# 61995B0011

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)

26 June 1996 (
  *1
  )

*1

In Case T-11/95,

BP Chemicals Ltd, a company governed by English law, established in London, represented by James Flynn, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe,

Ltd,

applicant,

supported by

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Lindsey Nicoli, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, acting as Agent, and by Kenneth Parker QC, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service at the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard Roosevelt,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

intervener,

ν

Commission of the European Communities, represented initially by Jean-Paul Keppenne and Paul Nemitz, of its Legal Service, subsequently by Mr Nemitz alone, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

Commission of the European Communities,

defendant,

supported by

ENI SpA, a company governed by Italian law, established in Rome,

ENI SpA,

Enichem SpA, a company governed by Italian law, established in Milan (Italy),

Enichem SpA,

represented by Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, and Nicholas Levy, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich,

and by

Italian Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza and Maurizio Fiorilli, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde,

Italian Republic,

interveners,

APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision announced in communication 94/C 330/06 of the Commission pursuant to Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty, addressed to the other Member States and other interested parties, concerning aid which Italy has decided to grant to Enichem SpA (OJ 1994 C 330, p. 7),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

(Second Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of: H. Kirschner, President, B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges,

Registrar: H. Jung,

makes the following

Order

| 1 | In its observations on the statement in intervention of ENI SpA and Enichem SpA, lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 14 March 1996, the applicant requested that ENI and Enichem be required, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to produce translations into the language of the case of the documents in Italian annexed to their statement in intervention. |
| --- | --- |

1

In its observations on the statement in intervention of ENI SpA and Enichem SpA, lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 14 March 1996, the applicant requested that ENI and Enichem be required, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure, to produce translations into the language of the case of the documents in Italian annexed to their statement in intervention.

| 2 | By a letter sent to the Court of First Instance on 4 April 1996, ENI and Enichem objected to that request and asked the Court to grant them a derogation from the use of the language of the case under Article 35(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure. They contend that it would be excessive to require the annexes in question to be translated into the language of the case since, in particular: (i) English has no connection with the present case except inasmuch as the applicant has chosen it as the language of its application, whereas the contested decision was drawn up in Italian and addressed to the Italian Government following an administrative procedure conducted in Italian and concerning two Italian companies; (ii) most of the documents in question are part of the administrative case-file and, if they had been attached to the statement in intervention of the Italian Government, the Court might have arranged to have them translated; and (iii) it would be unfair to impose upon the interveners the additional burden of translating documentary evidence which they had to produce in order to defend their interests, over and above that of preparing a lengthy statement in intervention in a language which is not their own, while the applicant has not adduced any evidence in support of its arguments in relation to the substance. |
| --- | --- |

2

By a letter sent to the Court of First Instance on 4 April 1996, ENI and Enichem objected to that request and asked the Court to grant them a derogation from the use of the language of the case under Article 35(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure. They contend that it would be excessive to require the annexes in question to be translated into the language of the case since, in particular: (i) English has no connection with the present case except inasmuch as the applicant has chosen it as the language of its application, whereas the contested decision was drawn up in Italian and addressed to the Italian Government following an administrative procedure conducted in Italian and concerning two Italian companies; (ii) most of the documents in question are part of the administrative case-file and, if they had been attached to the statement in intervention of the Italian Government, the Court might have arranged to have them translated; and (iii) it would be unfair to impose upon the interveners the additional burden of translating documentary evidence which they had to produce in order to defend their interests, over and above that of preparing a lengthy statement in intervention in a language which is not their own, while the applicant has not adduced any evidence in support of its arguments in relation to the substance.

| 3 | ENI and Enichem state that, in any event, translation of the documents annexed to their statement in intervention is not necessary since for some an official translation already exists and for the rest those documents are already comprehensible, in particular inasmuch as either their content is repeated in English in the statement in intervention or they are merely tables which are easy to understand. |
| --- | --- |

3

ENI and Enichem state that, in any event, translation of the documents annexed to their statement in intervention is not necessary since for some an official translation already exists and for the rest those documents are already comprehensible, in particular inasmuch as either their content is repeated in English in the statement in intervention or they are merely tables which are easy to understand.

| 4 | In the alternative, they request the Court to specify which annexes must be translated and whether they must be translated in their entirety or by extracts, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

4

In the alternative, they request the Court to specify which annexes must be translated and whether they must be translated in their entirety or by extracts, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

| 5 | By letter of 23 April 1986, the applicant maintained its request except in so far as concerned Annexes 1 and 3a of ENI and Enichem's intervention, of which an English translation had been published in the meantime in the Official Journal of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

5

By letter of 23 April 1986, the applicant maintained its request except in so far as concerned Annexes 1 and 3a of ENI and Enichem's intervention, of which an English translation had been published in the meantime in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Official Journal of the European Communities.

| 6 | The Court considers that the request made by ENI and Enichem in their letter of 4 April 1996 raises a procedural issue which, pursuant to Article 114(3) of the Rules of Procedure, should be decided without an oral procedure. |
| --- | --- |

6

The Court considers that the request made by ENI and Enichem in their letter of 4 April 1996 raises a procedural issue which, pursuant to Article 114(3) of the Rules of Procedure, should be decided without an oral procedure.

| 7 | Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides:
  ‘The language of the case shall be chosen by the applicant, except that:
  
  
  
  
  
  (a) | at the joint request of the parties the Court of First Instance may authorize another of the languages mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Article to be used as the language of the case for all or part of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- | --- |

7

Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides:

‘The language of the case shall be chosen by the applicant, except that:

(a)

at the joint request of the parties the Court of First Instance may authorize another of the languages mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Article to be used as the language of the case for all or part of the proceedings;

| (b) | at the request of one of the parties, and after the opposite party and the Advocate General have been heard, the Court of First Instance may, by way of derogation from subparagraph (a), authorize another of the languages mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Article to be used as the language of the case for all or part of the proceedings; such a request may not be submitted by an institution’. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

at the request of one of the parties, and after the opposite party and the Advocate General have been heard, the Court of First Instance may, by way of derogation from subparagraph (a), authorize another of the languages mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Article to be used as the language of the case for all or part of the proceedings; such a request may not be submitted by an institution’.

| 8 | Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides:
  ‘The language of the case shall be used in the written and oral pleadings of the parties and in supporting documents, and also in the minutes and decisions of the Court of First Instance.
  Any supporting documents expressed in another language must be accompanied by a translation into the language of the case.
  In the case of lengthy documents, translations may be confined to extracts. However, the Court of First Instance may, of its own motion or at the request of a party, at any time call for a complete or fuller translation.
  (...)’. |
| --- | --- |

8

Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides:

‘The language of the case shall be used in the written and oral pleadings of the parties and in supporting documents, and also in the minutes and decisions of the Court of First Instance.

Any supporting documents expressed in another language must be accompanied by a translation into the language of the case.

In the case of lengthy documents, translations may be confined to extracts. However, the Court of First Instance may, of its own motion or at the request of a party, at any time call for a complete or fuller translation.

(...)’.

| 9 | It is apparent from those provisions that, first, the applicant is entitled to choose the language of the case and, secondly, all documents annexed to the pleadings of the other parties, including the interveners, must, in principle, be translated into the language of the case. Those provisions are intended inter alia to protect the position of a party wishing to contest the legality of an administrative act adopted by the Community institutions, whatever the language used in that connection by the institution concerned, in particular during the pre-litigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

9

It is apparent from those provisions that, first, the applicant is entitled to choose the language of the case and, secondly, all documents annexed to the pleadings of the other parties, including the interveners, must, in principle, be translated into the language of the case. Those provisions are intended inter alia to protect the position of a party wishing to contest the legality of an administrative act adopted by the Community institutions, whatever the language used in that connection by the institution concerned, in particular during the pre-litigation procedure.

inter alia

| 10 | In the circumstances, even if different considerations may be held to apply as regards the oral procedure (see the order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 1995 in Case T-330/94 Salt Union ν Commission, [1995] ECR II-2881), the language of the case chosen by the applicant must be strictly observed during the written procedure before the Court. Only in exceptional circumstances may a derogation be granted under Article 35(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure from the rule in the second subparagraph of Article 35(3), according to which any supporting documents expressed in another language must be accompanied by a translation into the language of the case. |
| --- | --- |

10

In the circumstances, even if different considerations may be held to apply as regards the oral procedure (see the order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 1995 in Case T-330/94 Salt Union ν Commission, [1995] ECR II-2881), the language of the case chosen by the applicant must be strictly observed during the written procedure before the Court. Only in exceptional circumstances may a derogation be granted under Article 35(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure from the rule in the second subparagraph of Article 35(3), according to which any supporting documents expressed in another language must be accompanied by a translation into the language of the case.

Salt Union

Commission,

| 11 | The existence of such exceptional circumstances has not been shown in the present case. The arguments put forward by ENI and Enichem are not, of themselves, such as to demonstrate that it was impossible or even difficult for them to obtain by their own means a translation of the annexes in question. Those arguments do not establish that the absence of a derogation from the rule of the use of the language of the case would prejudice their rights during the written procedure. Their request must therefore be rejected (see the order of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 1995 in Case T-394/94 British Midland Airways ν Commission, not published in the European Court Reports). |
| --- | --- |

11

The existence of such exceptional circumstances has not been shown in the present case. The arguments put forward by ENI and Enichem are not, of themselves, such as to demonstrate that it was impossible or even difficult for them to obtain by their own means a translation of the annexes in question. Those arguments do not establish that the absence of a derogation from the rule of the use of the language of the case would prejudice their rights during the written procedure. Their request must therefore be rejected (see the order of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 1995 in Case T-394/94 British Midland Airways ν Commission, not published in the European Court Reports).

British Midland Airways

Commission,

| 12 | As regards the request submitted in the alternative by ENI and Enichem (see paragraph 4 above), it should be observed that the obligation provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure applies in principle to all supporting documents produced by the parties, or annexed to their pleadings, apart from the lengthy documents referred to in the third subparagraph of that article, translations of which may be confined to extracts unless the Court decides otherwise. In the present case, none of the documents in question, as annexed to ENI and Enichem's statement in intervention, constitutes a lengthy document within the meaning of the latter provision. Accordingly, those documents must be translated into the language of the case. |
| --- | --- |

12

As regards the request submitted in the alternative by ENI and Enichem (see paragraph 4 above), it should be observed that the obligation provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure applies in principle to all supporting documents produced by the parties, or annexed to their pleadings, apart from the lengthy documents referred to in the third subparagraph of that article, translations of which may be confined to extracts unless the Court decides otherwise. In the present case, none of the documents in question, as annexed to ENI and Enichem's statement in intervention, constitutes a lengthy document within the meaning of the latter provision. Accordingly, those documents must be translated into the language of the case.

| | On those grounds,
  THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)
  hereby orders: |
| --- | --- |

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)

hereby orders:

| | 1. | The request submitted by the interveners ENI and Enichem for a derogation under Article 35(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure as regards translation into the language of the case of the annexes to their statement in intervention is dismissed. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The request submitted by the interveners ENI and Enichem for a derogation under Article 35(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure as regards translation into the language of the case of the annexes to their statement in intervention is dismissed.

| | 2. | A period shall be prescribed within which ENI and Etlichem must produce the translation of the annexes to their statement in intervention which are not expressed in the language of the case, except for Annexes 1 and 3a. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

A period shall be prescribed within which ENI and Etlichem must produce the translation of the annexes to their statement in intervention which are not expressed in the language of the case, except for Annexes 1 and 3a.

| | 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

| | Luxembourg, 26 June 1996.
  
  
  H. Jung
  Registrar
  
  
  H. Kirschner
  President |
| --- | --- |

Luxembourg, 26 June 1996.

H. Jung

Registrar

H. Kirschner

President

---

(
  *1
  )	Language of the case: English.

*1