Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2026.#daa plc, anciennement Dublin Airport Authority plc and Others v Irish Aviation Authority and Airport Coordination Limited.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Irlande).#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 – Allocation of slots at European Union airports – Article 6 – Coordination parameters – Determination taking account of relevant technical, operational and environmental constraints – Urban planning rules – Limit on the annual number of air passengers – Article 8 – Process of slot allocation – Historic slots – Grandfather rights – Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.#Case C-857/24.

–

daa plc, by A. Carroll, Senior Counsel, P. Gallagher, Senior Counsel, B. Kennedy, Senior Counsel, F. Valentine, Senior Counsel, E. Synnott, Barrister-at-Law, and N. Dunleavy, Solicitor,

–

Aer Lingus Ltd, by S. Murray, Senior Counsel, C. Quinn, Barrister-at-Law, N. Keeling and K. Mulligan, Solicitors,

–

Ryanair Designated Activity Company, by F. Crean, Senior Counsel, M. Hayden, Senior Counsel, J. Kenny, Barrister-at-Law, C. Callan, E. Mulconry and C. O’Shaughnessy, Solicitors,

–

Air Transport Association of America Inc., trading as Airlines for America, Delta Air Lines Inc., JetBlue Airways Corporation and United Airlines Inc., by E. Egan McGrath, Senior Counsel, D. McGrath, Senior Counsel, B. Doherty, Barrister-at-Law, D. Conaghan, R. Willis, P. Woods, Solicitors, and P. Frühling, avocat,

–

the Irish Aviation Authority, by M. Gray, Senior Counsel, E. McCullough, Senior Counsel, F. Kieran, Barrister-at-Law, M. Murphy, Barrister-at-Law, C. McLoughlin and N. Michel, Solicitors,

–

Ireland, by M. Browne, Chief State Solicitor, T. Breen, acting as Agent, and by C. Donnelly, Senior Counsel, and C. Ó Néill, Barrister-at-Law,

–

the Netherlands Government, by M.K. Bulterman and C.S. Schillemans, acting as Agents,

–

the European Commission, by J. Samnadda, B. Sasinowska and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents,

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 793/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 138, p. 50) (‘Regulation No 95/93’), read in the light of Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

2

The request has been made in proceedings between daa plc, formerly Dublin Airport Authority plc, Aer Lingus Ltd, Ryanair Designated Activity Company, Air Transport Association of America Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., JetBlue Airways Corporation, United Airlines Inc. and Emerald Airlines Ireland Limited, on the one hand, and the Irish Aviation Authority (Ireland) (‘the IAA’) and Airport Coordination Limited (‘ACL’), on the other, concerning the IAA’s determination of the coordination parameters for Dublin airport (Ireland) in respect of the winter 2024/2025 season and the summer 2025 season.

3

The first, second and ninth recitals of Regulation No 95/93 are worded as follows:

‘Whereas there is a growing imbalance between the expansion of the air transport system in Europe and the availability of adequate airport infrastructure to meet that demand; whereas there is, as a result, an increasing number of congested airports in the Community;

Whereas the allocation of slots at congested airports should be based on neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory rules;

…

Whereas the existing system makes provision for grandfather rights’.

4

Article 2 of that regulation, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:

‘For the purpose of this Regulation:

…

…

…

…

5

Article 3 of Regulation No 95/93, entitled ‘Conditions for airport coordination’, states, in paragraph 5 thereof:

‘Where capacity problems occur for at least one scheduling period, the Member State shall ensure that the airport is designated as coordinated for the relevant periods only if:

6

Article 6 of that regulation, entitled ‘Coordination parameters’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘At a coordinated airport the Member State responsible shall ensure the determination of the parameters for slot allocation twice yearly, while taking account of all relevant technical, operational and environmental constraints as well as any changes thereto.

This exercise shall be based on an objective analysis of the possibilities of accommodating the air traffic, taking into account the different types of traffic at the airport, the airspace congestion likely to occur during the coordination period and the capacity situation.

The parameters shall be communicated to the airport coordinator in good time before the initial slot allocation takes place for the purpose of scheduling conferences.’

7

Article 8 of Regulation No 95/93, entitled ‘Process of slot allocation’, provides, in paragraphs 1 to 3 thereof:

‘1.   Series of slots are allocated from the slot pool to applicant carriers as permissions to use the airport infrastructure for the purpose of landing or take-off for the scheduling period for which they are requested, at the expiry of which they have to be returned to the slot pool as set up according to the provisions of Article 10.

2.   Without prejudice to Articles 7, 8a, 9, 10(1) and 14, paragraph (1) of this Article shall not apply when the following conditions are satisfied:

In such case that series of slots shall entitle the air carrier concerned to the same series of slots in the next equivalent scheduling period, if requested by that air carrier within the time limit referred to in Article 7(1).

3.   Without prejudice to Article 10(2), in a situation where all slot requests cannot be accommodated to the satisfaction of the air carriers concerned, preference shall be given to commercial air services and in particular to scheduled services and programmed non-scheduled air services. In the case of competing requests within the same category of services, priority shall be given for year round operations.’

8

Article 8a of that regulation, entitled ‘Slot mobility’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:

‘1.   Slots may be:

2.   The transfers or exchanges referred to in paragraph 1 shall be notified to the coordinator and shall not take effect prior to the express confirmation by the coordinator. The coordinator shall decline to confirm the transfers or exchanges if they are not in conformity with the requirements of this Regulation and if the coordinator is not satisfied that:

…’

9

Article 8b of that regulation, entitled ‘Exclusion of compensation claims’, is worded as follows:

‘The entitlement to series of slots referred to in Article 8(2) shall not give rise to any claims for compensation in respect of any limitation, restriction or elimination thereof imposed under Community law, in particular in application of the rules of the Treaty relating to air transport. This Regulation shall not affect the powers of public authorities to require the transfer of slots between air carriers and to direct how these are allocated pursuant to national competition law or to Articles [101 or 102 TFEU] or Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings [(OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13)]. These transfers can only take place without monetary compensation.’

10

Article 10 of Regulation No 95/93, entitled ‘Slot pool’, provides, in paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 thereof:

‘1.   The coordinator shall set up a pool, which shall contain all the slots not allocated on the basis of Article 8(2) and 8(4). All new slot capacity determined pursuant to Article 3(3) shall be placed in the pool.

2.   A series of slots that has been allocated to an air carrier for the operation of a scheduled or a programmed non-scheduled air service shall not entitle that air carrier to the same series of slots in the next equivalent scheduling period if the air carrier cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of the coordinator that they have been operated, as cleared by the coordinator, by that air carrier for at least 80% of the time during the scheduling period for which they have been allocated.

…

4.   If the 80% usage of the series of slots cannot be demonstrated, all the slots constituting that series shall be placed in the slot pool, unless the non-utilisation can be justified on the basis of any of the following reasons:

…’

11

Recitals 2, 8 and 9 of Regulation No 793/2004 state:

…

12

Dublin airport, designated since 2007 as a ‘coordinated airport’ within the meaning of Article 2(g) of Regulation No 95/93, is owned and operated by daa.

13

The parameters for slot allocation at Dublin airport are determined by the IAA, a regulatory body responsible for discharging and overseeing Ireland’s obligations under Regulation No 95/93. The allocation of slots at Dublin airport is carried out by ACL, which is the independent coordinator appointed under that regulation.

14

By decision of 29 August 2007, An Bord Pleanála (Planning Board, Ireland), following an environmental impact assessment carried out in accordance with Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), granted development consent for a new Terminal 2 at that airport.

15

That consent provided, inter alia, for the following condition: ‘The combined capacity of Terminal 2 as permitted together with Terminal 1 shall not exceed 32 million passengers per annum unless otherwise authorised by a further grant of permission. Reason – Having regard to the policies and objectives of the Dublin Airport Local Area Plan and the capacity constraints (transportation) at the eastern campus’ (‘the 32mppa condition’).

16

By decision of 10 January 2008, development consent was also granted for the extension of Terminal 1 at that airport, subject, inter alia, to the 32mppa condition.

17

In 2024, forecasts carried out by daa indicated that, for the first time, the limit of 32 million passengers per year, provided for in the 32mppa condition, could be reached or exceeded.

18

On 7 May and 10 October 2024, the IAA published decisions concerning the coordination parameters in respect of the winter 2024/2025 season and the summer 2025 season, respectively. In order to address the high probability that the annual number of passengers would exceed that limit and therefore no longer comply with the 32mppa condition, those decisions set seasonal passenger caps for flights to and from Dublin airport.

19

Taking the view that they have been adversely affected by those decisions, daa and certain air carriers have brought actions against them before the referring court, the High Court (Ireland). By order of 4 November 2024, that court granted a stay on the seasonal cap set out in the decision of 10 October 2024 relating to the summer 2025 season until such time as it rules on those actions or makes a further order. It is not in dispute between the parties that, in the absence of such a stay, ACL would not have been in a position to grant all the slot requests made by air carriers in respect of that season, with the result that certain series of slots to which air carriers would otherwise be entitled under Article 8(2) of Regulation No 95/93 would not have been allocated.

20

The referring court has doubts as to the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93 and, inter alia, the relationship between that regulation and urban planning rules, some of which stem from a procedure governed by EU law. In particular, it is unsure whether an annual passenger limit provided for in a development consent relating to the infrastructure of a coordinated airport comes under ‘relevant technical, operational and environmental constraints’, within the meaning of that provision, and whether that provision precludes the consideration of such a limit from resulting in the non-renewal of series of slots to which air carriers would otherwise be entitled under Article 8(2) of that regulation, or from resulting in the temporary closure of the airport.

21

In those circumstances, the High Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

22

By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93 is to be interpreted as meaning that conditions which are set out in development consents relating to the infrastructure of a coordinated airport and which require compliance with an annual passenger limit at that airport may constitute relevant technical, operational or environmental constraints, within the meaning of that provision, of which account may be taken in the determination of the coordination parameters.

23

Coordination parameters are a key factor in the allocation of slots. Under the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93, at a coordinated airport, those parameters are to be determined twice yearly, ‘while taking account of all relevant technical, operational and environmental constraints as well as any changes thereto.’ In addition, according to the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of that regulation, that determination ‘shall be based on an objective analysis of the possibilities of accommodating the air traffic, taking into account the different types of traffic at the airport, the airspace congestion likely to occur during the coordination period and the capacity situation.’

24

The concept of ‘coordination parameters’ is defined in Article 2(m) of Regulation No 95/93 as ‘the expression in operational terms of all the capacity available for slot allocation at an airport during each coordination period, reflecting all technical, operational and environmental factors that affect the performance of the airport infrastructure and its different sub-systems.’

25

Neither the wording of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93 nor the definition set out in Article 2(m) of that regulation expressly indicates whether development consents relating to the infrastructure of a coordinated airport are capable of constituting technical, operational or environmental constraints or factors for the purposes of those provisions.

26

That said, it is apparent from their wording, and in particular from the use of the phrases ‘all relevant … constraints’ and ‘all … factors’, respectively, that those provisions are couched in broad terms. They are therefore capable of encompassing all technical, operational and environmental constraints and factors, whatever they may be, irrespective of the reasons underlying them – whether political or otherwise – and regardless of whether they may be physical or legal in nature.

27

In addition, it follows from the reference, in the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93, to the need for an objective analysis of the possibilities of accommodating the air traffic, taking into account, inter alia, the ‘capacity situation’, and from the definition, in Article 2(m) of that regulation, of coordination parameters as expressing, in operational terms, ‘all the capacity available’ for slot allocation, that the capacity of a coordinated airport constitutes the main criterion when determining the coordination parameters.

28

It follows that the determination of those parameters must, by virtue of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93, be based on all technical, operational and environmental constraints which affect the airport capacity of the airport concerned and with which the operator of that airport is required to comply. Such constraints therefore include a legal constraint restricting the operational capacity of a coordinated airport by imposing an annual passenger limit which is set down in a development consent relating to the infrastructure of that airport.

29

That interpretation is, moreover, borne out by Article 3(5) of Regulation No 95/93, from which it is apparent that the designation of an airport as coordinated results from capacity problems occurring for at least one scheduling period – more specifically, a shortfall of such a serious nature that significant delays cannot be avoided at the airport and where there are no possibilities of resolving those problems in the short term. The consequence of such a designation is that, in order to land or take off, it is in principle necessary for an air carrier or any other aircraft operator to have been allocated a slot, which, under Article 2(a) of that regulation, constitutes the permission to use the full range of airport infrastructure necessary to operate an air service at a coordinated airport on a specific date and time for the purpose of landing or take-off. That coordination scheme serves to ensure that the capacity of coordinated airports is used as efficiently as possible.

30

Thus, the coordination scheme forms part of the general objectives of Regulation No 95/93. As is apparent from the first recital thereof, that regulation was adopted due to the increasing number of congested airports, and its purpose, reflected in the second recital thereof, is to ensure that the allocation of slots at those airports is based on neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory rules.

31

In the light of those factors, an interpretation of Article 6(1) of that regulation to the effect that spatial planning measures affecting airport capacity are excluded from the concept of ‘constraints’, within the meaning of that provision, would result in the coordination parameters failing to accurately reflect the actual capacity of the airport concerned, contrary to those general objectives.

32

In such a scenario, the effectiveness of the procedure for determining the coordination parameters provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93 could be significantly undermined. The competent authority would be obliged to allocate slots whilst in the knowledge that, from the date of their allocation, some of those slots could not be used precisely because of the existence of other constraints with which the airport authorities must comply, but which would not have been taken into account in the determination of those parameters. The resulting lack of consistency would be detrimental to the proper management of slots and, consequently, to the attainment of the objectives pursued by Regulation No 95/93.

33

In the present case, it is apparent from the explanations provided by the referring court that the 32mppa condition affects the performance of airport infrastructure, since it sets a legally binding limit on the number of passengers that may be accommodated annually at Dublin airport. As such, that condition is capable of determining, in operational terms, all the capacity available for slot allocation at that airport, with the result that it forms part of the constraints of which account must be taken for the purpose of determining the coordination parameters, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93.

34

In that context, in the light of the considerations set out in paragraph 26 of the present judgment, it is immaterial whether what is in issue is a relatively long-standing urban planning rule or a measure reflecting a policy stance that has subsequently evolved. What matters is whether or not such a rule or measure affects the airport capacity of the airport concerned and whether or not the operator of that airport is required to comply with it.

35

Similarly, the distinction drawn by certain air carriers between the flow of passengers, on the one hand, and the capacity of an airport, on the other, in the sense that the 32mppa condition applies to and limits the flow of passengers rather than the airport capacity of Dublin airport, is irrelevant in the light of Regulation No 95/93. Whether it relates to flow or capacity, that condition sets a legally binding limit on the number of passengers which that airport may accommodate.

36

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93 must be interpreted as meaning that conditions which are set out in development consents relating to the infrastructure of a coordinated airport and which require compliance with an annual passenger limit at that airport may constitute relevant technical, operational or environmental constraints, within the meaning of that provision, of which account must be taken in the determination of the coordination parameters.

37

By its second question, the referring court asks whether Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93 and, where applicable, Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter are to be interpreted as meaning that the determination of the parameters for slot allocation at a coordinated airport for a particular scheduling period, pursuant to Article 6(1) of that regulation, may result in some series of slots or components thereof not being allocated to air carriers which would in principle be entitled to them under Article 8(2) of that regulation.

38

As regards, first, the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93, it should be recalled at the outset that, as is apparent from the answer given to the first question, that provision governs the determination of coordination parameters. By contrast, that provision does not concern the allocation of slots. The process of slot allocation is set out in Article 8 of that regulation.

39

In addition, the concept of ‘slot’ is defined, in Article 2(a) of Regulation No 95/93, as ‘the permission given by a coordinator in accordance with [that regulation] to use the full range of airport infrastructure necessary to operate an air service at a coordinated airport on a specific date and time for the purpose of landing or take-off as allocated by a coordinator in accordance with [that regulation]’.

40

Under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 95/93, series of slots, within the meaning of Article 2(k) of that regulation, are allocated from the slot pool to applicant carriers as permissions to use the airport infrastructure for the purpose of landing or take-off for a given scheduling period. At the expiry of that period, the slots have to be returned to the slot pool as set up according to Article 10 of that regulation.

41

However, series of ‘historic’ slots – that is to say, series which have been allocated to an air carrier for the operation of a scheduled or a programmed non-scheduled air service and in respect of which it has been demonstrated that they have been used by that air carrier for at least 80% of the time during the scheduling period for which they had been allocated – are not placed in that pool pursuant to Article 10(1) of Regulation No 95/93. Under the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of that regulation, such a series of historic slots ‘shall entitle the air carrier concerned to the same series of slots in the next equivalent scheduling period’, at that carrier’s request.

42

In a situation where all slot requests cannot be accommodated to the satisfaction of the air carriers concerned, Article 8(3) of Regulation No 95/93 provides that, without prejudice to Article 10(2) thereof, preference is to be given to commercial air services and in particular to scheduled services and programmed non-scheduled air services. In the case of competing requests within the same category of services, priority is to be given for year-round operations. That scheme applies to all slots, including historic slots.

43

As regards, more specifically, historic slots, Regulation No 95/93 further provides, in Article 8b of that regulation, that the entitlement to series of such slots is not to give rise to any claims for compensation in respect of any limitation, restriction or elimination thereof imposed under EU law. Article 8b also provides that Regulation No 95/93 is not to affect the powers of public authorities to require the transfer of slots between air carriers and to direct how those slots are allocated in certain situations, and specifies that such transfers can only take place without monetary compensation.

44

In the light of those provisions, it appears, in the first place, that slot allocation grants the air carrier concerned permission to use the airport infrastructure for the purpose of landing and take-off operations.

45

Slots are allocated for specific scheduling periods, at the end of which they are either returned to the slot pool or – if the necessary conditions are satisfied – reallocated to the same air carrier which used them during the previous scheduling period. Their validity is thus limited in time, not only with respect to pool slots but also as regards historic slots, since they do not remain available to the air carrier which used them during the previous scheduling period, but must be reallocated to that carrier so that it may operate them during the next scheduling period.

46

In the second place, it is also apparent from the provisions cited in paragraphs 39 to 43 of the present judgment, and in particular from Article 8(3) of Regulation No 95/93, that slot allocation, including the allocation of series of historic slots, necessarily depends on there being sufficient availability of slots during the relevant scheduling period. Such availability is governed by the coordination parameters which, on the basis of an objective analysis of the situation at the airport concerned, for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93, determine the capacity of that airport.

47

Such an interpretation is not contradicted by the fact that, in recital 9 of Regulation No 793/2004, series of historic slots are referred to as ‘grandfather rights’.

48

It is clear from the general scheme of Regulation No 95/93, and in particular from the provisions cited in paragraphs 39 to 43 of the present judgment, that, by that regulation, the EU legislature merely sought to ensure, in the interest of stability of operations at coordinated airports, that the air carriers concerned are given priority over other operators in the allocation of slots, without conferring on air carriers a right to maintain series of historic slots or a right to have them automatically renewed.

49

Recital 9 of Regulation No 793/2004 reflects that objective of stability of operations whilst respecting the airport capacity limits of a coordinated airport. To that effect, it states that ‘in the interest of stability of operations, the existing system provides for the reallocation of slots with established historical precedence (“grandfather rights”) to incumbent air carriers’, while specifying that ‘Member States should, when defining capacity parameters, be able to take account of operational and environmental constraints.’

50

In those circumstances, it must be concluded that the determination of the parameters for slot allocation at a coordinated airport for a particular scheduling period, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93, may exceptionally result in some series of historic slots not being allocated to an air carrier which has submitted a request pursuant to Article 8(2) of that regulation.

51

Second, it is necessary to address the issues raised by the referring court in relation to Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter, to which reference is also made in the second question referred for a preliminary ruling.

52

However, as regards Article 16 of the Charter, the referring court has failed to set out the reasons why an interpretation of that article is necessary in order for it to give judgment. Consequently, there is no need to interpret Article 16 of that charter.

53

With respect to Article 17 of the Charter, it is apparent from settled case-law that the protection afforded by that article concerns rights with an asset value creating an established legal position under the legal system concerned, enabling the holder to exercise those rights autonomously and for the holder’s own benefit. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the situation at issue in the main proceedings concerns a right with an asset value, which creates an established legal position enabling the holder to exercise that right autonomously (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 September 2024, Novo Banco and Others, C‑498/22 to C‑500/22, EU:C:2024:686, paragraphs 109 and 110).

54

In the present case, it must be held that, in the light of the characteristics of the slots referred to in paragraphs 39 to 49 of the present judgment, the right conferred by Article 8(2) of Regulation No 95/93 cannot be treated in the same way as a ‘right to property’ within the meaning of Article 17 of the Charter, in view of the fact that it is temporary and has not been definitively acquired. That fact precludes the holder of historic slots from exercising rights with an asset value autonomously and for its own benefit in respect of such slots.

55

Such a conclusion is supported, moreover, by Article 8a of Regulation No 95/93, under which slots enjoy a certain degree of ‘mobility’. That provision permits the transfer and exchange of slots in the situations listed exhaustively in paragraph 1 thereof, while specifying, in paragraph 2 of that article, that such transfers or exchanges are not to take effect prior to the express confirmation by the airport coordinator, which is to be declined, inter alia, if the coordinator is not satisfied that airport operations would not be prejudiced, taking into account all technical, operational and environmental constraints. However, it is apparent from the scheme of Article 8a of Regulation No 95/93, read in conjunction with Article 8 thereof, that the transfers and exchanges which it authorises relate to slots allocated in respect of the same scheduling period, since that regulation does not provide for any mechanism that allows slots to be transferred or exchanged between two separate scheduling periods.

56

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 6(1) of Regulation No 95/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the determination of the parameters for slot allocation at a coordinated airport for a particular scheduling period, pursuant to that provision, may result in some series of slots or components thereof not being allocated to air carriers which would in principle be entitled to them under Article 8(2) of that regulation.

57

By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Regulation No 95/93 precludes the managing body of an airport, within the meaning of that regulation, from taking measures to close that airport for a certain period, in order to prevent the operation of the slots allocated by the coordinator from resulting in a situation where a condition such as the 32mppa condition is no longer complied with.

58

That question is asked in the event that it is necessary to examine it in the light of the answers to the first and second questions.

59

It is apparent from those answers that, during slot allocation, account must be taken of constraints such as the 32mppa condition and that such constraints may have the consequence that some series of slots can no longer be allocated. Thus, the situation envisaged in the third question does not arise.

60

Consequently, there is no need to answer the third question.

61

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules: