ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
11 May 2009(*)
(Intervention – Interest in the result of the case – Request for confidential treatment)
In Case T‑354/08,
Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA, represented by J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven, L. Frédéric and A. Vallery, lawyers,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Castillo de la Torre, J. Bourke and R. Sauer, acting as Agents,
defendant,
ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision (2008) D/203546 of 5 June 2008 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against De Beers for infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (Case COMP/38.826/E-2 – De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice),
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
makes the following
Order
Procedure
1 Following the annulment by the Court, in Case T‑170/06 Alrosa v Commission [2007] ECR II‑2601, of Commission Decision 2006/520/EC of 22 February 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/B-2/38.381 — De Beers) (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 24), the Commission decided to initiate an additional proceeding, pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation No 773/2004, to assess the effects of that annulment on Commission Decision (2007) D/200336 of 27 January 2007 rejecting the complaint of the applicant, Diamanthandel A. Spira BVBA, against De Beers SA alleging infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC in the rough diamond market as a result of the use by De Beers of distribution agreements known as ‘Supplier of Choice’ arrangements (Case COMP/38.826/B-2 – De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice).
2 At the conclusion of that additional proceeding, the Commission adopted Decision (2008) D/203546 of 5 June 2008 (Case COMP/38.826/E-2 – De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) (‘the contested decision’), in which it confirmed the rejection of the applicant’s complaint against De Beers for infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC.
3 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 21 August 2008, the applicant brought, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, an action seeking annulment of the contested decision.
4 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 18 December 2008, De Beers SA and De Beers UK Ltd requested leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission.
5 That application to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. The applicant raised objections to the application to intervene by document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 28 January 2009. By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 23 January 2009, the Commission informed the Court that it did not have any observations in relation to the application to intervene.
Law
6 In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, any person establishing an interest in the result of any case submitted to the Court of First Instance, save in cases between Member States, between institutions of the Communities or between Member States and institutions of the Community, may intervene in that case. Under the fourth paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an application to intervene is to be limited to supporting the forms of order sought by one of the parties.
7 It is apparent from settled case‑law that the concept of 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 an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward (order of the Court of First Instance in Case T‑15/02 BASF v Commission [2003] ECR II-213, paragraph 26; see also, to that effect, order of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 116/77, 124/77 and 143/77 Amylum and Others v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 893, paragraphs 7 and 9).
8 It is in the light of that case-law that the interest in the result of the case of the parties seeking leave to intervene must be assessed.
9 In the present case, it is clear from the circumstances of the case that, in their capacity as parties which were the subject of the complaint by the applicant, the rejection of which was confirmed by the contested decision, the parties applying to intervene do have a direct, existing interest in the maintenance of that decision (see, to that effect, order of the Court of First Instance in Case T‑52/00 Coe Clerici Logistics v Commission [2002] ECR II-2553, paragraph 34).
10 It follows that De Beers and De Beers UK have established their interest in the result of the case. Consequently, their application for leave to intervene must be accepted.
11 Since the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union referred to in Article 24(6) of the Rules of Procedure was published on 8 November 2008, the application for leave to intervene was made within the time‑limit laid down in Article 115(1) of those rules and the rights of the interveners are therefore those provided for in Article 116(2) to (4) thereof.
12 The applicant has requested that, in accordance with Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure, certain confidential documents in the case-file be excluded from the documents sent to the interveners and produced, for those purposes, a non-confidential version of the pleadings or documents in question.
13 At this stage, the communication to the interveners of a copy of all the documents served – and, if necessary, those to be served – on the parties must therefore be limited to a non-confidential version. A decision on the merits of the request for confidential treatment will, if appropriate, be taken at a later stage in the light of the objections or observations which may be submitted in that regard.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
hereby orders:
1. De Beers SA and De Beers UK Ltd are granted leave to intervene in Case T‑354/08 in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission.
2. The Registrar shall communicate to the interveners a non‑confidential version of every procedural document served on the parties.
3. A time-limit shall be prescribed within which the interveners may submit their observations on the request for confidential treatment. The decision on the merits of that request is reserved.
4. A time-limit shall be prescribed within which the interveners may submit their statement in intervention, without prejudice to their right to submit a supplementary statement following a decision on the merits of the request for confidential treatment.
5. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 11 May 2009.