61989CC0291_EN
Opinion of the Advocate-General
Opinion of the Advocate-General
++++
Mr President,
Members of the Court,
1. The action brought by the Portuguese company, Interhotel, seeks the annulment of the Commission decision notified to the applicant on 24 July 1989 requiring it to refund ESC 18 254 440 and refusing to pay the balance in respect of a training measure (ESC 12 672 962) in relation to the implementation of Project No 870840/P1 from the European Social Fund.
2. That claim, like that of the company Oliveira in Case C-304/89, relates to assistance from the European Social Fund which is to be refunded. Article 123 of the EEC Treaty provided for the establishment of such a fund for the task of "rendering the employment of workers easier and of increasing their geographical and occupational ability within the Community". Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 (1) precisely defined those tasks: Article 1(2) states that the fund is to participate in the financing of operations concerning occasional training and guidance. Article 4 provides that assistance may be granted in order to promote employment for young people under the age of 25 "in particular those whose chances of employment are especially poor, in particular because of lack of vocational training or inadequate training and those who are long-term unemployed". Assistance may also be granted to promote employment among certain classes of persons over the age of 25, especially unemployed people, who are threatened with unemployment or who are unemployed. Under Article 5(1) assistance is granted at the rate of 50% of eligible expenditure.
3. Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 (2) on the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC lists the expenditure for which assistance may be granted. It includes, in particular, incomes of persons undergoing vocational training, the costs of the preparation, operation and administration of vocational training, board and lodging, and travelling expenses for the recipients of vocational training. Under Article 4 applications relating to expenditure during the following year must be submitted by Member States before 21 October of each year and the Commission has to take decisions on these applications before 31 March of the relevant financial year. Under Article 5 the approval of an application is followed by the payment of an advance of 50% of the assistance approved on the date on which the operations are scheduled to begin. Only when the operations are concluded does the Member State make application for payment of the balance after certifying the accuracy of the facts and accounts contained in the final detailed report by the promoter on the content, results and financial aspects of the relevant operation. Finally, Article 6 provides that "when fund assistance is not used in conformity with the conditions set out in the decision of approval, the Commission may suspend, reduce or withdraw the aid after having given the relevant Member State an opportunity to comment".
4. Let me now refer to how the applicant' s request for assistance was handled.
5. Interhotel made application to the Business Department of the European Social Fund (hereinafter referred to as "the Department"), Lisbon, which in turn applied for assistance from the Fund for 1987 on behalf of the Portuguese Republic in favour of Interhotel. The scheme was generally approved by a Commission decision subject, as referred to in the notification sent to Interhotel by the Portuguese Republic, to a slight reduction in the number of participants and in the amount applied for. (3)
6. In a circular to the undertakings concerned (4) the Department stated that the Commission intended to reduce the practical training periods of persons under 25 so that the period did not exceed that of the theoretical instruction.
7. Interhotel thereupon reduced the number of hours originally approved and applied for payment of an advance of 50% of the assistance which was granted. It was following the final payment claim that the applicant became aware of the contested decision drawing attention to an amount of ineligible expenditure on the ground that "there was no reduction proportionate to the reduction in the hours of training and that certain terms of the original proposal were not complied with". (5) The decision concluded there was no balance payable to the applicant and that part of the assistance paid as a first advance should be withdrawn.
8. Let me now consider the two pleas in the application in relation to the contested decision.
9. Interhotel pleads, first of all, a breach of the Commission' s obligation under Article 190 of the Treaty to state the reasons for its decisions. The applicant alleges that the contested decision does not contain explicit, clear and relevant reasons within the meaning of the requirement laid down in Case 18/57 Nold KG v High Authority. (6) It states that the alleged reason that "certain terms in the original proposal were not complied with is patently inadequate, by reason of its obscurity, for an understanding of the decision in question". (7)
10. The Commission, while admitting that the statement of reasons on which its decision is based "does not err on the side of verbosity", (8) replies that its decision shows the origin of the amount of ineligible expenditure by reference to the points in the original form to which the categories of expenditure clearly identifiable correspond. The reason alleging that certain items of the original proposal were not observed is easy to check by comparing the form used for the application for assistance with the final payment claim. (9) In support of its contentions, it states that the Court has consistently held that:
"the purpose of the obligation to state the reasons on which an individual decision is based is to enable the Court to review the legality of the decision and to provide the person concerned with sufficient information to make it possible to ascertain whether the decision is well-founded or whether it is vitiated by a defect which may permit the legality to be contested. The extent of that obligation depends on the nature of the measure in question and the context in which it was adopted". (10)
11. A reading of the judgments of the Court on infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty shows that the Court seeks to establish a balance between the legal obligation to state reasons and the practical constraints placed on the Community institutions. Thus, the Court recognizes that
"Although it is true that the Court has consistently held that the statement of grounds required by Article 190 of the Treaty must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Community authority which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thus enable them to defend their rights, and to enable the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, the authority is not required to give details of all relevant factual and legal aspects. The question whether the statement of the grounds for a decision meets those requirements must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question." (11)
12. In other words, although the purpose of the statement of reasons does not change its extent may vary according to the subject-matter in point, the legal background and the addressees of the decision. (12) I therefore do not find it very relevant to refer, as the Commission does, (13) to cases concerning competition in the civil service, (14) which are somewhat special in nature.
13. Can, on the other hand, guidance be found in cases relating to assistance from the European Social Fund? In a recent case (15) an action for annulment was brought against the decision of the Commission refusing assistance from the Fund for a training scheme. In answer to the applicant' s claim that there was an insufficient statement of reasons the Court, after referring to the terms of its decision in University of Groningen, (16) stated that
"The conciseness of the statement of reasons for the contested decision within the present case is an unavoidable consequence of the processing by computer of several thousand applications for assistance upon which the Commission must adjudicate within a short period. A more detailed statement of reasons in support of each individual decision would therefore be likely to compromise the rational and efficient allocation of the financial assistance from the Fund." (17)
14. It might therefore be thought that that statement provides a sufficient basis for dismissing the plea put forward by the applicant, but it must be borne in mind that that case was concerned with an original application for assistance which the Commission had to deal with within a very short period in order to comply with the rules referred to above. (18)
15. The decision challenged in the Interhotel case relates to a claim for payment of a balance. Decisions on such a claim are less numerous than those relating to applications for assistance since the latter include a certain number which are refused. In addition, final decisions do not have to be given within such a short period as original applications for approval. Under Article 6 of Commission Decision 83/673/EEC of 22 December 1983 on the management of the European Social Fund (19) Member States' payment applications must reach the Commission within ten months of the date of completion of the operations concerned. Decisions for payment are adopted when the Commission is able to check, at the end of the training measures, the "detailed report on the content, result and financial aspects of the relevant operation" (20) after the Member State has certified "the accuracy of the facts and accounts in payment claims". (21) Finally, I may add that the length of the various training schemes approved varies considerably: Article 4(1) of Regulation 2950/83 contemplates schemes lasting a year and more.
16. Having made those qualifications, I must nevertheless recognize that the Commission has to deal with a large number of applications in a very short period of time where it is a question of annual schemes. Those circumstances must, in my opinion, lead the Court to be less exigent in regard to the extent of the statement of reasons than when the Community institutions are dealing with isolated applications on another basis.
17. Furthermore, the Commission attempts to derive an argument from the fact that the national authorities are parties to all the procedures. It stresses that the "immediate addressee" of the contested decision were "the national authorities" who were in a position to address to the Fund any observation or complaint which they considered appropriate. (22) It observes in that respect (23) that the Court held in EISS v Commission that the procedure for assistance from the European Social Fund
"creates a financial relationship between the Commission and the Member State on the one hand and between the Member State and the institution which is the recipient of the financial assistance on the other". (24)
18. Is it possible to draw from this any inferences regarding the statement of reasons? In a case on the application of the Common Customs Tariff the Court held that in spite of the "somewhat laconic" statement of grounds for the decision
"It none the less satisfies the minimum requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty taking into account the fact that the decision is addressed to the Member States which took part in the meetings of the group of experts and are therefore sufficiently familiar with the details of the case to be able to assess the scope of the decision, and that it also contains the indispensable elements which permit the scientific establishment concerned to establish whether the decision is vitiated." (25)
19. It does not seem possible to transpose that solution to the procedures for assistance from the European Social Fund. As is shown by the documents in the present case, the national authorities are not really associated with the decisions adopted by the Commission. It is true that Article 6 of Regulation No 2950/83 gives them the right to be heard before a decision is reached to reduce assistance but it is still necessary for a dialogue to be entered into, which did not occur in the present case. Thus, I think that the fact that the decision on the payment of the balance was addressed to the Member State does not significantly mitigate the obligation to state reasons.
20. After considering the two circumstances which may be taken into account in assessing the scope of the statement of reasons, it is now necessary to determine whether the statement of the reasons on which the contested decision is based fulfils the objective which the case-law invariably ascribes to it, namely to allow those concerned to know the reasons for the measure adopted in order to enable them to assert their rights and the Court to exercise its power of review. (26)
21. The decision mentions two reasons: failure to reduce proportionately the amounts to correspond to the hours of training and disregard of items in the original proposal. Since the applicant complied with the circular on the equality of the number of hours of theory and practice, it seems that the first reason could refer only to the heading "salaries of trainees" (27) under which Interhotel had originally stated (28) that it would adjust the amounts requested taking into account, in its own words "on-the-job training", that is to say given in the context of hotel organization. Although that reason appears to be superfluous, since it also covers the case of "disregard of items in the original proposal", which constitutes the second reason, Interhotel was able to determine more precisely the subject of the Commission' s complaints to it.
22. The other reason appears very general since it encompasses expenditure which was not accepted in the decision of approval and also expenditure for which there are no vouchers. It may therefore be wondered whether it suffices, as the Commission contends, to compare the forms at the points mentioned to determine the differences between the amounts claimed in the application for the balance and those which were approved. If that is done, it does indeed appear that under the three relevant headings, corresponding to points 14.3, 14.6 and 14.8 of the application for the balance, amounts largely making up the amount refused were increased in relation to the original application or were included, although not expressly inserted in the original application. It thus seems to me that the statement of reasons meets the requirements set out in the abovementioned case-law (29) since it enables those concerned "to know the reasons for the measure", although it does not specify "all the various relevant items of law or fact". Thus I consider that Interhotel' s plea of failure to state reasons is unfounded.
23. The applicant' s second plea is infringement of the regulation inasmuch as the Commission has withdrawn part of the assistance originally granted in the decision of approval. The Commission considers that it did not misuse Article 6 of the regulation which allows it "to suspend, reduce or withdraw" assistance which "is not used in conformity with the conditions set out in the decision of approval". No doubt the applicant is referring here to infringement of acquired rights, as is evidenced by the discussion which centred on the question of the extent to which the decision of approval had given Interhotel rights which the Commission had to observe in its final decision.
24. The Commission recognized (30) that the decision to grant assistance adopted after the application for approval created subjective rights and "gave rise to the right to claim that assistance". It must be pointed out in that respect that on the first examination of the application for assistance the Commission enjoys quite a wide discretion since, apart from the instruments which I have cited above, practically the sole framework within which it must act is Regulation 2950/83, Article 1 of which lists exhaustively the expenditure for which assistance may be granted. (31) On the other hand, when ultimately considering the application for the balance the aforementioned framework is coupled with that of the decision of approval. The Commission' s discretion thus becomes much narrower since it may no longer refuse expenditure which it had previously clearly approved if the assistance has been "used in conformity with the conditions set out in the decision of approval". It is therefore necessary to verify whether or not Interhotel exceeded the limits imposed on it in order to determine the validity of the Commission' s refusal.
25. The Commission has on several occasions remarked in its application for the balance Interhotel declared expenditure which was not approved or was of an amount higher than that which was approved. What is the precise position?
26. As regards the expenditure relating to the salaries of trainees (32) the Commission criticized the applicant (33) for not having reduced the costs of practical training by applying a corrective rate of 50% for the "on-the-job training" of the trainees as indicated by Interhotel in its original application. (34) It is indeed to be observed that Interhotel made no reduction on that account as stated in the original application. Consequently the Commission could legitimately make that correction, the details of which were not challenged by the applicant, which confined itself to alleging that "the practical courses were given in the form of simulated practice so that they justify a 100% charge in the same way as the theoretical courses". (35)
27. It is also to be observed that under the heading "Functioning and management of the courses", corresponding to point 14.3 in the application for the balance, there were alterations to several items in relation to the original application (36) and the Commission was within its rights in not accepting them: there were several increases in the item "teaching staff". First of all, there is an increase of ESC 1 000 for the hourly salary in respect of the theoretical training of hotel managers (37) which, multiplied by the number of hours, leads to an increase of ESC 384 000. In the same way, the daily individual cost of board and lodging greatly increased: from ESC 700 (38) they increase to ESC 4 500, which, having regard to the number of days and monitors (39) led to an increase of ESC 2 508 000.
28. As regards the item "Non-teaching technical staff" it is to be observed that of the six persons finally claimed the four posts of high-grade technician are not included in the original application. (40) As for the two technicians originally claimed, the applicant cannot validly limit itself to maintaining, that it "was not informed of the refusal in the decision of approval with regard to them" (41) for it was incumbent on it, before incurring any expense under that head, to satisfy itself of the Commission' s approval in that respect.
29. There has also been a large increase in the item "Administrative staff", as is shown by a comparison of the original and final applications. The original application mentions only the employment of two secretaries. (42) The application for the balance shows amounts corresponding to the employment of four secretaries and five technicians as well as the costs of technical and administrative assistance and the use of a computer and software. The Commission accepted part of the application in relation to the employment of a technician and two secretaries and the use of a computer but struck out the amounts relating to the employment of four technicians and two additional secretaries and the costs of technical and administrative assistance. That reduction (43) thus appears quite justified.
30. The amount of the item "Costs of hire and rent" in relation to what was originally claimed" (44) was also clearly exceeded since in the final application there was added the cost of fitting the rooms with dataprocessing and audiovisual equipment, amounting to ESC 4 373 600, and an increase in the costs of hire of ESC 468 369 (45) which led, as the Commission pointed out, to an increase of ESC 4 841 969.
31. On looking at the item "Equipment and non-durable goods" an alteration in the presentation of the costs can be seen. Interhotel had provided for an average cost per trainee of ESC 2 500 per week, (46) but in the application for the balance the cost per hour was shown as ESC 131.64. Since that equipment was used in the practical training, as is shown by Interhotel' s final application, it was used for eight weeks. On the basis of the weekly cost originally claimed that leads to a figure of ESC 5 540 000 (47) and the excess mentioned by the Commission of ESC 3 430 324.
32. The heading "Normal depreciation" (48) presents fewer problems since it was completely rejected. It is clear that that assistance could not have been approved since there was no original claim for it. It is true that there had been a heading "Accelerated depreciation" (49) but it had never been approved by the Commission.
33. Finally, as regards the heading "Board and lodging" (50) the whole amount in relation to the lodging of the trainees could legitimately be refused since the application for approval (51) stated that it was not to be taken into account.
34. Such are the discrepancies between the original and final applications that enabled the Commission to consider, rightly, that the sums which had not been provided for or were excessive were ineligible. Interhotel has claimed that it had to bear unforeseeable expenditure and increases over which it had no control and it admitted at the hearing that inflation, very high in Portugal, had "explosively increased the production costs of the training courses ... the prices of the necessary equipment, of those in charge, rooms..." which "changed the very basis" of the original budget. The Commission rightly considers (52) that those re-evaluations and adjustments ought to have been notified to it pursuant to Article 5 of Decision 83/673 so that it might consider in good time whether they were justified, and possibly, enter into discussions with the promoters through the national authorities.
35. Having verified that the framework laid down by the decision of approval of the original application has not been exceeded, it remains to determine whether the Commission, without adversely affecting the applicant' s acquired rights, has the power to reject previously approved expenditure on the grounds of lack of documentation vouching for it. The Commission draws attention (53) to the fact that the Court has held that it cannot be disputed that
"it is only after receiving a detailed report on the relevant operations after they have been carried out that it is possible to calculate the precise amount of eligible expenditure". (54)
36. It seems to me essential to allow the Commission such a discretion in examining the final claim which must be contained in "a detailed report on content, results and financial aspects of the relevant operation". (55) It is therefore only at that stage that it can verify in concreto the evidence submitted by the undertaking and the need for certain expenditure. The Commission has pointed to a number of omissions on the part of Interhotel in that respect.
37. Under the heading "Functioning and management of the courses" (56) insufficient evidence was provided, according to the Commission, of the expenditure relating to board, lodging and travel, management and budgetary control, specialized work (57) and other supplies and services provided by third parties, (58) since Interhotel had confined itself "very often to stating the amounts without giving the slightest information to enable their correctness to be determined". (59) The same is true of the sums under the heading "Preparation of courses". (60)
38. The applicant ought to have taken care to show the genuineness of such expenditure by adducing sufficient evidence. It has claimed (61) that the observations of the national authorities tended to confirm, without alteration, the expenditure submitted. It should be pointed out, on the one hand, that such an examination by the national authorities cannot confirm rights which the applicants acquire definitively only at the end of a thorough examination carried out by the Commission, if necessary with the assistance of the national authorities. It is obvious, on the other hand, that the analysis by the national authorities prior to the forwarding of the application for payment to the Commission in no way pre-judges the Commission' s decision. (62)
39. Interhotel has also observed (63) that the Commission had the power under Regulation No 2950/83 (64) to carry out spot checks. I think, however, that such rights in no way affect the company' s obligation to provide proof of its expenditure. It appears that Interhotel has not attempted to refute specifically the Commission' s allegations to the effect that insufficient evidence was provided of the expenditure referred to at paragraph 37 above.
40. To sum up, since the withdrawals of assistance which I have examined and which are based primarily on failure to adhere to the terms of the original proposal or on the ground of insufficient evidence seems to me well founded, the second plea must at this stage of the examination be rejected.
41. On the other hand, it remains to determine whether the Commission did not adversely affect acquired rights when it took the view that it was necessary to refuse an amount of ESC 3 321 000 for the item "Qualified staff" (65) on the ground that a reduction in the theoretical training was required by reason of the nature of the jobs for which that training provided a preparation: kitchen, bar, maintenance staff. That expenditure had been approved without reservation in the decision of approval when the Commission was in a position to refuse it since Interhotel had supplied with its application for assistance a table clearly setting out the training programmes, (66) mentioning the number of hours of theoretical and practical training for each speciality and defining the nature of the jobs in question. Accordingly, the decision of approval conferred on Interhotel rights in relation to that expenditure which the Commission could no longer refuse except where the amounts had been exceeded or no evidence was provided. Since no such reasons had been put forward in respect of that part of the assistance, Interhotel' s second plea must be regarded as well-founded on that point.
42. In view of the foregoing observations I propose
- that the Commission decision of 19 July 1989 in relation to assistance no 870840/P1 from the European Social Fund should be declared void in part in so far as it refuses Interhotel assistance an amount of ESC 3 321 000 in respect of qualified staff;
- that the parties be ordered to bear their own costs.
Annex
Headings of expenditure in the final payment claim
Expenditure
Amount refused
Reasons ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
14.1 Salaries of trainees
17 648 721
No adjustment following the adjustment of the costs of the practical training
___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
14.2 Preparation of the courses
Copying of documents
1 183 680
No documentary proof
Amount already included under the item "Teaching materials"
Expenditure disallowed in the decision of approval ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
14.3 Functioning and management of the courses
Teaching staff:
hotel managers
384 000
Salary claim exceeded
Teaching staff:
qualified staff
3 321 000
Theoretical training regarded as excessive after the final examination in view of the nature of the courses
Teaching staff:
board and lodging
2 508 000
Daily amounts claimed exceeded
Non-teaching technical staff
7 300 000
Increase in the number of staff in relation to the original application
Refusal of two technicians in the decision of approval
Administrative staff
2 912 955
Increase in the number of staff in relation to the application and the inclusion of new expenditure
Board, lodging and travel
3 286 282
No documentary proof
Part of the expenditure included under the item "Teaching staff"
Expenditure relating to non-teaching staff not approved in the decision of approval
Management and budgetary control
2 241 136
No documentary proof
Expenditure for computer already included under the item "Administrative staff"
Specialized work
2 363 000
No vouchers
Does not expressly appear in the original application for assistance
Hire and rent
4 841 969
Amount stated in the application exceeded
No documentary proof of the amounts claimed for audiovisual and dataprocessing equipment
Equipment and non-durable goods
3 430 324
Amount stated in the original application exceeded
Other supplies and services of third parties
1 777 183
No documentary proof
Amount not approved in the decision of approval ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
14.6 Normal depreciation
3 668 700
No amount under this heading in the original application
Furthermore, it is not justified by the type of operation ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
14.8 Board and lodging
5 673 000
According to the application no account should be taken of board ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________
(*) Original language: French.
(1) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.
(2) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 1.
(3) Annex 4 to the application.
(4) Annex 5 to the application.
(5) Annex 12 to the application.
(6) Case 18/57 Nold Kg v High Authority [1959] ECR 41.
(7) Application, p. 9.
(8) Rejoinder, paragraph 15.
(9) Defence, paragraph 14.
(10) Case 32/86 SISMA v Commission [1987] ECR 1645 paragraph 8 referring to Case 8/83 Bertoli v Commission [1984] ECR 1649; my emphasis.
(11) Case 185/83 University of Groningen v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1984] ECR 3623, paragraph 38; my emphasis.
(12) See to that effect: G. Le Tallec and C.D. Ehlermann in La Motivation des Actes des Communautés Européennes, RMC, 1966, p. 179 et seq, 179 to 182; C. Hen in La Motivation des Actes des Institutions Communautaires, CDE, 1977, No 1, p. 49 et seq, 74 to 78.
(13) See the rejoinder, paragraph 15.
(14) In particular, Case 206/85 Beiten v Commission [1987] ECR 5301, paragraph 13.
(15) Case C-213/87 Gemeente Amsterdam v Commission [1990] ECR I-221.
(16) See footnote 11 above.
(17) Paragraph 28.
(18) Paragraph 3 of this Opinion.
(19) OJ 1983 L 377, p. 1.
(20) Article 5(4) of Regulation No 2950/83.
(21) Ibid.
(22) Defence, paragraph 15.
(23) Rejoinder, paragraph 12.
(24) Judgment in Case 310/81 [1984] ECR 1341, paragraph 15.
(25) See footnote 11, ibid. paragraph 39.
(26) Case 34/62 Germany v Commission [1963] ECR 131 at 143; Case 213/87, cited above, paragraph 27.
(27) Heading 14-1 of the application for the balance; Annex III to the defence.
(28) Heading 15-1 of the application for approval; Annex II to the defence.
(29) See Case 185/83, footnote 11, paragraph 38 of the judgment.
(30) Defence, paragraph 27.
(31) Paragraph 3 of this Opinion.
(32) Point 14.1 of the application for the balance referred to at Annex III to the defence.
(33) Paragraph 29 of the defence.
(34) Point 15.1 of the original application referred to at Annex II to the defence.
(35) Reply, p. 9.
(36) Point 15.3 of the application for approval.
(37) See point 15.3a of the original application.
(38) Point 15.3 f and h of the original application.
(39) Six monitors occupied for five months of 22 days.
(40) Point 15.3 of the application for approval.
(41) Reply, p. 11.
(42) Point 15.3e of the original application.
(43) Amounting to a total of ESC 2 912 955.
(44) Point 15.3k of the original application.
(45) 5 668 369 - (8 000 x 1 x 65), the daily costs claimed being ESC 8 000 and the occupation of 10 rooms for 65 days.
(46) 15.3k of the original application.
(47) 277 (trainees) x 8 (weeks) x 2 500 (ESC).
(48) Point 14.6 of the application for the balance.
(49) Point 15.7 of the original application.
(50) Point 14.8 of the application for the balance.
(51) Point 15.8 of the application for approval.
(52) Paragraph 22 of the rejoinder and developed at the hearing.
(53) Rejoinder, paragraph 26.
(54) Judgment in Case 84/85 United Kingdom v Commission [1987] ECR 3765, paragraph 23.
(55) See footnote 20 above.
(56) Point 14.3 of the application for the balance.
(57) Defence, paragraph 30.
(58) Defence, p. 6.
(59) Defence, paragraph 32.
(60) Point 14.2 of the application for the balance; Commission' s allegations at paragraph 30 of the defence.
(61) Reply, under "Law", paragraph 10.
(62) See Annex 11 to the application.
(63) Reply under "Law", paragraph 12.
(64) Article 7.
(65) The term used in the rejoinder, p. 4.
(66) Annex 3 to the application.
Translation