CELEX: 62013CJ0060
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations
European Union’s own resources
Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom
Article 8
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000
Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11
Refusal to make own resources available to the European Union
Erroneous Binding Tariff Information documents
Imports of fresh garlic as frozen garlic
Imputability of the error to the national customs authorities
Financial liability of the Member States

By its application, the European Commission asks the Court to declare that, by refusing to make available the amount of GBP
20 061 462.11 corresponding to the duties payable on imports of fresh garlic covered by erroneous Binding Tariff Information
documents (‘BTIs’), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3)
TEU, Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the Communities’ own resources
(OJ 2000 L 253, p. 42), and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing
Decision 2000/597 (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2028/2004 of 16 November 2004 (OJ
2004 L 352, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 1150/2000’).

Legal context

EU law on own resources
Under Article 2(1)(b) of Decision 2000/597, revenue from, inter alia, ‘Common Customs Tariff duties and other duties established
or to be established by the institutions [of the European Union] in respect of trade with non-member countries’ constitutes
own resources entered in the budget of the European Union.
Article 8(1) of that decision provides:
‘The [European Union’s] own resources referred to in Article 2(1)(a) and (b) shall be collected by the Member States in accordance
with the national provisions imposed by law, regulation or administrative action, which shall, where appropriate, be adapted
to meet the requirements of [European Union] rules.
The Commission shall examine at regular intervals the national provisions communicated to it by the Member States, transmit
to the Member States the adjustments it deems necessary in order to ensure that they comply with [European Union] rules and
report to the budget authority.
Member States shall make the resources provided for in Article 2(1)(a) to (d) available to the Commission.’
Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1150/2000 is worded as follows:
‘For the purpose of applying this Regulation, the [European Union’s] entitlement to the own resources referred to in Article 2(1)(a)
and (b) of [Decision 2000/597] shall be established as soon as the conditions provided for by the customs regulations have
been met concerning the entry of the entitlement in the accounts and the notification of the debtor.’
Under Article 6(1) and (3)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1150/2000:
‘1.      Accounts for own resources shall be kept by the Treasury of each Member State or by the body appointed by each Member State
and broken down by type of resources.
...
3.      (a)   Entitlements established in accordance with Article 2 shall, subject to point (b) of this paragraph, be entered in the accounts
at the latest on the first working day after the 19th day of the second month following the month during which the entitlement
was established.
(b)      Established entitlements not entered in the accounts referred to in point (a), because they have not yet been recovered and
no security has been provided shall be shown in separate accounts within the period laid down in point (a). Member States
may adopt this procedure where established entitlements for which security has been provided have been challenged and might,
upon settlement of the disputes which have arisen, be subject to change.’
Article 9(1) of that regulation provides:
‘In accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 10, each Member State shall credit own resources to the account opened
in the name of the Commission with its Treasury or the body it has appointed.
...’
Under Article 10(1) of Regulation No 1150/2000:
‘After deduction of collection costs in accordance with Article 2(3) and Article 10(2)(c) of Decision [2000/597] entry of
the own resources referred to in Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of that decision shall be made at the latest on the first working
day following the 19th day of the second month following the month during which the entitlement was established in accordance
with Article 2 of this regulation.
However, for entitlements shown in separate accounts under Article 6(3)(b) [of this regulation], the entry must be made at
the latest on the first working day following the 19th day of the second month following the month in which the entitlements
were recovered.’
Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1150/2000 provides:
‘Any delay in making the entry in the account referred to in Article 9(1) shall give rise to the payment of interest by the
Member State concerned.’
Under Article 17(1) and (2) of that regulation:
‘1.      Member States shall take all requisite measures to ensure that the amount corresponding to the entitlements established under
Article 2 are made available to the Commission as specified in this Regulation.
2.      Member States shall be released from the obligation to place at the disposal of the Commission the amounts corresponding to
established entitlements which prove irrecoverable either:
(a)      for reasons of
force majeure
; or
(b)      for other reasons which cannot be attributed to them.
Amounts of established entitlements shall be declared irrecoverable by a decision of the competent administrative authority
finding that they cannot be recovered.
Amounts of established entitlements shall be deemed irrecoverable, at the latest, after a period of five years from the date
on which the amount has been established in accordance with Article 2 or, in the event of an administrative or judicial appeal,
the final decision has been given, notified or published.
If part payment or payments have been received, the period of five years at maximum shall start from the date of the last
payment made, where this does not clear the debt.
Amounts declared or deemed irrecoverable shall be definitively removed from the separate account referred to in Article 6(3)(b).
They shall be shown in an annex to the quarterly statement referred to in Article 6(4)(b) and where applicable, in the quarterly
statement referred to in Article 6(5).’

The Customs Code
Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 (OJ 2000
L 311, p. 17), (‘the Customs Code’) provides:
‘1.      The customs authorities shall issue binding tariff information or binding origin information on written request, acting in
accordance with the committee procedure.
2.      Binding tariff information or binding origin information shall be binding on the customs authorities as against the holder
of the information only in respect of the tariff classification or determination of the origin of goods.
Binding tariff information or binding origin information shall be binding on the customs authorities only in respect of goods
on which customs formalities are completed after the date on which the information was supplied by them.
...
3.      The holder of such information must be able to prove that:
–        for tariff purposes: the goods declared correspond in every respect to those described in the information,
...’
Under Article 217(1) of the Customs Code:
‘Each and every amount of import duty or export duty resulting from a customs debt … shall be calculated by the customs authorities
as soon as they have the necessary particulars, and entered by those authorities in the accounting records or on any other
equivalent medium (entry in the accounts).
The first subparagraph shall not apply:
...
(b)       where the amount of duty legally due exceeds that determined on the basis of binding information;
...’

The Combined Nomenclature
The Combined Nomenclature (‘CN’) for the Common Customs Tariff was laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87
of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1). The annex
is amended each year with effect from 1 January. The version which applies to imports during 2005 is the annex as amended
by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1), and as regards imports during 2006,
it is the annex as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1).
At the material time, CN tariff heading 0703 was worded as follows: ‘Onions, shallots, garlic, leeks and other alliaceous
vegetables, fresh or chilled’. CN tariff heading 0710 was worded as follows: ‘Vegetables (uncooked or cooked by steaming or
boiling in water), frozen’.
CN tariff heading 0703 attracted payment of customs duties at a rate of 9.6% plus a specific sum in the amount of EUR 1 200
per net tonne imported outside the tariff quota, while for CN tariff heading 0710 a rate of 14.4% was applied, with no additional
amount being payable.

Pre-litigation procedure
In July 2006, as part of an investigation into imports of fresh garlic originating in China, the European Anti-Fraud Office
(OLAF) carried out an inspection in the United Kingdom and informed the Commission that, in 2005, the UK customs authorities
had issued four erroneous BTIs, in that garlic preserved at temperatures of ‑3
o
C to ‑8
o
C had been classified as ‘frozen garlic’ (‘the disputed BTIs’). Three of the disputed BTIs were used for the import of fresh
garlic from China.
According to OLAF, the UK customs authorities had made obvious administrative errors by issuing the disputed BTIs solely on
the basis of the description given by the importers and without requesting samples or documents which might have assisted
them in determining the correct classification of the goods.
The disputed BTIs were revoked in June 2006.
On the basis of that information, and in view of the fact that imports of fresh garlic (CN heading 0703) originating in China
outside the applicable tariff quota are subject to customs duties considerably higher than those for frozen garlic (CN heading
0710), the Commission found that the customs duties not collected as a result of that erroneous classification amounted in
total to GBP 20 061 462.11. By letter of 22 March 2007, the Commission sent a request to the United Kingdom for information
on the imports of garlic originating in China made between 24 January 2005 and 28 December 2006.
On 22 March 2010, after an exchange of correspondence with the UK authorities, the Commission sent the United Kingdom a letter
of formal notice in which it stated its view that the United Kingdom was financially liable for the loss of own resources
and asked the United Kingdom to submit its observations in that regard within two months.
In its response of 12 May 2010, the United Kingdom conceded that it had issued the disputed BTIs indicating the incorrect
tariff heading, but argued that this error had not led to a loss of own resources because it had not given rise to any customs
debt.
Unconvinced by the arguments presented by the United Kingdom, the Commission sent it a reasoned opinion on 25 November 2011,
reiterating its position and asking the United Kingdom to make available to the Commission the sum of GBP 20 061 462.11 as
soon as possible, together with late payment interest calculated on the basis of the date of the import declarations and the
date of payment.
The United Kingdom responded by letter of 25 January 2012, denying liability for the sum claimed by the Commission. As it
was not satisfied with that reply, the Commission decided to bring the present action.

The action

Arguments of the parties
The Commission submits that, by issuing the disputed BTIs, the United Kingdom caused the loss of traditional European Union
own resources in so far as imports of fresh garlic originating in China had been allowed outside the authorised quota, in
breach of Article 4(3) TEU, Article 8 of Decision 2000/597 and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.
The Commission submits that the United Kingdom infringed the requirements of EU law on the classification of goods, in that
the UK customs authorities had regarded the garlic as frozen solely on the basis of a criterion linked to temperature, without
taking into account the objective characteristics and properties of the garlic imported under the disputed BTIs. It is clear,
however, from the wording of CN heading 0710 and from the explanatory notes on the harmonised system drawn up by the World
Customs Organisation (WCO) that the term ‘frozen’ means that the vegetable — in this case, garlic — must be ‘deep-frozen’,
a term that is not defined by reference to temperature.
The Commission also submits that, given a number of factors indicating that garlic is a sensitive product which requires particular
attention, the UK customs authorities should have exercised particular vigilance in relation to imports of garlic in general
and kept a special watch on the movements of those goods.
Among those factors, the Commission mentions: (i) the introduction on 1 June 2001 of an additional specific duty of EUR 1 200
per net tonne for imports of fresh garlic originating in China outside the authorised tariff quota; (ii) the fact that several
mutual assistance communications had drawn the attention of the national customs authorities to deliberate misdescriptions
of the origin of fresh garlic and deliberate misdescriptions of the product itself; and (iii) the import statistics sent by
the United Kingdom showing that its imports of frozen garlic originating in China exceeded the annual quota for fresh garlic
for the entire European Union. The Commission maintains that, if the UK customs authorities had carried out an appropriate
risk analysis, they should have had full knowledge of the risks associated with the handling of that product.
The Commission also submits that the disputed BTIs had not been established with due diligence, despite the fact that the
applications giving rise to the issuing of those BTIs contained sufficient clues to raise doubts.
As regards the justifications put forward by the United Kingdom in the pre-litigation procedure, the Commission argues that
the initial scientific opinion of the Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association (CCFRA), relied on by the United Kingdom
when it issued the disputed BTIs, and according to which the garlic was frozen at ‑1ºC, was very brief and was not based on
an in-depth analysis.
As regards the argument that, when such a written application is made to the customs authorities, they are required to issue
BTIs within a reasonable period of time, the Commission replies that the authorities are not entitled to issue that information
unless they have sufficient information and have reached an informed view enabling them to determine the classification of
the goods in question. In this case, the UK customs authorities did not take any steps to verify that the goods imported actually
corresponded to the description set out in the disputed BTIs.
Lastly, the Commission submits that the United Kingdom is financially liable for the loss of traditional own resources because
the fact that it did not establish the customs debt arising from the imports and did not give the debtor notice of that debt
is an error attributable to its customs authorities. If the United Kingdom were not obliged to bear the financial consequences
of its errors, the budgetary cost of its failure to meet its obligations would be passed on to the other Member States. That
outcome would be contrary to the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU.
The United Kingdom contends that the action should be dismissed.
Primarily, the United Kingdom contends that the Commission did not establish the European Union’s entitlement to the own resources.
According to the United Kingdom, the obligation to contribute to traditional own resources presupposes the existence of a
customs debt, whether or not that debt is recovered from the debtor. In the present case, the holders of the disputed BTIs
had been authorised to import goods under CN heading 0710, and they could rely on that authorisation for a period of six months
after the revocation of the BTIs. No customs debt arose in relation to those holders, since Article 217(1)(b) of the Customs
Code expressly precludes the entry in the accounts of amounts that are legally due if they are higher than the amounts determined
on the basis of BTIs.
If, contrary to the United Kingdom’s main plea, it were to be decided that the issue of the disputed BTIs by the United Kingdom
could result in its liability for the loss of European Union own resources, the United Kingdom argues, in the alternative,
that such liability must be made conditional on the Commission showing that the customs authorities of that Member State were
at fault or negligent in issuing the disputed BTIs. In that regard, the United Kingdom contends — relying on Article 17(2)
of Regulation No 1150/2000 — that the loss of the own resources is ‘for other reasons which cannot be attributed to [it]’
for the purposes of that provision.
As for the Commission’s argument relating to errors made in the classification of the goods, the United Kingdom denies classifying
the product by reference to temperature. The United Kingdom asserts that, on the contrary, it relied on the opinion of a scientific
expert to conclude that the ‘deep-frozen’ criterion was fulfilled in the circumstances. The fact that the inaccuracy of that
opinion did not become evident until after a physical examination of a consignment and in-depth analyses of the product in
question had been carried out showed that the classification error was at the very least excusable.
As regards the risk that the garlic imports might have been linked to fraud, the United Kingdom explains that it had no knowledge
of the fact that the declaration of fresh garlic as frozen garlic was a particular problem. That risk was not identified until
early February 2006, when the UK customs authorities pointed it out. Furthermore, the mutual assistance communications that
had been sent to the United Kingdom earlier concerned two specific types of quota circumvention through false declarations,
some relating to the country of origin of the fresh garlic and others stating that the product in question was dried garlic
instead of fresh garlic. As regards the import statistics, the United Kingdom contends that these were not available until
after a period of three months and they reflected an increase in the import of frozen vegetables generally.
The United Kingdom also disputes the Commission’s argument that the UK customs authorities failed to give due care and attention
to the issue of the disputed BTIs. The United Kingdom contends that there is no requirement to submit every BTI application
to sampling. The UK customs authorities had no reasonable grounds for doubting the accuracy of the applications and for refusing
to issue the disputed BTIs.

Findings of the Court
It must be stated at the outset that the United Kingdom does not deny that the disputed BTIs issued by its customs authorities
contain erroneous information and that the sum claimed by the Commission represents the total value of the customs duties
that would have been due if the imported garlic had been declared as fresh garlic and not as frozen garlic.
On the other hand, the United Kingdom contests the existence of a customs debt, which, in its opinion, constitutes a prerequisite
for the European Union’s entitlement to own resources; in the alternative, the United Kingdom contests the imputability to
the UK customs authorities of the error committed in issuing the disputed BTIs, in the light of Article 17(2) of Regulation
No 1150/2000.
In those circumstances, it is necessary to determine whether the United Kingdom was required to establish the existence of
the European Union’s entitlement to the own resources and, if that is indeed the case, to examine whether the United Kingdom,
in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1150/2000, was released from the obligation
to make those resources available to the European Union.
First, as regards the obligation to establish the existence of the European Union’s entitlement to the own resources, it is
clear from Article 2(1)(b) of Decision 2000/597, read in conjunction with Article 8(1) thereof, that the revenue from Common
Customs Tariff duties are own resources of the European Union which are collected by the Member States, and that the latter
are obliged to make those resources available to the Commission.
Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1150/2000 provides that Member States must establish the European Union’s entitlement to own
resources ‘as soon as the conditions provided for by the customs regulations have been met concerning the entry of the entitlement
in the accounts and the notification of the debtor’.
The United Kingdom contends, however, that Article 217(1)(b) of the Customs Code precluded it from entering in the accounts
the amounts that the Commission considers to be due, since the amount corresponding to the import duties applicable to fresh
garlic originating in China is higher than the amount determined on the basis of the disputed BTIs issued in relation to the
import of frozen garlic.
That line of argument cannot be accepted. The Court has held that the obligation of Member States to establish the European
Union’s entitlement to own resources arises as soon as the conditions provided for by the customs regulations have been met
and that, accordingly, it is not necessary for the entry in the accounts to have actually been made (see Case C‑392/02
Commission
v
Denmark
[2005] ECR I‑9811, paragraph 58).
As regards the exemption under Article 217(1)(b) of the Customs Code, it must be noted that the purpose of that exemption
is to protect the debtor’s legitimate expectation which is based on the valid BTI held by that debtor. Accordingly, that provision
covers situations in which the Member States’ customs authorities cannot make a subsequent entry in the accounts of the duties
in question, but it does not release Member States from their obligation to establish the European Union’s entitlement to
own resources (see, by analogy, Case C‑392/02
Commission
v
Denmark
, paragraph 62).
Indeed, according to well established case-law of the Court, if an error committed by the customs authorities of a Member
State results in the debtor not having to pay the duties in question, it does not affect that Member State’s obligation to
pay duties that should have been established in the context of making available own resources, together with default interest
(see, to that effect, C‑392/02
Commission
v
Denmark
, paragraph 63; Case C‑275/07
Commission
v
Italy
[2009] ECR I‑2005, paragraph 100; and Case C‑334/08
Commission
v
Italy
[2010] ECR I‑6869, paragraph 50).
In the present case, the fact that the UK customs authorities applied an erroneous tariff to the imports of fresh garlic originating
from China and established customs duties in an amount lower than that applicable to those goods has no effect on the obligation
to establish the European Union’s entitlement to own resources arising out of those imports.
Secondly, it is necessary to examine the United Kingdom’s alternative argument that its liability for the loss of own resources
is precluded on the basis of Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1150/2000, since the administrative errors are not attributable
to it.
Under the terms of Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1150/2000, Member States are obliged to take all necessary measures to ensure
that the amounts corresponding to the entitlements established pursuant to Article 2 of that regulation are made available
to the Commission in accordance with the conditions laid down in that regulation. Article 17(2) of the regulation provides
that Member States are to be exempted from that obligation if recovery did not take place for reasons of
force majeure
or for other reasons not attributable to them.
It is clear from the case-law of the Court that there is no need to distinguish between a situation in which a Member State
has established the duties on the own resources without paying them and one in which it has wrongfully omitted to establish
them (see, inter alia, Case C‑96/89
Commission
v
Netherlands
[1991] ECR I‑2461, paragraph 38, and Case C‑392/02
Commission
v
Denmark
, paragraph 67).
In particular, the Court has held that a Member State which fails to establish the European Union’s own resources and to make
the corresponding amount available to the Commission, without one of the conditions laid down in Article 17(2) of Regulation
No 1150/2000 being met, falls short of its obligations under EU law and, in particular, under Articles 2 and 8 of Decision
2000/597 (see, to that effect, Case C‑392/02
Commission
v
Denmark
, paragraph 68, and Case C‑19/05
Commission
v
Denmark
[2007] ECR I‑8597, paragraph 32).
In paragraph 61 of the judgment in Case C‑334/08
Commission
v
Italy
, the Court stated that Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1150/2000, in the version applicable to the present case, establishes
a procedure enabling a Member State’s administrative authorities either to declare certain amounts of established entitlements
irrecoverable or to consider the amounts of established entitlements to be deemed irrecoverable at the latest after a period
of five years from the date on which the amount has been established.
In that context, the Court stated inter alia in paragraph 65 of that judgment that, in order for a Member State to be released
from its obligation to make available to the Commission the amounts corresponding to the established entitlements, not only
must the conditions laid down in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1150/2000 be met; the condition that those entitlements must
have been properly entered in the account provided for in Article 6(3)(b) of that regulation — that is to say, in the B account —
must also have been satisfied.
It follows that, in order to rely on the exemption provided for in Article 17(2)(b) of that regulation, the United Kingdom
must also have entered the entitlements in question in the B account. As it is, both in its defence and in its rejoinder,
the United Kingdom states that it decided not to seek post-clearance recovery from the holders of the disputed BTIs.
In those circumstances, the United Kingdom cannot rely on an exemption under Article 17(2)(b) of Regulation No 1150/2000.
In any event, the reason why it is impossible to effect a recovery is attributable to the UK customs authorities.
Indeed, it is because those authorities issued the disputed BTIs that the amounts corresponding to the entitlements in question
in the present case prove irrecoverable.
It follows from the above considerations that, under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1150/2000, the United Kingdom was required
to establish the existence of the European Union’s own resources and, pursuant to Articles 6, 9 and 10 of that regulation,
to make them available to the European Union. By failing to do so, the United Kingdom also made itself liable for late payment
interest, in accordance with Article 11 of that regulation.
In that regard, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, there is an inseparable link between the obligation
to establish the European Union’s own resources, the obligation to credit them to the Commission’s account within the prescribed
time-limits and the obligation to pay default interest, that interest being payable regardless of the reason for the delay
in making the entry in the Commission’s account (see, in particular, Case C‑423/08
Commission
v
Italy
[2010] ECR I‑5449, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited, and Case C‑442/08
Commission
v
Germany
[2010] ECR I‑6457, paragraph 93).
Under Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000, any delay in making the entry in the account referred to in Article 9(1) of that
regulation gives rise to the payment of default interest by the Member State concerned at the interest rate applicable to
the entire period of delay (see Case C‑460/01
Commission
v
Netherlands
[2005] ECR I‑2613, paragraph 91, and Case C‑275/07
Commission
v
Italy
, paragraph 66).
Therefore, the United Kingdom failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Decision 2000/597 and Articles 2, 6, 9,
10 and 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.
Lastly, as regards the infringement of Article 4(3) TEU, also relied on by the Commission, there are no grounds for holding
that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil the general obligations under that provision, which is separate from the established
failure to fulfil the more specific obligations incumbent upon that Member State under the provisions referred to in the preceding
paragraph (see, by analogy, Case C‑392/02
Commission
v
Denmark
, paragraph 69; Case C‑19/05
Commission
v
Denmark
, paragraph 36; and Case C‑334/08
Commission
v
Italy
, paragraph 75).
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, it must be held that, by refusing to make available the amount of GBP 20 061 462.11
corresponding to the duties payable on imports of fresh garlic covered by erroneous binding tariff information, the United
Kingdom failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Decision 2000/597 and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation
No 1150/2000.

Costs
Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they
have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the United Kingdom
has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby:
1.
Declares that, by refusing to make available the amount of GBP 20 061 462.11 corresponding to the duties payable on imports
of fresh garlic covered by erroneous binding tariff information, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system
of the Communities’ own resources and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May
2000 implementing Decision 2000/597, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2028/2004 of 16 November 2004;
2.
Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
[Signatures]
*
Language of the case: English.