UDGMENT OF
THE COURT (Second Chamber)
(Action
for annulment – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Articles
4(2a) and 10a – Annex IIa – Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 – Special non‑contributory
benefits)
In Case
C‑299/05,
ACTION
for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on
Commission
of the European Communities, represented by M.‑J. Jonczy, D. Martin and V. Kreuschitz, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in
applicant,
v
European
Parliament,
represented by G. Ricci and A. Troupiotis, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in
Council
of the European Union, represented by M. Veiga, J. Leppo and G. Curmi, acting
as Agents,
defendants,
supported
by:
Republic
of Finland,
represented by T. Pynnä, J. Heliskoski and
United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by E. O’Neill and C. Vajda,
acting as Agents,
interveners,
THE COURT
(Second Chamber),
composed
of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk,
P. Kūris, J.‑C. Bonichot (Rapporteur) and C. Toader, Judges,
Advocate
General: J. Kokott,
Registrar:
J. Swedenborg, Administrator,
having
regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on
after
hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on
gives the
following
Judgment
1 By
its application, the Commission of the European Communities seeks the annulment
of the provisions of point 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council
Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self‑employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ
Legal
context
2 Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
social security schemes to employed persons, to self‑employed persons and to
members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
3 Under
Article 1(u)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended, the term ‘family
benefits’ means all benefits in kind or in cash intended to meet family
expenses.
4 Under
Article 4(1)(h) thereof, the regulation is to
apply to family benefits.
5 Under
Article 4(2a) of that regulation:
‘This
Article shall apply to special non-contributory cash benefits which are
provided under legislation which, because of its personal scope, objectives
and/or conditions for entitlement has characteristics both of the social
security legislation referred to in paragraph 1 and of social assistance.
“Special
non-contributory cash benefits” means those:
(a) which
are intended to provide either:
(i) supplementary,
substitute or ancillary cover against the risks covered by the branches of
social security referred to in paragraph 1, and which guarantee the persons
concerned a minimum subsistence income having regard to the economic and social
situation in the Member State concerned; or
(ii) solely
specific protection for the disabled, closely linked to the said person’s
social environment in the
(b) where
the financing exclusively derives from compulsory taxation intended to cover
general public expenditure and the conditions for providing and for calculating
the benefits are not dependent on any contribution in respect of the
beneficiary. However, benefits provided to supplement a contributory benefit
shall not be considered to be contributory benefits for this reason alone; and
(c) which
are listed in Annex IIa.’
6 Those
provisions replaced the following:
‘This
Regulation shall also apply to special non-contributory benefits which are
provided under legislation or schemes other than those referred to in paragraph
1 or excluded by virtue of paragraph 4, where such benefits are intended:
(a) either
to provide supplementary, substitute or ancillary cover against the risks
covered by the branches of social security referred to in paragraph 1(a) to
(h);
or
(b) solely
as specific protection for the disabled.’
7 Article 10a
of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended provides:
‘1. The
provisions of Article 10 and of Title III shall not apply to the special
non‑contributory cash benefits referred to in Article 4(2a). The persons
to whom this Regulation applies shall receive these benefits exclusively in the
territory of the
...’
Background
to the proceedings
8 Annex
IIa to Regulation No 1408/71 lists the special non-contributory benefits which
the persons to whom that regulation applies can be granted only in the
territory of the
9 The
Member States did not raise any objection to the Commission proposal to amend
Article 4(2a) of Regulation No 1408/71 with the aim of specifying the
definition of special non-contributory cash benefits, according to the
principles established by the Court in Case C‑2l5/99 Jauch [2001]
ECR I‑1901 and Case C‑43/99 Leclere and Deaconescu [2001]
ECR I‑4265.
10 Pursuant to that case-law, only
those benefits which have the dual characteristic of being special and
non-contributory can be included in the list in Annex IIa.
11 The Commission, having examined all
the benefits which could be categorised as ‘special non-contributory’ benefits
in the light of the criteria in Article 4(2a) of Regulation
No 1408/71 and the Court’s interpretation of that provision, drew up and
proposed a new list of the benefits which could be included in Annex IIa.
12 Applying criteria drawn from the
case-law of the Court, the Commission did not include in that new list:
– benefits
under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71, namely ‘invalidity
benefits, including those intended for the maintenance or improvement of
earning capacity’;
–
benefits granted to disabled children, the primary objective of which is to
meet the extra family expenses caused by the presence of a disabled child in
the home;
– care
benefits, characterised by the Court in Jauch as sickness benefits in
cash for the purpose of improving the state of health and quality of life of
persons reliant on care, even if those benefits may cover independent aspects
of the sickness itself.
13 At the request of the Republic of
Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, the Council of the European Union nevertheless agreed to
reinsert in the list in Annex IIa, as proposed by the Commission, the following
benefits (together, ‘the benefits at issue’)
– as
regards the
– concerning
the
– as
regards the United Kingdom, disability living allowance (‘DLA’), attendance
allowance (‘AA’), and carer’s allowance (‘CA’).
14 The European Parliament, during the
second reading of the draft amending regulation, approved the Council’s
position and took formal notice of a declaration in which the Commission
reserved the right to refer the matter to the Court of Justice and to submit,
if necessary, on the basis of the Court’s judgment, a further proposal to
revise the list in Annex IIa.
15 On 13 April 2005, the
Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation No 647/2005 taking into account
the requests of the three Member States mentioned in paragraph 13 of this
judgment. The Commission seeks the annulment of that regulation in so far as it
refers to the benefits at issue in the list in Annex IIa to Regulation
No 1408/71 as amended (‘Annex IIa as amended’).
16 The Commission submits that those
various benefits do not meet the conditions allowing their grant to be
restricted to only those persons who reside in the territory of each of those
Member States.
The
action
The
request to reopen the oral procedure
17 By letter of 19 June 2007, the
18 The
19 The Court may of its own motion, on
a proposal from the Advocate General, or at the request of the parties, order
the reopening of the oral procedure in accordance with Article 61 of the
Rules of Procedure if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or
that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been
debated between the parties (see Case C‑309/99 Wouters and Others [2002]
ECR I‑1577, paragraph 42; Case C‑434/02 Arnold André [2004] ECR I‑11825,
paragraph 27; and Case C‑210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I‑11893,
paragraph 25).
20 However, first, the issue of the
severability of the DLA had been mentioned in the Commission’s pleadings, so
that the
21 Consequently, there is no need to
order the reopening of the oral procedure.
Admissibility
Arguments
of the parties
22 The Parliament considers that the
time-limit laid down in Article 230 EC had already expired when the
proceedings were initiated. It is of the opinion that that time‑limit must be
calculated from the publication of the measure which amended Regulation
No 1408/71 by including the benefits at issue for the first time in the
list in Annex IIa. The DLA, AA and CA have been referred to in that annex since
the entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of
30 April 1992 amending Regulation No 1408/71 (OJ
23 The Parliament submits that, by
replacing Annex IIa in its entirety on the adoption of Regulation
No 647/2005, instead of merely making the planned amendments to that
annex, the legislature did not intend to make it possible to challenge the
inclusion of benefits already in that annex.
24 The Parliament accepts that, under
Article 1(2) of Regulation No 647/2005, the Community legislature
amended the wording of Article 4(2a) of Regulation No 1408/71. It
nevertheless submits that that was merely a reformulation of the definition of
special non-contributory benefits. By contrast, the substance of the previous
definition was not changed. In support of its view, it points out that it was
by examining and interpreting the provisions of that latter article as it was
prior to the adoption of Regulation No 647/2005 that the Court delivered the
judgments in Jauch and Leclere and Deaconescu.
25 The Parliament thus takes the view
that the criteria used, reformulated by Regulation No 647/2005, were
already among the factors which governed those benefits and that the
legislature merely included them in the actual text of Article 4(2a) of
Regulation No 1408/71 as amended.
26 The Commission considers that, where
the Community legislature has adopted a new text of secondary legislation, even
if it has left intact the content of an annex, it has taken a new ‘decision’ on
that annex. That is particularly true where the Commission has drawn to the
legislature’s attention the fact that the former annex had become partially
incompatible with Community law in the light of the Court’s case-law.
27 That new decision should therefore
be reviewable by the Court without it being possible to argue in an action for
annulment that the criticised part of the text has remained unchanged.
Findings
of the Court
28 Under the last paragraph of
Article 230 EC, an action for annulment must be brought within two months
of the publication or notification of the contested measure or, in the absence
thereof, of the date on which it came to the applicant’s knowledge, as the case
may be.
29 It is clear from the actual wording
of that provision, as from its aim which is to guarantee legal certainty, that
a measure which has not been challenged within that period becomes definitive.
That definitive nature concerns not only the measure itself, but also any later
measure which is merely confirmatory. That approach, which is justified by the
requirement of legal stability, applies to individual measures as well as those
which have a legislative character, such as a regulation.
30 By contrast, where a provision in a
regulation is amended, a fresh right of action arises, not only against that
provision alone, but also against all the provisions which, even if not
amended, form a whole with it.
31 The application of those principles
results in the Commission’s action being declared admissible.
32 The wording of Article 4(2a) of
Regulation No 1408/71 as amended is substantially different from the
earlier wording and clearly amends the scope of that article, and the fact,
relied on by the Parliament, that the Court interpreted the earlier version in
a way that corresponds to the new wording does not make that wording
confirmatory of the former version. That amendment was adopted specifically in
order to redefine the content of the list of non-exportable benefits in Annex
IIa.
33 It follows that Article 4(2a)
of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended forms a whole with the list in Annex
IIa as amended, which also follows from the actual wording of Article 10a
of that regulation, which provides that ‘[t]he persons to whom this Regulation
applies shall receive [the special non-contributory cash benefits referred to
in Article 4(2a)] exclusively in the territory of the Member State in which
they reside and under the legislation of that State, in so far as these
benefits are mentioned in Annex IIa [as amended].’
34 The Commission’s application is,
therefore, admissible.
Merits
35 The Commission raises a single plea
in support of its action. It claims that Regulation No 647/2005 is
vitiated by an error in law in so far as it confers on the benefits at issue,
by including them in the list in Annex IIa as amended, the status of special
benefits.
Arguments
of the parties
36 So far as the Finnish child care
allowance is concerned, the Commission accepts that that benefit may assist a
disabled child to integrate in his social environment, but it takes the view
that it is also used to meet the expenses resulting, for the child’s family,
from the child’s disability or sickness. However, the Court has held that a
benefit intended to alleviate the financial burdens involved in the maintenance
of children is included in the category of family benefits defined in
Article 1(u)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 and relates to the risk mentioned
in Article 4(1)(h) of that regulation (Case C‑85/99 Offermanns
[2001] ECR I‑2261, and Case C‑333/00 Maaheimo [2002] ECR I‑10087).
37 The Commission considers that the
fact that that benefit is granted on the basis of an individual assessment of
the needs of the disabled or sick child does not change the nature of that
benefit.
38 In respect of the Swedish care allowance
for disabled children, the Commission advances the same reasoning as that which
it put forward concerning the Finnish child care allowance, with which the
allowance shares many similarities. It takes the view that, for the same
reasons, the Swedish benefit must also be regarded as a ‘family benefit’ within
the meaning of Article 1(u)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended.
39 In the case of the Swedish
disability allowance, the Commission claims that it is mainly intended to meet
the additional expenses which a person may have to bear because of his or her
disability in order to improve his or her state of health and quality of life
as a person reliant on care.
40 It must therefore be regarded, in
the light of Jauch, as a ‘sickness benefit’ for the purpose of
Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended.
41 As regards the DLA, AA and CA, the
Commission takes the view that such benefits are mainly intended to meet the
additional expenses which a person may have to bear because of his or her
disability with a view to improving his or her state of health and quality of
life as a person reliant on care. They serve, as the Court observed in Jauch,
to supplement sickness insurance benefits.
42 Accordingly, the Commission submits
that even if such benefits have their own characteristics, they must be
regarded as ‘sickness benefits’ for the purpose of Article 4(1)(a) of
Regulation No 1408/71 as amended.
43 The Council, Parliament, Republic of
Finland, Kingdom of Sweden and United Kingdom contend that, in the light of
their specific characteristics, in particular their components, purposes and
conditions for entitlement, those benefits are, on the contrary, ‘special
non-contributory benefits’, since they fulfil the criteria set out in
Article 4(2a) of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended, as interpreted by
the Court.
44 Those institutions and Member States
submit that to be classified as ‘special’ a benefit must have characteristics
which make it fall simultaneously within the categories of both social security
and social assistance because of the persons to whom it applies, its objectives
and the conditions for its application. The benefits at issue are akin to
social assistance benefits in that the concept of need is an essential criterion
and entitlement to them is not subject to a condition of aggregation of periods
of employment or contributions, whilst in other features they are close to
social security benefits inasmuch as the competent bodies have no discretion in
respect of awarding them and because their grant places recipients in a
statutorily defined position.
45 The benefits at issue are therefore
‘hybrid’ benefits which the Council considers to be closely linked to the
economic and social situation of the three Member States concerned.
46 The position adopted by the Court in
Case C‑160/96 Molenaar [1998] ECR I‑843, Jauch and Leclere and
Deaconescu does not affect that analysis since the characteristics and the
conditions for the grant of the benefits with which those cases were concerned
differ substantially from those of the benefits at issue.
47 The Parliament submits, in addition,
that the fact that some features of the benefits at issue enable them to be
classified as social security benefits is not inconsistent with their being
special benefits.
48 Such an approach is borne out by
paragraph 25 of Case C‑160/02 Skalka [2004] ECR I‑5613, according to
which a special benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of Regulation
No 1408/71 is defined by its purpose. It must either replace or supplement
a social security benefit and be by its nature social assistance justified on
economic and social grounds and fixed by legislation setting objective
criteria.
49 In other words, a benefit can be
covered simultaneously by both Article 4(1) and Article 4(2a) of
Regulation No 1408/71 as amended.
50 The United Kingdom points out that
the Court has already ruled in Case C‑20/96 Snares [1997] ECR I‑6057
and Case C‑297/96 Partridge [1998] ECR I‑3467 that the DLA and the
AA are allowances covered by Article 4(2a)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71.
Findings
of the Court
51 The scheme and wording of
Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended show that a benefit
cannot be classified simultaneously as a family benefit and a special benefit.
Family benefits are dealt with in Article 4(1) while special benefits are
dealt with in Article 4(2a), the aim of that distinction being to enable
the respective schemes for those two categories of benefits to be identified (see,
to that effect, Case C‑286/03 Hosse [2006] ECR I‑1771, paragraphs 36 and
37 and the case-law cited).
52 It is therefore necessary to examine
whether the benefits at issue, referred to on the list in Annex IIa as amended,
are special, having regard to the fact that their non-contributory nature is
not in dispute.
53 First, under
Article 4(2a)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended, a benefit can be
deemed to be special only if its purpose is solely that of specific protection
for the disabled, closely linked to the social environment of those persons in
the
54 In the present case, the benefits at
issue do not have that sole function. In fact, although they unquestionably
promote the independence of the persons who receive them and protect the
disabled in their national social context, they are also intended to ensure the
necessary care and the supervision of those persons, where it is essential, in
their family or a specialised institution. They cannot, therefore, be
classified as special benefits in the light of Article 4(2a)(a)(ii) of
Regulation No 1408/71 as amended.
55 Secondly, besides the specific case
described in the preceding paragraphs, pursuant to Article 4(2a)(a)(i) of
Regulation No 1408/71 as amended, a special benefit for the purpose of
that provision is also defined by its purpose. It must either replace or
supplement a social security benefit, while being distinguishable from it, and
be by its nature social assistance justified on economic and social grounds and
fixed by legislation setting objective criteria (see Case C‑154/05 Kersbergen-Lap
and Dams-Schipper [2006] ECR I‑6249, paragraph 30, and the case‑law cited).
56 By contrast, a benefit is regarded
as a social security benefit where it is granted, without any individual and
discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a
statutorily defined position and relates to one of the risks expressly listed
in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 (Case 249/83 Hoeckx [1985]
ECR 973, paragraphs 12 to 14; Case C‑356/89 Newton [1991] ECR I‑3017;
Case C‑78/91 Hughes [1992] ECR I‑4839, paragraph 15; Molenaar,
paragraph 20; and Jauch, paragraph 25). It was on the basis of that
case-law, which takes account of the components of German care insurance
benefits, that the Court held, in paragraph 25 of Molenaar, that those
benefits were to be regarded as ‘sickness benefits’ for the purpose of
Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 and, in paragraph 36 of that
judgment, that they were to be regarded as ‘cash benefits’ of sickness
insurance as referred to inter alia in Article 19(1)(b) of that regulation
(see also Jauch, paragraph 25).
57 First, the purpose of the Finnish
and Swedish care allowances for children, in the very words of the governments
concerned, is to enable the parents of disabled children to provide for the
care, supervision of and possibly re‑habilitation of those children. They are
provided for in
58 The fact that entitlement to those
allowances would not be subject to having worked or made contributions for a
certain length of time, that they would be awarded on a case‑by‑case basis
depending on the needs of the child and in accordance with criteria fixed by
the legislation, and that, in addition, they would form part of a package of
benefits and services for disabled persons and would, on that account, be
closely linked to the economic and social context in the Member States
concerned, is not such as to influence their main purpose, which is of a
medical nature.
59 Since, accordingly, those allowances
must be classified as sickness benefits, the Commission is justified in
claiming that Regulation No 647/2005 is vitiated by an error of law in so
far as those allowances are referred to on the list in Annex IIa as amended,
which is reserved for special non-contributory benefits.
60 As regards, secondly, the Swedish
disability allowance, the explanations of the Swedish Government, inter alia,
show that that benefit, provided for under the Law on Disability Allowance and
Care Allowance (lag om handickappersättning och vårdbigrad) is granted to
disabled people for whom a reduction in their mobility occurred between the
ages of 19 and 65. It is intended to finance the care of a third person or to
allow the disabled person to bear the costs caused by his or her disability and
to improve that person’s state of health and quality of life, as a person
reliant on care.
61 Benefits granted objectively on the
basis of a statutorily defined position and which are intended to improve the
state of health and quality of life of persons reliant on care have as their
essential purpose supplementing sickness insurance benefits and must be
regarded as ‘sickness benefits’ for the purpose of Article 4(1)(a) of
Regulation No 1408/71 (Molenaar, paragraphs 24 and 25; Jauch,
paragraph 28; and Hosse, paragraph 38).
62 The Swedish disability allowance,
which has those characteristics that purpose, must consequently be classified
as a sickness benefit, as the Court held in Molenaar, Jauch and Hosse,
even if the scheme under the Swedish legislation differs from that governing
the allowances at issue in those cases.
63 Contrary to what the Kingdom of
Sweden claims, the fact that the reduction in mobility must be of a significant
duration and must have occurred before the age of 65 is not such as to change
the purpose of the Swedish disability allowance, which consists in meeting the
needs stemming from the disability and covering the risk caused by the sickness
which is at the origin of that disability.
64 Consequently, the Commission is
justified in claiming that Regulation No 647/2005 is vitiated by an error
of law to the extent that that allowance is referred to on the list in Annex
IIa as amended, which is reserved for special non‑contributory benefits.
65 As regards, thirdly, the DLA, AA and
CA, those benefits are all by nature, although only partially so in the case of
the DLA, care allowances.
66 According to the
67 Contrary to what the
68 Accordingly, those three allowances
as well as the preceding allowances must be regarded as sickness benefits, even
though the DLA includes a distinct part relating to mobility.
69 As the Commission indeed observes,
the ‘mobility’ component of the DLA, which might be regarded as a special
non-contributory benefit, is severable, so that that component alone could be
included on the list in Annex IIa as amended if the
70 The fact that the DLA, AA and CA,
unlike the benefit at issue in Jauch and Hosse, do not have as
there the essential purpose supplementing sickness insurance benefits does not
affect the categorisation of those allowances.
71 In addition, the fact that the Court
ruled in Snares and Partridge that the DLA and AA were, in the
legal context at the time, allowances coming under Article 4(2a)(b) of
Regulation No 1408/71 does not affect the analysis which the Court may
make of those allowances in the post-Jauch legal context.
72 Accordingly, the Commission is
justified in claiming that Regulation No 647/2005 is vitiated by an error of
law in so far as the DLA, AA and CA are referred to on the list in Annex IIa as
amended, which is reserved for special non‑contributory benefits.
73 It follows from all the foregoing
that the provisions of point 2 of Annex I to Regulation No 647/2005, under the
headings ‘FINLAND’, (b), ‘SWEDEN’, (c), and ‘UNITED KINGDOM’, (d) to (f), are
vitiated by an error of law and must therefore be annulled.
Temporal
effects of this judgment
74 It is necessary, however, for the
Court to state that the straightforward annulment of the inclusion of the DLA
in the list in Annex IIa as amended would lead to the United Kingdom being
forced to grant the ‘mobility’ element of that benefit to an unspecified number
of recipients throughout the European Union, although the fact that that part
of the DLA is in the nature of a non-contributory benefit cannot be disputed
and it could lawfully be included in that list as a non-exportable benefit.
75 That fact warrants the Court
exercising the power expressly conferred on it by the second paragraph of
Article 231 EC in the event of annulment of a regulation, provisionally to
maintain the effects of inclusion of the DLA as regards solely the ‘mobility’
part so that, within a reasonable period, appropriate measures can be taken to
include it in Annex IIa as amended.
Costs
76 Under Article 69(2) of the
Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if
they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Under the first
subparagraph of Article 69(3) of the same Rules, the Court may
nevertheless order that the costs be shared or decide that each party is to
bear its own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other claims,
or where the circumstances are exceptional. Since the Parliament and the
Council have been unsuccessful, they should bear their own costs and pay, in
equal shares, those of the Commission. Pursuant to Article 69(4) of the Rules
of Procedure, the Member States that have intervened in the proceedings should
bear their own costs.
On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:
1. Annuls
the provisions of point 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council
Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 under the headings ‘FINLAND’,
(b), ‘SWEDEN’, (c), and ‘UNITED KINGDOM’, (d) to (f);
2. Maintains
the effects of the inclusion of the Disability Living Allowance under the
heading ‘UNITED KINGDOM’, (d), of Annex IIa to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self‑employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by
Regulation No 647/2005, as regards solely the ‘mobility’ part of that allowance
so that, within a reasonable period, appropriate measures can be taken to
include it in that annex;
3. Orders
the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own
costs and to pay, in equal shares, those of the Commission of the European
Communities;
4. Orders
the