Case C‑362/15 P(I)

Anonymos Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Etairia Larymnis Larko

v

Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE

and

European Commission

‛Appeal — Intervention — Creditor of a main party — Interest in the result of the case — None’

Summary — Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 6 October 2015

Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Admissibility criteria — Interest in the result of the case — Action for the annulment of a Commission decision on State aid — Adverse effect on the economic and financial interests of a creditor of a main party — No actual and current interest on the part of the applicant to intervene — Limits

Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Admissibility criteria — Interest in the result of the case — Concept — Need for a direct and existing interest — Interest which must lead to a solution to the dispute such as to affect the legal position of the applicant

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 of Justice, 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 words ‘result of a case’, used in that provision, refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the future judgment. In that regard, it is appropriate, in particular, to ascertain that the applicant to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and that his interest in the result of the case is certain. In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be considered to be sufficiently direct only if that result is capable of altering the legal position of the applicant to intervene. (see paras 6, 7)

The obligation of the General Court, under Articles 36 and 53, first paragraph, of the Statue of the Court of Justice, to state the grounds on which judgments are based does not require the General Court to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case. Its reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know why the General Court has not upheld their arguments and provides the Court of Justice with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review. (see paras 12, 14)

In the context of an action for annulment brought against a Commission decision on State aid, an adverse effect, even where it is significant, on the economic and financial interests of a creditor of a main party in a case pending before the General Court cannot be considered to be a direct adverse effect on the interests of that creditor, justifying an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statue of the Court of Justice, since it does not alter that creditor’s legal situation. Such economic and financial interests of a creditor are mingled with those of its debtor who is a main party in the case at issue and are affected only indirectly by the result of the case, through the consequences which that result has for that main party. However, a creditor may justify his interest in the result of a case to which his debtor is one of the main parties where the result of the case has an impact on the legal classification of the debt. (see paras 19, 20)