61977CJ0116_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN JOINED CASES 116/77 AND 124/77,
G . R . AMYLUM N.V ., AALST, BELGIUM, REPRESENTED BY MICHEL WAELBROECK AND GEORGES VANDERSANDEN, ADVOCATES, 341 AVENUE LOUISE, BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT, 34 RUE PHILIPPE II,
AND
TUNNEL REFINERIES LIMITED, LONDON, REPRESENTED BY FRANCIS JACOBS, BARRISTER, MIDDLE TEMPLE, INSTRUCTED BY MESSRS SLAUGHTER AND MAY, SOLICITORS, 35 BASINGHALL STREET, LONDON EC2V 5DB, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MESSRS ELVINGER AND HUSS, 84, GRAND RUE,
APPLICANTS,
V
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY DANIEL VIGNES, DIRECTOR IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY A . BRAUTIGAM, A MEMBER OF THE SAID DEPARTMENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF J . N . VAN DEN HOUTEN, DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK, 2 PLACE DE METZ,
AND
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED IN CASE 116/77 BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, JACQUES DELMOLY, A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AND IN CASE 124/77 BY RICHARD WAINWRIGHT, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY HENDRIK BRONKHORST, A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MARIO CERVINO, A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ' S LEGAL DEPARTMENT, JEAN MONNET BUILDING, KIRCHBERG,
DEFENDANTS,
Subject of the case
APPLICATIONS FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY,
Grounds
1 THE APPLICANTS IN THESE CASES ARE CLAIMING THAT THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION, SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PAY THEM COMPENSATION UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR THE DAMAGE WHICH THEY CLAIM TO HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE IMPOSITION OF A PRODUCTION LEVY ON ISOGLUCOSE IN PURSUANCE OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1111/77 OF 17 MAY 1977 LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 134, P . 4 ).
2 IT MAY BE RECALLED THAT THE FOLLOWING REASONS WERE GIVEN IN THE SEVENTH RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THAT REGULATION FOR THE SETTING UP OF A PRODUCTION LEVY SYSTEM FOR ISOGLUCOSE :
' ' . . . BEING A SUBSTITUTE PRODUCT IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH LIQUID SUGAR, WHICH, LIKE ALL BEET OR CANE SUGAR, IS SUBJECT TO STRINGENT PRODUCTION CONSTRAINTS, ISOGLUCOSE THEREFORE ENJOYS AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND SINCE THE COMMUNITY HAS A SUGAR SURPLUS, IT IS NECESSARY TO EXPORT CORRESPONDING QUANTITIES OF SUGAR TO THIRD COUNTRIES ; . . . THERE SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE PROVISION FOR A SUITABLE PRODUCTION LEVY ON ISOGLUCOSE TO CONTRIBUTE TO EXPORT COSTS ' ' .
3 ACCORDING TO THE NINTH RECITAL, THE AFORESAID LEVY SYSTEM IS COMPLEMENTARY TO THAT ESTABLISHED FOR SUGAR BY COUNCIL REGULATION NO 3330/74 OF 19 DECEMBER 1974 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN SUGAR ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1974, L 359, P . L ) AND THE ENVISAGED LEVY ON THE PRODUCTION OF ISOGLUCOSE IS ANALOGOUS TO THAT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 27 OF REGULATION NO 3330/74, NAMELY TO THE LEVY ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE PRODUCTION OF SUGAR MANUFACTURED IN EXCESS OF THE BASIC QUOTA .
4 THE PRODUCTION LEVY SYSTEM FOR ISOGLUCOSE WAS ESTABLISHED BY ARTICLES 8 AND 9 OF REGULATION NO 1111/77 AND APPLIED TO THE 1977/78 AND 1978/79 SUGAR YEARS . ARTICLE 9 ( L ) OF THE REGULATION PROVIDED THAT MEMBER STATES WERE TO CHARGE A PRODUCTION LEVY ON MANUFACTURERS OF ISOGLUCOSE AND THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) PROVIDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE LEVY PER 100 KG OF DRY MATTER SHOULD BE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF THE PRODUCTION LEVY PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 27 OF REGULATION NO 3330/74 FOR THE SAME PERIOD TO WHICH THE LATTER AMOUNT APPLIED . HOWEVER, UNDER THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ), FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1 JULY 1977 TO 30 JUNE 1978 THE AMOUNT OF THE LEVY REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) MIGHT NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FIVE UNITS OF ACCOUNT PER 100 KG OF DRY MATTER .
5 IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 OCTOBER 1978 GIVEN IN ANSWER TO A REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN ' S BENCH DIVISION, COMMERCIAL COURT, IN JOINED CASES 103 AND 145/77, ROYAL SCHOLTEN-HONIG ( HOLDINGS ) LIMITED V INTERVENTION BOARD FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ; TUNNEL REFINERIES LIMITED V INTERVENTION BOARD FOR AGRICULURAL PRODUCE (( 1978 ) ECR 2037 ), THE COURT RULED THAT REGULATION NO 1111/77 WAS INVALID TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH ARTICLES 8 AND 9 THEREOF IMPOSED A PRODUCTION LEVY ON ISOGLUCOSE OF FIVE UNITS OF ACCOUNT PER 100 KG OF DRY MATTER FOR THE PERIOD CORRESPONDING TO THE SUGAR MARKETING YEAR 1977/78 . THE COURT HAD FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THAT REGULATION ESTABLISHING THE PRODUCTION LEVY SYSTEM FOR ISOGLUCOSE OFFENDED AGAINST THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF WHICH THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION SET OUT IN ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY WAS A SPECIFIC EXPRESSION . HOWEVER, IT HAD ADDED THAT ITS ANSWER WOULD LEAVE THE COUNCIL FREE TO TAKE ANY NECESSARY MEASURES COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW FOR ENSURING THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE MARKET IN SWEETENERS .
6 FOLLOWING THAT JUDGMENT THE COMMISSION, BY LETTER DATED 8 JANUARY 1979, INFORMED THE MEMBER STATES THAT, PENDING MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED BY THE
COUNCIL TO ENSURE THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE MARKET IN SWEETENERS, IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO SUSPEND ALL COLLECTIONS OF THE ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION LEVY AND THAT, SIMILARLY, THE ESTABLISHMENT, ACCOUNTING AND ALLOCATION TO OWN RESOURCES OF THE AMOUNTS CONCERNED SHOULD BE PROVISIONALLY SUSPENDED BY MEMBER STATES .
7 ON 25 JUNE 1979 THE COUNCIL ADOPTED REGULATION NO 1293/79 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979, L 162, P . 10 ) AMENDING REGULATION NO 1111/77 IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 25 OCTOBER 1978 . SINCE THE MOST APPROPRIATE MEANS FOR AVOIDING INEQUALITY OF TREATMENT BETWEEN PRODUCERS OF SUGAR AND PRODUCERS OF ISOGLUCOSE WAS TO SUBJECT ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION TO RULES ANALOGOUS TO THOSE APPLYING TO SUGAR PRODUCTION UNTIL 30 JUNE 1980, REGULATION NO 1293/79 IN PARTICULAR ESTABLISHED, ON A TRANSITIONAL BASIS UNTIL THAT DATE, A TEMPORARY SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR ISOGLUCOSE . IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT FOR THE QUANTITY OF ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCED WHICH EXCEEDED THE BASIC QUOTE WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM QUOTA MEMBER STATES WERE TO CHARGE A PRODUCTION LEVY ON THE ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCER CONCERNED, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH WAS TO BE EQUAL TO THE SHARE OF THE SUGAR PRODUCTION LEVY AS FIXED FOR THE 1979/80 SUGAR YEAR BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 28 OF REGULATION NO 3330/74, BORNE BY THE SUGAR MANUFACTURERS . AS REGARDS THE PRODUCTION LEVY ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 1111/77 AND DECLARED INVALID BY THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT, IT WAS ABOLISHED BY ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1293/79 WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JULY 1977 .
8 IN THE COURSE OF THE ORAL PROCEDURE IN THESE CASES THE APPLICANT TUNNEL REFINERIES LIMITED ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' TUNNEL ' ' ), STATED THAT IT HAD NOT PAID THE ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION LEVY ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 1111/77 . IN FACT, AS SOON AS THE LEVY WAS ESTABLISHED TUNNEL TOOK IMMEDIATE STEPS TO CONTEST THE LEGALITY OF THE LEVY BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND INFORMED THE NATIONAL INTERVENTION AGENCY, WHICH REFRAINED FROM COLLECTING THE LEVY UNTIL THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY TUNNEL . THE APPLICANT G . R . AMYLUM N . V . ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' AMYLUM ' ' ) STATED, FOR ITS PART, THAT IT REFUSED TO PAY THE LEVY TO THE BELGIAN INTERVENTION AGENCY AND WAS SUED FOR PAYMENT BY THE AGENCY . HAVING REGARD TO THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT IN JOINED CASES 103 AND 145/77, AN ARRANGEMENT WAS ARRIVED AT BETWEEN AMYLUM AND THE INTERVENTION AGENCY UNDER WHICH AMYLUM, TO GUARANTEE PAYMENT OF THE LEVY, PROVIDED A BANK GUARANTEE . THE INTERVENTION AGENCY FOR ITS PART DESISTED FROM ITS ACTIVE PURSUIT OF THE ACTION
FOR PAYMENT WHICH HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT AND WITHDREW ITS ACTION AFTER DELIVERY OF THE COURT JUDGMENT OF 25 OCTOBER 1978 IN THE AFOREMENTIONED JOINED CASES .
9 THUS THE APPLICANTS ARE NOT CLAIMING FROM THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES REIMBURSEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION LEVIES OVERPAID BUT ARE SEEKING TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR LOSSES RESULTING IN PARTICULAR FROM THE REDUCTION IN SALES OF ISOGLUCOSE AND FROM OPERATING DEFICITS AND OTHER LOSSES WHICH THEY CLAIM TO HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE LEVY OF FIVE UNITS OF ACCOUNT PER 100 KG OF DRY MATTER LAID DOWN BY REGULATION NO 1111/77 AND DECLARED INVALID BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 OCTOBER 1978 .
10 ACCORDING TO AMYLUM THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO IT BY THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 1111/77 CONSISTS, FOR THE MOST PART, ON THE ONE HAND IN THE REDUCTION IN ITS PROFIT MARGIN RESULTING FROM THE REPLACEMENT OF SALES OF ISOGLUCOSE BY ALTERNATIVE SALES OF STARCH AND GLUCOSE AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE LOSS OF ITS PROFIT MARGIN RESULTING FROM THE REDUCTION IN GRINDING DURING THE EARLY MONTHS FOLLOWING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LEVY, A STEP MADE NECESSARY BY THE ABSENCE DURING THAT PERIOD OF OUTLETS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS . AMYLUM IS ALSO CLAIMING THE COST OF THE BANK GUARANTEE REFERRED TO ABOVE AND THE EXPENDITURE IN WHICH IT CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DEFENCE OF ITS INTERESTS BEFORE THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES .
11 ACCORDING TO TUNNEL THE DAMAGE FOR WHICH IT IS CLAIMING COMPENSATION AND WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION LEVY ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 1111/77 CONSISTS IN THE LOSS OF PRODUCTION OF ITS FACTORY, THE LOSS OF PROFITS RESULTING FROM THE PRODUCTION OF DRY STARCH INSTEAD OF ISOGLUCOSE, ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR STORAGE AND HANDLING OF STARCH AS WELL AS LOSSES INCURRED BY REASON, ON THE ONE HAND, OF HIGHER UNIT COSTS IN ITS UNDERTAKING DUE TO REDUCED ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, OF SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTMENTS EFFECTED TO INCREASE PRODUCTION OF SUBSTITUTE PRODUCTS .
12 SINCE THE COURT HAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 OCTOBER 1978 THAT THE IMPOSITION OF AN ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION LEVY OF FIVE UNITS OF ACCOUNT PER 100 KG OF DRY MATTER WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY, THE FIRST QUESTION WHICH ARISES IN THESE CASES IS WHETHER THAT ILLEGALITY IS SUCH AS TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN LIABILITY UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE TREATY .
13 A FINDING THAT A LEGAL SITUATION RESULTING FROM LEGISLATIVE MEASURES BY THE COMMUNITY IS ILLEGAL IS INSUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO INVOLVE IT IN LIABILITY . THE COURT HAS ALREADY STATED THIS IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1978 IN JOINED CASES 83/76 AND OTHERS, BAYERISCHE HNL & OTHERS V COUNCIL AND COMMISSION (( 1978 ) ECR 1209 ). IN THIS CONNEXION THE COURT REFERRED TO ITS CONSISTENT CASE-LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT INCUR LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE WHICH INVOLVES CHOICES OF ECONOMIC POLICY UNLESS A SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS BREACH OF A SUPERIOR RULE OF LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL HAS OCCURRED . HAVING REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLES IN THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE MEMBER STATES, GOVERNING THE LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FOR DAMAGE CAUSED TO INDIVIDUALS BY LEGISLATIVE MEASURES, THE COURT HAS STATED THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMUNITY LEGISLATION IN WHICH ONE OF THE CHIEF FEATURES IS THE EXERCISE OF A WIDE DISCRETION ESSENTIAL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, THE LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY CAN ARISE ONLY EXCEPTIONALLY IN CASES IN WHICH THE INSTITUTION CONCERNED HAS MANIFESTLY AND GRAVELY DISREGARDED THE LIMITS ON THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS .
14 THIS IS CONFIRMED IN PARTICULAR BY THE FACT THAT, EVEN THOUGH AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLES 178 AND 215 OF THE TREATY CONSTITUTES AN INDEPENDENT ACTION, IT MUST NEVERTHELESS BE ASSESSED HAVING REGARD TO THE WHOLE OF THE SYSTEM OF LEGAL PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS SET UP BY THE TREATY . IF AN INDIVIDUAL TAKES THE VIEW THAT HE IS INJURED BY A COMMUNITY LEGISLATIVE MEASURE WHICH HE REGARDS AS ILLEGAL HE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY, WHEN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEASURE IS ENTRUSTED TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES, TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE MEASURE, AT THE TIME OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION, BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY . SUCH A COURT MAY, OR EVEN MUST, IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 177, REFER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE A QUESTION ON THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNITY MEASURE IN QUESTION . THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH AN ACTION IS BY ITSELF OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO ENSURE THE EFFICIENT PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED .
15 THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE OF IMPORTANCE WHERE, AS IN THESE CASES, THE COURT, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING, HAS DECLARED A PRODUCTION LEVY TO BE ILLEGAL AND WHERE THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION, FOLLOWING THAT FINDING, HAS ABOLISHED THE LEVY CONCERNED WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT .
16 IT IS APPROPRIATE TO INQUIRE IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS WHETHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES, THERE HAS BEEN, ON THE PART OF THE COUNCIL AND
THE COMMISSION, A GRAVE AND MANIFEST DISREGARD OF THE LIMITS WHICH THEY ARE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE IN EXERCISING THEIR DISCRETION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY .
17 IN THIS RESPECT IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT THE COURT DID NOT DECLARE INVALID ANY ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION LEVY BUT ONLY THE METHOD OF CALCULATION ADOPTED AND THE FACT THAT THE LEVY APPLIED TO THE WHOLE OF THE ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION . HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE PRODUCTION OF ISOGLUCOSE WAS PLAYING A PART IN INCREASING SUGAR SURPLUSES IT WAS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIVE MEASURES ON SUCH PRODUCTION .
18 ALTHOUGH, IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 OCTOBER 1978, GIVING A PRELIMINARY RULING WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A CONSIDERATION OF THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 1111/77, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE CHARGES BORNE IN PURSUANCE OF THAT REGULATION BY ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCERS BY WAY OF PRODUCTION LEVY WERE MANIFESTLY UNEQUAL AS COMPARED WITH THOSE IMPOSED ON SUGAR PRODUCERS, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ILLEGALITY OF THE MEASURE IN CONNEXION WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE TREATY, THE COUNCIL HAS MANIFESTLY AND GRAVELY DISREGARDED THE LIMITS ON THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION .
19 IN FACT, EVEN THOUGH THE FIXING OF THE ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION LEVY AT FIVE UNITS OF ACCOUNT PER 100 KG OF DRY MATTER WAS VITIATED BY ERRORS, IT MUST NEVERTHELESS BE POINTED OUT THAT, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT AN APPROPRIATE LEVY WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED, THESE WERE NOT ERRORS OF SUCH GRAVITY THAT IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTIONS IN THIS RESPECT WAS VERGING ON THE ARBITRARY AND WAS THUS OF SUCH A KIND AS TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY IN NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY .
20 IT MUST ALSO BE RECALLED THAT REGULATION NO 1111/77 WAS ADOPTED IN PARTICULAR TO DEAL WITH AN EMERGENCY SITUATION CHARACTERIZED BY GROWING SURPLUSES OF SUGAR AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES SET OUT IN ARTICLE 39 OF THE TREATY PERMITTED A CERTAIN PREFERENCE IN FAVOUR OF SUGAR BEET, COMMUNITY PRODUCTION OF WHICH WAS IN SURPLUS, WHILST COMMUNITY PRODUCTION OF MAIZE WAS TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT DEFICIENT .
21 IT FOLLOWS FROM THESE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION DID NOT DISREGARD THE LIMITS WHICH THEY WERE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE IN THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR DISCRETION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN SUCH A SERIOUS MANNER AS TO INCUR THE NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY .
22 THE APPLICATIONS MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
23 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
24 AS THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL THEY MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATIONS ;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO PAY THE COSTS .