Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

++++
1. Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons having an interest ° Case concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty ° Producer undertaking which did not bring an independent action ° Procedural rights ° Importer undertakings ° Direct and present interest in the result of the case
(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC, Art. 37)
2. Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons having an interest ° Case concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty ° Application for leave by an undertaking which has failed to set out with sufficient clarity the circumstances establishing its right to intervene ° Rejected
(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 93(1), second subpara., indent (f))

1. Under Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court may intervene in that case before the Court, and submissions made in an application for leave to intervene must be limited to supporting the submissions of one of the parties.
Leave to intervene in a dispute concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty must be granted to an undertaking on which a specific anti-dumping duty has been imposed, since that undertaking is individually and directly concerned by the contested regulation and has in that regard an independent right of action under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. However, in so far as that undertaking did not bring an action for annulment against that regulation, its rights as intervener must be confined to supporting the forms of order sought by the party on whose side it seeks to intervene.
Undertakings which import the product and in that connection have to pay a specific anti-dumping duty can also demonstrate a direct and present interest in the result of the case.
2. Under indent (f) of the second subparagraph of Article 93(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, every application for leave to intervene must contain a statement of the reasons establishing the intervener' s right to intervene.
An undertaking which has not established on what grounds it had to or has to pay the above duty has not demonstrated, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, a direct and present interest in the result of a case concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty.

In Case C-245/95 P,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by Eric White and Nicholas Khan, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission' s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
appellant,
APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 2 May 1995 in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council [1995] ECR II-1381, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
NTN Corporation, a company incorporated under Japanese law and having its registered office in Osaka (Japan), represented by Juergen Schwarze and Malte Sprenger, Rechtsanwaelte, Duesseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Penning, 78 Grand-Rue,
Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd, a company incorporated under Japanese law and having its registered office in Osaka (Japan), represented by Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and Charles Kaplan, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,
Council of the European Union, represented by Yves Cretien, Legal Adviser, and Antonio Tanca, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Hans-Juergen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwaelte, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Bruno Eynard, Manager of the Legal Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer,
and
Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations, having its headquarters in Frankfurt (Germany), represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller, Rechtsanwaelte, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel Welter,
THE COURT,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.N. Kakouris, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, F.A. Schockweiler, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: R. Grass,
after hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order

1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 10 October 1995, the Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations (hereinafter "FEBMA"), having its headquarters in Frankfurt (Germany), represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller, Rechtsanwaelte, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel Welter, applied for leave to intervene in Case C-245/95 P in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
2 This case is an appeal brought by the Commission against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 2 May 1995 in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council [1995] ECR II-1381.
3 In that judgment, the Court of First Instance annulled Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of 28 September 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball-bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 (OJ 1992 L 286, p. 2), in so far as it imposed an anti-dumping duty on the applicants.
4 In the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, FEBMA intervened in support of the form of order sought by the Council.
5 When an appeal is made to the Court of Justice, notice thereof must, under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure, be served on all the parties to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. Those parties may, pursuant to Article 115(1) of those Rules, lodge a response within two months after service on them of notice of the appeal.
6 In the present case, notice of the Commission' s appeal was, in accordance with Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure, served on FEBMA on 24 July 1995, with the result that the period referred to in Article 115(1) of those Rules, extended on account of distance under Article 81(2) thereof, expired on 2 October 1995.
7 As the Court held in its judgment in Case C-244/91 P Pincherle v Commission [1993] ECR I-6965, paragraph 16, it follows from Article 49 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC that interveners before the Court of First Instance must be treated as parties before that Court. Consequently, Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure, mentioned above, applies to them and releases them from the obligation to submit a fresh application for leave to intervene before the Court of Justice under Articles 93 and 123 of the Rules of Procedure.
8 It follows that an application for leave to intervene submitted in appeal proceedings by a party which intervened in the proceedings at first instance cannot be granted.
9 The application for leave to intervene must therefore be declared inadmissible.

On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders:
1. The application for leave to intervene submitted by the Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations is ordered to bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 14 February 1996.