Information;Order — ECLI:EU:T:2025:782
Date: 2025-08-07
Language of the case: English

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) 11 November 2025 (*) ( Public procurement – Intervention – Interest in the result of the case ) In Case T‑281/25, JB, represented by P. de Bandt, M.-R. Gherghinaru, V. Heinen and Z. Irusta Ortega, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA), represented by E. Villa, acting as Agent, and by P. Bříza and T. Hokr, lawyers, defendant, supported by European Commission, represented by A. Koričić, P. Rossi and C. Valero, acting as Agents, intervener, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber), composed of N. Półtorak, President, G. Hesse (Rapporteur) and G. Steinfatt, Judges, Registrar: V. Di Bucci, makes the following Order 1 By its action, the applicant, JB, seeks, first, under Article 263 TFEU, annulment of Decision No 310882/2025 of the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) of 21 February 2025 on its exclusion from award procedures governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 and from being selected to implement Union funds and the imposition of a financial penalty (‘the contested decision’) and, second, under Article 268 TFEU, compensation in respect of the damage which it allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of that decision. Facts and procedure 2 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 1 May 2025, the applicant brought the action referred to in paragraph 1 above. 3 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 22 July 2025, KW, the applicant’s Deputy Managing Director when the contested decision was adopted, sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the applicant. 4 That application to intervene was served on the main parties in accordance with Article 144(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. 5 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 12 August 2025, the applicant informed the Court that it had no observations to make on that application to intervene. 6 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 22 August 2025, EUSPA raised objections to the application to intervene. Law 7 By the contested decision, EUSPA (i) excluded the applicant from award procedures governed by Regulation (UE, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union (OJ L, 2024/2509), and from being selected to implement Union funds for a period of four and a half years; (ii) imposed a financial penalty on the applicant; (iii) provided for the publication of information concerning the applicant’s name, exclusion situation, the duration of the exclusion and the amount of the financial penalty on the Commission’s website; and (iv) provided for the registration of certain information concerning, inter alia, KW in the Early Detection and Exclusion System (‘the EDES database’). 8 In support of his application to intervene, KW submits, in the first place, that the registration of the information concerning him in the EDES database directly affects him and causes him non-material and material damage. In the second place, KW submits that the decision to register that information in the EDES database, pursuant to Article 4 of the contested decision, stems directly from the decision made by the EUSPA authorising officer to exclude the applicant from award procedures governed by Regulation 2024/2509 and to impose a financial penalty on it. 9 EUSPA disputes the claim that those arguments establish that KW has an interest in the result of the case, since the contested decision does not alter his legal position. 10 In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is applicable to proceedings before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the General Court, with the exception of cases between Member States, between EU institutions or between Member States and EU institutions, may intervene in that case. 11 It is settled case-law that the concept of ‘an interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, must be defined in the light of the precise subject matter of the case and be understood as meaning a direct and existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward. The words ‘result of a case’ refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the decision which closes the proceedings (see order of 13 November 2019, Commission v Italy and Others, C‑425/19 P, not published, EU:C:2019:980, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited). 12 In that regard, it is appropriate, in particular, to ascertain that the applicant for leave to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and that his or her interest in the result of the case is certain. In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be considered sufficiently direct only in so far as that result is capable of altering the legal position of the applicant to intervene (see, to that effect, order of 13 November 2019, Commission v Italy and Others, C‑425/19 P, not published, EU:C:2019:980, paragraphs 12 and 13 and the case-law cited). 13 It should also be recalled that an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings in the context of an action for annulment brought under Article 263 TFEU is assessed differently compared to an individual’s interest in intervening in a dispute brought by a third person (see, to that effect, order of 28 September 2021, Junqueras i Vies v Parliament, C‑115/21 P, not published, EU:C:2021:842, paragraph 23). Similarly, the question whether a person has standing as an applicant for the purpose of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU is different from the question whether a person has an interest in the result of the case for the purpose of being granted leave to intervene under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (order of 8 May 2019, Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission, T‑541/18, not published, EU:T:2019:317, paragraph 28). 14 It is in the light of those considerations that the present application to intervene should be examined. 15 In the present case, it should be noted that, first, KW is one of the addressees of the contested decision. Indeed, in Article 5 of the operative part of that decision, it is stated that that decision is addressed and notified, inter alia, to KW, by electronic mail and by post. 16 Second, on the one hand, point V.4 of that decision relates to the involvement, inter alia, of KW, as Deputy Managing Director of the applicant at the time of the contested decision, in the latter’s misconduct. 17 On the other hand, following EUSPA’s assessment of that involvement, the contested decision concludes in Article 4 of the operative part that ‘the information regarding Mr …[’s], [KW’s] and Mr …’s names, position and involvement in [the applicant’s] misconduct shall be registered in the EDES database in accordance with Article 144(3)(c) of Regulation 2024/2509’. 18 Furthermore, the form of order sought in the applicant’s action is the annulment of the contested decision in its entirety. Therefore, if the Court were to uphold the form of order sought by the applicant and annul the contested decision in its entirety, that solution would be capable of altering KW’s legal position. 19 It follows that KW has a sufficiently direct and existing interest in the result of the case. 20 As the application to intervene was lodged in accordance with Article 143 of the Rules of Procedure, and KW has established his interest in the result of the case, the application must be allowed, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is applicable to the procedure before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) hereby orders: 1. KW is granted leave to intervene in Case T-281/25 in support of the form of order sought by JB. 2. The Registrar shall send KW a copy of each procedural document served on the main parties. 3. A time limit shall be prescribed within which KW may submit a statement in intervention. 4. The costs are reserved. Luxembourg, 11 November 2025. V. Di Bucci N. Półtorak Registrar President * Language of the case: English.