Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 December 1993 (27292). - Kruidvat BVBA v Commission of the European Communities. - Intervention. - Case T-87/92.



European Court reports 1993 Page II-01363



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons having an interest ° Case concerning the validity of a decision applying the competition rules ° Action for the annulment of a decision exempting a system of selective distribution for de luxe cosmetics ° Association representing undertakings which are parties to distribution systems such as that with which the decision is concerned

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)

Parties

In Case T-87/92,

BVBA Kruidvat, a company governed by Belgian law, established in Saint-Nicolas, Belgium, represented by Onno Willem Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar, and Yves van Gerven, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Berend-Jan Drijber, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Nicola Annecchino, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 92/428/EEC of 24 July 1992 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (Case No IV/33.542 ° Parfums Givenchy system of selective distribution) (OJ 1992 L 236, p. 11),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber),

composed of: R. Schintgen, President, R. García-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner, K. Lenaerts and C.W. Bellamy, Judges,

Registrar: H. Jung,

makes the following

Order

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 22 March 1993, the Fédération Européenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants (European Federation of Retail Perfumers, hereinafter "FEPD"), an association of national federations or unions governed by French law, having its registered office in Paris, represented by Rolland Verniau, of the Lyon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 12 Avenue de la Porte-Neuve, sought leave to intervene in Case T-87/92 in support of the defendant.

2 The application to intervene was made in accordance with Article 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and was submitted pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 37 of the (EEC) Statute of the Court of Justice which, by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 46 thereof, applies to proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

3 Pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the First Chamber referred the application to intervene to the chamber.

4 In its application to intervene, FEPD states, in particular, that it is an association of retail perfumers' federations or unions in 12 countries, including eight Member States of the Community, and that its object is to defend in Europe small and medium-sized commercial undertakings engaged in the retail sale of perfumery products. FEPD considers that its object and its representativeness give it a very particular interest in obtaining the dismissal of the action brought by BVBA Kruidvat against the decision taken by the Commission, at the behest of Parfums Givenchy SA, declaring the provisions of Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty inapplicable to the latter' s selective distribution system.

5 The application to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

6 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 2 April 1993, the defendant informed the Court that it had no observations on FEPD' s application to intervene.

7 By document lodged on 19 April 1993, the applicant asked the Court to dismiss the application to intervene and, if the application were to be allowed, to order FEPD to bear its own costs under Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure.

8 The applicant argues, essentially, that FEPD is not the addressee of the decision and that its application to intervene clearly shows that its only interest lies in supporting the pleas in law and arguments of the defendant rather than the form of order which it seeks. It has thus not established an interest in the result of the case, its aim being to defend the Commission' s views on the need for a selective distribution system for de luxe cosmetics. The applicant refers to the orders of the Court of Justice of 12 April 1978 in Joined Cases 116/77, 124/77 and 143/77 Amylum and Others v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 893, paragraphs 7 and 10, of 25 November 1964 in Case 111/63 Lemmerz-Werke v High Authority [1965] ECR 677 at pp. 717-718, and of 10 June 1965 in Joined Cases 56/64 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966] ECR 299 at pp. 382-384.

9 Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 37 of the (EEC) Statute of the Court of Justice, the right to intervene in cases before the Court is open to any person establishing an interest in the result of the case.

10 FEPD represents a large number of undertakings in the sector concerned and its statutes state that it has the object, inter alia, of ensuring the protection, in particular in relation to the European institutions, of the interests of its member associations, to which many European retailers of de luxe cosmetics belong. The problems raised in the present case could lead the Court to rule in its judgment on questions of principle affecting the operation of selective distribution systems in the field of such products and thus having an appreciable effect on the interests of FEPD' s members. FEPD therefore has an interest in intervening in the present case in support of the defendant.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

hereby orders:

1. The Fédération Européenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants is granted leave to intervene in Case T-87/92 in support of the form of order sought by the defendant.

2. A period shall be prescribed in which the intervener must state in writing the pleas relied on in support of the form of order which it seeks.

3. The Registrar shall serve on the intervener a copy of every document served on the parties.

4. Costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 8 December 1993.