ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
4 March 2014 (*)
(Intervention – Interest in the result of the case – Representative association)
In Case T‑360/13,
Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik e.V. (VECCO), established in Memmingen (Germany), and the other 185 applicants the names of which are listed in Annex I, represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers,
applicants,
v
European Commission, represented by K. Talabér-Ritz and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents,
defendant,
supported by
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), represented by W. Broere, M. Heikkilä and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents,
intervener,
APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013, amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2013 L 108, p.1),
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1        By application lodged with the Court Registry on 8 July 2013, the applicants, Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik e.V. (VECCO) and the other 185 applicants the names of which are listed in Annex I, brought an action seeking the partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013, amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2013 L 108, p.1; ‘the contested regulation’). Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1) lists the names of the substances subject to authorisation. The contested regulation added chromium trioxide, which is the substance at issue in the present case, to Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006.
2        By document lodged with the Court Registry on 18 October 2013, Assogalvanica and 93 other natural and legal persons the names of which are listed in Annex II requested leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicants.
3        The parties were notified of the applications to intervene in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
4        In its observations lodged with the Court Registry on 19 November 2013, the European Commission raised objections to those applications. The original applicants did not lodge observations within the prescribed period.
Law
5        Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the procedure before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the General Court, save in cases between Member States, between institutions of the European Union or between Member States and institutions of the European Union can intervene in that case.
6        The concept of an interest in the result of a case, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute 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 or arguments put forward. The expression ‘result’ is to be understood as meaning the operative part of the final judgment which the parties ask the Court to deliver. It should be ascertained in particular whether the intervener is directly affected by the contested measure and whether his interest in the result of the case is established (see order in Case T‑15/02 BASF v Commission [2003] ECR II‑213, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
7        The applicants for leave to intervene can be split into four categories, namely, (i) associations of galvanisers which use chromium trioxide and associations of galvanisation providers (ii) galvanisers (iii) users of galvanised products and (iv) the employees of the chromium trioxide users. They all claim to have a direct and existing interest in the outcome of the present case.
8        The Commission considers that the applicants for leave to intervene do not have an interest in the result of the present case. In the Commission’s view, first, their applications exceed the scope of the annulment proceedings. Second, according to the Commission, the first three categories of applicants for leave to intervene could have brought an action for annulment themselves. Third, the fourth category of applicants for leave to intervene does have a direct interest in the result of the case. Fourth, the entities established in Switzerland or representing companies based in Switzerland cannot be regarded as having an interest in the result of the present case because they are not subject to Regulation No 1907/2006.
The scope of the applications to intervene
9        The Commission claims that the applicants for leave to intervene do not have a direct interest in the result of the present case because their applications exceed the scope of the annulment proceedings in this instance. According to the Commission, the present proceedings do not seek the annulment of the contested regulation in its entirety but relate to whether specific uses, or categories of uses, of the substance at issue should benefit from an exemption from the requirement for authorisation. According to the Commission, the applicants for leave to intervene, on the contrary, seek the annulment of the contested regulation in its entirety.
10      In that regard, the Court has already held that the interest of an applicant for leave to intervene in the result of the case depends on the scope of the form of order of the applicant in the original proceedings (see, to that effect, order of the 17 October 2011 in Case C‑3/11 P(I) Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie and Others v Council and Others [2011] ECR I‑153, paragraph 17; orders in BASF v Commission, cited at paragraph 6 above, paragraph 34, and in Case T‑14/00 Cooperatieve Aan- en Verkoopvereniging Ulestraten, Schimmert en Hulsberg BA v Commission [2004] ECR II‑497, paragraph 16).
11      In the present case, the original applicants seek the partial annulment of the contested regulation to the extent that in entry No 16, in the fifth column, in the annex thereto, under the title ‘Exempted (categories of) uses’, no exemption is provided for the ‘use of chromium trioxide for production purposes in aqueous solution, thereby complying with an exposure value of maximum µg/m3 (or 0.005 mg/m3)’, or similar language aimed at exempting the ‘use of chromium trioxide in electroplating, etching processes, electropolishing and other surface treatment processes and technologies as well as mixing,’ or words to that effect from the scope of the contested regulation.
12      Contrary to what the Commission claims, the scope of the applications to intervene does not exceed that of the form of order sought by the applicants. It is clear from those applications that the applicants for leave to intervene are seeking to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicants, which seek, like those applications, the partial annulment of the contested regulation.
13      The Commission’s argument must therefore be rejected.
The application to intervene of the applicants belonging to the first three categories except for the entities established in Switzerland or representing companies established in Switzerland
14      Those categories include the associations of galvanisers, galvanisers and users of galvanised products, except for the entities established in Switzerland or representing companies established in Switzerland.
15      In the Commission’s view, those categories of applicants for leave to intervene do not have an interest in the result of the case because they belong to the same categories of the original applicants and thus could equally have instituted annulment proceedings themselves. Their applications constitute an attempt at circumventing their failure to have taken annulment proceedings. As regards the first category, the Commission notes that the original proceedings are already being taken by a representative association and that, as a result, the rationale that would justify granting leave to intervene to representative associations, namely, to ensure that interests of individual operators are represented in cases raising questions of principle, does not apply. The second and third categories are merely a replica of two groups of applicants.
16      First, the associations of galvanisers and galvanisation providers, namely, Assogalvanica, Ecometal, the European Committee for Surface Treatment (CETS), Österreichische Gesellschaft für Oberflächentechnik (AOT), Surface Engineering Association (SEA) and Zentralverband Oberflächentechnik e.V. (ZVO), claim that they have a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought in so far as they represent the interests of the galvanisation industry, namely users of chromium trioxide, the future of which would be at severe risk if an authorisation had to be obtained in order to use that substance.
17      According to settled case-law, intervention by representative associations whose object is to protect their members in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members is allowed (order in Joined Cases C‑151/97 P(I) and C‑157/97 P(I) National Power and PowerGen [1997] ECR I‑3491, paragraph 66, and in Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie and Others v Council and Others, cited at paragraph 10 above, paragraph 28). An association may be allowed to intervene in a case if it represents an appreciable number of undertakings active in the sector concerned, its objects include protection of its members’ interests, the case may raise questions of principle affecting the functioning of the sector concerned and the interests of its members may therefore be affected to an appreciable extent by the forthcoming judgment (see order in Gesamtverband der deutschen Textil- und Modeindustrie and Others v Council and Others, cited at paragraph 10 above, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
18      In the light of those criteria, the application to intervene of the associations referred to in paragraph 16 above must be granted. It is clear from their statutes that their objects are to protect the galvanisation industry which is affected by the question of principle raised in the present case, namely, whether the use of chromium trioxide in electroplating, etching processes, electropolishing and other surface treatment processes and technologies as well as mixing require an exemption pursuant to Regulation No 1907/2006.
19      Second, the galvanisers, namely, ECO-CHIM SRL, Heiche Oberflächentechnik GmbH, Schwäbische Härtetechnik Ulm GmbH & Co KG and TSM Srl, claim that, as users of the substance at issue established in the European Union, they are obliged to obtain an authorisation pursuant to Articles 60 and 62 of Regulation No 1907/2006 because of the contested regulation. Consequently, those applicants for leave to intervene also have an interest in the result of the present case.
20      Third, the category of users of galvanised products consists of Aros Hydraulik GmbH, Berndorf Band GmbH, Eberhard Derichs Maschinen- und Apparatebau GmbH, Friedrich Fausel Metalldrückerei, Goldhofer Aktiengesellschaft, Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Allemagne GmbH & Co KG, ITW Automotive Products GmbH, Josef Van Baal GmbH, Kleinvoigtsberger Elektrobauelemente GmbH, Kniggendorf & Kögler GmbH, Liebherr-Components Kirchdorf GmbH, Max Hilscher GmbH, MORA Metrology GmbH, Norsystec-Nohra-System-Technik GmbH, Otto Littmann Maschinenfabrik Präzisionsmechanik GmbH, Provertha Connectors Cables & Solutions GmbH, Roland Merz, Schwing Stetter Baumaschinen GmbH, SML Maschinengesellschaft mbH, ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG and Windmöller & Hölscher KG. As is clear from the case-file, those applicants for leave to intervene are required to use galvanised products – the production of which requires the product at issue – when manufacturing other products. To the extent that their supply of galvanised products is threatened by the contested regulation, they have an interest in the result of the present case.
21      The upholding of the applications to intervene of the applicants referred to in paragraphs 16, 19 and 20 above is not called into question by the Commission’s argument that the latter could themselves have brought an annulment action. It should be borne in mind that that fact is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the applicants for leave to intervene at issue have an interest to intervene in the present case (orders in National Power and PowerGen, cited at paragraph 17 above, paragraph 69, and Coöperatieve Aan- en Verkoopvereniging Ulestraten, Schimmert en Hulsberg and Others v Commission, cited at paragraph 10 above, paragraph 19).
22      However, it must be recalled that the adoption of a broad interpretation of the right of associations to intervene is intended to facilitate assessment of the context of cases whilst avoiding multiple individual interventions which would compromise the effectiveness and proper course of the procedure (order in National Power and PowerGen, cited at paragraph 7 above, paragraph 66 and order of 6 April 2006 in Case C‑130/06 P(I) An Post v Deutsche Post and Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited).
23      In the present case, it must be held that Assogalvanica, SEA, VECCO and ZVO are members of CETS. In addition, it should be noted that, apart from the galvanisers, the associations to which they belong have requested leave to intervene. To the extent that the substantive observations lodged by one or more members of one of the intervening associations may duplicate in whole or in part those submitted by the association itself, thus violating the spirit of the case-law cited at paragraph 22 above, that is a matter which the Court may take into account when making the order for costs in its judgment (see, to that effect, order of 14 May 2007 in Case T‑271/06 Microsoft v Commission not published in the ECR, paragraph 74).
The application to intervene of the applicants belonging to the fourth category
24      This category consists of the following employees of the users of chromium trioxide: Joachim Hoffmann, Martin Alt, Manfred Altvater, Malden Brandenburger, Martin Groß, Georg Hafner, Michael Hlavica, Andreas Maugg, Verena Kersting, Hannes Kircher, Peter Dähler, Calogero Lo Bue, Domenico Marguglio, Gaspare Sclafani, Martina Jansen, Carolin Jonas, Susanne Quirbach, Santo Prazza, Holm Sonneck, Antonio Viola, Erika Beetz, Paskal Hermann, Ralf Köster, Giuseppe Prazza, Josef Auer, Maria Beuthner, Stephan Christophe Boespflug, Sven Brendelberger, Andreas Eduard Epple, Andreas Karl Falk, Susanne Brigitta Fink, Klaus Dieter Friedmann, Andreas Gert, Michel Gless, Michael Heck, Felix Hilß, Thomas Josef Höninger, Bernd Herbert Huber, Monika Huber, Fabien Frederic Juncker, Klaudia Rita Kalmbacher, Andreas Kaltenbach, Sabine Renate Ling, Gerd-Christian Markwardt, Alois Andreas Mitzel, Karl Cölestin Müller, Edeltraud Elisabeth Paul, Bernard Roman, Dominique Roth, Bernard Rudolf, Corinne Saab, Hermann Schwamberger, Tim Schwarz, Andreas Thom, François Xavier Trotzier, Fekadu Tulu, Andrea Ulrike Waßmer, Mario Josef Zink and Michel Ziesel.
25      Those applicants for leave to intervene claim to have an interest in the result of the case, since their employment would be seriously jeopardised if the use of chromium trioxide were successively phased out in the European Union over the coming years.
26      As the Commission states, the interest of the employees of the users of the substance at issue as to whether that substance’s use in electroplating, etching processes, electropolishing and other surface treatment processes and technologies as well as mixing require an exemption under Regulation No 1907/2006, is only indirect and hypothetical. By claiming that they may lose their employment, those applicants for leave to intervene fear, in essence, that they may suffer the consequences of any unfavourable effects that the contested regulation could potentially have on their employers’ interests and activities. Nothing emerges from the case-file to suggest that the inclusion of the substance at issue in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 clearly and directly implies that those particular applicants for leave to intervene will lose their employment. Therefore, having failed to adduce any evidence in that regard, clearly the interest of those employees of users of the substance at issue is indirect and remote in nature and appears not to be sufficiently defined to justify intervention in the present case (see, to that effect, order in Joined Cases 197/80 to 200/80, 243/80, 245/80 and 247/80 Ludwigshafener Walzmühle v EEC [1981] ECR 1041, paragraphs 8 and 9).
27      It follows from the foregoing that the applications to intervene of the applicants referred to in paragraph 24 above must be rejected.
The applications to intervene of entities established in Switzerland or representing companies established in Switzerland
28      Those applicants for leave to intervene are SWISSGALVANIC Verband Galvanobetriebe der Schweiz (SWISSGALVANIC), Vereinigung Lieferfirmen für Oberflächentechnik (VLO) and ERNE surface AG (Erne).
29      SWISSGALVANIC is an association representing the interests of the Swiss galvanisation industry. Its members are companies that engage in electrolytic surface treatment of metals and other substances in Switzerland. SWISSGALVANIC claims that the European Union is one of the most important markets for the Swiss galvanising industry and that, because of the contested regulation, its member companies would lose a substantial part of their business. VLO is a Swiss association of suppliers of the surface technology industry. According to that association, both it and its members have a direct interest in the result of the present case to the extent that the contested regulation threatens the existence of their downstream customers and consequently also significantly impacts their own performance. Erne, as a Swiss galvaniser, uses the substance at issue and claims to have an interest in the result of the case because galvanisers are obliged to obtain an authorisation pursuant to Articles 60 and 62 of Regulation No 1907/2006.
30      The applications to intervene of SWISSGALVANIC, VLO and Erne must be rejected.
31      First, as regards SWISSGALVANIC and VLO, as is apparent from their arguments, those associations represent the interests of the Swiss galvanisation industry. The obligations stemming from Regulation No 1907/2006, and in particular the obligation to obtain an authorisation pursuant to Articles 60 and 62 of that regulation to use the substance at issue do not bind the companies established in Switzerland since, not being established in the European Union, they are not upstream manufacturers or users within the meaning of Article 3(9) and (13) of Regulation No 1907/2006. Consequently, it does not follow from the elements of fact and law presented by those applicants for leave to intervene that they have a direct and existing interest in the result of the present case, in the light of the criteria referred to in paragraph 17 above.
32      Second, as regards Erne’s application, it must be pointed out that that company, which falls within the category of galvanisers, is established in Switzerland. Given that the authorisation requirement under Articles 60 and 62 of Regulation No 1907/2006 does not bind it since it is not established in the European Union (see paragraph 31 above), it does not have an interest in the result of the present case.
33      In the light of all of the foregoing, leave to intervene is to be granted to Assogalvanica, Ecometal, CETS, AOT, SEA, ZVO, ECO-CHIM, Heiche Oberflächentechnik, Schwäbische Härtetechnik Ulm, TSM, Aros Hydraulik, Berndorf Band, Eberhard Derichs Maschinen- und Apparatebau, Friedrich Fausel Metalldrückerei, Goldhofer Aktiengesellschaft, Heidelberger Druckmaschinen, Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Allemagne, ITW Automotive Products, de Josef Van Baal, Kleinvoigtsberger Elektrobauelemente, Kniggendorf & Kögler, Liebherr-Components Kirchdorf, Max Hilscher, MORA Metrology, Norsystec-Nohra-System-Technik, Otto Littmann Maschinenfabrik Präzisionsmechanik, Provertha Connectors Cables & Solutions, Roland Merz, Schwing Stetter Baumaschinen, SML Maschinengesellschaft, ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe and Windmöller & Hölscher. The applications to intervene of the other applicants must be rejected.
34      Since the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union referred to in Article 24(6) of the Rules of Procedure was published on 7 September 2013, the applications for leave to intervene have been made within the six week period laid down in Article 115(1) of those rules. The rights of the applicants for leave to intervene the applications of which are to be granted will be, accordingly, those recognised under Article 116(2),(3) and (4) of the Rules of Procedure.
Costs
35      Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure, a decision as to costs is to be given in the final judgment or in the order closing the proceedings. The present order closes the proceedings as far as concerns the applicants for leave to intervene the applications of which are to be refused. A decision should accordingly be made on the costs relating to their application to intervene.
36      Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since SWISSGALVANIC, VLO, Erne, Mr Hoffmann, Mr Alt, Mr Altvater, Mrs Brandenburger, Mr Groß, Mr Hafner, Mr Hlavica, Mr Maugg, Mrs Kersting, Mr Kircher, Mr Dähler, Mr Lo Bue, Mr Marguglio, Mr Sclafani, Mrs Jansen, Mrs Jonas, Mrs Quirbach, Mr Prazza, Mr Sonneck, Mr Viola, Mrs Beetz, Mr Hermann, Mr Köster, Mr Prazza, Mr Auer, Mrs Beuthner, Mr Boespflug, Mr Brendelberger, Mr Epple, Mr Falk, Mrs Fink, Mr Friedmann, Mr Gert, Gless, Mr Heck, Mr Hilß, Mr Höninger, Mr Huber, Mrs Huber, Mr Juncker, Mrs Kalmbacher, Mr Kaltenbach, Mrs Ling, Mr Markwardt, Mr Mitzel, Müller, Mrs Paul, Mr Roman, Mrs Roth, Mr Rudolf, Mrs Saab, Mr Schwamberger, Mr Schwarz, Mr Thom, Mr Trotzier, Mr Tulu, Mrs Waßmer, Mr Zink and Mr Ziesel have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own respective costs. Since neither the Commission nor the original applicants applied for costs in their pleadings, they must bear their own respective costs in connection with the present intervention proceedings to the extent that the applications of the applicants referred to in the present paragraph are concerned.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1.      Assogalvanica, Ecometal, European Committee for Surface Treatment (CETS), Österreichische Gesellschaft für Oberflächentechnik (AOT), Surface Engineering Association (SEA), Zentralverband Oberflächentechnik e.V. (ZVO), ECO-CHIM SRL, Heiche Oberflächentechnik GmbH, Schwäbische Härtetechnik Ulm GmbH & Co KG, TSM Srl, Aros Hydraulik GmbH, Berndorf Band GmbH, Eberhard Derichs Maschinen- und Apparatebau GmbH, Friedrich Fausel Metalldrückerei, Goldhofer Aktiengesellschaft, Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Allemagne GmbH & Co KG, ITW Automotive Products GmbH, Josef Van Baal GmbH, Kleinvoigtsberger Elektrobauelemente GmbH, Kniggendorf & Kögler GmbH, Liebherr-Components Kirchdorf GmbH, Max Hilscher GmbH, MORA Metrology GmbH, Norsystec-Nohra-System-Technik GmbH, Otto Littmann Maschinenfabrik Präzisionsmechanik GmbH, Provertha Connectors Cables & Solutions GmbH, Roland Merz, Schwing Stetter Baumaschinen GmbH, SML Maschinengesellschaft mbH, ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG and Windmöller & Hölscher KG are granted leave to intervene in Case T‑360/13 in support of the form of order sought by Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik e.V. (VECCO) and the other 185 applicants the names of which are listed in Annex I.
2.      Copies of all the procedural documents are to be served by the Registrar on the interveners.
3.      A period is to be set for the interveners for the submission of a statement in intervention.
4.      The applications to intervene submitted by SWISSGALVANIC Verband Galvanobetriebe der Schweiz (SWISSGALVANIC), Vereinigung Lieferfirmen für Oberflächentechnik (VLO), ERNE surface AG (Erne), Joachim Hoffmann, Martin Alt, Manfred Altvater, Malden Brandenburger, Martin Groß, Georg Hafner, Michael Hlavica, Andreas Maugg, Verena Kersting, Hannes Kircher, Peter Dähler, Calogero Lo Bue, Domenico Marguglio, Gaspare Sclafani, Martina Jansen, Carolin Jonas, Susanne Quirbach, Santo Prazza, Holm Sonneck, Antonio Viola, Erika Beetz, Paskal Hermann, Ralf Köster, Giuseppe Prazza, Josef Auer, Maria Beuthner, Stephan Christophe Boespflug, Sven Brendelberger, Andreas Eduard Epple, Andreas Karl Falk, Susanne Brigitta Fink, Klaus Dieter Friedmann, Andreas Gert, Michel Gless, Michael Heck, Felix Hilß, Thomas Josef Höninger, Bernd Herbert Huber, Monika Huber, Fabien Frederic Juncker, Klaudia Rita Kalmbacher, Andreas Kaltenbach, Sabine Renate Ling, Gerd-Christian Markwardt, Alois Andreas Mitzel, Karl Cölestin Müller, Edeltraud Elisabeth Paul, Bernard Roman, Dominique Roth, Bernard Rudolf, Corinne Saab, Hermann Schwamberger, Tim Schwarz, Andreas Thom, François Xavier Trotzier, Fekadu Tulu, Andrea Ulrike Waßmer, Mario Josef Zink and Michel Ziesel are rejected.
5.      SWISSGALVANIC, VLO, Erne, Mr Hoffmann, Mr Alt, Mr Altvater, Mrs Brandenburger, Mr Groß, Mr Hafner, Mr Hlavica, Mr Maugg, Mrs Kersting, Mr Kircher, Mr Dähler, Mr Lo Bue, Mr Marguglio, Mr Sclafani, Mrs Jansen, Mrs Jonas, Mrs Quirbach, Mr Prazza, Mr Sonneck, Mr Viola, Mrs Beetz, Mr Hermann, Mr Köster, Mr Prazza, Mr Auer, Mrs Beuthner, Mr Boespflug, Mr Brendelberger, Mr Epple, Mr Falk, Mrs Fink, Mr Friedmann, Mr Gert, Mr Gless, Mr Heck, Mr Hilß, Mr Höninger, Mr Huber, Mrs Huber, Mr Juncker, Mrs Kalmbacher, Mr Kaltenbach, Mrs Ling, Mr Markwardt, Mr Mitzel, Mr Müller, Mrs Paul, Mr Roman, Mrs Roth, Mr Rudolf, Mrs Saab, Mr Schwamberger, Mr Schwarz, Mr Thom, Mr Trotzier, Mr Tulu, Mrs Waßmer, Mr Zink and Mr Ziesel are to bear their own respective costs.
6.      The European Commission, VECCO and the other 185 applicants the names of which are listed in Annex I are to bear their own respective costs in connection with the present intervention proceedings to the extent that the applications of the applicants referred to in paragraph 4 of the operative part of this order are concerned.
7.      Costs are reserved as to the remainder.
Luxembourg, 4 March 2014.
E. Coulon
A. Dittrich
Registrar
President
ANNEX I
Adolf Krämer GmbH & Co. KG
AgO Argentum GmbH Oberflächenveredelung
Alfred Kruse GmbH Metallveredelung
AL-Oberflächenveredelungsgesellschaft m.b.H
Anke GmbH & Co. KG
ATC Armoloy Technology Coatings GmbH & Co. KG
August Schröder GmbH & Co. KG Oberflächenveredelung
August Sure KG
Baaske Oberflächenveredelung GmbH
Hartchrom-Beck GmbH
Bredt GmbH
Breidert Galvanic GmbH
Chrom-Müller Metallveredelung GmbH
Chrom-Schmitt GmbH & Co. KG
C. Hübner GmbH
C. W. Albert GmbH & Co. KG
Detlef Bingen Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
Dittes Oberflächentechnik GmbH
Duralloy Süd GmbH
Durochrom-Bogatzki
Metallveredlung Emil Weiß GmbH & Co. KG
Ewald Sidola Metallveredelungsgesellschaft mbH
Flügel CSS GmbH & Co. KG
Fritz Zehnle Galvanische Anstalt, Inh. Gerd Joos e.K.
Galvanoform Gesellschaft für Galvanoplastik mbH
Galvano Herbert Geske e.K.
Galvanotechnik Friedrich Holst GmbH
Galvano Weis, Weis GmbH & Co., Galvanische Werkstätte KG
gebr. böge Metallveredelungs- GmbH
Hans Giesbert GmbH & Co. KG
Groz-Beckert KG
GTW GmbH
GWC Coating GmbH
Hartchrom Beuthel GmbH
Hartchrom ERB GmbH
Hartchrom GmbH
Hartchrom GmbH Werner Kreuz
Hartchrom Schoch GmbH
Hartchrom Teikuro Automotive GmbH
Heine Optotechnik GmbH & Co. KG
Heinrich Schnarr GmbH
Heinrich Schulte Söhne GmbH & Co. KG
Heinz Daurer & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG Metall-Veredelung-Lampertheim
Helmut Gossmann Metallveredelungs-GmbH
Henry Gevekoth GmbH
Heyer GmbH Oberflächentechnik
HFJ Galvano Kiel GmbH
Hueck Engraving GmbH & Co. KG
Imhof Hartchrom GmbH
Johannes Jander GmbH & Co. KG
Johann Maffei GmbH & Co. KG
Kesseböhmer Beschlagsysteme GmbH & Co. KG
Knipex-Werk C. Gustav Putsch KG
Kreft & Röhrig Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
Kriebel Metallveredelung GmbH
LKS Kronenberger GmbH Metallveredlungswerk
Kunststofftechnik Bernt GmbH
L B - Oberflächentechnik GmbH
Linder Metallveredelungsgesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
Metallisierwerk Peter Schreiber GmbH
Montanhydraulik Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
Morex SpA
Motoren-Sauer Instandsetzungs-GmbH
MSC/Copperflow Ltd
Neumeister Hydraulik GmbH
Nießer Metallveredelung GmbH
Norddeutsche Hartchrom GmbH & Co. KG
Oberflächenzentrum Elz GmbH
OK Oberflächenveredelung GmbH & Co. KG
OTH Oberflächentechnik Hagen GmbH & Co. KG
OT Oberflächentechnik GmbH & Co. KG
Präzisionsgalvanik GmbH Wolfen
Rahrbach GmbH
Rudolf Clauss GmbH & Co. KG Metallveredelung
Rudolf Jatzke Galvanik-Hartchrom Günter Holthöfer GmbH & Co. KG
Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG
Scherer GmbH
Schmitz Hydraulikzylinder GmbH
Schnarr Metallveredlung Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung
Schornberg Galvanik GmbH
Robert Schrubstock GmbH & Co. KG
Schulte Hartchrom GmbH, Arnsberg
Schwing GmbH
Silit-Werke Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft
Steinbach & Vollmann GmbH & Co. KG
Strötzl Oberflächentechnik GmbH & Co. KG
Süss Oberflächentechnik GmbH
Thoma Metallveredelung GmbH
Viemetall Viersener Metallveredlung Pottel GmbH
Walzen-Service-Center GmbH
Wavec GmbH
Wilhelm Bauer GmbH & Co. KG
Willi Remscheid Galvanische Anstalt GmbH
Willi Remscheid Kunststofftechnik GmbH
Wiotec, Inhaber Udo Wilmes e.K.
Wissing Hartchrom GmbH
alfi GmbH Isoliergefäße, Metall‑ und Haushaltswaren
BIA Kunststoff- und Galvanotechnik GmbH & Co. KG
Siegfried Boner e.K., Inhaber Ingrid Viechter-Dore
Bruchmühlbacher Galvanotechnik GmbH
C + C Krug GmbH
Collini GmbH
Collini Gesellschaft m.b.H
Collini GmbH
Collini Wien GmbH
Federal-Mogul TP Europe GmbH & Co KG
Fischer GmbH & Co. surface technologies KG
Friederici Oberflächenveredlung GmbH
Galvano Wittenstein GmbH
Gedore-Werkzeugfabrik GmbH & Co. KG
Gerhardi Kunststofftechnik GmbH
GOSMA - Werkzeugfabrik und Metallveredelung Weber GmbH
Hartchrom-Meuter Ernst Meuter GmbH & Co. KG
Hartchrom Spezialbeschichtung Winter GmbH
Hasler AG, Aluminiumveredlung
Hartchrom Haslinger Oberflächentechnik GmbH
Hentschel Harteloxal GmbH & Co. KG
Kammin Metallveredelung KG
Karl-Heinz Bauer GmbH Galvanische Anstalt
Maschinenfabrik KBA‑Mödling
Albert Kissling Galvanische Werke GmbH
KME Germany GmbH & Co. KG
Lahner KG
Liebherr‑Aerospace Lindenberg GmbH
MTU Aero Engines AG
MTU Maintenance Hannover GmbH
Münze Österreich Aktiengesellschaft
Nehlsen‑BWB Flugzeug‑Galvanik Dresden GmbH & Co. KG
Orbis Will GmbH + Co. KG
Riag Oberflächentechnik AG
Franz Rieger Metallveredlung
Saxonia Galvanik GmbH
Schweizer Galvanotechnic GmbH & Co. KG
G. Schwepper Beschlag GmbH + Co
R. Spitzke Oberflächen‑ und Galvanotechnik GmbH & Co. KG
Stahl Judenburg GmbH
VTK Veredlungstechnik Krieglach GmbH
STI Surface Technologies International Holding AG
Witech GmbH
Kurt Zecher GmbH
De Martin AG
Hattler & Sohn GmbH
Alfacrom 2000 Srl
F.LLI Angelini Sud Srl
Bertola Srl
Bugli Srl
Burello Srl
Galvanica CMB Di Bittante Franco EC - SNC
Casprini Gruppo Industriale SpA
C.F.G. Rettifiche Srl
CIL – Cromatura e Rettifica Srl
Cromatura Srl
Cromital Srl
Cromoflesch Di Bolletta Giuseppe & C. - SNC
Chromagalante Srl
Chromotrevignia Srl
Elezinco Srl
Galvanica Nobili Srl
Galvanotecnica Viganti Srl
Galvitek Srl
Gilardoni Vittorio Srl
Industria Galvanica Dalla Torre Ermanno e Figli Srl
La Galvanica Trentina Srl
Nicros Srl
O.C.M. Di Liboa Mauro & C. – Societa in nome Colletivo
Rubinetterie Zazzeri SpA
Silga SpA
Surcromo Di Suttoraq Marco
Tobaldini SpA
Tre Albi SNC Di Trenti Silvano Bittante Mario & Albanese Giancarlo
Adolf Boos GmbH & Co. KG
Henkel Beiz‑ und Elektropoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG
Saueressig GmbH + Co.KG
Saueressig Polska Sp. z o.o.
Wetzel GmbH
“Wetzel“Sp. z o.o.
Apex Cylinders Ltd
Federal-Mogul Burscheid GmbH
Federal-Mogul Friedberg GmbH
Federal-Mogul Vermögensverwaltungs-GmbH
Federal-Mogul Operations France SAS
Dietmar Schrick GmbH
Cromatura Dalla Torre Sergio SNC Di Dalla Torre Sergio EC
Hartchromwerk Brunner AG
Schulz Hartchrom GmbH
ANNEX II
Ecometal
European Committee for Surface Treatment (CETS)
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Oberflächentechnik (AOT)
Surface Engineering Association (SEA)
SWISSGALVANIC, Verband Galvanobetriebe der Schweiz (SWISSGALVANIC)
Vereinigung Lieferfirmen für Oberflächentechnik (VLO)
Zentralverband Oberflächentechnik e.V. (ZVO)
ECO-CHIM SRL
ERNE surface AG (Erne)
Heiche Oberflächentechnik GmbH
Schwäbische Härtetechnik Ulm GmbH & Co KG
TSM Srl
Aros Hydraulik GmbH
Berndorf Band GmbH
Eberhard Derichs Maschinen- und Apparatebau GmbH
Friedrich Fausel Metalldrückerei
Goldhofer Aktiengesellschaft
Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG
Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Allemagne GmbH & Co KG
ITW Automotive Products GmbH
Josef Van Baal GmbH
Kleinvoigtsberger Elektrobauelemente GmbH
Kniggendorf & Kögler GmbH
Liebherr-Components Kirchdorf GmbH
Max Hilscher GmbH
MORA Metrology GmbH
Norsystec-Nohra-System-Technik GmbH
Otto Littmann Maschinenfabrik Präzisionsmechanik GmbH
Provertha Connectors Cables & Solutions GmbH
Roland Merz
Schwing Stetter Baumaschinen GmbH
SML Maschinengesellschaft mbH
ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG
Windmöller & Hölscher KG
Joachim Hoffmann
Martin Alt
Manfred Altvater
Malden Brandenburger
Martin Groß
Georg Hafner
Michael Hlavica
Andreas Maugg
Verena Kersting
Hannes Kircher
Peter Dähler
Calogero Lo Bue
Domenico Marguglio
Gaspare Sclafani
Martina Jansen
Carolin Jonas
Susanne Quirbach
Santo Prazza
Holm Sonneck
Antonio Viola
Erika Beetz
Paskal Hermann
Ralf Köster
Giuseppe Prazza
Josef Auer
Maria Beuthner
Stephan Christophe Boespflug
Sven Brendelberger
Andreas Eduard Epple
Andreas Karl Falk
Susanne Brigitta Fink
Klaus Dieter Friedmann
Andreas Gert
Michel Gless
Michael Heck
Felix Hilß
Thomas Josef Höninger
Bernd Herbert Huber
Monika Huber
Fabien Frederic Juncker
Klaudia Rita Kalmbacher
Andreas Kaltenbach
Sabine Renate Ling
Gerd-Christian Markwardt
Alois Andreas Mitzel
Karl Cölestin Müller
Edeltraud Elisabeth Paul
Bernard Roman
Dominique Roth
Bernard Rudolf
Corinne Saab
Hermann Schwamberger
Tim Schwarz
Andreas Thom
François Xavier Trotzier
Fekadu Tulu
Andrea Ulrike Waßmer
Mario Josef Zink
Michel Ziesel
* Language of the case: English.