Guidebook tion in Criminal Proceedings' (June 2016) <https://ablawg.ca/2016/06/08/should-thedispute-remain-between-the-accused-and-thecrown-third-party-intervention-in-criminal-proceedings/comment-page-1/> accessed 15 December 2019. 408 APF, 2018, p 188 (with examples on the national laws of Australia and Indonesia). 409 See Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), Submission in the case Sweeney v. Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General (12 March 2019). 410 IHREC, Submission in the case Artur Celmer v. Minister for Justice and Equality (2 July 2019). 411 For more guidance on third party interventions see ENNHRI, ‘Guide on Third Party Interventions Before the European Court of Human Rights’ (forthcoming). 412 e.g. IHREC in the case O’Keeffe v. Ireland, App no 35810/09 (ECtHR, 28 January 2014); IHREC in the name of the European Group of National Human Rights Institutions (now ENNHRI) in the case Gauer and others v. France, App No 61521/08 (ECtHR, 23 October 2012) (hereinafter Gauer and others v France); European Group of National Human Rights Institutions (now ENNHRI) in the case D.D. v. Lithuania, App No 13469, (ECtHR, 14 February 2012). See also Laurens Lavrysen and Claire Poppelwell-Scevak, ‘Third Party Interventions before the ECtHR: A Rough Guide’ (24 February 2015). 413 Rule 44 §3 Rules of Court and Art 36 §2 ECHR. “Contracting Party which is not a party to the proceedings or any person concerned who is not the applicant”. 414 Rules 51 (1) or 54 (2)(b). 415 Saadi v. Italy, App No 37201/06 (ECtHR GC, 28 February 2008); §7. 416 Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, (OUP 2015) Art 36, p 792. 417 JUSTICE, ‘To assist the Court: Third Party Interventions in the Public Interest’ (2016), p 60 (hereinafter JUSTICE, ‘To assist the Court’, (2016)) 418 Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, Submission in the case Hasselbaink v. the Netherlands (73329/16) and in Maassen v. The Netherlands (10982/15) (December 2017) <https://mensenrechten.nl/nl/publicatie/38255, https://mensenrechten.nl/nl/publicatie/36606> accessed 18 December 2019. 419 IHREC, Submission in the case Theresa Magee v Ireland (8 March 2012). 420 Art23 of the Statute of the CJEU and Art 96 of the Rules of Procedure, which state that these are: the parties to the main proceedings, the Member States, the European Commission, the institution that adopted the act the validity or interpretation of which is in dispute, the States other than the Member States which are parties to the EEA Agreement, EFTA Surveillance Authority, where a question concerning one of the fields of application of that Agreement is referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling, non-Member States which are parties to an agreement relating to a specific subject matter which is concluded with the Council and where the agreement so provides and also where a court or tribunal of a Member State refers to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling a question falling within the scope of that agreement. 421 Art 50(2) Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In direct actions third parties must be able to show a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the form of order sought by the parties (Order of the President of the Court of 6 April 2006 in Case C-130/06 P(I) An Post v Deutsche Post and Commission, para 8). Order of the President of the Court of 25 January 2008 in Case C-461/07 P(I) Provincia di Ascoli Piceno and Comune di Monte Urano v Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory, para 5. 422 Art 267 TFEU. 148 FOOTNOTES 423 According to Arts 96 and 97 Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. Joined cases Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others (C-403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08) (CJEU GC, 4 October 2011), para 6. See also JUSTICE, ‘To assist the Court’, (2016), p 63. 424 R (British American Tobacco UK Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 3515 (Admin). 425 R (British American Tobacco UK Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWHC 3515 (Admin), para 41. 426 JUSTICE, ‘To assist the Court’, (2016), p 64, 19.11. 427 M.F. v J.M., C-508/19 (CJEU, pending), initiated by the request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court in Poland) lodged on 3 July 2019; W.Ż., C-487/19 (CJEU, pending) initiated by the request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court in Poland) lodged on 26 June 2019.; see also Martyna Olejnik, Patryk Wachowiec, ‘Supreme Court queries ECJ about new appointee’, 14 Juni 2019. 428 Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa, C-824/18 (CJEU, pending), initiated by the request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny ( Supreme Administrative Court in Poland) lodged on 28 December 2018; see also: RPO do TSUE: kandydaci niezgłoszeni przez KRS do powołania na sędziów Sądu Najwyższego - z prawem do odwołania, 22 October 2019; RPO przyłączył się do odwołania w NSA sędziego niepowołanego do SN. NSA zadał pytania prejudycjalne, 19 March 2019. 429 Joined Cases Miasto Łowicz v Skarb Państwa — Wojewoda Łódzki, (C‑558/18, CJEU, pending), initiated by the request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (District Court, Łódź, Poland) and Prokurator Generalny zastępowany przez Prokuraturę Krajową (initially Prokuratura Okręgowa w Płocku) v VX, WW, XV, (C‑563/18, CJEU, pending), initiated by the request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (District Court, Warsaw, Poland); see also: Polish Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Notice on the opinion of CJEU Advocate General E. Tanchev regarding joined cases: C-558/18 and C-563/18’, 11 October 2019; Pawel Marcisz, ‘Creating a Safe Venue of Judicial Review. AG Tanchev on the Admissibility of Preliminary References re Polish Disciplinary Proceedings’, Verfassungsblog, 11 October 2019. 430 Polish Helsinki Foundation, Polish National Report (forthcoming). See also: Zastępca RPO dr Maciej Taborowski dla tv.rp.pl o postępowaniach w sprawie praworządności w Polsce, 29 July 2019; This possibility was also seized by, among others, the international non-governmental organisation Article 19, which in November 2017 submitted an amicus curiae brief in the proceedings before the French Council of State that led to the submission to the CJEU of the request for a preliminary question on “the right to be forgotten”, for more information see: Helsinki Foundation if Human Rights, 2018, p. 58. 149