ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
7 September 2022 (*)
(Intervention – Interest in the result of the case – Application for confidential treatment)
In Case T‑32/22,
Vyatsky Plywood Mill OOO, established in Kirov (Russia), represented by M. Krestiyanova and N. Tuominen, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by K. Blanck, M. Gustafsson and J. Zieliński, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (OJ 2021 L 394, p. 7),
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1        On 8 November 2021, the European Commission adopted Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1930 of 8 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia (OJ 2021 L 394, p. 7) (‘the contested regulation’).
2        By application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 January 2022, the applicant, Vyatsky Plywood Mill OOO, brought an action for annulment of the contested regulation.
3        On 7 March 2022, in accordance with Article 79 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, a notice relating to the lodging of that application was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2022 C 109, p. 32).
4        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 4 April 2022, AS Latvijas Finieris and Paged Pisz Spolka z.o.o. applied for leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
5        The application to intervene was served on the main parties in accordance with Article 144(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
6        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 13 May 2022, the applicant opposed the application to intervene made by AS Latvijas Finieris and Paged Pisz Spolka z.o.o.. On the same date, it applied for certain confidential information to be excluded from the procedural documents to be communicated to those two parties.
7        The Commission did not submit observations on the application to intervene made by AS Latvijas Finieris and Paged Pisz Spolka z.o.o. within the period prescribed for that purpose.
Law
The application to intervene
8        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 which can establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to the General Court, other than cases between Member States, between institutions of the European Union or between Member States and institutions of the European Union, may intervene in that case.
9        It is settled case-law that the concept of an ‘interest in the result of the case’, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, must be defined with regard to the precise subject matter of the case 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 term ‘the result of the case’ refers to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the future judgment (see order of the President of the Court of 21 December 2016, Commission v Spain and Others, C‑128/16 P, not published, EU:C:2016:1007, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited).
10      In that regard, it should be ascertained, in particular, whether the applicant for leave to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and whether its interest in the result of the case is established. In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be considered to be sufficiently direct only in so far as that result is capable of altering the legal position of the applicant to intervene (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 17 May 2018, United States of America v Apple Sales International and Others, C‑12/18 P(I), not published, EU:C:2018:330, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited).
11      It is for the applicant for leave to intervene to adduce the necessary evidence to prove that it satisfies the conditions set out above (see, to that effect, order of the President of the Court of 17 October 2011, Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie and Others v Council and Others, C‑3/11 P(I), not published, EU:C:2011:665, paragraph 31, and order of 13 June 2019, Naturgy Energy Group v Commission, T‑328/18, not published, EU:T:2019:440, paragraph 8).
12      In the present case, in order to establish their interest in the result of the case, the applicants for leave to intervene submit that they have a direct and individual interest in the result of the case since they are part of the largest producer of birch plywood in Latvia and Poland respectively, and are two of the largest producers in the European Union. They add that they acted as co-complainants in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of birch plywood from Russia, are the founding members of the Woodstock Consortium, the association which formally lodged the complaint on their behalf, and actively participated in the administrative procedure at the conclusion of which the Commission adopted the contested regulation.
13      The applicants for leave to intervene also maintain that they benefit from the protective measures provided for by the contested regulation, with the result that annulment of that regulation would affect their interests.
14      The applicant submits that the applicants for leave to intervene have not indicated what the direct consequence of the annulment of the contested regulation would be, and that they are neither directly nor individually concerned by that regulation.
15      In that regard, it argues that the fact that the applicants for leave to intervene triggered the adoption of the contested regulation is not decisive, and that they do not have a right to have anti-dumping measures imposed on their competitors. In its view, they are therefore not directly concerned by that regulation.
16      The applicant adds that the applicants for leave to intervene are not individually concerned by the contested regulation. It submits that their situation is similar to that of any entity operating on the EU market, that their position would not be substantially affected by the modification of the anti-dumping duties introduced by that regulation, and that the fact that they actively participated in the administrative procedure is not sufficient for them to be regarded as individually concerned.
17      It should be noted that the question whether a person has an interest in the result of the case, on which the admissibility of an application to intervene under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union depends, is different from the question whether a person has standing as an applicant for the purpose of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (see, to that effect, order of 10 November 2020, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK, T‑865/19, not published, EU:T:2020:570, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
18      Moreover, in the anti-dumping field, it has already been held that it cannot seriously be disputed that undertakings which were deemed by the Commission to be part of the Union industry taken into consideration in the Regulation imposing the definitive anti-dumping duties and which actively participated in the administrative procedure that culminated in the adoption of that regulation have an interest in the result of the case. Since that regulation was adopted further to the finding of injury to the Union industry, it must be held that those undertakings may be affected by the possible annulment of the regulation at issue (see order of 13 July 2012, PT Musim Mas v Council, T‑26/12, not published, EU:T:2012:387, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited).
19      However, the grant of leave to intervene is not conditional on the applicant for leave to intervene having participated in the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested measure (see orders of 11 July 2012, Bricmate v Council, T‑596/11, not published, EU:T:2012:364, paragraph 14, and of 11 February 2014, Photo USA Electronic Graphic v Council, T‑394/13, not published, EU:T:2014:102, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited).
20      In the present case, the applicant does not dispute the fact that the complaint was lodged by the Woodstock Consortium on behalf of the Union industry of birch plywood taken into consideration in the contested regulation, of which the applicants for leave to intervene form part.
21      It cannot be denied, moreover, that the action seeks the annulment of the contested regulation in so far as it imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on the applicant. The annulment of that regulation would affect the conditions of competition between the Union industry and the exporting producers concerned by those anti-dumping duties. Since those duties are intended to protect the Union industry, which includes the applicants for leave to intervene, there is no doubt that the latter have an interest in the result of the case.
22      Thus, inasmuch as the anti-dumping duties imposed in the contested regulation are intended to remedy the injury caused by imports of birch plywood originating in Russia to the Union industry, of which the applicants for leave to intervene form part, it must be stated that the removal of the duties imposed on the applicant may affect the interests of the applicants for leave to intervene.
23      In the light of the foregoing, the applicant’s objections must be rejected and the application to intervene must be granted.
The application for confidential treatment
24      In accordance with Article 144(2), (5) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant has applied for certain confidential information in the file to be excluded from the communication to AS Latvijas Finieris and Paged Pisz Spolka z.o.o. of the procedural documents served on the main parties and, for the purposes of that communication, it has produced a non-confidential version of the procedural documents concerned.
25      At the present stage, the communication to AS Latvijas Finieris and Paged Pisz Spolka z.o.o. of the documents served and, where applicable, to be served on the main parties, must be limited to a non-confidential version. A decision on the substance of the applications for confidential treatment made by the applicant and the Commission will, if necessary, be taken at a later stage in the light of any objections which might be submitted on that issue.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1.      AS Latvijas Finieris and Paged Pisz Spolka z.o.o. are granted leave to intervene in Case T‑32/22 in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission.
2.      The Registrar shall communicate to AS Latvijas Finieris and Paged Pisz Spolka z.o.o. a copy of every procedural document served on the main parties. That communication shall, at the present stage of the proceedings, be limited to a non-confidential version.
3.      A date shall be fixed by which AS Latvijas Finieris and Paged Pisz Spolka z.o.o. may submit any objections they might have to the application for confidential treatment. The decision on the substance of that application is reserved.
4.      A date shall be fixed by which AS Latvijas Finieris and Paged Pisz Spolka z.o.o. may submit a statement in intervention, without prejudice to the possibility of supplementing it, if necessary, at a later stage following a decision on the substance of the application for confidential treatment.
5.      The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 7 September 2022.
E. Coulon
D. Spielmann
Registrar
President
*      Language of the case: English.