Avis juridique important

61977O0116

European Court reports 1978 Page 00893

Parties

IN JOINED CASES 116 , 124 AND 143/77

G . R . AMYLUM NV , AALST , BELGIUM ,

TUNNEL REFINERIES LIMITED , LONDON ,

KONINKLIJKE SCHOLTEN-HONIG NV , AMSTERDAM ,

ACTING ALSO IN THE NAME OF THE SUBSIDIARIES BELONGING TO ITS GROUP AND IN PARTICULAR OF ROYAL SCHOLTEN-HONIG ( HOLDINGS ) LIMITED ,

APPLICANTS ,

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

DEFENDANTS

Grounds

1 BY APPLICATION LODGED ON 16 FEBRUARY 1978 THE SYNDICAT NATIONAL DES FABRICANTS DE SUCRE DE FRANCE , THE UNION SYNDICALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE SUCRE ET DE RHUM DE L ' ILE DE REUNION AND THE SYNDICAT GENERAL DES PRODUCTEURS DE SUCRE ET DE RHUM DES ANTILLES FRANCAISES APPLIED TO INTERVENE IN JOINED CASES 116 , 124 AND 143/77 IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANTS ' CONCLUSIONS .

2 THESE CASES CONCERN APPLICATIONS FOR COMPENSATION PUT FORWARD IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR DAMAGE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO THE APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1111/77 OF 17 MAY 1977 LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 , L 134 , P . 4 ) AND , AS REGARDS SOLELY THE APPLICANTS IN JOINED CASES 116 AND 143/77 , AS A RESULT AF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 1468/77 OF 30 JUNE 1977 LAYING DOWN RULES FOR APPLYING THE PRODUCTION LEVY ON ISOGLUCOSE IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD 1 JULY 1977 TO 30 JUNE 1978 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 , L 162 , P . 7 ).

3 THE APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION HAVE LODGED OBSERVATIONS CLAIMING THAT THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE SHOULD BE DISMISSED .

4 IT APPEARS FROM OBSERVATIONS LODGED BY THE COUNCIL THAT THE LATTER , IN SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE , LEAVES THE MATTER TO THE COURT .

5 THE COMMISSION HAS STATED THAT IT HAS NO OBSERVATIONS TO OFFER WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE .

6 UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE STATUTE ON THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC , THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN CASES BEFORE THE COURT IS VESTED IN MEMBER STATES AND INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY AND , IN ADDITION , TO ANY OTHER PERSON ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST IN THE RESULT OF ANY CASE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT PROVIDED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE INTERVENTION IS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSIONS OF ONE OF THE PARTIES .

7 SINCE THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 37 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED STATUTE LIMITS THE CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN AN APPLICATION TO INTERVENE TO SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF ONE OF THE PARTIES IN THE MAIN ACTION , IT FOLLOWS THAT THE INTEREST IN QUESTION MUST EXIST IN RELATION TO THE SAID CONCLUSIONS AND NOT IN RELATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS OR ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD .

8 THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS .

9 IN FACT , THE APPLICANTS TO INTERVENE HAVE NOT PROVED THAT THEY HAVE A DIRECT AND PRESENT INTEREST IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CONCLUSIONS .

10 THE ONLY INTEREST WHICH THEY CLAIM IS IN THE SUCCESS OF CERTAIN ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE DEFENDANTS .

11 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE MUST BE DISMISSED .

12 AS THE APPLICANTS TO INTERVENE HAVE FAILED IN THEIR APPLICATION THEY MUST BEAR THE COSTS UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

1 . THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE IS DISMISSED ;