* Language of the case: English. (Action for annulment and compensation— Access to documents— Regulation (EC) No1049/2001

Provisional text

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)

5July 2017

* Language of the case: English. (Action for annulment and compensation— Access to documents— Regulation (EC) No1049/2001— Documents concerning the withdrawal of Proposal COM(2014) 397 final for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council— Partial refusal of access— No need to adjudicate in part— Partial manifest inadmissibility)

In Case T‑448/15,

European Environmental Bureau (EEB), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by B.Kloostra, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by L.Pignataro-Nolin, E.Sanfrutos Cano and A.Buchet, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

European Parliament, represented by A.Tamás and I.McDowell, acting as Agents,

and by

Council of the European Union, represented by B.Driessen, E.Rebasti and M.Moore, acting as Agents,

interveners,

APPLICATION, first, under Article263 TFEU, for, primarily, the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1June 2015 and, in the alternative, the annulment of an implied refusal and, secondly, under Article268 TFEU, for repair of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that measure,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of S.Frimodt Nielsen, President, V.Kreuschitz and N.Półtorak (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E.Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Background to the dispute

1On 2July 2014, the European Commission adopted Proposal COM(2014) 397 final for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2008/98/EC on waste, 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment (‘the Waste Package Proposal’ or ‘the Proposal’), which provided for— in summary— a package of amendments to existing waste Directives. The Commission sent that proposal to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on 23September 2014.

2On 16December 2014, the Commission announced its intention to withdraw the Waste Package Proposal.

3On 3February 2015, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) submitted a request— on the basis of Regulation (EC) No1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L145, p.43)— for access to documents concerning the European Commission’s plan to withdraw its Waste Package Proposal.

4In particular, the applicant requested access to ‘all documentation held by [the office of the first Vice-President, Frans Timmermans] or the Secretariat-General produced since the new Commission [had taken] up office [on 1November 2014] and correspondence between any of the Commission’s directorates and agencies which directly relates to the plan to withdraw [the Waste Package Proposal]’.

5The withdrawal of the Waste Package Proposal was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7March 2015 (OJ 2015 C80, p.17).

6On 11March 2015, the Commission requested clarifications from the applicant and the other organisations involved, as to the scope of their request for access to documents. On 17March 2015, the applicant and the other organisations informed the Commission that the request for access pertained to internal Commission documents concerning correspondence with external stakeholders relating to the plan to withdraw the Waste Package Proposal, and the submissions of stakeholders and third parties with regard to that withdrawal.

7In a letter of 24March 2015, the Commission took a partial decision on the applicant’s request for access to documents of the EEB and other organisations (‘the decision of 24March 2015’). By that decision, the Commission informed the applicant that it had established a list of 10 categories of documents falling within the scope of the request for access. The list was described as follows:

1. Mission letter of President Juncker to Commissioner Vella, dated 1November 2014;

2. Joint letter of President Juncker and First Vice-President Timmermans to all Vice-presidents and Commissioners to launch the 2015 Commission work programme exercise, dated 7November 2014;

3. Letter of Commissioner Vella to First Vice-President Timmermans, dated 13November 2014;

4. Minutes of the 2108th College meeting of 3December 2014;

5. Minutes of the 2109th College meeting of 10December 2014;

6. Minutes of the 2110th College meeting of 16December 2014;

7. Speaking points of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, presentation of the 2015 Commission work programme to the European Parliament;

8. Email from the Secretary-General Catherine Day to Ben Smulders, Head of the Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, of 5December 2014, with attachments (‘point8 of the list’);

9. Briefing note from [the Secretary-General] to First Vice-President Frans Timmermans from 15December 2014 (‘point9 of the list’);

10. Letters to and from stakeholders (‘point10 of the list’ or ‘point10’).

8By decision of 24March 2015, the Commission decided:

–to grant full access to documents 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which were already publicly available;

–to grant wide partial access to documents 2, and 3, as well as the documents falling under point10 of the list of documents identified, subject to the redaction of the parts of these documents falling outside the scope of the request, and to the redaction of personal data, in accordance with Article4(1)(b) of Regulation No1049/2001;

–to refuse to disclose documents 8 and 9, on the basis of the exception to the right of access laid down in the first subparagraph of Article4(3) of Regulation No1049/2001.

9In addition, in the decision of 24March 2015, as regards the documents falling under point10 of the list, the Commission added, in a reference, the following note:

‘The list of these documents is not yet complete, as the Commission has not yet finalised the screening and assessment of all the documents that might fall within the scope of your request. Therefore, as explained above you will receive a separate letter once this process is finalised.’

10Pursuant to the decision of 24March 2015, only seven documents which the Commission had considered as falling under point10 of the list were disclosed.

11However, the Commission took no decision concerning the greater part of the documents falling within the scope of the request and falling under point10. The Commission gave the following reasons for the delay in taking a decision concerning those documents:

‘... given the considerable number of documents that potentially fall under the scope of this request, we will need additional time to screen and treat the documents. ... Once the Commission finalises its screening and assessment of the remaining documents and if necessary the consultations with respective authors, we will send you a separate letter as regards this part of your request (falling under point10 below).’

12By letter of 14April 2015, the applicant and the other organisations submitted a confirmatory application to the Commission, requesting it to re-examine its reply of 24March 2015 and asking it to review its position as to the non-disclosure of documents 8 and 9 and as to the failure to take a decision regarding the disclosure of the further documents requested within the period prescribed in Article7(4) of Regulation No1049/2001.

13By letter of 7May 2015, the Commission stated that the prescribed period to respond to the confirmatory application of 14April 2015 expired on 7May 2015 and that the Commission consequently had to extend the period for taking a confirmatory decision by 15 working days, based on Article8(2) of Regulation No1049/2001 extending the time limit to 2June 2015.

14On 1June 2015, the Commission adopted the confirmatory decision (‘the decision of 1June 2015’).

15As regards the group of documents falling within points8 and 9 of the list, pursuant to the decision of 1June 2015, the email from the Secretary-General to the Head of the Cabinet of First Vice-President of the Commission (document 8) was communicated, but some of its four attachments were not entirely disclosed. One of them did not concern the Waste Package and was therefore not transmitted to the applicant. Among the three other attachments, one was partly disclosed, while access to the two others was entirely refused. Lastly, the Commission decided to grant wide partial access to document 9, and redacted only the last part of the background section of the briefing (‘the explicit contested decision’).

16As regards the group of documents falling under point10, the Commission noted, in the decision of 1June 2015, the considerable number of documents to be assessed, emphasising its intention to carry out that assessment as soon as possible.

17As the applicant submits, in the absence of a reply from the Commission within the period laid down in Article8(2) of Regulation No1049/2001, an implied decision rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application was adopted as regards the documents falling under point10 of the list (‘the implied contested decision’).

18By decision of 14September 2015 the Commission sent the applicant a ‘complementary reply’ to its initial request for access of 3February 2015. In that reply the Commission sent the applicant 47 additional documents falling under point10 of the list. On 2October 2015, the applicant sent the Commission a confirmatory application.

19The Commission replied to the confirmatory application on 2October 2015 by a second confirmatory decision on 19November 2015, which is the subject of an action for annulment in Case T‑38/16, EEB v Commission.

20Finally, by letter of 9February 2016, the Commission sent the applicant the rest of the documents falling under points8 and 9 of the list. Only the personal data in those documents were redacted, in accordance with Article4(1)(b) of Regulation No1049/2001.

Procedure and forms of order sought

21By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 6August 2015, the applicant brought the present action.

22By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 5October 2015 and 10November 2015 respectively, the Council and the Parliament applied for leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

23By decision of 10December 2015, the President of the Ninth Chamber granted the applications to intervene submitted by the Council and the Parliament.

24On 25January 2016, the Council and the Parliament submitted statements in intervention, limited to the first plea in law of the application for annulment, relating to the lawfulness of their Regulation (EC) No1367/2006 of 6September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L264, p.13).

25Following the communication, on 9February 2016, of documents falling under points8 and 9 of the list, the Commission requested, in its rejoinder, that the Court declare, in accordance with Article131 of its Rules of Procedure, that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action for annulment.

26Following a change in the composition of the Chambers of the Court, the Judge-Rapporteur was assigned to the Third Chamber, to which the present case was therefore allocated.

27By letter of 23August 2016, the Court sent the parties a measure of organisation of procedure, asking them to submit their observations on the inferences that were to be drawn, in respect of the application for annulment and the claim for damages, from that communication.

28By letters of 5 and 7September 2016, the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the applicant replied to the Court’s questions.

29In its reply, the Commission maintained its position set out in its rejoinder that the applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings had disappeared as regards the action for annulment. Moreover, the Commission claims that the Court should dismiss the claim for damages.

30According to the Parliament and the Council, the application for annulment has become devoid of purpose. They submit that the claim for damages should be dismissed.

31The applicant, on the other hand, submits that the Commission has still not communicated all the documents covered by its initial request for access made on 3February 2015. The applicant also emphasises the link between the Commission’s implied refusal to communicate all the requested documents and the second confirmatory decision of 19November 2015, which was the subject of an action for annulment in Case T‑38/16. Accordingly, the applicant asked the Court to find that the Commission still had not fulfilled its obligations under Regulation No1049/2001, which should lead to the annulment of the decision of 1June 2015.

32The applicant claims that the Court should:

–declare that the Commission infringed, in essence, several provisions of Regulation No1367/2006 and the Aarhus Convention;

–declare that the Commission infringed, in essence, several provisions of Regulation No1049/2001;

–order the European Union, as represented by the Commission, to repair any damage suffered, including interest, as a result of its not having timely access to the requested documents, which were not disclosed by the Commission in accordance with the time limits prescribed in Articles7(1) and (3) and 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No1049/2001, to an amount to be determined by the Court, but not lower than EUR1;

–annul the decision of 1June 2015;

–order the Commission to pay the costs, including those of the interveners.

33The Commission contends that the Court should:

–declare that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment;

–in any event, dismiss the action in its entirety;

–order the applicant to pay the costs.

34The Council claims that the Court should grant the form of order sought by the Commission.

35The Parliament claims that the Court should:

–dismiss the application;

–order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

The application for annulment

36Pursuant to Article131(1) of the Rules of Procedure, if the Court declares that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, it may at any time, of its own motion, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the parties, decide to rule by reasoned order.

37First of all, it must be noted that, by its application for annulment, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of 1June 2015, which corresponds, in its view, to the explicit contested decision and the consequences of which, also in its view, correspond to the adoption of the implied contested decision.

38By its first and second heads of claim, the applicant seeks, in essence, the annulment of, first, the explicit contested decision refusing access to the documents falling under point8 and point9 of the list and, secondly, the implied contested decision consisting of a refusal to disclose the documents falling under point10 of the list, on the ground of the infringement of the provisions of Regulation No1367/2006, of the Aarhus Convention and of Regulation No1049/2001.

39Even if the first and second heads of claim were interpreted as requesting the Court to find that the Commission infringed those provisions irrespective of the action for annulment and the claim for damages, those heads of claim are, in any event, inadmissible.

40It must be recalled in that respect that, according to settled case-law, it is not for the Court, in exercising its power of review, to make statements of law in the abstract (judgments of 13July 1989, Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission, 108/88, EU:C:1989:325, paragraphs8 and 9; of 3March 1993, Peroulakis v Commission, T‑69/91, EU:T:1993:16, paragraph14, and of 16May 2006, Magone v Commission, T‑73/05, EU:T:2006:127, paragraph15).

41In the first place, in so far as, by its application for annulment, the applicant challenges the refusal to grant access to the documents in points8 and 9 of the list, it suffices to note that, on 9February 2016, after the date on which the present action was brought, the Commission sent the documents in question, which, moreover, the applicant does not dispute.

42Accordingly, to that extent, the applicant no longer has an interest in bringing proceedings against the explicit contested decision, since the refusal which that decision represented has become devoid of purpose as a result of the communication of the requested documents.

43In accordance with settled case-law, the interest in bringing proceedings must continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party bringing it (judgments of 19January 2010, Co-Frutta v Commission, T‑355/04 and T‑446/04, EU:T:2010:15, point43; of 9September 2011, LPN v Commission, T‑29/08, EU:T:2011:448, paragraph56; of 27February 2015, Breyer v Commission, T‑188/12, EU:T:2015:124, paragraph27; and order of 3September 2015, Philip Morris Benelux v Commission, T‑520/13, not published, EU:T:2015:702, paragraph21).

44Accordingly, it must be held that there is no longer any need to rule on the application for annulment in so far as it is directed against the explicit contested decision by which the Commission refused to communicate the documents in points8 and 9 of the list.

45In the second place, in so far as, by its application for annulment, the applicant challenges the implied contested decision refusing access to the documents falling under point10 of the list established by the decision of 24March 2015, it must be borne in mind that, by the decision of 1June 2015, the Commission expressed its intention to assess those documents without delay.In informing the applicant that it was not possible for it to respond within the prescribed period to its confirmatory application, the Commission emphasised that a large number of documents had been identified as falling within the scope of the request for access to documents only after a consultation.

46In that regard, it must be noted that that reply, which actually extended the period for processing the documents in point10, cannot be regarded as a reply to the confirmatory application within the meaning of Article8 of Regulation No1049/2001. Moreover, it cannot, by itself, have any legal effect, including that of extending the period laid down in Article8(2) of Regulation No1049/2001 (see, to that effect, judgment of 10December 2010, Ryanair v Commission, T‑494/08 to T‑500/08 and T‑509/08, EU:T:2010:511, paragraphs39 and 40; orders of 13November 2012, ClientEarth and Others v Commission, T‑278/11, EU:T:2012:593, paragraphs43 to 46; and of 6May 2014, Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission, T‑419/13, not published, EU:T:2014:248, paragraph24; see also, by analogy, judgment of 17February 1972, Richez-Parise v Commission, 40/71, EU:C:1972:9, paragraphs8 and 9).

47The Court has already held that successive letters extending the time limit cannot validly extend that limit within the meaning of Article8 of Regulation No1049/2001 and the Commission’s failure to reply by the expiry of the extended period must therefore be held to constitute an implied decision to refuse access (see, to that effect, judgments of 10December 2010, Ryanair v Commission, T‑494/08 to T‑500/08 and T‑509/08, EU:T:2010:511, paragraph40, and of 25March 2015, Sea Handling v Commission, T‑456/13, not published, EU:T:2015:185, paragraph34).

48Accordingly, as noted above, in the absence of a reply from the Commission within the period laid down in Article8(2) of Regulation No1049/2001, an implied decision rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application was adopted as regards the documents falling under point10 of the list.

49In the present case, by the adoption of the decision of 19November 2015, of which the applicant also seeks the annulment in Case T‑38/16 pending before the Court, the Commission expressly adopted a position as regards the documents in point10 and therefore effectively withdrew the implied decision adopted previously under Article8(3) of Regulation No1049/2001.

50Accordingly, there is no need to rule on the application for annulment in so far as it is directed against the implied contested decision, since it has become devoid of purpose and the applicant no longer has any interest in continuing the proceedings by reason of the adoption of the decision of 19November 2015 (see, to that effect, judgments of 19January 2010, Co-Frutta v Commission, T‑355/04 and T‑446/04, EU:T:2010:15, paragraph45; of 10December 2010, Ryanair v Commission, T‑494/08 to T‑500/08 and T‑509/08, EU:T:2010:511, paragraph48; orders of 24March 2011, Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, T‑36/10, EU:T:2011:124, paragraph50; of 9November 2011, ClientEarth and Others v Commission, T‑120/10, not published, EU:T:2011:646, paragraph52; and of 7May 2014, Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission, T‑511/10, not published, EU:T:2014:307, paragraph20).

51In the light of all of the foregoing, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.

The claim for damages

52Under Article126 of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or where an action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.

53In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.

54According to the applicant, the failure to comply with the applicable time limits under Regulation No1049/2001 is detrimental to it, since it seriously hindered its work as an organisation representing the general interest of environmental protection and the interests of its member organisations and of civil society at large.

55The applicant submits that the compensation claim constitutes the only available remedy, apart from the annulment of the Commission’s implied refusal, allowing it to challenge the failure to act in conformity with the time limits prescribed in Article7(1) and (3) and Article8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No1049/2001.

56As regards the first requirement for the purposes of Article340 TFEU, the applicant submits that by exceeding the applicable time limits under Articles7 and 8 of Regulation No1049/2001, the Commission committed an unlawful act.

57As to the second requirement for the purposes of Article340 TFEU, the applicant argues that it suffered actual damage since it was hindered from fulfilling and working towards the objectives set out in its Statute.

58As regards the third requirement for the purposes of Article340 TFEU, according to the applicant, the Commission’s failure to comply with the time limits directly caused the damage referred to above. The applicant asks the Court to determine the amount of the compensation, which should not be less than the symbolic amount of EUR1.

59The Commission acknowledges that it was not possible to process the initial and confirmatory applications within the prescribed time limits. However, it disputes the argument that this regrettable outcome could have caused any damage to the applicant.

60After stating that the objective of Regulation No1049/2001 is not to help certain specific organisations to achieve the goals established by the Statutes, but to enhance openness erga omnes, the Commission submits that the applicant has not provided any evidence as to the existence and the extent of the damage that allegedly occurred between the date of expiry of the time limit laid down in Regulation No1049/2001 and the date of the decision actually taken by the Commission, nor has it demonstrated the existence of a causal link between the alleged unlawful conduct and the alleged damage. In the absence of any specific proof of damage hypothetically caused during that very short period, apart from a vague and generic reference to the difficulty for the applicant of working towards and fulfilling the objectives set out in its Statute, the Commission submits that this head of claim is inadmissible.

61In order for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article340 TFEU and for the right to compensation to be enforceable, a number of conditions must be satisfied: the conduct alleged against the institutions must be unlawful, actual damage must have been suffered and there must be a causal link between that conduct and the damage alleged (see, to that effect, judgment of 20September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB, C‑8/15P to C‑10/15P, EU:C:2016:701, paragraph64).

62Under Article76 of the Rules of Procedure, the application must indicate the subject matter of the proceedings, the pleas in law and arguments relied on and a summary of those please in law. In order to satisfy those requirements, an application for compensation for damage said to have been caused by an EU institution must indicate the evidence from which the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified, the reasons why the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage which it claims to have sustained, and the nature and extent of that damage (see, to that effect, judgments of 5October 1999, Apostolidis and Others v Commission, C‑327/97P, EU:C:1999:482, paragraph37; of 20May 2009, VIP Car Solutions v Parliament, T‑89/07, EU:T:2009:163, paragraph103; of 2March 2010, Arcelor v Parliament and Council, T‑16/04, EU:T:2010:54, paragraph132; of 26October 2011, Dufour v ECB, T‑436/09, EU:T:2011:634, paragraph194; and of 7October 2015, Accorinti and Others v ECB, T‑79/13, EU:T:2015:756, paragraph53).

63In addition, it can be seen from the case-law that an application in which the applicant merely states that it has sustained pecuniary damage, reserving the right to give details of the extent thereof at a later stage, will generally not be sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Procedure as regards stating the subject matter of the dispute and the grounds on which the application is based (see, to that effect, judgment of 28March 1979, Granaria v Council and Commission, 90/78, EU:C:1979:85, paragraphs5 and 6). However, an applicant may not have quantified the amount of the damage that he considers himself to have suffered, while having clearly indicated the evidence from which the nature and scope of that damage can be identified, with the result that the defendant is able to defend itself (order of 26February 2013, Castiglioni v Commission, T‑591/10, not published, EU:T:2013:94, paragraph60).

64In the present case, it is apparent, in essence, from the application that the alleged damage results from the hindrance of the applicant’s work as an organisation promoting the protection of the environment.

65Although the applicant refers to the financing of projects and other contributions which are dependent on its effective action, it has not put forward any evidence capable of allowing the Court to determine with the requisite precision the nature, the genuineness and the extent of the material damage alleged. While merely asserting that it suffered damage, the applicant asks the Court to grant it compensation of an amount to be determined by the Court.

66Likewise, even if the applicant alleges non-material damage as a result of the infringement of the applicable time limits by the Commission, that allegation is not sufficiently clear from the application. It is true that the applicant refers to a series of events during which it could have been better informed and more professional if it had had the documents at issue. However, it must be noted that, in its written submissions, the applicant has not put forward an estimate of that damage and does not indicate the evidence allowing the nature and scope of that damage to be assessed, nor the link between that damage and the Commission’s conduct.

67In addition, the applicant has not produced any specific evidence that the delay in disclosing the documents at issue led to a refusal of financing for its activities or to any loss of opportunity in that respect and, accordingly, could serve as a basis for the alleged damage.

68Accordingly, it must be found that the application does not set out to the requisite standard the matters of fact and law enabling the nature and scope of the alleged damage to be identified. In addition, the applicant has not explained the causal link between the Commission’s conduct and the damage that it allegedly suffered.

69In any event, as regards the applicant’s argument that the claim for damages is the only available remedy allowing it to challenge the Commission’s conduct in order to ensure the objectives of protecting the environment, it suffices to note that that argument is not capable of exempting the applicant from the observance of the formal requirements relating to an action for non-contractual liability, such as an action seeking compensation for damage suffered.

70In those circumstances, the claim for damages does not satisfy the requirements established in Article76(d) of the Rules of Procedure and must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible in its entirety.

Costs

71Under Article137 of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.

72Under Article134(1) 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. In accordance with Article135(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may order a party, even if successful, to pay some or all of the costs, if this appears justified by the conduct of that party, including before the proceedings were brought.

73In the present case, since the Commission’s conduct led the applicant to bring the present action, the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs of the application for annulment and the claim for damages.

74Under Article138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their costs. Pursuant to that provision, the Council and the Parliament must be ordered to pay their own costs.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),

hereby orders:

1.There is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.

2.The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly inadmissible.

3.The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

4.The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are ordered to bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 5July 2017.