Order — ECLI:EU:F:2011:123
Date: 2011-07-19
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases;Application to intervene - inadmissible;Application to intervene - successful

Summary 1. Procedure – Intervention – Effects of the inadmissibility of the main action 2. Procedure – Intervention – Persons having an interest – College of Staff Representatives of the European Investment Bank – Lack of capacity to be a party to legal proceedings – Inadmissibility 3. Procedure – Intervention – Conditions for admissibility – Direct and existing interest – Contested elections for staff representatives of an institution – Status of voter 1. Although an application to intervene may be dismissed where a main action is such that it must be declared inadmissible without consideration of the merits, that outcome is based on the premiss that the main action is manifestly inadmissible. (see para. 6) 2. A third party may be allowed to intervene only if he has the capacity to be a party to legal proceedings. With regard to persons other than individuals, as is the case with the College of Staff Representatives of the European Investment Bank, the case-law recognises their capacity to be a party to legal proceedings if they have either legal personality in accordance with the law governing their constitution, or, at the very least, elements forming the basis of legal personality, in particular if they are an independent entity with liability, however limited. Even if the rules applicable to the European Investment Bank recognise the existence of the College of Staff Representatives, it is clear from those rules that the College assumes the duties conferred on the Staff Committee in institutions governed by the Staff Regulations of Officials. The nature of the Staff Committee is that of an internal agency of its institution and it therefore has no capacity to be a party to legal proceedings. Since there is no provision applicable to the College of Staff Representatives which justifies a different ruling on the subject, it must be regarded as having no capacity to be a party to legal proceedings. (see paras 10-12) 3. As far as concerns the staff representation bodies of an institution, every voter has a direct and existing interest in the elections being held in conditions and according to voting arrangements which comply with the provisions of the Staff Regulations governing voting procedure in this context, which necessarily entails an interest in observance of the duration of the term of office of elected representatives, especially as the end of a staff representative’s term of office results, as a matter of principle, in the holding of elections. In a dispute concerning the compulsory resignation of a staff representative, therefore, a staff member, by virtue of being entitled to vote, has an interest which is sufficient to render an application or intervention admissible. The mere fact that the applicant is a person entitled to vote is sufficient to establish that he is not acting merely in the interests of the law or of the institution. (see paras 19, 20)