This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Submissions of the parties and interveners/observers in the Joined Cases C-597/18 P, C-598/18 P, C-603/18 P, C-604/18 P (Council v. Chrysostomides).'.



 
Ref. Ares(2019)430999 - 25/01/2019
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
 
 
 
²
   
 
Brussels, 24 January 2019 
sj.n(2019)382205   LF/  
 
Court procedural documents 
 

TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS 
OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
OBSERVATIONS ON AN APPLICATION TO INTERVENE 
 
 

submitted pursuant to Articles 190 and 131(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of 
Justice by the  
 
European Commission, 
Defendant at first instance and now Respondent, 
 
represented by Jean-Paul Keppenne, Principal Legal Adviser, Leo Flynn, Legal Adviser, and 
Tim Maxian Rusche, Member of its Legal Service, as Agents, with an address for service at 
the Legal Service, Greffe contentieux, BERL 1/169, 1049 Brussels, and consenting to service 
by e Curia, in 
 
Case C-597/18 P 
concerning an Appeal lodged against the Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, 
Extended Composition) of 13 July 2018 in Case T-680/13 Chrysostomides, K. & Co. and 
others 
v Council and others, by 
 
Council of the European Union, 
 
Appellant, 
the other parties being 
 
Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC and others,  
       Applicants at first instance, and now Respondents, 
European Central Bank,  
 
 
 
 
 
Defendant at first instance, and now Respondent,  
Euro Group, represented by the Council of the European Union, 
Defendant at first instance, and now Respondent, 
 
European Union, represented by the European Commission, 
Defendant at first instance, and now Respondent. 
 


 
1.  The Commission has the honour to present the following observations on the 
application to intervene lodged by Berry Investments, Inc. (‘the applicant intervener’) 
on 27 December 2018 and served on the Commission on 8 January 2019.  
 
2.  The notice referred to in Article 21(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (‘RPC’) 
concerning the present case was published in the Official Journal of the European 
Union on 26 November 2018. Pursuant to Article 190(1) RPC, Article 130 RPC 
(which governs interventions) applies to appeals against decisions of the General 
Court. However, Article 190(2) RPC lays down that, by derogation from Article 
130(1) RPC, an application to intervene must be made within one month of the 
publication of the notice referred to in Article 21(4) RPC. When the ten-day extension 
on account of distance is added, pursuant to Article 51 RPC, to that one-month period, 
any application to intervene in the present case should have been made by 7 January 
2019 (since the final day of the extended period fell on a Saturday). 
 
3.  The applicant intervener seeks leave to intervene in support of the applicants at first 
instance. The applicant intervener has brought an action for damages before the 
General Court that the latter suspended while it examined the case that gave rise to the 
judgement under appeal. That action for damages is currently suspended until the 
Court gives its judgment on the present appeal. 
 
4.  The applicant intervener contends that it has 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 as interpreted by the case-law of the Union Courts. 
It contends that the outcome of the present appeal will alter its legal situation since in 
its own, currently suspended, case it relies on identical grounds to those put forward 
by the applicants at first instance. It lays great emphasis, in that regard, with the fact 
that the present appeal deals with a case that the General Court selected as a pilot case 
in relation to a series of actions for damages against the Union and its institutions.  
 
5.  The Commission doubts that the applicant intervener meets the requirements set down 
for a successful application to intervene. On the contrary, the situation of the latter 
seems indistinguishable from that examined by the Court in Joined Cases 116, 124 
and 143/77 Amylum Council and Commission EU:C:1978:81. Given the proximity 
 


 
between the situations before the Court in the latter case and in this instance, the 
Commission presents below much of the Court’s description of facts and its analysis. 
 
6.  In that case, by order of 12 April 1978, the Court rejected an application to intervene 
on the following 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 Réunion and the Syndicat Général des Producteurs de 
Sucre et de Rhum des Antilles Françaises 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 […] and, as regards solely the applicants 
in Joined Cases 116 and 143/77, as a result of 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 […]. 

 
[…] 
 
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. 

 
7.  As with Joined Cases 116, 124 and 143/77, the only interest put forward by the 
applicant intervener is in the success of certain arguments put forward by the party in 
 


 
whose favour it applies to intervene. Such an interest does not meet the requirements 
laid down by Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. 
 
8.  On that basis, the Commission has the honour to request the Court to rule that: 
 
x  the application to intervene should be rejected; and 
x  the applicant intervener should be ordered to pay the costs of the intervention 
proceedings. 
 
 
 
Leo FLYNN   
 
Jean-Paul KEPPENNE 
Tim MAXIAN RUSCHE 
Agents for the Commission