ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
7 March 2019 (*)
(Appeal — Intervention — Interest in the result of the case — Rejection)
In Case C‑572/18 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 13 September 2018,
thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, established in Gelsenkirchen (Germany),
thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo, established in Isbergues (France),
represented by M. Günes and L.C. Heinisch, Rechtsanwälte,
appellants,
the other party to the proceedings being:
European Commission, represented by J.-F. Brakeland and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents,
defendant at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur, N. Piçarra, and the Advocate General, G. Hogan,
makes the following
Order
1        By their appeal, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo request the Court to set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 2 July 2018, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v Commission (T‑577/17, not published, ‘the order under appeal’, EU:T:2018:411), by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible their action seeking annulment of the European Commission’s alleged decision (‘the act at issue’) ostensibly contained in the minutes of the sixth meeting of the Customs Expert Group Section ‘Special Procedures other than transit’ of 2 May 2017 concluding that the essential interests of EU producers would not be adversely affected by an authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products requested by Euro-Mit Staal BV (‘EMS’).
2        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 27 December 2018, EMS, a company established in Vlissingen-Oost (Netherlands), applied for leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission. By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 7 January 2019, that institution indicated that it did not wish to submit observations on that application to intervene.
3        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 28 January 2019, the appellants lodged their written observations on that application, claiming that it should be rejected on the ground that EMS had not established an interest in the result of the present case.
The application to intervene
4        Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court, other than a case between Member States, between institutions of the European Union or between those States and such institutions, may intervene in that case.
5        According to the Court’s settled case-law, the concept of an ‘interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the precise subject matter of the case and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the form 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 future judgment or order (see, inter alia, orders of the President of the Court of 9 October 2018, Poland v Commission, C‑181/18 P, not published, EU:C:2018:826, paragraph 5, and of 18 January 2019, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, C‑342/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:42, paragraph 5 and the case‑law cited).
6        In that regard, it is necessary to ascertain whether the applicant for leave to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and whether his interest in the result of the case is established. Generally, 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 party applying to intervene (order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2019, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, C‑342/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:42, paragraph 6 and the case‑law cited).
7        In the present case, it should be borne in mind that, on 21 February 2017, EMS, in accordance with Article 211(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1), submitted to the Dutch customs authorities an application for authorisation for inward processing of certain types of grain-oriented electrical steel originating in Japan. On 27 February 2017, the Dutch customs authorities, acting pursuant to Article 259(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation No 952/2013 (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558), transmitted the file to the Commission, requesting it to examine the economic conditions and ‘to conclude that [they were] met and [that] the authorisation [could] be granted’.
8        By the act at issue, the customs expert group established by the Commission on the basis of Article 259(4) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 concluded that the economic conditions had been met. On 2 May 2017, the Dutch customs authorities issued the authorisation for inward processing to EMS for the period from 2 May 2017 to 1 May 2020.
9        By their appeal, the appellants request the Court to set aside the order under appeal by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible their action, brought under Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the act at issue, on the ground that that document is not a challengeable act for the purposes of that article.
10      In support of its application to intervene, EMS submits, in the first place, that the act at issue is of direct and individual concern to it. That act, it argues, was adopted following that company’s application for an authorisation for inward processing in order to benefit from the exemption from import duties for certain types of grain-oriented electrical steel originating in Japan. In the second place, EMS takes the view that it has a direct interest in the result of the case. If the Court were to set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court, and if the latter were subsequently to annul the act at issue, the authorisation for inward processing could be revoked by the Dutch authorities, something which would impact negatively on the legal and economic situation of EMS.
11      In doing so, however, EMS argues that it has an interest in respect not of the result of the case brought before the Court of Justice in the present appeal, that is, the appeal concerning the question whether the General Court erred in law in finding that the act at issue is not a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU, but of the result of the dispute that would be brought before the General Court if the Court of Justice were to decide to set aside the order under appeal (see, by analogy, order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2019, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, C‑342/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:42, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited).
12      In addition, the interest claimed by EMS is hypothetical because it is based on an uncertain event, that is to say, the annulment of the act at issue by the General Court (see, by analogy, order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2019, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, C‑342/18 P, not published, EU:C:2019:42, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited).
13      It follows that EMS has not established an interest in the result of the case and that its application to intervene must for that reason be rejected.
14      In those circumstances, there is no need to adjudicate on the appellants’ request for confidential treatment of certain documents in the file vis-à-vis EMS.
Costs
15      Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to appeal proceedings pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As EMS has been unsuccessful in its application to intervene, and as neither the appellants nor the Commission have applied for costs, EMS, the appellants and the Commission must be ordered to bear their own respective costs relating to the application to intervene.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1.      The application to intervene submitted by Euro-Mit Staal BV is rejected.
2.      Euro-Mit Staal BV, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs.
Luxembourg, 7 March 2019.
A. Calot Escobar
K. Lenaerts
Registrar
President
*      Language of the case: English.