ORDER OF 12. 1. 1993 — CASE T-29/92 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 12 January 1993 * In Case T-29/92, Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijver• heid, whose registered office is in Amersfoort, Netherlands, Amsterdamse Aannemers Vereniging, whose registered office is in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Algemene Aannemersvereniging voor "Waterbouwkundige Werken, whose reg­ istered office is in Utrecht, Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging van Boorondernemers en Buizenleggers, whose registered office is in Soest, Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging Velsen, Beverwijk en Omstreken, whose registered office is in Velsen, Netherlands, Aannemers Vereniging Haarlem-Bollenstreek, whose registered office is in Heemstede, Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging Veluwe en Zuidelijke IJsselmeerpolders, whose registered office is in Apeldoorn, Netherlands, Combinatie van Aannemers in het Noorden, whose registered office is in Leeu­ warden, Netherlands, Vereniging Centrale Prijsregeling Kabelwerken, whose registered office is in Leeuwarden, Netherlands, Delftse Aannemers Vereniging, whose registered office is in Rotterdam, Nether­ lands, * Language of the case: Dutch. II-2 SPO AND OTHERS v COMMISSION Economisch Nationaal Verbond van Aannemers van Sloopwerken, whose reg­ istered office is in Utrecht, Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'Gouda en Omstreken', whose registered office is in Rot­ terdam, Netherlands, Gelderse Aannemers Vereniging inzake Aanbestedingen, whose registered office is in Arnhem, Netherlands, Gooise Aannemers Vereniging, whose registered office is in Huizen, Netherlands, 's-Gravenhaagse Aannemers Vereniging, whose registered office is in The Hague, Netherlands, Leidse Aannemersvereniging, whose registered office is in Leiden, Netherlands, Vereniging Markeer Aannemers Combinatie, whose registered office is in Til­ burg, Netherlands, Nederlandse Aannemers-en Patroonsbond voor de Bouwbedrijven, whose reg­ istered office is in Dordrecht, Netherlands, Noordhollandse Aannemers Vereniging voor Waterbouwkundige Werken, whose registered office is in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Oostnederlandse-Vereniging-Aanbestedings-Regeling, whose registered office is in Delden, Netherlands, Provinciale Vereniging van Bouwbedrijven in Groningen en Drenthe, whose registered office is in Groningen, Netherlands, Rotterdamse Aannemersvereniging, whose registered office is in Rotterdam, Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'de Rijnstreek', whose registered office is in Rotterdam, Netherlands, II-3 ORDER OF 12. 1. 1993 — CASE T-29/92 Stichting Aanbestedingsregeling van de Samenwerkende Bouwbedrijven in Friesland, whose registered office is in Leeuwarden, Netherlands, Samenwerkende Prijsregelend Vereniging Nijmegen en Omstreken, whose reg­ istered office is in Nijmegen, Netherlands, Samenwerkende Patroons Verenigingen in de Boouwbedrijven Noor-Holland- Noord, whose registered office is in Alkmaar, Netherlands, Utrechtse Aannemers Vereniging, whose registered office is in Utrecht, Nether­ lands, Vereniging Wegenbouw Aannemers Combinatie Nederland, whose registered office is in Zeist, Netherlands, and Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging, whose registered office is in Heeze, Netherlands, represented by L. H. van Lennep, of the Hague Bar, and E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Cham­ bers of L. Frieden, 6, Avenue Guillaume, applicants, v Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber, a mem­ ber of the Commission's Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Glazener, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of R. Hayder, a representative of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, defendant, APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision of 5 February 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.572 and IV/32.571-Building and Construction Industry in the Netherlands, OJ 1992 L 92, P. 1), II-4 SPO AND OTHERS v COMMISSION THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, composed of: H. Kirschner, President, C. Bellamy, R. Schintgen, B. Vesterdorf and K. Lenaerts, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, makes the following Order 1 By application lodged at the Court of First Instance on 27 August 1992, Den- nendael BV, a company governed by Netherlands law, whose registered office is in Rotterdam, represented by I. G. S. Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for ser­ vice in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. H. Dupong, 14a, Rue des Bains, sought leave to intervene in Case T-29/92 in support of the submissions of the defendant. 2 The application to intervene was made pursuant to Article 115 of the Rules of Pro­ cedure and submitted in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC ('the Statute'), which is applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute. 3 The application to intervene was served on the parties in accordance with Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The parties submitted their observations. II-5 ORDER OF 12. 1. 1993 — CASE T-29/92 4 Pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 116(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the First Chamber referred the application to that Chamber. Arguments of the parties 5 In support of its application, Dennendael claims that it has an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of Article 37 of the Statute. 6 Dennendael states that its interest lies, first, in the fact that it has been served with a third-party notice in proceedings commenced before the national court by Prijs­ regeling Midden Nederland BV ('PMN'), one of the offices of SPO, the first appli­ cant in Case T-29/92, against certain contractors which are members of that orga­ nization in which it seeks from them compensation in respect of calculation costs and payment of administrative costs, professional membership fees and collection expenses due under the rules to which the contested decision relates. If the Court confirms the contested decision, the illegality of the claims in relation to which it has been called on to provide an indemnity will be evident and the national court will be obliged to find in its favour. 7 Dennendael states that its interest in intervening in the present proceedings is also connected with its more general interest in seeing that the rules referred to in the contested decision, which are contrary to Article 85, are declared unlawful and that they remain unlawful and null and void, so that, as contract awarder, it will no longer be limited, contrary to Community law, in its freedom to choose and nego­ tiate with contractors and so that in the future it will not have to pay the compen­ sation provided for by the rules at issue. 8 Dennendael goes on to state that, although it did not lodge a complaint with the Commission against the anti-competitive practices found to exist by the contested decision, its reason for not doing this was that it was called on to fulfil its obliga­ tions of indemnity at virtually the same time as the Commission adopted its decision. II-6 SPO AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 9 In its observations, which were lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 8 September 1992, the Commission states that, in view of the circum­ stances mentioned by Dennendael, there is hardly any doubt about its interest in the result of the case pending before the Court of First Instance. In the case pend­ ing before the national court, the SPO office is seeking from the contractors to whom contracts for works were awarded by Dennendael the payments due, under the contested rules, to the contractors which submitted tenders but were unsuc­ cessful, even though in the present case the unsuccessful contractor had waived its right thereto. Since Dennendael has guaranteed payment of such compensation amounts, they are being claimed from it before the national court. According to the Commission, since the separate debt claimed by the SPO office is directly based on the rules declared unlawful by the contested decision, the result of the proceed­ ings before the national court will depend on the outcome of the present proceed­ ings before the Court of First Instance. For that reason, the Commission considers that the position of Dennendael is different from that of any other contract awarder. 10 In their observations lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 11 September 1992, the applicants in the main proceedings raised objections to the application to intervene. 11 On the one hand, the applicants in the main proceedings contend that they are unaware of the exact significance of the national proceedings referred to by Den­ nendael since, they say, none of them is a party to them. They add that the appli­ cation to intervene likewise does not make clear the precise legal basis for the indemnity claim in those proceedings. 12 They add that the view put forward by Dennendael, namely that as contract awarder it would ultimately become liable for the compensation payments, is incor­ rect since, if Dennendael is under an obligation of any kind, it stems solely from the fact that, apparently, it freely undertook to indemnify contractors against claims for compensation. II-7 ORDER OF 12. 1. 1993 — CASE T-29/92 13 The applicants in the main proceedings also state that the proceedings pending before the national court will be struck out for reasons which, they maintain, have