ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
11 March 2022 (*)
(Appeal – Intervention – Interest in the result of the case – Application dismissed)
In Case C‑499/21 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 13 August 2021,
Joshua David Silver, residing in Bicester (United Kingdom),
Leona Catherine Bashow, residing in Cheadle (United Kingdom),
Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, residing in London (United Kingdom),
JY,
JZ,
Anthony Styles Clayton, residing in Sevenoaks (United Kingdom),
Gillian Margaret Clayton, residing in Sevenoaks,
represented by P. Tridimas, dikigoros, and by D. Harrison and A. von Westernhagen, Solicitors,
appellants,
the other party to the proceedings being:
Council of the European Union, represented by M. Bauer, R. Meyer and J. Ciantar, acting as Agents,
defendant at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
having regard to the proposal of N. Jääskinen, Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Advocate General, N. Emiliou,
makes the following
Order
1 By their appeal, Mr Joshua David Silver, Ms Leona Catherine Bashow, Mr Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Mr Anthony Styles Clayton and Ms Gillian Margaret Clayton request the Court of Justice to set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 8 June 2021, Silver and Others v Council (T‑252/20, EU:T:2021:347, ‘the order under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible their action for annulment in part of Council Decision (EU) 2020/135 of 30 January 2020 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2020 L 29, p. 1, ‘the decision at issue’).
2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 16 January 2022, European Citizens’ Rights, Involvement and Trust (ECIT), a public foundation established under Belgian law, applied for leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the appellants.
3 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 2 February 2022, the Council of the European Union claimed that that application to intervene should be dismissed on the ground, in particular, that ECIT does not have a direct, existing interest in the result of the case on which it can rely. It states, in particular, that ECIT is an organisation which promotes Union citizenship in general, without a specific focus on the situation of nationals of the United Kingdom after the decision of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union. According to the Council, the fact that ECIT promotes Union citizenship in general is not sufficient in itself to show how its legal situation, or that of its members, would be affected by the forthcoming decision, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court.
4 However, by document lodged at the Court Registry on 7 February 2022, the appellants contended that ECIT has an interest in the result of the case, in so far as its mission of promoting Union citizenship has a sufficiently direct link with the subject matter of the case and the case raises questions of principle which are liable to affect the interests defended by that foundation.
The application to intervene
5 As provided in the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court, other than a case between Member States, between institutions of the European Union or between those States and such institutions, is entitled to intervene in that case.
6 According to the Court’s settled case-law, the concept of an ‘interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the precise subject matter of the case and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the form of order sought, and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law raised or the arguments put forward. The words ‘result of a case’ refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the future judgment or order (see, in particular, orders of the President of the Court of 5 July 2018, Uniwersytet Wrocławski and Poland v REA, C‑515/17 P and C‑561/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:553, paragraph 7, and of 18 January 2019, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, C‑342/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:42, paragraph 5 and the case-law cited).
7 In that regard, it is necessary to ascertain, in particular, whether the applicant for leave to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and whether his or her interest in the result of the case is established. In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be considered to be sufficiently direct only in so far as that result is capable of altering the legal situation of the party applying to intervene (see, in particular, order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2019, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, C‑342/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:42, paragraph 6 and the case-law cited).
8 In the present case, the appeal has been brought in order to have set aside the order under appeal by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible, for lack of standing, the action brought by the appellants pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision at issue.
9 By the decision at issue, the Council approved, on behalf of the European Union and of the European Atomic Energy Community, the conclusion of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2020 L 29, p. 7), which is attached to that decision.
10 On 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. On 1 February 2020, the abovementioned withdrawal agreement entered into force.
11 In support of its application to intervene, ECIT states, referring to the application to intervene which it submitted to the General Court in Case T‑252/20 and on which the General Court did not rule in view of the inadmissibility of the main action in that case, that its mission is to promote a ‘more inclusive European citizenship’ based not only on nationality of a Member State but also on residence and stretching beyond the borders of the European Union.
12 In particular, ECIT observes that, over the last five years, the loss of Union citizenship of United Kingdom nationals has been a dominant issue in all of the foundation’s activities. In that regard, ECIT states that numerous petitions demanding continued Union citizenship have been lodged with the European Parliament by persons involved with ECIT, in particular where those persons had no right to vote in the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, which took place on 23 June 2016.
13 In that regard, it must be noted that ECIT’s application is based on the interest that it claims to have not in respect of the result of the case brought before the Court of Justice in the present proceedings, that is, the appeal concerning the admissibility of the action for annulment of the decision at issue, but in respect of the result of the case that would then come before the General Court if the Court of Justice were to decide to set aside the order under appeal (see, by analogy, orders of the President of the Court of 27 February 2015, Mory and Others v Commission, C‑33/14 P, not published, EU:C:2015:135, paragraph 11, and of 18 January 2019, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, C‑342/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:42, paragraph 11).
14 It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that ECIT has not established an 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 of the European Union, and that, therefore, the application to intervene submitted by ECIT must be dismissed.
Costs
15 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of 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 ECIT has been unsuccessful in its application to intervene and neither the appellants nor the Council have applied for ECIT to pay the costs, ECIT, the appellants and the Council must be ordered to bear their own costs relating to the application to intervene.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1. The application to intervene submitted by European Citizens’ Rights, Involvement and Trust (ECIT) is dismissed.
2. European Citizens’ Rights, Involvement and Trust (ECIT), Mr Joshua David Silver, Ms Leona Catherine Bashow, Mr Charles Nicholas Hilary Marquand, JY, JZ, Mr Anthony Styles Clayton and Ms Gillian Margaret Clayton, and the Council of the European Union shall bear their own costs.
Luxembourg, 11 March 2022.
A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |