Hubbry Logo
Intervention (law)Intervention (law)Main
Open search
Intervention (law)
Community hub
Intervention (law)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Intervention (law)
Intervention (law)
Intervention (law)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In law, intervention is a procedure to allow a nonparty, called intervenor (also spelled intervener) to join ongoing litigation, either as a matter of right or at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants. The basic rationale for intervention is that a judgment in a particular case may affect the rights of nonparties, who ideally should have the right to be heard.

Canada

[edit]

Intervenors are most common in appellate proceedings but can also appear at other types of legal proceeding such as a trial.

In general, it is within the discretion of the court to allow or refuse an application to intervene. There are exceptions to that, however. For example, under subrule 61(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, if the court has stated a constitutional question, the attorney general of any province or territory or of the federal government, may intervene "as of right," without the need to be granted leave to intervene.

Courts will tend to allow an application to intervene if the applicant will provide a different perspective on the issues before the court, without expanding those issues.

Intervenors are permitted in criminal matters as well as civil matters. However, courts sometimes express concern in allowing applications for intervention in criminal matters if the applicant will make arguments against the position of the accused. It sometimes is seen as unfair for the accused in a criminal matter to be required to meet arguments from sources other than the prosecution.

There are several distinct reasons that someone might wish to intervene in a proceeding:

  • if the proposed intervenor is currently a litigant in a case with legal issues similar or identical to the case at hand;
  • if the proposed intervenor represents a group of people who have a direct concern in the legal issues raised in a case (for example, if the case involves deportation of a particular individual, an application for leave to intervene might be made by an interest group for the rights of refugee claimants);
  • if the proposed intervenor is concerned that the court's decision in a particular case might be so broad as to affect the proposed intervenor's interests; in other words it would be an intervention to ensure that the court's ruling does not have unintended consequences.

It is often said that the role of intervenors is to "assist" the court in making a just decision on the dispute at hand. It is true that judges sometimes indicate that intervenors have aided the court in reaching a decision, the use of the word "assist" can be seen as misleading in that it implies the intervenor is acting altruistically. In general, the goal of the intervenor is to influence the court in making its decision, not just to "assist" the court.

Canadian and British courts use the term "amicus curiae" in a more limited sense. Generally, in Canada, an amicus curiae is someone who has been specifically commissioned by the court to provide a viewpoint which the court believes is necessary and otherwise lacking. In contrast, an intervenor is someone who has applied to the court to be heard on a matter. For example, the Quebec Secession Reference (a case in the Supreme Court of Canada) had one amicus curiae and several intervenors.

Hong Kong SAR

[edit]

Nonparties may intervene at the court's discretion if their presence is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute can be effectually and completely determined, or if there is an issue arising from the relief claimed which would be just and convenient to determine with the nonparty.[1] Relevant considerations in the exercise of this discretion include, for example, whether the intervener's legal or financial rights will be directly affected by the action,[2] whether the intervener is in some way obliged to pay damages on a defendant's behalf[3], if the intervener's acts are connected to the action[4], and the presence of any common questions of law or fact.[5]

United Kingdom

[edit]

The Attorney-General has the right to intervene in a private lawsuit if the lawsuit may affect "the prerogatives of the Crown, including its relations with foreign states". Furthermore, the Attorney-General may intervene with leave of the court where "the suit raises any question of public policy on which the executive may have a view which it may desire to bring to the notice of the court".[6]

A court case may have several "interested parties". For example, in the case of Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council (2009), a local taxpayer was named as the First Interested Party and the Audit Commission was named as the Second Interested Party.[7]

In the context of judicial review, an interested party is 'any person (other than the claimant and defendant) who is directly affected by the claim'.[8][9][10] For example, in Bell v Tavistock, the defendant (a specialist National Health Service clinic) offered GnRHa drug treatment to under-18 patients. The complainant, who sought this treatment as a teenager, in 2020 posited that due to her age she was unable to give informed consent. As the specialist clinic could not represent the wider NHS, the judiciary listed the NHS as an interested party, because of its role in supervision of the clinic and because it needed judicial notification of the results, for example in case other clinics were involved with the prescription of GnHRa drugs to under-16s. In the event, Matt Hancock decided not to instruct the Attorney-General but he had the opportunity to do so by virtue of being an interested party.[11]

United States

[edit]

In the United States federal courts, intervention is governed by Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • Rule 24(a) governs intervention of right. A potential party (called the applicant) has the right to intervene in a case either (1) when a federal statute explicitly confers upon the applicant an unconditional right to intervene or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the lawsuit. In the second situation, in order to be admitted as an intervenor, the applicant must show that its ability to protect its interest would be impeded by disposition of the case and that its interest is not adequately represented by the current parties to the case.
  • Rule 24(b) provides for permissive intervention, which is subject to the discretion of the judge hearing the case. An applicant may be permitted by the court to intervene (1) when a federal statute confers upon the applicant a conditional right to intervene or (2) when the applicant's claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the main action. Agents of the federal or state government may be permitted by the court to intervene when a party to a case relies on a federal or state statute or executive order, or any regulation promulgated thereunder, for its claim or defense.

In both intervention of right and permissive intervention, the applicant must make a timely application to be heard. The applicant cannot sit on its rights; it must intervene as soon as it has reason to know that its interest may be adversely affected by the outcome of the pending litigation. The applicant must serve its motion to intervene on the parties to the case and explain its reasons for intervening in the motion papers. In addition, U.S. federal law does not allow the procedure of intervention to violate the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. The court must have either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction over the intervenor's claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is not permitted for intervention claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) when the original claim's federal jurisdiction was based solely on diversity and exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the intervening claim would be inconsistent with the diversity requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, supplemental jurisdiction is permitted when the claims are so related that they form the same case or controversy.

Texas

[edit]

In the courts of the State of Texas, a jurisdiction whose rules of civil procedure differ considerably from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a nonparty may intervene in a pending lawsuit by filing a pleading, which is typically called "plea in intervention" or "petition in intervention" without leave of the court, but any party in the pending lawsuit may object and ask for the intervention to be struck for cause.[12] While the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require no judicial permission and impose no intervention deadline, common law dictates that a party may not intervene post-judgment unless the trial court first sets aside the judgment.[13] For the same reason, an intervenor must enter the lawsuit before final judgment to have standing to bring an appeal.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Intervention (law)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In law, intervention is a procedural device in civil litigation that permits a nonparty—known as an intervenor—to join an ongoing as either a or to safeguard their legally protected interest in the or transaction that forms the subject of the action. This mechanism ensures that third parties whose rights may be affected by the litigation's outcome can participate directly, promoting judicial efficiency by resolving related claims in a single proceeding rather than through separate actions. Intervention is distinct from other rules, as it allows entry after the case has commenced, and it is governed by specific statutes or rules in various jurisdictions, with the federal system providing a prominent example under Rule 24 of the . Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), intervention as of right is mandatory if a federal statute confers an unconditional right to intervene or if the applicant claims an interest relating to the action's subject matter that may be practically impaired or impeded by the disposition, provided that the existing parties do not adequately represent that interest. The motion must be timely, and the intervenor must demonstrate a direct stake, such as in cases involving disputes or environmental regulations where a third party's rights could be collaterally affected. In contrast, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is at the court's and is granted when the applicant's claim or defense shares a common or fact with the main action, or when a federal statute provides a conditional right, though courts may deny it to avoid undue delay or prejudice to the original parties. The procedure for intervention typically requires filing a timely motion accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense, served on all existing parties as per the applicable rules of service. Upon granting intervention, the intervenor becomes a full party with rights to participate in discovery, motions, and trial, subject to any conditions the court imposes. While the Federal Rules provide a model, similar principles apply in state courts and common law jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and Canada, where intervention rules emphasize protecting intervenors' interests without disrupting the proceedings.

General Concepts

Definition and Scope

Intervention in law is a procedural device in civil litigation that enables a third party, known as an intervenor, who is not an original party to the lawsuit, to join the existing proceedings either as a or to assert or protect their own legal interests related to the subject matter of the action. This mechanism allows the intervenor to participate fully in the litigation, including filing pleadings, presenting , and appealing decisions, subject to approval. The procedure is designed to prevent the need for separate lawsuits by related parties, thereby conserving judicial resources and ensuring comprehensive resolution of interconnected disputes. The scope of intervention is generally limited to situations where the third party's interests may be directly affected by the outcome of the pending case, such as property rights, contractual obligations, or issues. It applies primarily in civil proceedings across jurisdictions, though the exact criteria and processes vary; for instance, federal courts, it is governed by Federal Rule of 24, which emphasizes timeliness and the potential impairment of the intervenor's interests. , under the (CPR) Part 19, courts may add parties, including intervenors, when their involvement is desirable for resolving all matters in dispute or when an issue connects them to existing parties. Intervention is not available in all cases; courts assess factors like the timeliness of the application, adequacy of representation by existing parties, and potential prejudice to the original litigants to determine eligibility. Beyond core civil suits, the doctrine extends to specialized contexts, such as claims in the UK, where may intervene in proceedings considering a under the Act 1998. In broader terms, intervention promotes access to by allowing affected non-parties to influence outcomes without initiating parallel actions, but it is discretionary in many systems to balance efficiency against procedural complexity. This scope ensures that intervention serves as a tool for equity rather than an unrestricted right to disrupt ongoing litigation. Intervention in civil procedure differs from other mechanisms for involving additional parties or interests in litigation, primarily in that it allows a non-party to voluntarily seek entry into an existing to protect its own stake, rather than being compelled or initiated by the original parties or the court. This self-initiated process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 contrasts with , third-party practice, , participation, and class actions, each of which serves distinct procedural purposes. Joinder, governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 20, involves the addition of parties or claims by the court or existing litigants to ensure complete relief or efficiency, and is either required (for indispensable parties whose absence could impair interests or lead to inconsistent obligations) or permissive (when claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence). Unlike intervention, joinder is not driven by the prospective party's motion but by the needs of the original action, and it does not grant the joined party the same independent rights to control the litigation as an intervenor enjoys. Third-party practice, or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14, permits a to bring in a non-party who may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim, typically for indemnification or contribution. This mechanism is initiated solely by the defending party, not the third party itself, and focuses on shifting liability rather than allowing the third party to assert its own claims or defenses against the original plaintiff unless related to the core dispute. In contrast, intervention enables the third party to participate fully as a party, potentially advancing independent interests without reliance on an existing party's initiative. Interpleader, authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 or statutory provisions like 28 U.S.C. § 1335, allows a stakeholder holding property or funds claimed by multiple parties to join those claimants in a single action to resolve competing demands and avoid multiple liabilities. Here, the interpleading party initiates the process to protect itself, differing from intervention where the prospective party seeks entry to safeguard its own position in an ongoing suit between others. Amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," involvement permits a non-party to submit briefs or arguments to assist the court without becoming a formal party, as outlined in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and Supreme Court Rule 37. An amicus lacks party status, cannot appeal the judgment, is not bound by res judicata, and has no right to discovery or control over the litigation, whereas an intervenor assumes full party rights and obligations, including potential liability for costs. Finally, class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 involve representative parties litigating on behalf of a certified class with common issues, emphasizing aggregate resolution over individual participation. Intervention in class actions is possible but distinct, as it allows an individual class member or outsider to opt in or assert unique interests separately from the class mechanism, without the representational structure defining class certification.

Types of Intervention

Intervention as of Right

Intervention as of right is a procedural device in civil litigation that grants a non-party an absolute entitlement to join an existing upon meeting specified criteria, thereby becoming a full party with the ability to participate in all stages of the proceedings. This mechanism ensures that individuals or entities whose legal interests may be directly and practically affected by the outcome of the litigation can protect those interests without delay or reliance on existing parties. In federal courts, intervention as of right is codified under Rule 24(a) of the (FRCP), which mandates court approval if the requirements are satisfied, distinguishing it from more discretionary forms of participation. The rule serves to promote judicial by resolving related claims in a single action and preventing inconsistent judgments that could arise from separate proceedings. To qualify for intervention as of right under FRCP 24(a), a prospective intervenor must file a timely motion demonstrating one of two grounds. First, the movant may have an unconditional right conferred by a federal statute, such as provisions in environmental s allowing government agencies to intervene in pollution-related suits. Second, and more commonly invoked, the movant must claim a protectable in the or transaction at issue, show that the disposition of may impair or impede their ability to safeguard that as a practical matter, and establish that the existing parties cannot adequately represent the . Timeliness is assessed based on the totality of circumstances, including the stage of the proceedings, to existing parties, and the intervenor's upon discovering the case; motions filed early in the litigation are more likely to succeed. The required must be direct and substantial—typically a legal entitlement rather than a speculative or economic stake—while impairment focuses on practical consequences, such as binding effects or precedential impact on future claims. Inadequate representation arises when the intervenor's objectives diverge from those of the parties, for example, if an existing party pursues a settlement that compromises the intervenor's specific protections, though alignment of ultimate goals may presume adequacy unless rebutted. This form of intervention is frequently utilized in cases involving shared resources or . For instance, in environmental disputes, nonprofit conservation organizations often intervene as of right in challenges to permits under the Clean Water Act, asserting interests in habitat preservation that could be impaired by judicial rulings favoring development, where plaintiffs might prioritize broader policy over localized protections. Similarly, in property litigation, adjacent landowners may intervene to defend boundary determinations or rights that existing parties undervalue. Upon successful intervention, the intervenor must adhere to procedural rules, such as filing a aligned with the case, and may face challenges like limited standing if their interest lacks sufficient to the core dispute. While the FRCP framework predominates in federal contexts, analogous rights exist in select state courts and international tribunals, such as limited statutory entitlements for groups, though the stringent criteria prevent abuse and maintain focus on meritorious claims.

Permissive Intervention

Permissive intervention allows a non-party to join an ongoing at the discretion of the , provided certain criteria are met, distinguishing it from mandatory intervention by emphasizing judicial flexibility to promote efficiency without compromising the original parties' rights. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), this mechanism enables third parties to participate when their involvement can contribute relevant perspectives on shared issues, but only if it does not cause undue harm to the litigation's progress. The primary requirements for permissive intervention include a timely motion by the applicant, whose claim or defense must share a common or fact with the main action. Additionally, a federal may confer a conditional right to intervene, or, for officers or agencies, the intervention may be permitted if the underlying claim involves a , , , or agreement they administer. Courts exercise by evaluating whether the intervention would unduly delay the case or the of the original parties' , often denying requests in complex multi-party suits where existing representation suffices. For instance, in Chiles v. Thornburgh, the Eleventh Circuit allowed permissive intervention by Dade County in a challenge to federal prison siting due to shared economic impacts but denied it for individual homeowners, highlighting the need for distinct contributions to avoid redundancy. This form of intervention serves to broaden input in disputes with overlapping interests, such as environmental or regulatory cases, fostering comprehensive resolution while preventing procedural clutter. Unlike intervention as of right, which protects protectable interests under Rule 24(a), permissive intervention prioritizes efficiency and is not contingent on Article III standing requirements beyond those of the original parties, though circuit courts debate this nuance, leading to potential inconsistencies. A seminal example is Securities and Exchange Commission v. United States Realty & Improvement Co., where the upheld the SEC's permissive intervention in a proceeding to safeguard public interests, illustrating its role in multi-stakeholder controversies. In practice, permissive intervention is invoked in public interest litigation, such as civil or antitrust actions, where third parties like advocacy groups seek to amplify underrepresented viewpoints without altering the core dispute. Courts may impose conditions, such as limiting the intervenor's scope to specific issues, to mitigate , ensuring the process remains streamlined. This discretionary tool thus balances inclusivity with judicial economy, adapting to the litigation's unique demands.

By Jurisdiction

Canada

In Canadian law, intervention refers to a procedural mechanism allowing a non-party, known as an intervener, to participate in existing litigation to protect a legal , offer a unique perspective, or assist the court in matters of broad public significance, such as constitutional or issues. This device is distinct from or third-party claims, as interveners do not initiate proceedings but join ongoing ones under court rules that emphasize judicial discretion to balance participation benefits against potential delays or complications. Interventions are particularly prevalent in appellate courts, where they enhance decision-making by incorporating diverse viewpoints without expanding the scope of the original dispute. At the federal level, the governs interventions under Rules 55 to 59 of the Supreme Court Rules, permitting any interested person to file a motion for leave to intervene in appeals, references, or leave applications. The court grants leave if the intervention will be useful, distinct from party submissions, and relevant to the proceedings, with a high approval rate exceeding 90% from 2000 to 2009; Attorneys General have an automatic right in constitutional matters. Empirical analysis shows interventions occurred in nearly half of appeals during that period, averaging 4.1 interveners per case overall and 5.7 in Charter-related appeals, often influencing outcomes by providing specialized input on legal or policy implications. Interveners must file concise factums (limited to 10 pages unless otherwise ordered) and books of authorities within specified timelines, such as six weeks after the granting order, and may seek to participate in oral hearings, though their role remains advisory unless the court specifies otherwise. In the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules allows a person claiming an interest in the subject-matter to move for addition as a party, provided it will not unduly delay or complicate the hearing. Courts apply a three-part test: the usefulness of the intervener's participation to the decision; absence of undue delay or complication; and lack of to existing parties, with recent underscoring a stringent standard, especially in matters where unique contributions are prioritized. For instance, interventions are granted when they address questions of general importance, such as in or appeals, but denied if submissions duplicate those of parties. Provincial and territorial rules mirror these principles but vary in application, often distinguishing between intervention as an added (with potential liability) or as a friend of the (purely advisory). In , Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure enables non-parties to seek leave via motion, with courts adopting a liberal approach in cases to promote diverse input, considering factors like the intervener's stake, timeliness, and added value without prejudice. Similar criteria apply across jurisdictions—for example, emphasizes direct interest or public law utility, while stresses fairness and strict timelines—but all prioritize minimal disruption, with thresholds lower in constitutional litigation to democratize judicial processes. Interveners in provincial appeals, such as those to the , must demonstrate a distinct perspective, as seen in cases involving implications where multiple groups, including organizations, routinely participate.

United Kingdom

In the , third-party intervention in civil proceedings is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), which provide mechanisms for non-parties to participate either by being added as parties or by submitting evidence or representations, subject to the court's . Unlike some jurisdictions, the UK framework does not formally distinguish between intervention as of right and permissive intervention; instead, the emphasis is on judicial to ensure efficient resolution of disputes while protecting the interests of existing parties. In general civil litigation, a third party may apply under CPR rule 19.2(2) to be added as a new party if the considers it desirable either to resolve all matters in dispute in the proceedings or to address a connected issue between the proposed intervener and an existing party. The application requires demonstrating a direct or , and the may also order the removal or substitution of parties under the same rule if circumstances change, such as the transfer of an interest. This provision applies across various claims, including commercial disputes and cases, but is exercised sparingly to avoid complicating proceedings unnecessarily. Judicial review proceedings offer a broader route for intervention under CPR rule 54.17, which allows any person—regardless of direct involvement—to apply promptly for permission to file or make oral or written representations at any stage of the hearing. The grants such permission if the intervention assists in deciding the case, often in matters like administrative decisions or challenges, and may impose conditions, including on costs. Interested parties, defined as those directly affected other than the claimant and , are automatically served with the claim and may participate without further application. In appellate courts, intervention is facilitated by analogous discretionary powers. The Court of Appeal permits third parties to apply for permission to intervene, typically under its inherent or CPR principles, particularly where broader implications arise, such as in constitutional or regulatory appeals. At the level, rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 2009 enables applications to intervene, with a focus on official bodies or non-governmental organisations providing submissions on points of importance; such interventions occur in roughly 30-40% of cases each year. Costs remain a key , as interveners typically bear their own expenses and risk adverse orders, though protective costs orders may be sought under CPR rule 44.2 or section 87 of the and Courts Act 2015 to cap liability in cases. This framework promotes targeted participation while safeguarding procedural fairness.

United States

In the , intervention allows a nonparty to join an ongoing lawsuit under specific conditions, primarily governed in federal courts by Rule 24 of the (). This rule distinguishes between intervention of right, which is mandatory if requirements are met, and permissive intervention, which is discretionary. The procedure ensures that third parties with significant stakes can protect their interests without initiating separate litigation, while preventing undue complication of the original action. Timeliness is a threshold requirement for both types, evaluated based on factors such as the stage of the proceeding and potential to existing parties. Intervention of right under FRCP 24(a) is available on two grounds. First, a federal statute may confer an unconditional right to intervene, such as 28 U.S.C. § 2403, which permits the or a state to intervene in cases involving challenges to the of federal or state statutes, respectively. Second, under FRCP 24(a)(2), a movant claims an relating to the or transaction at issue and demonstrates that the may impair or impede their ability to protect that , unless existing parties adequately represent it. The U.S. has interpreted "" practically, requiring a direct and immediate stake, as in environmental or disputes. For adequacy of representation, the movant bears a minimal burden to show potential divergence, such as differing objectives between the intervenor and existing parties; no presumption of adequacy applies when officials and private conflict. In Trbovich v. (404 U.S. 528, 1972), the Court permitted a union member to intervene in a suit by the Secretary of Labor against the union, finding inadequate representation due to the Secretary's broader enforcement role potentially clashing with the member's specific election challenge. Additionally, in Town of , N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc. (581 U.S. 433, 2017), the Court held that an intervenor of right must independently satisfy Article III standing requirements, particularly if seeking relief beyond that requested by the original . Permissive intervention under FRCP 24(b) allows the court to grant a timely motion where a federal statute confers a conditional right or the movant's claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the main action. Special provisions enable federal or state governmental officers or agencies to intervene if the case involves statutes or orders they administer. However, the court must deny intervention if it would unduly delay the proceeding or prejudice the original parties' rights. This discretionary nature contrasts with intervention of right, emphasizing efficiency in complex litigation like class actions or multi-party disputes. To intervene, a movant must file a timely motion stating the grounds and serve it on all per FRCP 5, accompanied by a setting forth the claim or defense. The intervenor then assumes the rights and liabilities of a , including the ability to . In state courts, rules generally mirror FRCP 24, though variations exist; for instance, California of § 387 provides for mandatory intervention when a nonparty's may be affected and not adequately represented, and permissive intervention for common questions, with applications evaluated for timeliness and . Similarly, states like and have adopted substantially identical provisions to promote uniformity in .

European Union

In the European Union, intervention in legal proceedings primarily occurs before the Court of Justice of the (CJEU) and the General Court, governed by the Statute of the Court of Justice and the respective Rules of Procedure. Intervention allows third parties to participate in cases to protect their interests, but it is strictly limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the existing parties, without altering the subject matter of the dispute. This mechanism ensures the uniform interpretation and application of EU law while maintaining procedural efficiency. For direct actions (e.g., under Article 263 TFEU for annulment) and appeals, intervention is regulated by Article 40 of the Statute and Articles 129–132 of the CJEU's Rules of Procedure. Eligible interveners include Member States, EU institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies, as well as any other person establishing a direct and existing interest in the result of the case that may be affected by the judgment. Applications to intervene must be lodged within specified deadlines: one month after publication of the notice in direct actions or after notification to the defendant, and one month after the appeal is lodged in appeals. The application requires a statement justifying the interest and the form of order supported, after which the President decides admissibility by order, communicating it to the parties for observations. Upon acceptance, the intervener submits a statement in intervention within one month (extendable), limited to pleas supporting a party, and receives the case file (excluding confidential documents). Interveners must accept the case as they find it, cannot introduce new pleas, and have no automatic right to a hearing, though the Court may invite them if necessary; their intervention becomes void if the main case is discontinued or declared inadmissible. In procedures under Article 267 TFEU, where national courts seek CJEU interpretation of EU law, intervention differs due to the non-contentious nature of the . Article 23 of the permits Member States, the Commission, and—following the 2024 reform—the , , and to submit written observations if they have an interest in the case, without needing to support a specific party. Other third parties, such as NGOs or individuals, cannot formally intervene directly at the CJEU level but may participate indirectly by intervening in the national proceedings before referral, subject to national rules; their views may then be annexed to the by the national court. Deadlines for observations are two months after publication of the request in the Official Journal. This approach prioritizes institutional input to aid uniform EU law application, as seen in migration cases where organizations like UNHCR have submitted observations in references such as N.S. v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-411/10 and C-493/10), influencing rulings on asylum procedures. The General Court applies analogous rules under its (Articles 21 and 48) and Rules of Procedure (Articles 114–118), with similar limitations on scope and effects, but tailored to its over actions against EU institutions. For instance, third parties with protectable interests can intervene in staff or cases, submitting statements within one month of acceptance. The 2024 amendments to the , effective from 1 September 2024, expanded preliminary ruling interventions to additional EU institutions but did not alter core intervention procedures in direct actions or appeals. Overall, EU intervention emphasizes protecting legitimate interests without expanding litigation, contrasting with broader amicus curiae roles in other jurisdictions.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intervention
  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_24
  3. https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/intervention.html
  4. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part19#19.2
  5. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part19#19.5
  6. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/5
  7. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_19
  8. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_20
  9. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_14
  10. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/amicus_curiae
  11. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_29
  12. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_37
  13. https://imla.org/2013/09/whether-to-intervene-or-seek-to-be-amicus/
  14. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
  15. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5684&context=journal_articles
  16. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2375&context=wlulr
  17. https://www.nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/researchlitigation/PreTrialPractice/AddingParties.asp
  18. https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch16.html
  19. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=ohlj
  20. https://supremeadvocacy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-01-31-Meehan-Major-Slade-Intervening-in-Appellate-Courts-Across-Canada-2.pdf
  21. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2002-156/page-4.html
  22. https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/canadian-appeals-monitor/supreme-court-of-canada-clarifies-the-role-of-interveners
  23. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html
  24. https://www.blg.com/en/insights/2023/10/to-intervene-or-not-to-intervene-before-the-federal-courts
  25. http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=intervention.federal-3
  26. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900194
  27. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest/
  28. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2022CanLIIDocs993
  29. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/contents/made
  30. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil
  31. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part19
  32. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/can-a-person-intervene-in-ongoing-civil-proceedings-to-which-they-are-not-currently-a-party-or-be-added
  33. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part54
  34. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part54/pd_part54a
  35. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-504-1719?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  36. https://files.justice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06170721/To-Assist-the-Court-Web.pdf
  37. https://publiclawproject.org.uk/content/uploads/data/resources/120/PLP_2008_Guide_3rd_Party_Interventions.pdf
  38. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2403
  39. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-605_kjfl.pdf
  40. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-248_8n59.pdf
  41. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/404/528/
  42. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-387/
  43. https://www.mass.gov/rules-of-civil-procedure/civil-procedure-rule-24-intervention
  44. https://www.ndcourts.gov/legal-resources/rules/ndrcivp/24-1
  45. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2012:265:0001:0042
  46. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R2019
  47. https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/third-party-interventions-before-the-court-of-justice-in-migration-law-cases/
  48. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012R0999
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.