[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Belgium v Commission (Rules on languages - Order) [2023] EUECJ T-131/16RENV_CO (06 February 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2023/T13116RENV_CO.html Cite as: EU:T:2023:561, ECLI:EU:T:2023:561, [2023] EUECJ T-131/16RENV_CO

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)

6 February 2023 (*)

(Rules on languages)

In Case T‑131/16 RENV,

Kingdom of Belgium, represented by C. Pochet and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by M. Segura and M. Clayton, lawyers,

applicant,

supported by

Ireland, represented by A. Joyce, D. O’Reilly, M. Browne and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by M. Collins, P. Gallagher, C. Donnelly, Senior Counsel, and B. Doherty and D. Fennelly, Barristers-at-Law,

intervener

v

European Commission, represented by P.-J. Loewenthal, B. Stromsky and F. Tomat, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61),

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of A. Marcoulli, President, S. Frimodt Nielsen, V. Tomljenović (Rapporteur), R. Norkus and W. Valasidis, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1        By application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 March 2016, the Kingdom of Belgium brought an action seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61, ‘the contested decision’).

2        By document lodged on 11 July 2016, Ireland applied for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Kingdom of Belgium. By decision of 25 August 2016, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the General Court granted Ireland’s application to intervene.

3        Cases T‑131/16, Belgium v Commission, and T-263/16, Magnetrol International v Commission, were joined pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

4        By judgment of 14 February 2019, Belgium and Magnetrol International v Commission (T‑131/16 and T‑263/16, EU:T:2019:91), the General Court annulled the contested decision.

5        By judgment on appeal of 16 September 2021, Commission v Belgium and Magnetrol International (C‑337/19 P, EU:C:2021:741), the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court and referred Cases T‑131/16 Belgium v Commission, and T‑263/16 Magnetrol International v Commission, back to the General Court.

6        By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 23 December 2022, the Kingdom of Belgium requested the General Court to authorize two experts of the Federal Public Service Finance, referred to in that letter, to answer questions from members of the General Court, at the hearing of 8 February 2023,  in relation to certain technical issues raised by the Case and, on the basis of Article 45(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to use French when addressing the Court and not English, which is the language of the case.

7        The Commission and Ireland were invited to submit their observations on that request for derogation from the language rules.

8        On 24 January 2023, Ireland indicated that it had no objections to the Kingdom of Belgium’s request.

9        On 27 January 2023, Commission indicated, in substance, that it objected to the applicant’s request.

10      In accordance with Article 45(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, at the request of one of the parties, and after the other parties have been heard, the use of another of the languages mentioned in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, including French, for all or part of the proceedings may be authorised.

11      In the present case, the Court finds that no evidence has been adduced to show that the derogation from the language rules requested by the applicant might delay the procedure or prejudice the procedural rights of the other parties to the proceedings (see, to that effect, order of 17 November 1995, Salt Union v Commission, T‑330/94, EU:T:1995:194, paragraph 27 and of 12 October 2020, H.R. Participations v EUIPO – Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER), T‑535/19, not published, EU:T:2020:498, paragraph 10).

12      Accordingly, the two experts of the Federal Public Service Finance referred to in the letter of the Kingdom of Belgium of 23 December 2022 are authorised to speak in French at the hearing of 8 February 2023 in the presence and under the control of the Kingdom of Belgium’s representatives.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)

hereby orders:

1.      The two experts of the Federal Public Service Finance referred to in the letter of the Kingdom of Belgium of 23 December 2022 are authorised to use French during the oral part of the procedure.

2.      The costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 6 February 2023.

*      Language of the case: English.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

---

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2023/T13116RENV_CO.html