ORDER OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

30 November 2022 ( )

(Appeal – Intervention – Admissibility of the appeal – Appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Appeal brought out of time)

In Case C‑617/22 P(I),

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 26 September 2022,

European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & Distributors (Euranimi), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by M. Campa, avvocato, P. Gjørtler, advokat, D. Rovetta, avocat, and V. Villante, avvocato,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Aluminium Association (EAA), established in Brussels,

applicant at first instance,

European Commission, represented by M. Gustafsson and G. Luengo, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

after hearing the Advocate General, M. Szpunar,

makes the following

Order

1 By its appeal, European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & Distributors (Euranimi) seeks to have set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 14 July 2022, EAA v Commission (T‑781/21, not published, EU:T:2022:468; ‘the order under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed Euranimi’s application to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission, defendant at first instance in Case T‑781/21.

The procedure before the General Court and the order under appeal

2 By application lodged at the General Court Registry on 18 December 2021, European Aluminium Association (EAA) brought an action for annulment of Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1784 of 8 October 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium flat-rolled products originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2021 L 359, p. 6). That action was registered as Case T‑781/21.

3 By document lodged at the General Court Registry on 27 March 2022, Euranimi applied for leave to intervene in Case T‑781/21 in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

4 By the order under appeal, the General Court dismissed that application to intervene, on the ground that Euranimi had not established that it had an interest in the result of the case pending before that court.

Forms of order sought

5 By its appeal, Euranimi claims that the Court should:

– set aside the order under appeal;

– grant Euranimi leave to intervene in Case T‑781/21 in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, and

– order EAA to bear the costs relating to the application to intervene as well as with regard to the present appeal.

6 The Commission contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the appeal, and

– order Euranimi to pay the costs.

The appeal

7 In support of its appeal, Euranimi raises a single ground of appeal alleging an infringement of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

8 That said, it must be noted at the outset that the appeal has been brought on the basis of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

9 It must be borne in mind, in that regard, that, according to the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, decisions given by the General Court may be subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only, ‘under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute [of the Court of Justice of the European Union]’.

10 That provision is given specific expression in Articles 56 and 57 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

11 Thus, the first paragraph of Article 56 of that statute provides that an appeal may be brought before the Court of Justice, within two months of the notification of the decision appealed against, against final decisions of the General Court and decisions of that court disposing of the substantive issues in part only or disposing of a procedural issue concerning a plea of lack of competence or inadmissibility.

12 The first paragraph of Article 57 of that statute provides, for its part, that any person whose application to intervene has been dismissed by the General Court may appeal to the Court of Justice within two weeks from the notification of the decision dismissing the application.

13 In view of the relationship between Articles 56 and 57 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it cannot be held that an appeal against a decision of the General Court dismissing an application to intervene may be brought under Article 56 of that statute.

14 First, such a decision is not one of the decisions referred to in Article 56 of that statute.

15 Thus, a decision of the General Court dismissing an application to intervene does not close the proceedings before the General Court nor does it dispose, even in part, of the substantive issues in the case before it (see, by analogy, order of 1 August 2022, Soudal and Esko-Graphics v Magnetrol and Commission, C‑74/22 P(I), EU:C:2022:632, paragraph 46).

16 Moreover, while such a decision does indeed dispose of a procedural issue relating to the status as intervener before the General Court, that issue does not relate to a plea of lack of competence or inadmissibility (see, by analogy, order of 1 August 2022, Soudal and Esko-Graphics v Magnetrol and Commission, C‑74/22 P(I), EU:C:2022:632, paragraph 47).

17 The Court of Justice has held that appeals brought under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union against decisions of the General Court disposing of a procedural issue of a different nature from those referred to in that provision must be dismissed as inadmissible (order of 1 August 2022, Soudal and Esko-Graphics v Magnetrol and Commission, C‑74/22 P(I), EU:C:2022:632, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).

18 Moreover, the Court of Justice has already excluded the possibility of bringing an appeal under Article 56 of that statute against decisions of the General Court disposing of a procedural issue relating to the status of intervener before that court, either by granting an application to intervene or by refusing to grant an intervener in the appeal the status of intervener in a case that has been referred back to the General Court by the Court of Justice (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2019, Bayerische Motoren Werke and Freistaat Sachsen v Commission, C‑654/17 P, EU:C:2019:634, paragraphs 29 and 30, and order of 1 August 2022, Soudal and Esko-Graphics v Magnetrol and Commission, C‑74/22 P(I), EU:C:2022:632, paragraph 51).

19 Secondly, to allow an appeal to be validly brought, under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, against a decision of the General Court dismissing an application to intervene would allow persons whose application to intervene was dismissed by the General Court to bring such an appeal within two months of notification of that dismissal and would, therefore, deprive of any practical effect the shortened period of two weeks provided for by Article 57 of that statute for bringing an appeal against that dismissal.

20 It follows that the present appeal cannot, in any event, succeed in the context of proceedings brought on the basis of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and that it must be examined on the basis of Article 57 of that statute.

21 As pointed out in paragraph 12 of this order, the first paragraph of Article 57 provides that any person whose application to intervene has been dismissed by the General Court may appeal to the Court of Justice within two weeks from the notification of the decision dismissing the application.

22 That 2-week period must be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days, pursuant to Article 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

23 In the present case, since the order under appeal was served on the appellant on 15 July 2022, the period for bringing an appeal against that order expired 2 weeks and 10 days after that date.

24 Consequently, since the present appeal was lodged at the Court Registry on 26 September 2022, it must be regarded as having been brought out of time.

25 Since, in its application, the appellant does not provide any explanation as to the date on which the appeal was lodged, nor does it plead in that regard the existence of unforeseeable circumstances, force majeure or excusable error, it must be held that the appeal was brought out of time.

26 It follows from all the foregoing that the appeal must be dismissed as inadmissible.

Costs

27 In accordance with Article 184(2) of its Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs.

28 Under Article 138(1) of those rules, applicable to the procedure on appeal by reason of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

29 Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against Euranimi and the latter has been unsuccessful, Euranimi must be ordered to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

On those grounds, the Vice-President of the Court hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & Distributors (Euranimi) shall bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Luxembourg, 30 November 2022.

A. Calot Escobar L. Bay Larsen