ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
20 May 2008(*)
(Intervention – Interest in the result of the case – Request for confidentiality)
In Case T‑104/07,
Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (BVGD), established in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Castillo de la Torre, R. Sauer and S. Drakakakis, acting as Agents, and by T. Soames, solicitor,
defendant,
ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision (2007) D/200338 of 26 January 2007 rejecting the applicant’s complaint 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’ (SOC) arrangements (Case COMP/39.221/B-2 – BVGD/De Beers),
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
makes the following
Order
Procedure
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 6 April 2007, the applicant – Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (BVGD) – brought an action, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, seeking annulment of Commission Decision (2007) D/200338 of 26 January 2007 rejecting the applicant’s complaint 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’ (SOC) arrangements (Case COMP/39.221/B-2 – BVGD/De Beers).
2 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 3 July 2007, De Beers and The Diamond Trading Company Ltd applied to intervene in the present case in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission.
3 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 Rules of Procedure’). The applicant raised objections to the application to intervene by document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 31 January 2008. The Commission did not submit any observations.
Law
4 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 Communities, 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.
5 It is apparent from settled case-law that the concept of interest in the result of the case, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, 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 (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).
6 It is in the light of that case-law that the interest in the result of the case on the part of the parties seeking leave to intervene must be assessed.
7 In the present case, it is clear from the circumstances of the case that, in their capacity as parties which are the subject of the complaint by the applicant, rejected 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).
8 It follows that De Beers and Diamond Trading have established their interest in the result of the case. Consequently, their application for leave to intervene must be accepted.
9 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 9 June 2007, the application for leave to intervene was made within the time-limits 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.
10 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 8 February 2008, the applicant 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.
11 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 confidentiality will, if appropriate, be taken at a later stage in light of the objections or observations which may be submitted in that regard.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
hereby orders:
1. De Beers SA and The Diamond Trading Company Ltd are granted leave to intervene in Case T-104/07 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. Costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 20 May 2008.