C-358/85

Case 358/85

French Republic v European Parliament

(Intervention)

Summary

Procedure — Intervention—Action challenging a measure adopted by an institution — Inter- vention by a member of the defendant institution — Inadmissible (Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC, Art. 34,firstparagraph)

Where an action is directed against a institution to decide itself how to defend its measure adopted by an institution, the interests in that regard. It would be incom­ system of remedies established by the patible with that system to accept the Treaties requires that the institution existence of a right to intervene by persons concerned defend the validity of its measure acting solely in their capacity as members of before the Court and it is also for that the institution concerned.

V

European Parliament, represented by F. Pasetti Lombardella, Jurisconsult at the European Parliament, assisted by C. Pennera, Principal Administrator, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Secretariat of the European Parliament, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION, under Article 38 of the ECSC Treaty, and in the alternative under the first paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 146 of the EAEC Treaty, for a declaration that the resolution of the European Parliament of 24 October 1985 on the infrastructure necessary for holding meetings in Brussels is void,

THE COURT

composed of: Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President, T. Koopmans, U. Everling, K. Bahlmann and R. Joliét (Presidents of Chambers), G. Bosco, O. Due, C. Kakouris, T. F. O'Higgins, F. Schockweiler and J. C. Carvalho Moitinho de Almeida, Judges,

2 The application to intervene, submitted pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 34 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community, was made in accordance with Article 93 (1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure.

3 The application to intervene was served on the parties to the main action in accordance with the provisions of Article 93 (3) of the Rules of Procedure.

4 In a memorandum lodged at the Court Registry on 23 May 1986, the French Government asked the Court to dismiss the application. The Parliament did not submit observations on the application within the prescribed time-limit.

5 The interveners claim that both as the authors, with 30 other Members of the Parliament, of the motion for a resolution at issue and as elected Members of the European Parliament, they have a common, direct and specific interest in the resolution of the dispute. They point out that the purpose of their motion is to improve their working conditions and those of the Parliament. Referring to the judgments of the Court of 10 February 1983 (Case 230/81 Luxembourg v Parliament [1983] ECR 255) and 10 April 1984 (Case 108/83 Luxembourg v Parliament [1984] ECR 1945), the five applicants note that in those cases, the Parliament did not touch upon certain fundamental issues which, unless they intervened, were likely once again not to be raised, with the effect that the decision in this case could aggravate their position.

6 The French Government contends, in particular, that the Members of the Parliament have no direct and specific interest in intervening in the case. That government considers that the interest relied upon by the applicants, in so far as it exists and is well founded, cannot be other than the interest of the Parliament itself.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby:

(1) Dismisses the application to intervene submitted by T. von der Vring, R. Ghanterie, A. Bonaccini, P. N. Price and G. M. de Vries;

FRENCH REPUBLIC v EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

(2) Orders the applicants for the right to intervene to pay the costs of the inter­ vention procedure.