CELEX: 61994TO0367
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-24 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 24 March 1997. # British Coal Corporation v Commission of the European Communities. # Intervention - Confidentiality. # Case T-367/94.

Avis juridique important

|

61994B0367

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 24 March 1997.  -  British Coal Corporation v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Intervention - Confidentiality.  -  Case T-367/94.  

European Court reports 1997 Page II-00469

Summary
Keywords

Procedure - Measures of inquiry - Request for production of a document - Dismissed - Document not relevant for the purposes of the dispute(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 64(3)(d) and 65(b))  

Summary

The interest in the result of a case required before a natural or legal person may intervene under Article 34 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC, applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 46 thereof, cannot be established by an indirect interest concerning a similarity of situations but must, on the contrary, be defined in regard to the actual subject-matter of the case, as circumscribed by the forms of order sought by the parties.Consequently, where a complaint brought before the Commission is directed against a producer of coal, on the ground that the royalties which it has levied infringe Articles 4(d), 65 and 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty, and against a purchaser of coal, on the ground that, by applying discriminatory prices, it infringed Article 63 of the ECSC Treaty and Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, it cannot be argued that the legal persons who have succeeded to the rights of the purchaser of the coal have a direct and present interest in intervening in an application by the producer for annulment of the Commission's implied refusal to reject the complaint, since the practices thus complained of are not only distinct but also do not share the same legal framework. In contrast, the person who made the complaint does have a direct and present interest in the result of the case and is therefore entitled to intervene, since the application seeks the annulment of a decision favourable to it.