1

By its appeal, the Citizens’ Committee of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (‘the Citizens’ Committee’) asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2022, Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission (T‑158/21, EU:T:2022:696), by which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of Commission Communication C(2021) 171 final of 14 January 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (‘the communication at issue’).

2

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 17 April 2023, the Autonome Provinz Bozen – Südtirol / Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano – Alto Adige (Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige, Italy) applied under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for leave to intervene in the present appeal in support of the form of order sought by the Citizens’ Committee.

3

After the application to intervene was served on the parties by the Registrar of the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 131(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 190(1) thereof, the Citizens’ Committee and the European Commission submitted their written observations on that application within the prescribed period. Only the Commission contended that that application should be rejected.

4

The first paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union provides that Member States and institutions of the European Union may intervene in cases before the Court. Under the first sentence of the second paragraph of that article, the same right is open to the bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union and to any other person if they can establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court.

5

It should be noted first of all that an infra-State body of a Member State may therefore intervene in cases in the same way as any other person, but, unlike the Member State to which it belongs, it must establish an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court.

6

According to the Court’s settled case-law, the concept of an ‘interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the subject matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the form of order sought, and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments put forward. The words ‘result of a case’ refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the future judgment (see, inter alia, order of the President of the Court of 5 July 2018, Uniwersytet Wrocławski and Poland v REA, C‑515/17 P and C‑561/17 P, EU:C:2018:553, paragraph 7).

7

Generally, an interest in the result of the case can be considered to be sufficiently direct only in so far as that result is capable of altering the legal position of the applicant to intervene (order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2020, Commission v HSBC Holdings and Others, C‑806/19 P, EU:C:2020:364, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited).

8

However, it should be noted that infra-State bodies of the Member States, unlike natural and legal persons, are likely to apply for leave to intervene in cases before the Court not to defend private interests but to put forward their point of view in cases which are likely to have a significant impact on the exercise of the powers conferred on them by the Constitution or legislation of the Member States which they come under.

9

Therefore, so far as concerns applications to intervene by infra-State bodies of the Member States, the requirement that the applicant have a direct and existing interest in the result of the case must be applied in a way that reflects that particular situation (see, to that effect, order of the President of the Court of 17 September 2021, Germany v Pharma Mar and Commission, C‑6/21 P and C‑16/21 P, EU:C:2021:756, paragraph 11).

10

It has already been held, as regards applications to intervene lodged by environmental organisations, that the requirement of a direct, existing interest in the result of the case before the Court presupposes, first, that the field of activity of those organisations, as is apparent from their purpose, enshrined as the case may be in their statutes, has a direct link to the subject matter of the case and, secondly, that the case raises questions of principle liable to affect the interests defended by the organisations in question (order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2019, Bayer CropScience and Bayer v Commission, C‑499/18 P, EU:C:2019:107, paragraph 6 and the case-law cited). While taking into account the specific features of the situation of infra-State bodies of the Member States stemming from the fact that their powers are constitutionally recognised in the law of the Member States, it is appropriate to apply, in essence and mutatis mutandis, the same criteria in assessing whether such bodies have an interest in the result of the case.

11

Thus, in order to establish an interest in the result of a case before the Court to which it is not a party, an infra-State body of a Member State must demonstrate, first, that the subject matter of the case falls within the scope of the powers conferred on it by national law and, secondly, that the case raises questions of principle liable to affect its own interests. Thus, in the latter regard, the interest relied on by that body must not be entirely indissociable from that of the Member State to which it belongs, which could have intervened in the case in any event.

12

In the present case, it is apparent from the present application to intervene that the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige is, under Article 116 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, one of the constituent parts of an autonomous region of that Member State. It is governed by the constitutional laws codified in the Special Statute of the Region of Trentino-Alto Adige-South Tyrol and the Provinces of Trento and Bolzano. It has its own competence in all matters which do not expressly fall within the exclusive competence of the Italian State. The general framework for the exclusive and concurrent legislative activity of the autonomous provinces and the region is defined by Article 4 et seq. of the 1972 Statute of Autonomy. In addition to the need for ‘harmony with the Constitution and the principles of the Republic’s legal system and respect for international obligations and national interests’, it is emphasised that among those principles ‘is included that of the protection of local linguistic minorities’. Moreover, Article 6 of the Italian Constitution provides that ‘the Republic shall safeguard linguistic minorities by means of appropriate measures’. In accordance with Article 98 of its Special Statute, which grants it a special right of action, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige may challenge before the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court, Italy) national laws or legislative acts having force of law, on the ground that they breach the principle of protection of the German and Ladin linguistic minorities.

13

Accordingly, it must be held that the subject matter of the case before the Court falls within the scope of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige’s own powers, as determined by the Constitution of the Italian Republic and the Special Statute, in so far as the case concerns a citizens’ initiative whose aim, according to the communication at issue, is to improve the protection of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities and to strengthen cultural and linguistic diversity in the European Union.

14

Furthermore, the case raises questions of principle liable to affect that body’s own interests. The communication at issue states that ‘the [European Union] has no general legislative competence specifically on the protection of national minorities’ or that ‘the [European] Union has no legislative competence over questions such as the use of regional or minority languages, in public education or elsewhere’ and that ‘those questions fall under the responsibility of the Member States’. Thus, the present case raises a question as to the extent of the European Union’s competence to adopt measures in an area falling within the competence of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige.

15

In those circumstances, in view of the fundamental nature of that question of competence, and of the fact that the answer to that question is likely to be decisive for the content of any new communication made by the Commission in the same area, it is to no avail that the Commission submits that the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige has only an indirect and uncertain interest in intervening in the present case, stating that the communication at issue or any new Commission communication of that kind constitutes only a step in a series of future acts and events.

16

Consequently, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige must be regarded as having established an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

17

In those circumstances, the application to intervene submitted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige in support of the form of order sought by the Citizens’ Committee must be granted.

18

Since the application to intervene has been granted, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige is to receive, pursuant to Article 131(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 190(1) of those rules, a copy of every procedural document served on the parties, in the absence of any request from the parties that certain items or documents be excluded from such communication.

19

Since that application was submitted within the period laid down in Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure, as extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days in accordance with Article 51 of those rules, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige may submit, under Article 132(1) of those rules, a statement in intervention within one month, subject to the same extension on account of distance, after the communication referred to in the preceding paragraph.

20

Lastly, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige will be permitted to submit oral observations if a hearing is organised.

21

Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings.

22

In the present case, since the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano – South Tyrol / Alto Adige has been granted, the costs relating to its intervention must be reserved.

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders: