Orders nº T-319/05 of Court of First Instance of the European Communities, July 07, 2006

• Resolution Date: July 07, 2006
• Issuing Organization: Court of First Instance of the European Communities
• Decision Number: T-319/05

(Intervention – External relations – Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport – Action for annulment brought by a non-Member State)

In Case T‑319/05,

Swiss Confederation, represented by S. Hirsbrunner and U. Soltész, lawyers,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Benyon, M. Huttunen and M. Niejahr, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

Federal Republic of Germany, represented by C.‑D. Quassowski and A. Tiemann, acting as Agents, and T. Masing, lawyer,

intervener,

ACTION under Article 230 EC, read in conjunction with Article 20 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport, for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/12/EC of 5 December 2003 on a procedure relating to the application of Article 18(2), first sentence, of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (Case TREN/AMA/11/03 – German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport) (OJ 2004 L 4, p. 13),

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber),

composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, J.D. Cooke and V. Trstenjak, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Legal context

1 The first and second paragraphs of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which also governs procedure before the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, provides that :

‘Member States and institutions of the Communities may intervene in cases before the Court.

The same right shall be open to any other person establishing an interest in the result of any case submitted to the Court, save in cases between Member States, between institutions of the Communities or between Member States and institutions of the Communities.’

Procedure before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance (Case C‑70/04, now, after referral from the Court of Justice to the Court of First Instance, Case T‑319/05)

2 By application received at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 13 February 2004 and registered under the number C‑70/04, the Swiss Confederation sought the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/12/EC of 5 December 2003 on a procedure relating to the application of Article 18(2), first sentence, of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (Case TREN/AMA/11/03 – German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport) (OJ 2004 L 4, p. 13) (‘the contested decision’).

3 The contested decision arose from a complaint by the Swiss Confederation of 10 June 2003 directed against the 213th Regulation for the implementation of German air traffic regulations, adopted by the German Federal Aviation Authority on 15 January 2003. That regulation sets out new procedures for the approach to Zurich Airport for aircraft flying over German territory. Those measures are deemed to reduce the noise pollution which the communes affected, situated north of the border between Germany and Switzerland, are exposed to by the passing of aircraft.

4 The action by the Swiss Confederation has been brought on the basis of Article 230 EC, read in conjunction with Article 20 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 73) (‘the Agreement on air transport’), which provides that:

‘All questions concerning the validity of decisions of the institutions of the Community taken on the basis of their competences under this Agreement, shall be of the exclusive competence of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.’

5 By fax received at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 27 May 2004, the Landkreis Waldshut sought leave to intervene in support of the form...