CELEX: 62002CO0186
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2003. # Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA v Commission of the European Communities and Territorio Histórico de Álava - Diputación Foral de Álava. # Applications to intervene. # Case C-186/02 P.

Case C-186/02 P Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SAvCommission of the European Communities
            «(Applications to intervene)»
            
               
                  Order of the President of the Court, 6 March 2003  
                     
               I - 0000 
               
            
                   
               
               
            
            Summary of the Order
         
         
                  1..
                  Procedure – Intervention – Persons having an interest – Territorial entity claiming to be affected by an aid scheme likely to attract undertakings to a neighbouring region – Admissibility dependent on whether there is a direct and present effect on that entity  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40) 
         
                  2..
                  Procedure – Intervention – Conditions governing admissibility – Indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarity of situations – Not admissible  (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40) 
         
         1.
          Under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice an application to intervene is to be limited to supporting the forms
         of order sought by one of the parties. An interest in the result of the case means a direct, present interest in seeing granted the form of order sought by the party
         whom the intervener wishes to support. A territorial entity responsible for protecting the interests, particularly the financial interests, of a region that has
         submitted a complaint to the Commission, concerning an aid scheme from which an undertaking benefited when it relocated to
         a neighbouring area, has a direct and present interest in seeing granted the form of order sought by the Commission, asking
         the Court to uphold the judgment of the Court of First Instance dismissing the application for annulment of the decision declaring
         part of the aid in question incompatible. Owing to that geographical proximity, the aid scheme in question may have a direct
         and present effect on its economic situation either by causing the relocation of some undertakings or by adversely affecting
         the competitive position of other undertakings. However, a territorial entity which seeks, conversely, to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the parties
         which have appealed against that judgment, could not claim that it has a direct and present interest, owing to its geographical
         proximity to the region to which the aid scheme is likely to attract undertakings, unless it could claim that the aid benefited
         its own economy. see paras 6-7, 9-10, 17
         
         2.
          An interest in the result of the case within the meaning of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice means a direct
         and present interest in the grant by the Court of the order as sought and not an interest in relation to the pleas in law
         put forward. It is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on
         the specific act whose annulment is sought and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case
         by reason of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties. In maintaining that the judgment to be given by the Court on the substantive questions raised might affect the decision which
         the Court of First Instance will be moved to take in a case concerning it by reason of such similarities, a territorial entity
         is claiming only an indirect interest in the result of the case. Its application to intervene must therefore be rejected.
         see paras 14-16, 18
      

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
            
            ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT6 March 2003  (1)
            
            
         
         
            
         
            ((Applications to intervene))
            
         In Case C-186/02 P, 
         
         
          Ramondín SA , established in Logroño (Spain), Ramondín Cápsulas SA,   established in Laguardia (Spain), represented by J. Lazcano-Iturburu Ayestaran, abogado,
         
         
         appellants, 
         
         APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition)
         of 6 March 2002 in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00  
          Diputación Foral de Álava and Others   v  
          Commission  [2002] ECR II-1385, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
         
         the other parties to the proceedings being: 
          Commission of the European Communities,   represented by F. Santaolalla Gadea and J.L. Buendía Sierra, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,defendant at first instance, and Territorio Histórico de Álava ─ Diputación Foral de Álava, defendant at first instance, 
         
         
         
         
         THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
         
         after hearing Advocate General S. Alber,  makes the following 
         
         
         Order
         1
            
         By application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 May 2002, Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA brought an appeal pursuant
         to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice (now Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice) against the
         judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2002 in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00   
          Diputación Foral de Álava and Others   v  
          Commission  [2002] ECRII-1385. By that judgment, the Court dismissed their application, and that of the Territorio Histórico de Álava
         ─ Diputación Foral de Álava, for the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/795/EC of 22  December 1999 on the State aid implemented
         by Spain for Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA (OJ 2000 L 318, p. 36). The fiscal measures to which the grounds of appeal
         refer and which were classified as State aid by that decision were adopted by the Territorio Histórico de Álava ─ Diputación
         Foral de Álava. 
         
         
         2
            
         By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 29 August 2002, the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja, represented by J.M.
         Criado Gámez, abogado, applied for leave to intervene in this case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
          
         
         
         3
            
         By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 18 September 2002, the Gobierno Foral de Navarra (Regional Government
         of Navarre), represented by M. Araujo Boyd, abogado, applied for leave to intervene in this case in support of the form of
         order sought by Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA.  
         
         
         4
            
         The applications to intervene were submitted pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court
         of Justice (now the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice) and Articles 93, 118 and 123 of
         the Rules of Procedure of the Court.       
         
         
         5
            
         The Commission claims that the Court should allow the application to intervene submitted by the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja
         and dismiss that submitted by the Gobierno Foral de Navarra. Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA claim that the Court should
         dismiss the application to intervene submitted by the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja and allow the application to intervene
         submitted by the Gobierno Foral de Navarra.  
         
            
               The applications to intervene
            
         
         6
            
         Under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, Member States and institutions of the Communities may intervene in
         cases before the Court and the same right is to be open to any other person establishing an interest in the result of any
         case submitted to the Court, save in cases between Member States, between institutions of the Communities or between Member
         States and institutions of the Communities. Article 40 also provides that an application to intervene is to be limited to
         supporting the forms of order sought by one of the parties.      
         
         
         7
            
         An interest in the result of the case means a direct, present interest in seeing granted the form of order sought by the party
         whom the intervener wishes to support (see inter alia the orders in Case C-76/93 P  
          Scaramuzza   v  
          Commission  [1993] ECR I-5715 and I-5721, paragraph 6). 
         The application to intervene of the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja
         
         
         8
            
         The Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja states that it is a region which borders the Territorio Histórico de Álava and that, in
         the present case, the aid granted to Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA entailed the relocation to Álava, in the Basque
         Country, of the undertaking Ramondín, which had been established since 1971 in La Rioja. It states that, on 2 October 1997,
         it submitted a complaint to the Commission concerning that aid. It argues that the implementation of the contested aid directly
         affects its interests, inasmuch as it may entail the relocation of undertakings established in its territory and lead to unfair
         competition with regard to other bordering regions.  
         
         
         9
            
         It is not disputed that, under Spanish law, the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja is responsible for protecting the interests,
         particularly the financial interests, of the region of La Rioja and that that Community did submit a complaint to the Commission.
         Furthermore, it is common ground that the undertaking Ramondín benefited under the contested aid scheme when it relocated
         to Álava, notwithstanding the appellants' claim that other considerations had also affected their decision. More generally,
         it should be pointed out that, owing to the geographical proximity of the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja to the Territorio
         Histórico de Álava, the aid scheme in question may have a direct and present effect on the economic situation of that community,
         either by causing the relocation of some undertakings or by adversely affecting the competitive position of other undertakings.
         
         
         
         10
            
         Therefore, the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja has established that it has a direct and present interest in seeing granted
         the form of order sought by the Commission. 
         
         
         11
            
         Accordingly, its application to intervene must be granted.      
         The application to intervene of the Gobierno Foral de Navarra
         
         
         12
            
         The Gobierno Foral de Navarra claims that it has a direct and present interest in intervening, since:       
         
         
         ─
            it brought an action before the Court of First Instance (Case T-225/01) for the annulment of Commission Decision 2002/893/EC
            of 11 July 2001 on the State aid applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Navarre (Spain) (OJ 2002 L 314, p.
            17), which declared that fiscal measures granting undertakings which fulfilled certain objective conditions a 50% reduction
            in the total amount of tax on income earned in the financial years of the first seven years of activity, over four consecutive
            years, constituted a State aid scheme; 
         
         
         
         ─
            the Court of First Instance notified it of its intention to suspend the proceedings before it pending a ruling by the Court
            of Justice inter alia in the present case;  
         
         
         
         ─
            the Court of First Instance thus intends to make the result of the case before it depend on the judgment of the Court of Justice;
            
         
         
         
         ─
            the substantive questions raised during this case might in fact affect the decision reached by the Court of First Instance;
            
         
         
         
         ─
            in spite of the factual differences between the two cases, the wording of Norma Foral 22/1994 de la Diputación Foral de Álava
            of 20 December 1994 implementing the 1995 budget of the Territorio Histórico de Álava (
            Boletín Oficial del Territorio Histórico de Álava  No 5 of 13 January 1995), at issue in the present case, bears a certain similarity to Ley Foral 24/1996 de Navarra of 30 December
            1996 on corporation tax (
            Boletín Oficial de Navarra  No 159 of 31 December 1996), at issue in Case T-225/01. 
         
         
         
         
         13
            
         In the alternative, the Gobierno Foral de Navarra claims that it has a direct and present interest in the result of the present
         case as a  
         community bordering the Territorio Histórico de Álava. It claims that the judgment which the Court of Justice delivers in this case will affect
         it directly, owing to that geographical proximity. In that regard, it bases its argument on the order of the Court of First
         Instance of 10 April 2002 in Case T-225/01, which allowed the intervention of the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja in support
         of the Commission, on the ground that Ley Foral 24/1996 at issue in that case, which had been adopted to help newly created
         companies, was liable directly to affect the economy of La Rioja, a region bordering Navarre.  
         
         
         14
            
         It should be pointed out that an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of Article 40 of the Statute of the
         Court of Justice means a direct and present interest in the grant by the Court of the order as sought and not an interest
         in relation to the pleas in law put forward (orders in Case 111/63  
          Lemmerz-Werke  v  
          High Authority  [1964] ECR 1965, p. 677, 678; Joined Cases 116/77, 124/77 and 143/77  
          Amylum and Others  v
          Council and Commission  [1978] ECR 893, paragraphs 7 and 9; and Joined Cases C-151/97 P(I) and C-157/97 P(I)  
          National Power and PowerGen   [1997] ECR I-3491, paragraph 53). It is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest
         in the ruling on the specific act whose annulment is sought and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result
         of the case by reason of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties (orders, cited above, in  
          Scaramuzza  v  
          Commission , paragraph 11, and  
          National Power and PowerGen , paragraph 53).    
         
         
         15
            
         In this case, the Gobierno Foral de Navarra claims that there is a similarity between the national law provisions at issue
         in Case T-225/01 and those at issue in the present case. It maintains that the forthcoming judgment of the Court of Justice
         on the substantive questions raised might affect the decision which the Court of First Instance will be moved to take. 
         
         
         16
            
         It is therefore claiming only an indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarities between its situation
         and that of one of the parties to this case, in this instance the Territorio Histórico de Álava ─ Diputación Foral de Álava.
          
         
         
         17
            
         Nor can the Gobierno Foral de Navarra claim that it has a direct and present interest owing to the geographical position of
         the Comunidad Foral de Navarra, which borders the Territorio Histórico de Álava. Since it wishes to intervene in support of
         the appellants, it would be reasonable for it to rely on that geographical proximity only if it could claim that the contested
         measures benefited its economy. However, it does not claim that those measures have any specific effect on its territory,
         unlike the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja which, in Case T-225/01, claimed, in support of its application to intervene in
         support of the Commission, that there was a risk that several undertakings established in its territory would relocate, owing
         to the fact that an aid scheme had been adopted by a bordering community.  It seems, in fact, that the Gobierno Foral de Navarra
         is seeking to protect its interests as a fiscal authority with powers similar to those of the fiscal authority before the
         Court in the present case, an objective which is unconnected with any effect which the aid scheme under consideration in this
         case may have on a bordering territory. 
         
         
         18
            
         In the light of the foregoing considerations, since the Gobierno Foral de Navarra does not have an interest in the result
         of the case within the meaning of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, its application to intervene must be
         rejected. 
         
         Costs
         19
            
         The application to intervene of the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja is granted. Costs in respect of that intervention are reserved.
         
         
         
         20
            
         The application to intervene of the Gobierno Foral de Navarra is dismissed. Under Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure,
         which applies to appeals by virtue of Article 118 thereof, the prospective intervener must bear its own costs. 
         
         On those grounds, 
         
         
         
            
            THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
         
         
         hereby orders:
         
            
            1.
              The Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja is granted leave to intervene in Case C-186/02 P in support of the form of order sought
               by the Commission of the European Communities.    
            
            
            2.
              A period shall be prescribed for the intervener to put forward its pleas in  support of that form of order.        
            
            
            3.
              A copy of all the pleadings shall be served on the intervener by the Registrar.  
            
            
            4.
              The application to intervene of the Gobierno Foral de Navarra is dismissed.    
            
            
            5.
              Costs in respect of the intervention of the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja are reserved.  
            
            
            6.
              The Gobierno Foral de Navarra shall bear its own costs in respect of its application to intervene.  
            
            Luxembourg, 6 March 2003. 
         
         
         
                  R. Grass 
               
               
                  G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias  
               
            
         
         
         
                  Registrar
               
               
                  President
               
            
      
      
          1 –
            
             Language of the case: Spanish.