T-97/92

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gianluigi Valsesia, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, 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 the applicants' salary statements of January 1992 inasmuch as they apply the 'temporary contribution' and establish as from that date an inevitable increase in the applicants' pension contributions, and for a declaration that Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) N o 3831/91 of 19 December 1991 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities with a view to introducing a temporary contribution, and Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) N o 3832/91 of 19 December 1991 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities with regard to the contribution to the pension scheme (OJ 1991 L 361, pp. 7 and 9 respectively) are unlawful,

* Language of the case: French.

II - 588

RIJNOUDΤ AND HOCKΕN ν COMMISSION

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 5 November 1992, Mr Lock Rijnoudt, the applicant in Case T-97/92, brought an action against the Commission for the annulment of his salary statement of 15 January 1992. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 21 December 1992, Mr Michael Hocken, the applicant in Case T-l 11/92, also brought an action against the Commission for the annulment of his salary statement of 15 January 1992.

2 In their applications the applicants claim that the Court should:

— rule that the applications are admissible and well founded;

— annul the applicants' salary statements of January 1992 inasmuch as they pro- vide for the introduction of a 'temporary contribution' and establish as from that date an inevitable increase in the applicants' pension contributions;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

II - 589

6 In his application to intervene, Mr Gambari claims, essentially, that he has an inter- est in the result of Case T-97/92, first, because the judgment on the legality of the temporary contribution and the increase in the pension contribution will directly affect his legal and financial position and, secondly, because he decided in 1989 to abandon the search for a job in the private sector in the legitimate expectation that the crisis levy would be abolished. In December 1991 that possibility was no longer open to him on account of his age and the situation in the labour market.

II-590

RIJNOUDT AND HOCKEN COMMISSION

7 M r G a m b a n adds that his decision t o apply to the C o u r t onlv as an intervener is justified by considerations of e c o n o m y of p r o c e d u r e . H e states that on 31 March 1992 he lodged a complaint against his o w n salary statement of 15 January 1992, but refrained from bringing an action before the C o u r t following the rejection of the complaint.

8 T h e application to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

9 By letters of 24 M a r c h 1993 the applicants indicated that they had no objection to the application to intervene.

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

Findings of the Court

1 4 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 estab­ lishing an interest in the result of the case.

15 In its order of 25 November 1964 in Case 111/63 Lemmerz-Werke ν High Auth­ ority [1965] ECR 716, concerning a decision of the High Authority relating to the equalization scheme for imported ferrous scrap, the Court of Justice dismissed an application to intervene on the ground that the intervener was unable to establish a direct, existing interest in seeing the forms of order sought in the application granted, since the sole interest which the prospective intervener claimed concerned the success of certain of the applicant's arguments. However, in its order of 15 July 1981 in Case 45/81 Moksel ν Commission (unreported), in the context of an appli­ cation for the annulment of a Commission regulation temporarily suspending the advance fixing of export refunds for certain agricultural products, the Court of Jus­ tice allowed an application to intervene on the ground that the intervener, although unable to establish a direct interest in the forthcoming judgment, could none the less have an interest in the result of the case, at least as regards the grounds on which it was to be based.

II - 592

RIJNOUDΤ AMD HOCKEN ν COMMISSION

20 In such a context, the concept of an interest in the result of a case within the mean­ ing of that provision must be construed as an interest in the decision on the claims relating specifically t o the act whose annulment is sought.

II - 593

ORDER OF 15. 6. 1993 — JOINED CASES T-97/92 AND T-111/92

21 Were that not so, any official able to show that his situation could be affected in an unspecified manner by the Court's ruling on an indirect objection of illegality con­ cerning a Council regulation could establish an interest in the result of the case. Such a situation would not be consistent with the requirements of economy of procedure or with the system of remedies established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, particularly in view of the time-limits provided for therein.

22 It is therefore necessary to draw a strict distinction in the present case, as the Court of Justice did in its order in Lemmerz-Werke ν High Authority, cited above, 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 indi­ rect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarities between their situa­ tion and that of one of the parties.

23 Furthermore, if a prospective intervener has had the opportunity to bring an action himself within a certain time-limit, the fact that he is refused leave to intervene in another case involving a situation similar to his own cannot prejudice his own right to avail himself of the remedies which were open to him.

25 T h e foregoing considerations are also compatible with the case-law of the C o u r t of First Instance and the C o u r t of Justice to the effect that trade unions and profes- sional organizations, which represent a fairly high percentage of officials a n d / o r servants of the C o m m u n i t y institutions and which cannot themselves bring an action on the basis of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, may be given leave to intervene where the parties' pleas raise questions of principle relating to the orga- nization of the European civil service. Such interventions d o not interfere with the p r o p e r course of the procedure before the C o u r t , whereas multiple individual inter- ventions by officials in similar situations to that of an applicant would, if they were permitted, compromise not only the system of remedies established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, but also the effectiveness of the procedure before the C o u r t .

26 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the application for leave to inter- vene must be dismissed.

Costs

27 U n d e r Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the C o u r t of First Instance, the unsuccessful partv is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. However, Article 88 of those Rules provides that in proceedings between the C o m m u n i t i e s and their servants the institutions are to bear their o w n costs.

II-595

ORDER OF 15. 6. 1993 —JOINED CASES T-97/92 AND T-111/92

H. Jung C. W. Bellamy

Registrar President

II-596