products developed by the operators, set out in part C.1.3, entitled ‘Detailed specification of the preparations (Annex III A 1.4)’, of the first sub-document (pp. 84 to 88 of volume 4).
2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 23 July 2014, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (‘Rogesa’) applied for leave to intervene in the present appeal in support of the form of order sought by Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe.
3 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 August 2014, the Commission indicated that it opposed that application to intervene. It claims that Rogesa does not have a direct interest in the result of the present appeal.
4 Rogesa submits that it is a steel producer operating an installation that falls within the scope of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
5 In support of its application to intervene, Rogesa argues that the present appeal raises the same issues as those before the General Court in Case T‑643/13, which concerns the action for annulment brought by Rogesa against a Commission decision of 25 September 2013 whereby the Commission refused access to information relating to the determination of the 10% most efficient installations in the steel industry, which served as the basis for defining the principles for setting ex-ante benchmarks in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Directive 2003/87.
6 In addition, according to Rogesa, the General Court decided to stay the proceedings in Case T‑643/13 pending the decision of the Court of Justice in the present appeal, thus confirming the connection between the two cases.
7 The application to intervene was made pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in accordance with Articles 130 and 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
8 Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, the right to intervene in a case before the Court is open to any person establishing an interest in the result of that case.
9 According to settled case-law, the concept of ‘an interest in the result of the case’, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, must 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 (orders in Lemmerz-Werke v High Authority, 111/63, EU:C:1964:82; Amylum and Others v Council and Commission, 116/77, 124/77 and 143/77, EU:C:1978:81, paragraphs 7 and 9, and Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB, C‑28/13 P, EU:C:2013:744, paragraph 8).
10 It is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act annulment of which is sought and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties (see order in Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission, C‑133/12 P, EU:C:2013:886, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited).
11 Thus, the mere fact of being in a similar situation gives the applicant for leave to intervene only an indirect interest in the result of the case (see order of the President of the Court in Commission v EnBW, C‑365/12 P, EU:C:2013:83, paragraphs 8 to 10 and the case-law cited).
12 In the present case, it must be recalled that the contested decision annulment of which was sought at first instance in Case T-545/11 concerns the Commission’s refusal to grant access to specific documents, referred to in paragraph 1 of the present order.
13 The judgment in the present appeal cannot affect the legality of the decision which forms the subject-matter of Case T-643/13 in which Rogesa is a party (see, to that effect, order in Kruidvat v Commission, T‑87/92, EU:T:1993:113, paragraph 13).
14 By invoking the alleged affect that the judgment in the present appeal could have on a decision contested in a separate case, Rogesa invokes an interest which does not concern the subject-matter of the dispute itself, namely the access to volume 4, and is for that reason merely an indirect interest.
15 It follows that the application to intervene submitted by Rogesa must be dismissed.
Costs
16 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since Rogesa has been unsuccessful but no party has applied for costs to be awarded against it, Rogesa must be ordered to bear its own costs.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1. The application to intervene submitted by Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH is dismissed.
2. Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH shall bear its own costs.
[Signatures]