Case C-186/02 P


Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA
v
Commission 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 COURT
6 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.