- 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 Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 7 March 1997. # Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities. # Intervention. # Case T-184/95.
ECLI:EU:T:1997:30
61995TO0184
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
61995B0184
European Court reports 1997 Page II-00351
Summary
Keywords
Procedure - Intervention - Persons having an interest - Action for compensation for damage allegedly caused by rules of Community law - Undertaking in a situation comparable to that of the applicant in the main proceedings but alleging different damage - Indirect interest in the result of the case - Inadmissible (EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)
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 understood as a direct interest in the outcome of the application where, in the course of an action for damages, an application for leave to intervene is submitted by an undertaking whose interest consists in defending its own situation, which, although comparable to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, is nevertheless different from it inasmuch as the rights which the two undertakings wish to assert against the Community concern different losses.
Consequently, in the context of an action for compensation for damage caused to an undertaking by a Community regulation, an application for leave to intervene by another undertaking which can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case, arising from a mere similarity between the situations in question, is inadmissible.