ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
6 March 2012 (*)
(Intervention)
In Case T‑482/11,
Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales, established in Madrid (Spain),
Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari, established in Milan (Italy),
Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali, established in Napoli (Italy),
Campil-Agro-Industrial do Campo do Tejo, Lda., established in Casais do Vale da Pedra (Portugal),
Evropaïka Trofima AE, established in Larissa (Greece),
FIT - Fomento da Indústria do Tomate, SA, established in Herdade da Pernada (Portugal),
Konservopoiia Oporokipeftikon Filippos AE, established in Makrohori (Greece),
Panellinios Enosi Konservopoion, established in Athens (Greece),
Elliniki Etaireia Konservon AE KYKNOS, established in Nafplio (Greece),
Anonimos Viomichaniki Etaireia Konservon D. Nomikos, established in Athens (Greece),
Italagro - Indústria de Transformação de Produtos Alimentares, SA, established in Lezíria das Cortes (Portugal),
Kopaïs AVEE Trofimon kai Poton, established in Athens (Greece),
Serraïki Konservopoiia Oporokipeftikon Serko AE, established in Serres (Greece),
Sociedade de Industrialização de Produtos Agrícolas - Sopragol, SA, established in Montinho de Baixo (Portugal),
Sugalidal - Indústrias de Alimentação, SA, established in Lugar da Fonte das Somas (Portugal),
Sutol - Indústrias Alimentares, Lda, established in Moinho da Ordem (Portugal),
Zymai Artopoiias Nikoglou AE, established in Thessaloniki (Greece), represented initially by J. L. da Cruz Vilaça, S. Estima Martins and S. Carvalho de Sousa, lawyers, and subsequently by S. Estima Martins and S. Carvalho de Sousa,
applicants,
v
European Commission, represented by K. Banks and B. Schima, acting as agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of Articles 50(3) and 60(7) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1),
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT,
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 5 September 2011, Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales, Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari, Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali, Campil-Agro-Industrial do Campo do Tejo, Lda., Evropaïka Trofima AE, FIT - Fomento da Indústria do Tomate, SA, Konservopoiia Oporokipeftikon Filippos AE, Panellinios Enosi Konservopoion, Elliniki Etaireia Konservon AE KYKNOS, Anonimos Viomichaniki Etaireia Konservon D. Nomikos, Italagro - Indústria de Transformação de Produtos Alimentares, SA, Kopaïs AVEE Trofimon kai Poton, Serraïki Konservopoiia Oporokipeftikon Serko AE, Sociedade de Industrialização de Produtos Agrícolas - Sopragol, SA, Sugalidal - Indústrias de Alimentação, SA, Sutol - Indústrias Alimentares, Lda and Zymai Artopoiias Nikoglou AE brought an action for annulment of Articles 50(3) and 60(7) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).
2 By two applications lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 19 December 2011, VOG Products Soc. Agricola Coop., Consorzio Padano Ortofrutticolo Soc. Agr. Coop., Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro Soc. Agr. Coop., Agricoltori Riuniti Piacentini Soc. Agr. Coop., Orogel Fresco Soc. Coop. Agr., Conserve Italia Soc. Agr. a r.l, Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-alimentarias and Fédération française de la coopération fruitière - légumière - horticole requested leave to intervene in the case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
3 These applications for leave to intervene were served on the parties, who were invited to submit their written observations. The applicants and the Commission expressed no objections concerning the applications to intervene.
Formal requirements and the time allowed for intervening
4 Pursuant to Article 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an application for leave to intervene must be made within six weeks of the publication of the notice of the case in the Official Journal of the European Union, referred to in Article 24(6) of those rules, or, subject to Article 116(6) of those rules, before the decision to open the oral procedure.
5 Given that the notice of the present case was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 October 2011 (OJ 2011 C 319, p. 26), each of the applicants to intervene lodged its application within the abovementionned six-week period as extended on account of distance pursuant to Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The applicants’ to intervene interest in the result of the case
6 Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to proceedings before the General Court by virtue of Article 53, first paragraph, thereof, the right to intervene in a case before the Court is open to any natural or legal person establishing an interest in the result of any case other than cases between Member States, between institutions of the Community or between Member States and institutions of the Community.
7 This interest is to be defined in relation to the subject-matter of the case, which is framed by the form of order sought by the parties (order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2008 in Case T‑167/08 Microsoft v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 65, and the case-law cited).
8 To be granted leave to intervene, a person must, therefore, establish a direct and existing interest in the grant of the form of order sought by the party whom it intends to support and, thus, in the ruling on the specific act whose annulment is sought. Indeed, if it were not so, any person alleging that a case is such as to affect its interests in whatever way would be granted leave to intervene, with the result that the effectiveness and proper course of the procedure would be compromised (Microsoft v Commission, paragraph 66, and the case-law cited).
9 As far as the right of associations right to intervene is concerned, it should be recalled that such right is open to representative associations, the object of which is to protect their members in cases raising questions of principle that are liable to affect those members. This broad interpretation of the right of intervention open to associations, in such circumstances, is intended to facilitate the assessment of the case, whilst avoiding multiple individual interventions which would compromise the effectiveness and proper course of the procedure (Microsoft v Commission, paragraph 41, and the case-law cited).
10 The applicants to intervene have established a direct and existing interest in the grant of the form of order sought by the Commission in the present case. The first six are producer organisations or members of such organisations also carrying out processing activities and having had their operational programmes approved, whereas the rest are organisations of cooperatives bringing together large numbers of producer organisations also carrying out processing activities. It follows that the applicants to intervene, or their members whose interests they represent, benefit from European Union aid granted in accordance with the provisions the annulment of which is sought.
11 In view of the foregoing, VOG Products Soc. Agricola, Consorzio Padano Ortofrutticolo, Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro, Agricoltori Riuniti Piacentini, Orogel Fresco, Conserve Italia, Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-alimentarias and Fédération française de la coopération fruitière - légumière – horticole should be granted leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
Costs
12 Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that a decision as to costs shall be given in the final judgment or in the order which closes the proceedings. It is therefore appropriate, at this stage, to reserve the costs.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. VOG Products Soc. Agricola Coop., Consorzio Padano Ortofrutticolo Soc. Agr. Coop., Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro Soc. Agr. Coop., Agricoltori Riuniti Piacentini Soc. Agr. Coop., Orogel Fresco Soc. Coop. Agr., Conserve Italia Soc. Agr. a r.l., Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-alimentarias and Fédération française de la coopération fruitière - légumière – horticole are granted leave to intervene in case T‑482/11 in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
2. The Registrar shall serve the procedural documents on the interveners mentioned at paragraph 1 above.
3. The interveners mentioned at paragraph 1 above shall be allowed a period of time in which to lodge a statement in intervention containing the pleas-in-law and arguments upon which they rely.
4. Costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 6 March 2012.