Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1999:172
Date: 1999-03-25
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Staff cases

Summary of the O r d e r 
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 simüar 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) 
I - 4943 
SUMMARY — CASE C-155/98 P-I 
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 para­
graph 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 appli­
cant 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. 
I - 4944