ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
6 July 2022(*)
(Intervention – Action for annulment — Application lodged via e-Curia — Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to fulfil procedural requirements — Manifestly inadmissible)
In Case T-600/21,
WS,
and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex, (1) represented by A.-M. van Eik and L.-M. Komp, lawyers,
applicants,
v
European Border and Coast Guard Agency, represented by H. Caniard, C. Rueger, R.-A. Popa, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbauer, lawyer,
defendant,
APPLICATION pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the alleged infringement by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) of its obligations under Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC (OJ 2016 L 251, p. 1),
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),
composed of M.J. Costeira (Rapporteur), President, M. Kancheva and P. Zilgalvis, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure and form of order sought by the applicant
1        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 10 January 2022, Ms Violeta Moreno-Lax, Ms Noemi Magugliani, Ms Niamh Keady-Tabbal, Ms Amanda Danson Brown and Ms Valentina Azarova applied for leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the applicants.
2        In support of their application, the applicants for leave to intervene submit that their contribution to the result of the case can be of interest to the proper administration of justice and serve public interest.
Law
3        Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to proceedings before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof, any person able to establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court is entitled to intervene, except in cases between Member States, between institutions of the Union or between Member States and institutions of the Union. An application to intervene shall be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties.
4        Under Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure, if a procedural document is lodged via e-Curia before the supporting documents required for validation of the access account have been produced, those supporting documents must be received in paper format at the Registry of the General Court within 10 days of the procedural document being lodged. This time limit may not be extended and Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure does not apply. If the supporting documents are not received within the prescribed time limit, the Court is to declare the procedural document lodged via e-Curia to be inadmissible.
5        In that regard, it must be noted that, on 10 January 2022, an application for leave to intervene was lodged via e-Curia before the supporting documents required for validation of the access account had been produced.
6        On 20 January 2022, the period of 10 days within which, under Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the supporting documents must be received by the Court Registry expired. The supporting documents were not received at the Court Registry within the prescribed time limit.
7        By letter of 11 February 2022, the Court Registry informed the applicants for leave to intervene that they had not lodged the supporting documents within the period laid down in Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure, and set a time limit for them to lodge observations on the non-compliance with that provision until 1 March 2022.
8        The applicants for leave to intervene did not submit any observations within the time limit prescribed.
9        It follows from all of the above considerations that the lodging of the application to intervene via e-Curia does not satisfy the requirements of Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure and that the present application for leave to intervene must be dismissed, without there being any need for it to be served on the applicants and the defendant.
Costs
10      Under Article 144(6) of the Rules of Procedure, if the application to intervene is refused, the order must include a decision as to the costs relating to the application to intervene, including the costs of the applicant for leave to intervene, pursuant to Articles 134 and 135.
11      As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application for leave to intervene on the parties and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicants to intervene must bear their own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1.      The application to intervene in Case T-600/21 lodged by Ms Violeta Moreno-Lax, Ms Noemi Magugliani, Ms Niamh Keady-Tabbal, Ms Amanda Danson Brown and Ms Valentina Azarova is dismissed.
2.      Ms Violeta Moreno-Lax, Ms Noemi Magugliani, Ms Niamh Keady-Tabbal, Ms Amanda Danson Brown and Ms Valentina Azarova shall bear their own costs.
Luxembourg, 6 July 2022.
E. Coulon
M. J. Costeira
Registrar
President
* Language of the case: English.
1 The list of the other applicants is annexed only to the version sent to the parties.