Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:625
Date: 2013-10-03
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Environment;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Greece

Summary 148. Because none of the grounds put forward by the appellants is successful, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety. V – Costs 149. If, as I propose in this case, the appeal is dismissed, the Court will make a decision as to costs (Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure), the details of which are set out in Articles 137 to 146 in conjunction with Article 184(1) of those Rules of Procedure. (97) 150. It follows from Article 138(1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 184(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings; where there is more than one unsuccessful party, the Court decides how costs are to be shared. Since the Parliament and the Council have applied for costs and the appellants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to pay the costs. They must pay these costs jointly and severally since they brought the appeal jointly. (98) 151. A different decision must be taken on the costs incurred by the Commission. That institution, which intervened in the proceedings at first instance in support of the Parliament and the Council, also participated in the written or oral part of the appeal proceedings. Under the second sentence of Article 184(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may decide that such a party must bear its own costs. 152. According to its wording (‘may’), the latter provision certainly does not prevent the Court, where appropriate, from taking a different decision and ordering the unsuccessful appellants to pay the costs incurred by the opposing intervener at first instance if the latter, like the Commission in the present case, has been successful in its pleas in the appeal proceedings. (99) In the present case, however, it would seem that the rule laid down in the second sentence of Article 184(4) of the Rules of Procedure should be applied. The present appeal proceedings clarified a question of principle which is of considerable institutional interest to the Commission going far beyond the scope of the individual case at issue. It is thus perfectly fair for the Commission to bear its own costs. 153. Lastly, as regards the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which likewise intervened at first instance in support of the Parliament and the Council, it cannot be ordered to pay any costs, as the appellants request, because it did not participate in the appeal proceedings (first sentence of Article 184(4) of the Rules of Procedure). VI – Conclusion 154. In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court: (1) dismisses the appeal; (2) orders the European Commission to bear its own costs; (3) orders, for the remainder, the appellants jointly and severally to bear the costs of the proceedings. 1 – Original language: German. 2 – Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95. 3 – Case C‑50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I‑6677. 4 – Case C‑263/02 P Commission v Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I‑3425. 5 – The Court will shortly have to consider implementing measures, which are also referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in Case C‑274/12 P Telefónica v Commission. 6 – Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36). 7 – The Inuit are an indigenous ethnic group who live primarily in the arctic and subarctic regions of central and north-eastern Canada, in Alaska, in Greenland and in parts of Russia. The term Eskimo(s) which is sometimes used colloquially describes other arctic ethnic groups in addition to the Inuit. 8 – Order in Case T‑18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council [2011] ECR II-5599. 9 – Mr Efstathios Andreas Agathos was among the applicants at first instance, but did not join the present appeal. 10 – Case T‑526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatamiand Others v Commission, pending before the General Court. 11 – Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products (OJ 2010 L 216, p. 1). 12 – Article 289(3) TFEU defines legislative acts as ‘legal acts adopted by legislative procedure’. 13 – For the current state of opinion, see, inter alia, Dougan, M., ‘The Treaty of Lisbon 2007: Winning minds, not hearts’, Common Market Law Review 45 (2008), pp. 617-703 (677 et seq.); Lenaerts, K., ‘Le traité de Lisbonne et la protection juridictionnelle des particuliers en droit de l’Union’, Cahiers de droit européen 2009, pp. 711-745 (725 et seq.); Görlitz, N./Kubicki, P., ‘Rechtsakte “mit schwierigem Charakter”’, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2011, pp. 248-254 (250 et seq.); Herrmann, C., ‘Individualrechtsschutz gegen Rechtsakte der EU “mit Verordnungscharakter” nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon’, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2011, pp. 1352-1357 (1354 et seq.); Mazák, J., ‘Locus standi v konaní o neplatnosť: Od Plaumannovho testu k regulačným aktom’, Právník 150 (2011), pp. 219-231 (223); Schwarze, J., ‘Rechtsschutz Privater gegen Rechtsakte mit Verordnungscharakter gemäß Art. 263 Abs. 4 Var. 3 AEUV’, in: Müller-Graff, P.-C./Schmahl, S./Skouris, V. (ed.), Europäisches Recht zwischen Bewährung und Wandel – Festschrift für Dieter H. Scheuing, Baden-Baden 2011, pp. 190-207 (199 et seq.); Everling, U., ‘Klagerecht Privater gegen Rechtsakte der EU mit allgemeiner Geltung’, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2012, pp. 376-380 (378 et seq.); Wathelet, M./Wildemeersch, J., ‘Recours en annulation: une première interprétation restrictive du droit d’action élargi des particuliers?’, Journal de droit européen 2012, pp. 75-79 (79). 14 – Paragraph 56 of the order under appeal; see also paragraphs 42, 43 and 45 of that order. 15 – This is true in particular of the German (‘Verordnung’ and ‘Rechtsakt mit Verordnungscharakter’), English (‘regulation’ and ‘regulatory act’), French (‘règlement’ and ‘acte réglementaire’), Greek (‘κανονισμός’ and ‘κανονιστική πράξη’), Irish (‘rialachán’ and ‘gníomh rialúcháin’), Italian (‘regolamento’ and ‘atto regolamentare’), Latvian (‘regula’ and ‘reglamentējošs akts’), Lithuanian (‘reglamentas’ and ‘reglamentuojančio pobūdžio teisės aktas’), Maltese (‘regolament’ and ‘att regolatorju’), Portuguese (‘regulamento’ and ‘ato regulamentar’ or, in its old form, ‘acto regulamentar’), Spanish (‘reglamento’ and ‘acto reglamentario’) and Hungarian (‘rendelet’ and ‘rendeleti jellegű jogi aktus’) language versions of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. 16 – That is the case, for example, with the expressions used for ‘regulation’ and ‘regulatory act’ respectively in the Bulgarian (‘регламент’ and ‘подзаконов акт’), Danish (‘forordning’ and ‘regelfastsættende retsakt’), Estonian (‘määrus’ and ‘üldkohaldatav akt’), Finnish (‘asetus’ and ‘sääntelytoimi’), Dutch (‘verordening’ and ‘regelgevingshandeling’), Polish (‘rozporządzenie’ and ‘akt regulacyjny’), Romanian (‘regulament’ and ‘act normativ’), Slovak (‘nariadenie’ and ‘regulačný akt’), Slovene (‘uredba’ and ‘predpis’), Swedish (‘förordning’ and ‘regleringsakt’) and Czech (‘nařízení’ and ‘akt s obecnou působností’) language versions of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. 17 – Settled case-law; see, inter alia, Case 283/81 CILFIT and Others [1982] ECR 3415, paragraphs 18 to 20. 18 – In its judgment of 27 November 2012 in Case C‑370/12 Pringle, paragraph 135, the Court of Justice takes the same approach in referring to the preparatory work relating to the Treaty of Maastricht. 19 – See also Case T‑262/10 Microban International and Others v Commission [2011] ECR II‑7697, paragraph 32. 20 – The extent to which the EU fundamental right to an effective legal remedy specifically necessitates a broad interpretation of the expression ‘regulatory act’ is the subject of the second part of the second ground of appeal and will be discussed in greater detail in that connection (see below, points 105 to 124 of this Opinion). 21 – Second sentence of paragraph 56 of the order under appeal. 22 – Signed at Rome on 29 October 2004 (OJ 2004 C 310, p. 1). 23 – Adopted by the European Convention on 13 June 2003 and 10 July 2003, and submitted to the President of the European Council in Rome on 18 July 2003. 24 – Secretariat of the European Convention, Final report of the discussion circle on the Court of Justice of 25 March 2003 (Document CONV 636/03, paragraph 22) and Cover note from the Praesidium of 12 May 2003 (Document CONV 734/03, p. 20). 25 – There seem to be differences in only five language versions, which use a wording in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU for the expression ‘regulatory act’ (‘üldkohaldatav akt’ in the Estonian, ‘reglamentuojančio pobūdžio teisės aktas’ in the Lithuanian, ‘regulačný akt’ in the Slovak, ‘predpis’ in the Slovene and ‘akt s obecnou působností’ in the Czech language versions) which is different to Article III-365(4) of the Constitutional Treaty (‘õiguse üldakt’ in the Estonian, ‘teisės aktas’ in the Lithuanian, ‘podzákonný právny akt’ in the Slovak, ‘izvršilni akt’ in the Slovene and ‘podzákonný právní akt’ in the Czech language versions). 26 – This applies in particular to the Bulgarian (‘подзаконов акт’), German (‘Rechtsakt mit Verordnungscharakter’), English (‘regulatory act’), French (‘acte réglementaire’), Greek (‘κανονιστική πράξη’), Irish (‘gníomh rialúcháin’), Italian (‘atto regolamentare’), Portuguese (‘ato regulamentar’ or, in its old form, ‘acto regulamentar’), Slovak (‘regulačný akt’), Spanish (‘acto reglamentario’) and Hungarian (‘rendeleti jellegű jogi aktus’) language versions of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, and, it would appear, also to the Latvian (‘reglamentējošs akts’) and Lithuanian (‘reglamentuojančio pobūdžio teisės aktas’) language versions. On the other hand, the Danish (‘regelfastsættende retsakt’), Estonian (‘üldkohaldatav akt’), Finnish (‘sääntelytoimi’), Maltese (‘att regolatorju’), Dutch (‘regelgevingshandeling’), Polish (‘akt regulacyjny’), Romanian (‘act normativ’), Swedish (‘regleringsakt’), Slovene (‘predpis’) and Czech (‘akt s obecnou působností’) language versions seem to be less clear. 27 – See the mandate for the 2007 Intergovernmental Conference, based on the stipulations of the European Council of 21 and 22 June 2007 and reproduced in full in Council Document No 11218/07 of 26 June 2007. Paragraph 1 of that mandate states: ‘The constitutional concept … is abandoned.’ 28 – See again the mandate for the 2007 Intergovernmental Conference, which states that the innovations resulting from the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference (on the Constitutional Treaty) will be integrated into the existing Treaties (paragraphs 1 and 4 of the mandate); the introduction before paragraph 1 of the mandate also states that the mandate provides ‘the exclusive basis and framework for the work of the IGC’. 29 – Paragraph 3 of the mandate for the 2007 Intergovernmental Conference. 30 – Paragraph 19(v) of the mandate for the 2007 Intergovernmental Conference (emphasis added). 31 – It is not possible to infer from the few language versions in which Article III‑365(4) of the Constitutional Treaty and the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU are different (see above, footnote 25) any trend towards an extension of the standing of natural and legal persons to institute proceedings, since some of those language versions use broader terms than the Constitutional Treaty for the expression ‘regulatory act’ in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and some use narrower terms. 32 – See again the documents from the European Convention cited above in footnote 24. 33 – Such a sui generis procedure is laid down, for example, in Articles 31 TFEU, 43(3) TFEU, 45(3)(d) TFEU, 66 TFEU, 103 TFEU, 109 TFEU and 215(1) and (2) TFEU. 34 – See again the examples mentioned in footnote 33. 35 – See above, point 54 of this Opinion. 36 – Judgment cited in footnote 3. 37 – Judgment cited in footnote 4. 38 – See the detailed observations below in points 116 to 123 of this Opinion. 39 – Case T‑526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Commission. 40 – See paragraphs 85 and 86 and also paragraph 79 of the order under appeal. 41 – See Microban International and Others v Commission, cited in footnote 19, paragraph 32. 42 – See, with regard to the first part of the first ground of appeal, points 30 to 47 of this Opinion above. 43 – Paragraph 71 of the order under appeal. 44 – Case C‑404/96 P Glencore Grain v Commission [1998] ECR I‑2435, paragraph 41; Case C‑125/06 P Commission v Infront WM [2008] ECR I‑1451, paragraph 47; and Case C‑343/07 Bavaria and Bavaria Italia [2009] ECR I‑5491, paragraph 43. 45 – In settled case-law, for example, the European Union Courts have confirmed the standing of competitors to institute proceedings against Commission decisions to authorise State aid (see Case 169/84 Cofaz and Others v Commission [1986] ECR 391, and Case C‑525/04 P Spain v Lenzing [2007] ECR I‑9947, in which direct concern is taken for granted) and to authorise concentrations (see Case T‑114/02 BaByliss v Commission [2003] ECR II‑1279, paragraph 89, and Case T‑158/00 ARD v Commission [2003] ECR II‑3825, paragraph 60). 46 – Case 62/70 Bock v Commission [1971] ECR 897, paragraphs 6 to 8; Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki and Others v Commission [1985] ECR 207, paragraphs 8 to 10; and Case C‑386/96 P Dreyfus v Commission [1998] ECR I‑2309, paragraph 44. 47 – In this respect the present case differs from Microban International and Others v Commission (judgment cited in footnote 19, in particular paragraph 28), in which not only the marketing of an additive as such, but also its use in the manufacture of other products was subject to restrictions under EU law. 48 – Paragraph 82 of the order under appeal. 49 – In response to my question at the hearing, Ms Aariak explained that she marketed some garments herself and some through intermediaries in the European internal market. 50 – Paragraph 82 in conjunction with paragraphs 76 to 79 of the order under appeal (see in particular the last sentence of paragraph 78 of the order). 51 – Direct concern to an individual does not depend on whether he can derive a requirement, a prohibition or a permission for himself from a European Union act. At most, it may be that the interest in bringing an action for annulment may be absent in the case of a permission if and in so far as the individual concerned can no longer obtain any benefit from his action. 52 – See Case C‑362/06 P Sahlstedt and Others v Commission [2009] ECR I‑2903, paragraphs 22 and 23. 53 – Plaumann, cited in footnote 2, p. 238; Piraiki-Patraiki and Others v Commission, cited in footnote 46, paragraph 11; Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 36; Commission v Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 45; Case C‑78/03 P Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum [2005] ECR I‑10737, paragraph 33; Commission v Infront WM, cited in footnote 44, paragraph 70; and Joined Cases C‑71/09 P, C‑73/09 P and C‑76/09 P Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ and Others v Commission [2011] ECR I-4727, paragraph 52. 54 – See paragraphs 89 and 90 of the order under appeal. 55 – See settled case-law, for example Plaumann v Council, cited in footnote 2, p. 238; Piraiki-Patraiki and Others v Commission, cited in footnote 46, paragraph 14; Case 147/83 Binderer v Commission [1985] ECR 257, paragraph 13; Case 26/86 Deutz and Geldermann v Council [1987] ECR 941, paragraphs 8 and 12; Case C‑213/91 Abertal and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I‑3177, paragraphs 17, 19 and 20; Case C‑451/98 Antillean Rice Mills v Council [2001] ECR I‑8949, paragraph 51; and Commission v Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraphs 43 and 46. 56 – See my statements on the first part of the first ground of appeal (in points 26 to 62 of this Opinion above). 57 – See again documents CONV 636/03, cited in footnote 24, paragraphs 17 to 23, and CONV 734/03, cited in footnote 24, p. 20 et seq. 58 – The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was solemnly proclaimed, first, in Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1) and then, for a second time, in Strasbourg on 12 December 2007 (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1, and OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389). 59 – European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950). 60 – Judgments in Case C‑283/90 P Vidrányi v Commission [1991] ECR I‑4339, paragraph 29; Case C‑123/03 P Commission v Greencore [2004] ECR I‑11647, paragraphs 40 and 41; Case C‑583/08 P Gogos v Commission [2010] ECR I‑4469, paragraph 29; and Case C‑90/09 P General Química and Others v Commission [2011] ECR I‑1, paragraphs 59 to 62; and judgments of 25 October 2007 in Case C‑167/06 P Komninou and Others v Commission, paragraphs 21 to 28; and of 5 May 2011 in Case C‑200/10 P Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission, paragraphs 33 and 43. 61 – Joined Cases C‑120/06 P and C‑121/06 P FIAMM and Others v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I‑6513, paragraph 96; Case C‑440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I‑6413, paragraph 135; and Case C‑263/09 P Edwin v OHIM [2011] ECR I-5853, paragraph 64. 62 – In the written reply submitted at first instance to the pleas of inadmissibility, fundamental rights are dealt with in 5 of 84 paragraphs (or 1 of 22 pages), whilst they are not mentioned at all in the application at first instance. 63 – See immediately below my statements regarding the second part of the second ground of appeal (points 105 to 124 of this Opinion). 64 – Paragraph 51 of the order under appeal cites Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 36, and the order of 9 January 2007 in Case T‑127/05 Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council, paragraph 50. 65 – It should be noted in passing that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others did not themselves mention Article 13 ECHR in the relevant passage of their written pleading at first instance. They can hardly therefore criticise the General Court for having disregarded that provision. 66 – Case C‑362/05 P Wunenburger v Commission [2007] ECR I‑4333, paragraph 80, and Gogos v Commission, cited in footnote 60, paragraph 35. 67 – Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651, paragraph 18; Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 39; Commission v Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 29; Case C‑432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I‑2271, paragraph 37; Joined Cases C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P Kadi and Others v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I‑6351, paragraph 335; and Case C‑279/09 DEB [2010] ECR I‑13849, paragraph 29. 68 – Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 44, and Commission v Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 30. 69 – See Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, in particular paragraphs 37 to 40, and Commission v Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraphs 29 and 30. 70 – Those Explanations (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17 [29 et seq.]) state with regard to Article 47 of the Charter: ‘… The inclusion of this precedent in the Charter has not been intended to change the system of judicial review laid down by the Treaties, and particularly the rules relating to admissibility for direct actions before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Convention has considered the Union’s system of judicial review including the rules on admissibility, and confirmed them while amending them as to certain aspects, as reflected in [Articles 251 to 281 TFEU], and in particular in [the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU]. …’ 71 – The close relationship between Article 47 of the Charter and Articles 6 and 13 ECHR is clearly expressed in the Explanations relating to the Charter (cited above in footnote 70). The Court’s case-law in which the right to an effective remedy has been recognised as a general legal principle is also based substantially on the two provisions of the ECHR (see the judgments cited in footnote 67 above). 72 – The appellants themselves also failed to cite a single relevant judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and were forced to admit, when questioned, that they were not aware of any such judgment. 73 – See above, points 39 to 46 of this Opinion. 74 – Second paragraph of Declaration No 1 on the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon signed on 13 December 2007 (OJ 2007 C 306, p. 249; OJ 2008 C 115, p. 337; OJ 2010 C 83, p. 339; OJ 2012 C 326, p. 339). 75 – See Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 45; Case C‑354/04 P Gestoras Pro Amnistía and Others v Council [2007] ECR I‑1579, paragraph 50, last sentence; and Case C‑355/04 P Segi and Others v Council [2007] ECR I‑1657, paragraph 50, last sentence. 76 – See Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 40; Commission v Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 30; Case C‑167/02 P Rothleyand Others v Parliament [2004] ECR I‑3149, paragraph 46; and Case C‑461/03 Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur [2005] ECR I‑10513, paragraph 22. 77 – See Opinion 1/09 [2011] ECR I-1137, paragraph 66; see also Joined Cases C‑143/88 and C‑92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Others [1991] ECR I‑415, paragraph 16; Case C‑465/93 Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others [1995] ECR I‑3761, paragraph 20; and the case-law cited immediately above in footnote 76. 78 – Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 40; Commission v Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 30; Case C‑550/09 E and F [2010] ECR I‑6213, paragraph 45; and Case C‑370/12 Pringle [2012] ECR, paragraph 39. 79 – A duty to make a reference exists not only for courts of last instance, but also, under the conditions set out in the Foto-Frost case-law (see Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, paragraphs 12 to 19, and Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur, cited in footnote 76, paragraph 22), for courts or tribunals of a Member State against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law. 80 – According to Advocate General Jacobs, for example, in his Opinion in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, points 43 and 102. 81 – This is recognised both by the Court in its case-law (Unibet, cited in footnote 67, paragraph 64) and by the European Convention (see the documents cited above in footnote 24). 82 – This possibility has already been intimated in Commission v Jégo-Quéré (cited in footnote 4, paragraph 35). 83 – Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 40, and Commission v Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 30; with regard to the duty of national courts and tribunals to make a reference in such a situation, see the Foto-Frost case-law cited above in footnote 79. 84 – For examples from the practice of national courts and tribunals, see Case C‑344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I‑403, paragraph 19, Case C‑58/08 Vodafone and Others [2010] ECR I‑4999, paragraph 29, and Joined Cases C‑92/09 and C‑93/09 Schecke and Eifert [2010] ECR I‑11063, paragraph 28; similarly, albeit in connection with directives and their national implementation, Case C‑491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I‑11453, paragraph 24; Joined Cases C‑453/03, C‑11/04, C‑12/04 and C‑194/04 ABNA and Others [2005] ECR I‑10423, paragraphs 19, 25 and 34; Case C‑343/09 Afton Chemical [2010] ECR I-7027, paragraph 8; Case C‑366/10 Air Transport Association of America and Others [2011] ECR I-13755, paragraph 43. 85 – Unibet, cited in footnote 67, in particular paragraphs 38 to 44; see also Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 42, and Commission v Jégo-Quéré, cited in footnote 4, paragraph 32. 86 – See Article 41(1) and (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU. 87 – Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Others, paragraphs 17, 20 and 23 to 33, and Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others, paragraphs 24, 25 and 32 to 51, each cited in footnote 77. 88 – Footnote does not apply to the English version of the Opinion. 89 – Case C‑407/08 P Knauf Gips v Commission [2010] ECR I-6375, paragraphs 30 and 31; similarly Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, cited in footnote 53, paragraphs 44 to 50, and the judgment of 29 November 2007 in Case C‑176/06 P Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission, paragraph 25. 90 – Case C‑229/05 P PKK and KNK v Council [2007] ECR I‑439, paragraph 37; Case C‑260/05 P Sniace v Commission [2007] ECR I‑10005, paragraph 37; and Case C‑413/08 P Lafarge v Commission [2010] ECR I‑5361, paragraph 17. 91 – See my Opinions in Case C‑109/10 P Solvay v Commission [2011] ECR I-10329, point 94, and Case C‑110/10 P Solvay v Commission [2011] ECR I-10439, points 126 and 131. 92 – See in particular paragraph 17 of the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Parliament and paragraph 15 of the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council. 93 – See in particular paragraph 30 of the written reply submitted at first instance by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others to the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Parliament and the Council. 94 – For the arguments made at first instance by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and its co-appellants, see in particular paragraph 49 of their written reply to the pleas of admissibility raised by the Parliament and the Council; for their essentially identical arguments in the appeal proceedings, see above, point 53 of this Opinion. 95 – Joined Cases C‑442/03 P and C‑471/03 P P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission [2006] ECR I‑4845, paragraphs 133 and 134, and Case C‑266/05 P Sison v Council [2007] ECR I‑1233, paragraphs 67 to 72; see also the judgment of 9 September 2010 in Case T‑17/08 P Andreasen v Commission, paragraph 76. 96 – See Case C‑30/91 P Lestelle v Commission [1992] ECR I‑3755, paragraph 28; Kadi and Others v Council and Commission, cited in footnote 67, paragraph 233; and FIAMM and Others v Council and Commission, cited in footnote 61, paragraph 189. 97 – Pursuant to the general principle that new procedural rules apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force (settled case-law, see, for example, Joined Cases 212/80 to 217/80 Meridionale Industria Salumi and Others [1981] ECR 2735, paragraph 9), the decision on costs in the present case is based on the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of 25 September 2012, which entered into force on 1 November 2012 (see the judgment of 6 December 2012 in Case C-441/11 P Commission v Verhuizingen Coppens, paragraphs 83 to 85). There is, however, no substantive difference from Article 69(2), in conjunction with Article 118 and Article 122(1), of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of 19 June 1991. 98 – Case C‑550/07 P Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission and Others [2010] ECR I‑8301, paragraph 123; see also Joined Cases C‑122/99 P and C‑125/99 P D and Sweden v Council [2001] ECR I‑4319, paragraph 65; in the latter case, D and the Kingdom of Sweden even lodged two separate appeals and were nevertheless ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs. 99 – See, for example, Case C‑337/09 P Council v Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group [2012] ECR, paragraph 112; in that case, the Council, as the unsuccessful appellant, was ordered to pay the costs including those incurred by Audace as the opposing intervener at first instance, which had been successful in its pleas in the appeal proceedings.