ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
14 July 2011 (*)
(Intervention – Confidentiality)
In Case T‑590/10,
Gabi Thesing, residing in London (United Kingdom),
Bloomberg Finance LP, established in Wilmington, Delaware (United States), represented by M. Stephens, R.C. Lands and T.S. Pitt-Payne, lawyers,
applicants,
v
European Central Bank (ECB), represented by M. López Torres and S. Lambrinoc, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of the ECB’s decision of 21 October 2010 refusing to grant access to two documents concerning the government deficit and debt of the Hellenic Republic,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1        By application lodged at the Court Registry on 27 December 2010, the applicants, Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP, brought an action for annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 21 October 2010 refusing to grant access to document SEC/GovC/X/10/88a entitled ‘The impact on government deficit and debt from off-market swaps. The Greek case’ and to document SEC/GovC/X/10/88b entitled ‘The Titlos transaction and possible existence of similar transactions impacting on the euro area government debt or deficit levels’ (‘the contested decision’).
2        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 11 April 2011, Mr Athanasios Pitsiorlas sought leave to intervene in the present case in support of the forms of order sought by the applicants and leave to represent himself before the Court. The application to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
3        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 25 May 2011, the ECB asked the Court to dismiss Mr Pitsiorlas’ application to intervene.
4        By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 25 May 2011, the ECB requested confidential treatment, vis-à-vis Mr Pitsiorlas, of its document of 3 March 2010 annexed to the originating application, in the event that Mr Pitsiorlas were granted leave to intervene in the present case. The ECB produced a non-confidential version of the application.
The application to intervene
5        Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case other than a case between Member States, between institutions of the Union or between Member States and institutions of the Union is entitled to intervene in that case.
6        It has consistently been held that the concept of an interest in the result of the case, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward. The expression ‘result’ is to be understood as meaning the operative part of the final judgment which the parties ask the Court to deliver. It is necessary, in particular, to ascertain whether the intervener is directly affected by the contested decision and whether his interest in the result of the case is established (order in Case T-15/02 BASF v Commission [2003] ECR II‑213, paragraph 26, and order of the President of the First Chamber of the General Court of 28 February 2011 in Case T-436/10 HIT Groep v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 9). The interest necessary in this respect must not relate merely to abstract legal arguments but to the actual form of order sought by a party to the main action (order of the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court in Case T-191/96 CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission [1998] ECR II-573, paragraph 28).
7        In the present case, Mr Pitsiorlas submits, in support of his application to intervene, that every European Union citizen has a general right of access to the documents of the European Union institutions and does not need to demonstrate a legal interest. According to Mr Pitsiorlas, since the first document at issue concerns a serious aspect of the public finances of the Hellenic Republic and the second document at issue studies the impact of a similar aspect on the euro zone, he has a special and intense interest in the applicants’ receiving both those documents, given that he has Greek nationality and is a lawyer studying the law of the euro zone public finances.
8        In that connection, it is true that, under Article 2(1) of Decision ECB/2004/3 of the ECB of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42), any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to ECB documents, subject to the conditions and limits defined in that decision. In addition, under Article 6(1), second sentence, of that decision, the applicant for access to a document is not obliged to state the reasons for the application.
9        However, in the present case, Mr Pitsiorlas has not applied for access to a document pursuant to Decision ECB/2004/3, but has sought leave to intervene in the present proceedings concerned with an application for access to documents. The procedural requirements that must be satisfied in that regard are those referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 above.
10      In the present case those requirements are not satisfied. Mr Pitsiorlas has not shown that he has a direct, existing interest in the result of the case. In asserting his Greek nationality and his professional interest concerning the public finances of the Hellenic Republic, he simply claimed to have a general interest in acquainting himself with the financial position of that Member State. In that connection, it should also be pointed out that Mr Pitsiorlas has not himself requested the two documents at issue from the ECB and has not even indicated that he intends to request them in the future. On the contrary, he has simply stated that he has an interest in the applicants’ receiving the two documents at issue. Mr Pitsiorlas is not therefore directly affected by the contested decision and his interest in the result of the case is not established.
11      Consequently, Mr Pitsiorlas’ application to intervene must be dismissed.
12      As regards Mr Pitsiorlas’ application for leave to represent himself before the Court, it must be found that, since his written pleading of 11 April 2011 was signed by a lawyer other than himself, it satisfies the requirements of the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the procedure before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof. That application therefore relates only to the next step in the intervention proceedings.
13      Since Mr Pitsiorlas has not been granted leave to intervene in the present case, there is no need for the Court to adjudicate on his application for leave to represent himself before the Court or on the ECB’s application for confidential treatment.
Costs
14      Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure, a decision as to costs is to be given in the final judgment or in the order which closes the proceedings. Since the present order closes the proceedings so far as Mr Pitsiorlas is concerned, it is necessary to give a decision as to the costs associated with his application to intervene.
15      Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under Article 87(6), where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are to be at the discretion of the General Court. Since Mr Pitsiorlas has been unsuccessful in his application to intervene, he must be ordered to bear his own costs relating to the intervention proceedings. As the applicants and the ECB have made no application for costs, they shall bear their own costs relating to the intervention proceedings. As regards the request for confidentiality, the Court considers that it is appropriate to order that the ECB will bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1.      Mr Pitsiorlas’ application to intervene is dismissed.
2.      There is no need to adjudicate on the European Central Bank’s request for confidentiality.
3.      Each party shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 14 July 2011.
E. Coulon
A. Dittrich
Registrar
President
* Language of the case: English.