1

By its appeal, the comité d’entreprise de la Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (‘the Works Council’) seeks to have the order of the General Court of the European Union of 7 July 2015 in Case T‑1/15 SNCM v Commission, EU:T:2015:488 (‘the order under appeal’) set aside. That order rejected its application for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicant at first instance in Case T‑1/15 seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2014/882/EU of 20 November 2013 concerning the State aid SA 16237 (C 58/02) (ex N 118/02) implemented by France in favour of SNCM (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 1, ‘the contested decision’).

2

The Works Council also asks the Court to grant its application for leave to intervene.

3

The European Commission submitted its observations on the appeal on 7 September 2015.

4

Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any person may intervene before the Courts of the European Union if such a person can establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to one of those Courts.

5

It is settled case-law that the concept of ‘an interest in the result of the case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the precise subject matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward or the arguments raised. The term ‘the result of the case’ refers to the final decision sought, as it would be set out in the operative part of the judgment to be delivered (see the order of the President of the Court in Commission v EnBW, C‑365/12 P, EU:C:2013:83, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited).

6

In that regard, it is necessary in particular to verify that the applicant for leave to intervene is directly affected by the contested act and that its interest in the result of the case is certain (see the order of the President of the Court in Mory and Others v Commission, C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:135, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited). In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be considered to be sufficiently direct only to the extent to which that result is likely to alter the legal position of the person seeking leave to intervene (see, to that effect, the orders of the President of the Court in National Power and PowerGen v Commission, C‑151/97 P(I) and C‑157/97 P(I), EU:C:1997:307, paragraph 61; Schenker v Air France and Commission, C‑589/11 P(I), EU:C:2012:332, paragraphs 14 and 15, and Mory and Others v Commission, C‑33/14 P, EU:C:2015:135, paragraphs 4 and 11).

7

By its appeal, the Works Council criticises the General Court for misinterpreting the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The appeal comprises four grounds, alleging:

8

It is appropriate first to examine the second ground of appeal.

9

By the second ground of appeal, the Works Council submits that the General Court erred in law by holding, essentially, in paragraph 14 of the order under appeal, that the fact that the Works Council might possibly be regarded as an interested party within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU was not sufficient for the council to prove a direct and existing interest in the result of the case pending before the General Court within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Moreover, the Works Council was allegedly deprived of the opportunity to participate in the administrative procedure, since, following the annulment by the General Court of Commission Decision 2009/611/EC of 8 July 2008 concerning measures C 58/02 (ex N 118/02) implemented by France in favour of [SNCM] (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 180), by the judgement in Corsica Ferries France v Commission, T‑565/08, EU:T:2012:415, the Commission did not reopen the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU before adopting the contested decision.

10

In that regard, it is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that an application from an interested party, within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU, for the annulment of a decision taken by the Commission in relation to State aid is admissible if that party seeks, by bringing the action for annulment of that decision, to safeguard procedural rights which it derives from that provision (see, to that effect, judgement in Commission v Kronoply and Kronotex, C‑83/09 P, EU:C:2011:341, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).

11

An interested party within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU, who seeks to intervene in such an action for annulment in support of the form of order sought by the applicant, has an interest in the result of the case in question within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The final decision sought, as it would be embodied in the operative part of the judgment to be delivered, is liable to alter the legal position of such an applicant for leave to intervene in that, first, it would imply an obligation on the Commission to open, or, as the case may be, re-open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU and, second, it would confer a right on the same applicant, as an interested party, to participate in that formal investigation procedure.

12

In this case, it appears from paragraph 13 of the order under appeal that the Works Council represents the collective interests of all the employees of SNCM. Since the Commission, in its assessment of the compatibility of State aid in the maritime transport sector, takes account of numerous considerations of various kinds, linked in particular to the protection of competition, the Union’s maritime policy, the promotion of Union maritime transport and the promotion of employment, the possibility cannot be excluded that the Works Council might submit to the Commission observations on considerations of a social nature which might possibly be taken into account by the Commission in the course of the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment in 3F v Commission, C‑319/07 P, EU:C:2009:435, paragraphs 64 and 70).

13

In those circumstances, the Works Council must be regarded as an interested party within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU.

14

It must be emphasised that SNCM, in its application, put forward a plea alleging breach of the procedural rights conferred on it by Article 108(2) TFEU in so far as the Commission did not re-open the formal investigation procedure following the annulment by the General Court of Decision 2009/611.

15

For the reasons set out in paragraph 11 above, it is therefore necessary to consider that the Works Council, an interested party within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU, which seeks to support the form of order sought by another interested party, itself relying on an infringement of the procedural rights which the latter derives from that provision, has proved a direct and existing interest in the result of the case pending before the General Court within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

16

The General Court thus erred in law by holding, in paragraph 19 of the order under appeal, that the application by the Works Council to intervene in support of the form of order sought by SNCM should be rejected.

17

Therefore, and without there being any need to examine the other grounds of appeal, the appeal should be upheld and the order under appeal should be set aside.

18

Under the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, if the decision of the General Court is set aside, the Court of Justice may give final judgment in the matter where the state of the proceedings so permits.

19

In this case, the Court of Justice has before it the information needed to give a final decision on the Works Council’s application for leave to intervene.

20

As is apparent from paragraphs 12 to 15 above, the Works Council has demonstrated a direct and existing interest in the result of the case pending before the General Court within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

21

Therefore, its application for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by SNCM in Case T‑1/15 must be upheld.

22

Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice provides that, where an appeal is well founded and the Court itself gives final judgment in the case, the Court is required to make a decision as to costs. Under Article 138(1) of the same rules, which applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) of those rules, the unsuccessful party must be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. However, since the Works Council failed to refer to costs in its pleadings, it must be held that each party should bear its own costs.

On those grounds, the Vice-President of the Court of Justice hereby: