- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 1998. # Spyridoula Celia Alexopoulou v Commission of the European Communities. # Intervention. # Case C-155/98 P.
ECLI:EU:C:1998:397
61998CO0155
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Avis juridique important
61998O0155
European Court reports 1998 Page I-04935
Summary
Keywords
1 Procedure - Intervention - Staff actions - Intervention by an official in an action for annulment brought by another official - Admissibility - Conditions
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 93 and 123)
2 Procedure - Intervention - Interested persons - Dispute having a subject-matter similar to that of another dispute pending before the Court of First Instance - Refusal to grant leave to intervene - Breach of the right to a fair hearing - None
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 93 and 123)
Summary
1 In the case of an application by an official to intervene in an action for annulment brought by another official, the concept of an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice must be construed as a direct interest in the decision on the claims relating specifically to the act whose annulment is sought.
An application by an official to intervene in an action for annulment brought by another official against a classification decision concerning the latter is thus inadmissible.
2 Where an applicant to intervene is himself a party to an action before the Court of First Instance in which proceedings are stayed pending the decision of the Court of Justice in the case in respect of which he has applied for leave to intervene, the fact that he is refused leave to intervene in that case, which involves a situation or arguments similar to his own, does not prejudice his right to a fair hearing.
The Court's decision in the case before it will not affect the rights which the applicant to intervene will be able to rely on in the case in which he is the applicant and in the context of which he will be able to put forward any arguments which he thinks fit in support of the pleas in law put forward in his application.