ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
11 July 2012 (*)
(Intervention – Request for confidential treatment)
In Case T‑596/11,
Bricmate AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden), represented by C. Dackö, A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers,
defendant,
supported by
European Commission, represented by M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents,
intervener,
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1),
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 November 2011, the applicant brought an action seeking annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1) (‘the contested regulation’).
2 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 12 March 2012, Cerame-Unie, Associación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER), Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana SpA and Etruria Design Srl sought leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council.
3 In its observations lodged at the Registry of the Court on 30 March 2012, the Council raised no objection to that application.
4 However, in its observations lodged at the Registry of the Court on 13 April 2012, the applicant raised objections to the intervention of ASCER, Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana and Etruria Design.
5 Cerame-Unie covers eight sectors, including that of ‘wall and floor tiles’ covered by the European Ceramic Tiles Manufacturers’ Association (CET) which filed the complaint which triggered the antidumping investigation which led to the contested regulation. ASCER and Confindustria Ceramica are national associations, Spanish and Italian, and are also members of Cerame-Unie. Casalgrande Padana and Etruria Design are in turn Italian undertakings, members of Confindustria Ceramica.
6 The intervention of a representative association, such as Cerame-Unie, ought to entail a refusal of leave to intervene to its members, and of the individual members of the latter. The applicant submits that the reason for allowing a representative association to intervene is that it avoids multiple individual interventions which would compromise the effectiveness and proper course of the procedure (order of the Court of 16 February 2009 in Case T‑192/08 Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraphs 10 to 12). This is why the admission not only of Cerame-Unie but also of ASCER, Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana and Etruria Design would run counter to that objective and, moreover, would generate unnecessary costs for the applicant.
7 In any event, Casalgrande Padana and Etruria Design have not shown that they participated in the investigation or even supported the complaint. They have also not established an interest in the outcome of the case.
8 Furthermore, by a letter received at the Registry of the Court on 13 April 2012, the applicant requested, under Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that certain documents and information contained in its pleadings be excluded from the file sent to Cerame‑Unie, ASCER, Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana and Etruria Design, if they were granted leave to intervene. To that end, it produced a non-confidential version of the documents concerned.
9 The application for leave to intervene was made in accordance with Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
10 Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the proceedings before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, any person which can establish an interest in the result of a case, other than cases between Member States, between institutions of the Union or between Member States and institutions of the Union, may intervene in that case.
11 It has consistently been held 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 ‘solution’ 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 of the Court in Case T‑15/02 BASF v Commission [2003] ECR II-213, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
12 According to settled case-law, representative associations whose object is to protect their members in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members are 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 of the Court in Case T‑253/03 Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission [2007] ECR II‑479, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).
13 Although the case-law permits representative associations to intervene in order to avoid multiple individual interventions (order of the President of the Court of First Instance in Case T‑201/04 R Microsoft v Commission [2004] ECR II-2977, paragraph 38), it cannot be deduced therefrom that the granting of leave to intervene to such an association automatically entails a denial of leave to intervene to its members. Firstly, no such rule emerges from any provision of the Statute of the Court of Justice or from the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which provide that interest in the result of the case is the sole condition for granting an application for leave to intervene (order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 1997 in Case T‑178/96 Eridania and Others v Council, not published in the ECR, paragraph 11). Secondly, the intervention of a representative association and its members in the same case is already a matter of case-law (see order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 19 October 2009 in Case T‑422/08 SACEM v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 4). Thirdly and finally, it is not possible to rule out that particular undertakings may have, in certain cases, an interest in the result of the case which is different from that of their representative associations.
14 Furthermore, it must be borne in mind 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 the applicant for leave to intervene having participated in the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested act (see, by analogy, order of the President of the Court of 20 April 2005 in Case T‑196/04 Ryanair v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 20).
15 In the present case, ASCER and Confindustria Ceramica are associations representing within the CET the interests of Spanish and Italian producers of ceramic tiles respectively, the object of which is, pursuant to their statutes, the representation, management, protection and promotion of the common professional interests of their members.
16 In addition, in accordance with Articles 3 and 9 of the statutes of ASCER and Articles 1 and 3 of those of Confindustria Ceramica, their members, which appear to be sufficient in number, are natural or legal persons operating in Spain and Italy respectively in the manufacture of ceramic tiles and flags, glazed or unglazed, including ceramic supports or bisqueware for glazing, the preparation of ceramic paste for all those materials and the manufacture of glass mosaics. Accordingly, ASCER and Confindustria Ceramica can be regarded as the representatives of a large number of undertakings active in the relevant sector.
17 In those circumstances, it is appropriate to grant both these associations leave to intervene.
18 As regards Casalgrande Padana and Etruria Design, undertakings governed by Italian law which manufacture ceramic tiles and are members of Confindustria Ceramica, it suffices to note that they show an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the case-law cited above. The possible annulment, whether in full or in part, of the contested regulation would significantly alter the competitive conditions between the industry of the European Union and that of China in the relevant field and, accordingly, the position of those two producers on the European Union market.
19 In those circumstances, the application for leave to intervene must also be granted as regards Casalgrande Padana and Etruria Design.
20 Since the application for leave to intervene must be granted on the terms laid down in Article 116(2) to (4) of the Rules of Procedure, Cerame-Unie, ASCER, Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana and Etruria Design are to receive only the non-confidential version, produced by the applicant, of the procedural documents served on the parties. A decision on the merits of the application for confidential treatment will, if necessary, be taken at a later stage in the light of any observations which may be submitted in that regard.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. Cerame-Unie, Associación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER), Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana SpA and Etruria Design Srl are granted leave to intervene in Case T-596/11 in support of the form of order sought by the Council of the European Union.
2. The Registrar shall ensure that a non-confidential version of all procedural documents served on the parties is served on the interveners.
3. A period shall be prescribed within which the interveners shall submit any observations on the application for confidential treatment. The decision on the merits of that application 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 that statement, if necessary, having regard to the decision to be taken on the application for confidential treatment.
5. The costs relating to the applications made by the interveners are reserved.
Luxembourg, 11 July 2012.