61977CO0116_EN
Parties
Grounds
Operative part
Parties
IN JOINED CASES 116, 124 AND 143/77
G . R . AMYLUM NV, AALST, BELGIUM,
TUNNEL REFINERIES LIMITED, LONDON,
AND
KONINKLIJKE SCHOLTEN-HONIG NV, AMSTERDAM,
ACTING ALSO IN THE NAME OF THE SUBSIDIARIES BELONGING TO ITS GROUP AND IN PARTICULAR OF ROYAL SCHOLTEN-HONIG ( HOLDINGS ) LIMITED,
APPLICANTS,
V
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
AND
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
DEFENDANTS
Grounds
1BY APPLICATION LODGED ON 16 FEBRUARY 1978 THE SYNDICAT NATIONAL DES FABRICANTS DE SUCRE DE FRANCE, THE UNION SYNDICALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE SUCRE ET DE RHUM DE L ' ILE DE REUNION AND THE SYNDICAT GENERAL DES PRODUCTEURS DE SUCRE ET DE RHUM DES ANTILLES FRANCAISES APPLIED TO INTERVENE IN JOINED CASES 116, 124 AND 143/77 IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANTS '
CONCLUSIONS .
2THESE CASES CONCERN APPLICATIONS FOR COMPENSATION PUT FORWARD IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR DAMAGE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO THE APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1111/77 OF 17 MAY 1977 LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977, L 134, P . 4 ) AND, AS REGARDS SOLELY THE APPLICANTS IN JOINED CASES 116 AND 143/77, AS A RESULT AF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 1468/77 OF 30 JUNE 1977 LAYING DOWN RULES FOR APPLYING THE PRODUCTION LEVY ON ISOGLUCOSE IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD 1 JULY 1977 TO 30 JUNE 1978 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977, L 162, P . 7 ).
3THE APPLICANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION HAVE LODGED OBSERVATIONS CLAIMING THAT THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE SHOULD BE DISMISSED .
4IT APPEARS FROM OBSERVATIONS LODGED BY THE COUNCIL THAT THE LATTER, IN SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE, LEAVES THE MATTER TO THE COURT .
5THE COMMISSION HAS STATED THAT IT HAS NO OBSERVATIONS TO OFFER WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE .
6UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE STATUTE ON THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC, THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN CASES BEFORE THE COURT IS VESTED IN MEMBER STATES AND INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY AND, IN ADDITION, TO ANY OTHER PERSON ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST IN THE RESULT OF ANY CASE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT PROVIDED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE INTERVENTION IS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSIONS OF ONE OF THE PARTIES .
7SINCE THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 37 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED STATUTE LIMITS THE CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN AN APPLICATION TO INTERVENE TO SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF ONE OF THE PARTIES IN THE MAIN ACTION, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE INTEREST IN QUESTION MUST EXIST IN RELATION TO THE SAID CONCLUSIONS AND NOT IN RELATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS OR ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD .
8THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS .
9IN FACT, THE APPLICANTS TO INTERVENE HAVE NOT PROVED THAT THEY HAVE A DIRECT AND PRESENT INTEREST IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CONCLUSIONS .
10THE ONLY INTEREST WHICH THEY CLAIM IS IN THE SUCCESS OF CERTAIN ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE DEFENDANTS .
11IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE MUST BE DISMISSED .
12AS THE APPLICANTS TO INTERVENE HAVE FAILED IN THEIR APPLICATION THEY MUST BEAR THE COSTS UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE IS DISMISSED ;
2 . THE APPLICANTS TO INTERVENE ARE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE INTERVENTION PROCEEDINGS .