61994TO0108(01)_EN
Parties
Grounds
Operative part
Parties
In Case T-108/94,
Elena Candiotte, a self-employed artist, residing at Jambes (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union, represented by Yves Crétien, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Bruno Eynard, Manager of the Legal Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer,
defendant,
APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Selection Committee for Artists' Competition 93/S 21-3373/FR, taken on behalf of the Council on 14 January 1994, not to admit the applicant to the second stage of that competition; the decision of the Selection Committee to delegate to each national working party the initial selection of applications from artists established in its national territory; the decision of the Committee to fix at three the number of artists to be selected by each Member State; and the decision to draw up the list of artists admitted to the second stage of the competition,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
makes the following
Order
Grounds
Facts and procedure
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 6 April 1994, Jacqueline Willems, Chairman of the Council Staff Committee, and 21 members of that Committee, represented by Gérard Collin and Thierry Demaseure, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener, sought leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicant.
2 The application for leave to intervene was made under the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC, which applies to the procedure before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 46 of that Protocol, and was submitted in accordance with Article 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
3 The applicants for leave to intervene consider that since they took part, in their capacity as members of the Council' s Staff Committee, in the appointment of the full and alternate members of the Selection Committee for the competition in question, they have established an interest in the result of any case relating to the correctness of the procedure followed by that Committee in the performance of its task. Moreover, since the present proceedings relate to the selection of works of art to be installed in a Council building, they are directly concerned with the working conditions of the officials of that institution. That direct relationship means that all members of the Staff Committee have an interest in the result of the case, since the Committee is competent in matters of health and decoration of places of work.
4 The application for leave to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure. By letter received at the Registry on 19 April 1994 the applicant asked the Court to allow the intervention. The defendant did not submit any observations within the time-limit set.
5 It is important to note that, as is clear from the case-law, interest in the result of a case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice must be understood as a direct, existing interest in the success or failure of the submissions which relate specifically to the measure whose annulment or suspension is sought (see the order of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-97/92 and T-111/92 Rijnoudt and Hocken v Commission [1993] ECR II-587, paragraphs 16 and 21).
6 The applicants for leave to intervene have not referred to any special circumstances capable of establishing the existence of a personal interest in the admission of the applicant to the second stage of the competition, nor have they demonstrated in any way that their position could be affected in a sufficiently specific manner by the outcome of the dispute before this Court.
7 Nor does the fact that the applicants for leave to intervene are members of the Staff Committee and that the Staff Committee is competent in matters of health and decoration of places of work establish an interest in the result of the present case. This Court notes that the Court of Justice has held (order in Case 15/63 Lassalle v Parliament [1964] ECR 50, at p. 51) that a staff committee has no capacity to bring legal proceedings. Similarly, the fact that the interveners are officials of the Council likewise does not establish the existence of a personal interest in the result of the case, since even if Mrs Candiotte had been placed on the list of artists selected in the first stage, there is no guarantee that her works would eventually have been chosen. Consequently, it is difficult to see how the result of the present case could affect conditions at the officials' place of work.
8 In those circumstances, the applicants for leave to intervene have not established an interest in intervening in these proceedings, and the application for leave to intervene must therefore be dismissed.
9 By order of the President of the Court of 2 May 1994 the application for the adoption of interim measures and the application by Jacqueline Willems and Others for leave to intervene in the proceedings for the adoption of interim measures were dismissed. Since the costs were reserved, a decision must be given on costs.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOURTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
hereby orders:
1. The application for leave to intervene is dismissed;
2. The applicants for leave to intervene are to bear their own costs relating to this application for leave to intervene, and also their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene in the proceedings for the adoption of interim measures.
Luxembourg, 10 October 1994