In Case C-76/93 P,
Piera Scaramuzza, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of SARL Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener,
appellant,
APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), of 15 December 1992 in Case T-75/91, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being:
Commission of the European Communities, represented by Joseph Griesmar, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, and 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,
THE COURT,
composed of: O. Due, President, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, M. Diez de Velasco and D.A.O. Edward (Presidents of Chambers), C.N. Kakouris, R. Joliet, F.A. Schockweiler, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, F. Grévisse, M. Zuleeg, P.J.G. Kapteyn and J. Murray, Judges,
Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,
Registrar: J.-G. Giraud,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 March 1993, Piera Scaramuzza brought an appeal under Article 49 of the EEC Statute and the corresponding articles of the ECSC and EAEC Statutes of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1992 in Case T-75/91 Scaramuzza v Commission [1992] ECR II-2557 in so far as it dismissed her action challenging the Commission' s decision refusing to pay her the whole of her salary in the currency of the country of employment with application of the corresponding weighting.
2 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 July 1993, Michael James Lake and Angel Viñas, represented by Thierry Demaseure and Gérard Collin, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of SARL Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener, sought leave to intervene in Case C-76/93 P in support of the appellant.
3 The application to intervene was submitted in accordance with Articles 93 and 123 of the Rules of Procedure and pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 37 of the EEC Statute of the Court.
4 It appears from the application to intervene that the applicants are officials employed in non-member countries. In that capacity they are subject to the provisions of the Staff Regulations and to the internal rules implementing those provisions which lay down, inter alia, the detailed rules for the payment of salaries, which the appellant claims to be unlawful.
5 Under the second paragraph of Article 37 of the EEC Statute of the Court, the right to intervene in cases before the Court is open to any person establishing an interest in the result of the case.
6 The interest in question must relate to the forms of order sought by the main party whom the prospective intervener wishes to support. The intervener must also show a direct, present interest in seeing those forms of order granted.
7 In that regard, the present applicants for leave to intervene submit that their interest in the result of the appeal proceedings cannot be contested because the pleas in law put forward by the appellant in support of her appeal raise questions of principle relating to the organization of the European civil service and, more specifically, to the situation of all officials employed in non-member countries.
8 Even assuming that, in the present case, the way in which the provisions are interpreted in the decision on the appeal may affect the situation of the prospective interveners, in so far as the judgment could have repercussions on the way in which the Community administration applies the contested rules to all officials, the question arises whether, in the context of an action under Article 179 of the Treaty, individual officials such as the present applicants can establish an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the EEC Statute of the Court.
9 In such a context, the concept of an interest in the result of a case within the meaning of that provision must be construed as an interest in the decision on the claims relating specifically to the act whose annulment is sought.
10 If that interpretation were not accepted, any official able to show that his situation could be affected in an unspecified manner by the Court' s ruling on the question of illegality raised by the main applicant could establish an interest in the result of the case. Such a situation would not be consistent with the system of remedies established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and in particular with the time-limits laid down therein.
11 It is therefore 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.
12 Finally, if a prospective intervener has, or has had, the opportunity to bring an action himself, the fact that he is refused leave to intervene in another case involving a situation or arguments similar to his own cannot prejudice his right to avail himself of the remedies open to him.
13 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the applicants for leave to intervene have not established a direct, present interest in the result of the case. Their application must therefore be dismissed.
14 Their application having been dismissed, the applicants for leave to intervene must be ordered, in accordance with Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, to bear their own costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders:
1. The application for leave to intervene is dismissed.
2. The applicants for leave to intervene shall bear their own costs.
Luxembourg, 15 November 1993.
