T-121/95

EFMA v COUNCIL

O R D E R O F T H E C O U R T O F FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) 24 January 1997 *

In Case T-121/95,

European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA), an association regis- tered under Swiss law, established at Zurich (Switzerland), represented initially by Dominique Voillemot and Hubert de Broca, subsequently by Dominique Voillemot and Olivier Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Nicholas Khan, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

intervener,

A P P L I C A T I O N for annulment of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) N o 477/95 of 16 January 1995 amending the definitive anti-dumping measures apply- ing to imports into the Community of urea originating in the former USSR and terminating the anti-dumping measures applying to imports into the Community of urea originating in the former Czechoslovakia (OJ 1995 L 49, p. 1),

T H E C O U R T O F FIRST INSTANCE O F T H E E U R O P E A N C O M M U N I T I E S (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges,

Registrar: H. Jung,

3 By application received at the Court Registry on 23 October 1995, the Commis- sion requested leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council.

4 By order of 21 November 1995, the President of the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, granted the Commission leave to intervene.

5 The written procedure was closed on 22 March 1996.

II - 91

ORDER OF 24.1.1997 — CASE T-121/95

Request for leave to derogate from the rules on languages

(a) at the joint request of the parties the Court of First Instance may authorize another of the languages mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Article to be used as the language of the case for all or part of the proceedings;

II-92

EFMA v COUNCIL

(b) at the request of one of the parties, and after the opposite party and the Advo- cate General have been heard, the Court of First Instance may, by way of derogation from subparagraph (a), authorize another of the languages men- tioned in paragraph (1) of this Article to be used as the language of the case for all or part of the proceedings; such a request may not be submitted by an insti- tution.'

10 The Court has already held that a request for leave to derogate from the rule on the use of the language of the case made by a party intervening in the proceedings must be accompanied by a detailed and specific statement of reasons (order of 13 May 1993 in Case T-74/92 Ladbroke Racing v Commission [1993] ECR 11-535, paragraph 14). In this case, the request for leave has been made by the applicant. Consequently, the reasons given must, a fortiori, be sufficiently cogent to justify a departure from the initial choice made by the applicant itself.

11 The applicant, however, requests leave to plead in French at the hearing on the sole ground that English is not the mother tongue of its counsel, yet has not shown that this factor was unforeseeable when it lodged its application and hence when it made its choice of the language of the case.

hereby orders:

1. The request for derogation from the rules on languages is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 24 January 1997.

H. Jung K. Lenaerts

Registrar President