| | CFIR-116 (Rules of Procedure)Decision on intervention    
| CFI (Rules of Procedure) | Article 116 | 1. The application shall be served on the parties. The President shall give the parties an opportunity to submit their written or oral observations before deciding on the application. The President shall decide on the application by order or shall refer the decision to the Court of First Instance. The order must be reasoned if the application is dismissed.
2. If an intervention for which application has been made within the period of six weeks prescribed in Article 115(1) is allowed, the intervener shall receive a copy of every document served on the parties. The President may, however, on application by one of the parties, omit secret or confidential documents.
3. The intervener must accept the case as he finds it at the time of his intervention.
4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 2 above, the President shall prescribe a period within which the intervener may submit a statement in intervention. The statement in intervention shall contain:
(a) a statement of the form of order sought by the intervener in support of or opposing, in whole or in part, the form of order sought by one of the parties;
(b) the pleas in law and arguments relied on by the intervener;
(c) where appropriate, the nature of any evidence offered.
5. After the statement in intervention has been lodged, the President shall, where necessary, prescribe a time-limit within which the parties may reply to that statement.
6. Where the application to intervene is made after the expiry of the period of six weeks prescribed in Article 115(1), the intervener may, on the basis of the Report for the Hearing communicated to him, submit his observations during the oral procedure. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | T-41/08-R
Vakakis International | 79-80 | CFIR-116-impl | 79 As Agriconsulting’s application is an application for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission and against the form of order sought by the applicant, and considering that Vakakis’ application is hereby dismissed, it is not necessary, in the interest of procedural efficiency, to rule on the request for leave to intervene.
80 In the circumstances of the present case, Agriconsulting must bear its own costs. |
|
|
