7 December 2023 (*1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 6(3) – Concept of ‘plan or project’ on a protected site – Intervention in a forest to protect it from fire – Need to carry out a prior assessment of the implications of that intervention for the site concerned)

In Case C‑434/22,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams (District Administrative Court, Riga Section, Latvia), made by decision of 30 June 2022, received at the Court on 30 June 2022, in the proceedings

‘Latvijas valsts meži’ AS

Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde,

Vides pārraudzības valsts birojs,

intervening party:

Valsts meža dienests,

THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of J.-C. Bonichot (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Chamber, S. Rodin and L.S. Rossi, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–‘Latvijas valsts meži’ AS, by M. Gūtmanis,

–Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde, by A. Svilāns,

–the European Commission, by C. Hermes and I. Naglis, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 July 2023,

gives the following

Legal context

European Union law

The Habitats Directive

The EIA Directive

Latvian law

Law on Special Areas of Conservation

Law on Fire Safety and Firefighting

Decree No 238

Decree No 478

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

It submitted that the activities of which it was accused are required by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires, which involves maintaining forest paths and natural roads, including the felling of trees on the basis of permits issued by the Valsts meža dienests (National Forestry Service, Latvia), that those activities are not subject to the assessment procedure provided for in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and that those activities were carried out in accordance with the protection plan and Decree No 478.

The applicant in the main proceedings also submits that the measures imposed by the decision at issue in the main proceedings have adverse effects on fire safety and firefighting in the protected natural area concerned. According to the referring court, the National Forestry Service made the same finding.

The referring court considers that it must determine whether the activities carried out by the applicant in the main proceedings are activities subject to the procedure for the assessment of the implications of the plans and projects envisaged in the special areas of conservation of Community importance (Natura 2000), as provided for in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

To that end, the referring court is of the view that it must first assess whether the activities at issue in the main proceedings constitute a ‘plan’ or a ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of that directive, since only ‘plans’ and ‘projects’ likely to affect a special area of conservation must be subject to an appropriate assessment of their implications under that provision.

If that classification must be adopted in respect of the works concerned, the referring court also raises the question whether those works are directly connected with or necessary to the management of the protected natural area concerned, in so far as they are intended to preserve that protected natural area from the risk of fire. Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the assessment of the implications for the site concerned is not required for plans or projects directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site.

Even in the absence of such a connection or such a need for the management of the site, the referring court asks whether an assessment of the implications of the activities at issue is nevertheless necessary, even though those activities are required by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires.

In those circumstances, the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams (District Administrative Court, Riga Section) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)Does the concept of “project” within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of [the EIA Directive] also include activities undertaken in a forest area to ensure maintenance of the area’s forest fire protection infrastructure installations in accordance with the fire protection requirements established in the applicable legislation?

(2)If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must the activities undertaken in a forest area to ensure maintenance of the area’s forest fire protection infrastructure installations in accordance with the fire protection requirements established in the applicable legislation be deemed, for the purposes of Article 6(3) of [the Habitats Directive] to constitute a project which is directly connected with or necessary to that management, meaning that an assessment procedure for special areas of conservation of [Community] importance (Natura 2000) is not required for the activities in question?

(3)If the answer to the second question is in the negative, does Article 6(3) of [the Habitats Directive] also require an assessment to be carried out for plans and projects (activities) which are not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the special area of conservation but which are likely to have a significant effect on conservation areas of [Community] importance (Natura 2000), but which are nevertheless undertaken in accordance with national legislation in order to satisfy forest fire protection and firefighting requirements?

(4)If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, is it possible to continue and complete the activity in question before carrying out an assessment procedure for special areas of conservation of [Community] importance (Natura 2000) ex post facto?

(5)If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, in order to avoid a possibly significant impact, are the competent authorities under a duty to require the damage to be made good and to adopt measures if the significance of the impact was not assessed during the assessment procedure for special areas of conservation of [Community] importance (Natura 2000)?’

Consideration of the questions referred

The first question

By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘project’, within the meaning of that provision, includes activities carried out in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, for the purpose of ensuring the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in that area, in accordance with the requirements laid down by national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires.

As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that that provision provides that, in special areas of conservation, within the meaning of Article 1(l) of the Habitats Directive, ‘any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives’.

In the first place, it should be noted that the Habitats Directive does not contain a definition of the concept of ‘project’. By contrast, Article 1(2)(a) of the EIA Directive, to which the referring court expressly referred in its question, provides a definition according to which a ‘project’, within the meaning of that directive, includes the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes, as well as other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources.

The Court has held that the concept of ‘project’, within the meaning of the Habitats Directive, encompasses that of ‘project’ within the meaning of the EIA Directive, so that, if an activity is covered by the EIA Directive, it must, a fortiori, be covered by the Habitats Directive (judgment of 9 September 2020, Friends of the Irish Environment, C‑254/19, EU:C:2020:680, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).

In the second place, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that a ‘project’, within the meaning of the EIA Directive, involves carrying out works or interventions involving alterations to the physical aspect of the site concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 March 2011, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others, C‑275/09, EU:C:2011:154, paragraph 24). In the present case, the activities at issue in the main proceedings consisted of tree felling intended to ensure the maintenance of natural roads crossing the protected natural area concerned. Therefore, they satisfy the substantive criterion of the concept of ‘project’ within the meaning of the EIA Directive.

By contrast, there is no legal criterion limiting that concept. That is why the fact that the tree felling works at issue were required by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires is not capable of calling into question the classification of those works as a ‘project’ within the meaning of the EIA Directive.

It follows from the foregoing that those tree felling works constitute a ‘project’ within the meaning of the EIA Directive and, consequently, a ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘project’, within the meaning of that provision, includes activities carried out in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, in order to ensure the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in that area, in accordance with the requirements laid down by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires, where those activities alter the physical aspect of the site concerned.

The second question

By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the activities carried out in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, in order to ensure the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in that area, in accordance with the requirements laid down by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires, must be regarded as a project ‘directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site’, within the meaning of that provision, and, consequently, do not have to be subject to an assessment of their implications for the site concerned.

Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, if the works at issue in the main proceedings, which were carried out in accordance with the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires, are directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site concerned, they did not have to be subject to an assessment of their implications for that site.

In the first place, it is clear from Article 1(l) of the Habitats Directive that a special area of conservation is to be designated with a view to maintaining or restoring, at a favourable conservation status, certain natural habitats or species. To that end, Member States are to establish, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive, the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites concerned or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I to that directive and the species in Annex II thereto present on those sites.

It follows from the foregoing that the conservation measures referred to in Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive must be directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site concerned, within the meaning of Article 6(3) of that directive.

In the second place, as the Advocate General observed in point 37 of her Opinion, precautionary measures to prevent or combat fires may be connected with or necessary to the management of a protected site. Moreover, according to the request for a preliminary ruling, both the protection plan and Decree No 478 contain indirect information on the need to adopt measures to prevent the risk of forest fires on the site concerned.

However, not all measures intended to protect a special area of conservation against the risk of forest fires are directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site concerned. Those measures must also be necessary for the maintenance or restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of protected habitats or species and proportionate to those objectives, which presupposes that they are appropriate to the area concerned and are such as to enable those objectives to be achieved.

As regards, in the present case, the tree felling works intended to maintain natural roads in a protected area, it is necessary to evaluate whether those works affect certain conservation objectives and, if so, whether the risk of future damage by fires to the site concerned justifies those works in the light of all the characteristics of that area.

Such an evaluation requires an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposed fire prevention measures pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

This is not the case only if those measures are already included in those adopted pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive and which are, as such, directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site concerned.

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the activities carried out in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, in order to ensure the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in that area, in accordance with the requirements laid down by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires, cannot, because of the mere fact that they have such a purpose, be regarded as directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site concerned and cannot therefore be exempted on that ground from the assessment of their implications for that site, unless they are among the measures for the conservation of that site already adopted pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive.

The third question

By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as requiring an assessment to be carried out of the plans and projects referred to in that provision, even where their implementation is required by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires.

In the first place, it should be borne in mind that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site, but likely to have a significant effect thereon, must be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for that site, a requirement which involves identifying, assessing and taking into consideration all the implications of that plan or project for that site. Such a plan or project must be subject to such an assessment where there is a probability or a risk that it will have a significant effect on the site concerned, a condition which, in the light of the precautionary principle, must be regarded as being fulfilled where the existence of a probability or a risk of significant adverse effects on that site cannot be excluded on the basis of the best scientific knowledge in the field, taking account, in particular, of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of that site (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 November 2022, AquaPri, C‑278/21, EU:C:2022:864, paragraphs 49 and 50 and the case-law cited). It is for the referring court to assess whether the project at issue in the main proceedings is likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned, given that, as the Advocate General observed in point 45 of her Opinion, the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires cannot exempt a plan or project from compliance with the requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

That being said, and in the second place, it must be pointed out that there is no contradiction between the obligation under national law to adopt certain measures to prevent and combat forest fires and the obligation, laid down in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, to make those measures subject to a prior assessment of their implications for the site concerned, where they are likely to have a significant effect on a special area of conservation.

First, that assessment makes it possible, on the contrary, to define the detailed rules for implementing those measures which are best suited to the maintenance or restoration, at a favourable conservation status, of the natural habitats or species for the protection of which the special area of conservation concerned was established.

Second, even where the assessment finds that the proposed measures have a negative effect on the site and there are no alternative solutions, Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive provides that those measures may nevertheless be implemented where justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest, provided that the Member State takes all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 2018, Commission v Poland (Białowieża Forest),

EU:C:2018:255

paragraph 190)

In the third place and in any event, it must be recalled that the Court has held that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive cannot authorise a Member State to enact national legislation which allows the environmental impact assessment obligation for certain types of plans or projects to benefit from a general waiver (judgment of 22 June 2022, Commission v Slovakia (Protection of the capercaillie), C‑661/20, EU:C:2022:496, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited).

The possibility of allowing certain activities to benefit from a general waiver, in accordance with the national legislation in force, from the assessment of their implications for the protected site concerned would undermine the integrity of that site.

Moreover, it should be noted that, in the present case, it is apparent from the file submitted to the Court that the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires does not provide for such a possibility.

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question is that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as requiring an assessment to be carried out of plans and projects covered by that article, even where their implementation is required by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires.

The fourth question

By its fourth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that activities intended to ensure the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, may be continued and completed before the implementation of the procedure for assessing their implications laid down in that provision.

According to the second sentence of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, ‘in the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public’. Thus, no plan or project may be implemented in a special area of conservation before its implications for the site concerned have been assessed.

The Court has repeatedly confirmed the preliminary nature of the assessment procedure provided for in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (judgments of 7 September 2004, Waddenvereniging and Vogelbeschermingsvereniging, C‑127/02, EU:C:2004:482, paragraph 34; of 11 April 2013, Sweetman and Others, C‑258/11, EU:C:2013:220, paragraph 28; and of 21 July 2016, Orleans and Others, C‑387/15 and C‑388/15, EU:C:2016:583, paragraph 43).

As the Advocate General stated in point 54 of her Opinion, it is also essential that the assessment of the implications of the plan or project precedes its implementation. First, an ex post assessment would not allow adverse effects on the conservation status of the site to be prevented. Second, it is often difficult to assess the extent of those implications in the absence of a prior inventory of the initial state of the site.

Accordingly, the Habitats Directive does not allow a plan or project to be implemented in a special area of conservation or, a fortiori, to be continued and completed before an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site concerned has been carried out.

That prohibition applies to activities carried out in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, in order to ensure the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in that area, where those activities constitute a project, within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, as is apparent from the Court’s answer to the first question.

By contrast, that prohibition does not apply to activities carried out under site conservation measures adopted pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive. As stated in paragraphs 52 and 53 of the present judgment, those activities must be regarded, on that basis, as directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site.

Accordingly, if the activities involved in maintaining forest fire safety infrastructure have already been provided for by site conservation measures pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive, they do not have to be subject to the assessment provided for in Article 6(3) of that directive.

As the Advocate General observed in point 57 of her Opinion, it is also necessary to account for the case where a current or imminent risk requires the immediate completion of the measures necessary for the protection of the site. In such a situation, the prior completion of the procedure for assessing the implications of those measures for the site might not serve the objective of that procedure, namely the preservation of the site, but might, on the contrary, be detrimental to it.

That may be the case, in particular, for emergency measures to protect against and combat forest fires. It is for the referring court to assess whether carrying out the works at issue in the main proceedings, without prior assessment of their implications for the protected natural area concerned, could be justified on that basis.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the fourth question is that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that activities intended to ensure the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, may not be initiated or, a fortiori, continued and completed before the completion of the procedure for assessing their implications laid down in that article, unless those activities are among the conservation measures for the site concerned already adopted pursuant to Article 6(1) of that directive or a current or imminent risk detrimental to the preservation of that site requires their immediate implementation.

The fifth question

By its fifth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as requiring the competent authorities to adopt measures in order to remedy any significant effect of works carried out without the prior assessment provided for in that provision and to require compensation for the damage caused by those works.

As a preliminary point, it is necessary to consider the usefulness of the fifth question, as formulated, for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.

By the decision at issue in the main proceedings, the Director-General of the Environmental Protection Authority ordered the applicant in the main proceedings, first, to leave in situ the felled pines with a stump which had a diameter of more than 25 centimetres and, second, to replenish the amount of dead wood in the protected priority biotope 9010* ‘Old or natural boreal forests’, which she estimated to be at an insufficient level.

As the Advocate General observed in points 69 and 72 of her Opinion, the first injunction seeks to prevent works carried out in breach of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive from continuing, and the second is a reminder of Article 11.2 of Decree No 478 requiring the removal of dead wood to be dispensed with where the quantity of it is insufficient.

In other words, the decision at issue in the main proceedings does not appear to be intended to remedy the effects of the works carried out by the applicant in the main proceedings or to require it to pay compensation for the damage caused by those works.

However, it should be recalled that it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.

In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the fifth question, like the other questions referred, concerns the interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and it is not obvious that it is of no use to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings. The Court therefore has jurisdiction to answer it.

By its fifth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as requiring the competent authorities to adopt measures in order to remedy any significant effect of works carried out without the prior assessment provided for in that provision and to require compensation for the damage caused by those works.

As a preliminary point, it is necessary to consider the usefulness of the fifth question, as formulated, for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.

By the decision at issue in the main proceedings, the Director-General of the Environmental Protection Authority ordered the applicant in the main proceedings, first, to leave in situ the felled pines with a stump which had a diameter of more than 25 centimetres and, second, to replenish the amount of dead wood in the protected priority biotope 9010* ‘Old or natural boreal forests’, which she estimated to be at an insufficient level.

As the Advocate General observed in points 69 and 72 of her Opinion, the first injunction seeks to prevent works carried out in breach of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive from continuing, and the second is a reminder of Article 11.2 of Decree No 478 requiring the removal of dead wood to be dispensed with where the quantity of it is insufficient.

In other words, the decision at issue in the main proceedings does not appear to be intended to remedy the effects of the works carried out by the applicant in the main proceedings or to require it to pay compensation for the damage caused by those works.

However, it should be recalled that it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.

In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the fifth question, like the other questions referred, concerns the interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and it is not obvious that it is of no use to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings. The Court therefore has jurisdiction to answer it.

86

Consequently, Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, read in the light of the principle of sincere cooperation, cannot require the competent authorities to require individuals to make good such damage.

87

Accordingly, that provision does not require the applicant in the main proceedings to make good the damage caused by the works it carried out without an appropriate assessment having been carried out beforehand and therefore allows the competent authorities to require that applicant to pay compensation for that damage only in the event, envisaged by the Advocate General in point 73 of her Opinion, where it should be treated as an organ of the Member State concerned. By contrast, if it is a private individual, those authorities cannot require it, solely on the basis of that provision and of the principle of sincere cooperation, to make good the abovementioned damage.

88

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the fifth question is that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, read in the light of the principle of sincere cooperation, must be interpreted as requiring the Member State concerned, in particular the competent authorities of that Member State, to adopt measures in order to remedy any significant effects on the environment of works carried out without the appropriate assessment of those effects, provided for in that provision, having been carried out beforehand and to make good the damage caused by those works. By contrast, it does not oblige that Member State to require individuals to make good such damage in cases where it is attributable to them.

Costs

89

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national 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 (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘project’, within the meaning of that provision, includes activities carried out in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, in order to ensure the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in that area, in accordance with the requirements laid down by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires, where those activities alter the physical aspect of the site concerned.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43

must be interpreted as meaning that the activities carried out in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, in order to ensure the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in that area, in accordance with the requirements laid down by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires, cannot, because of the mere fact that they have such an purpose, be regarded as directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site concerned and cannot therefore be exempted on that ground from the assessment of their implications for that site, unless they are among the measures for the conservation of that site already adopted pursuant to Article 6(1) of that directive.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43

must be interpreted as requiring an assessment to be carried out of plans and projects covered by that article, even where their implementation is required by the applicable national legislation on the prevention of the risk of forest fires.

Article 6(3) of the Directive 92/43

must be interpreted as meaning that activities intended to ensure the maintenance of forest fire safety infrastructure in a forest area, designated as a special area of conservation, may not be initiated or, a fortiori, continued and completed before the completion of the procedure for assessing their implications laid down in that article, unless those activities are among the conservation measures for the site concerned already adopted pursuant to Article 6(1) of that directive or a current or imminent risk detrimental to the preservation of that site requires their immediate implementation.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43, read in the light of the principle of sincere cooperation,

must be interpreted as requiring the Member State concerned, in particular the competent authorities of that Member State, to adopt measures in order to remedy any significant effects on the environment of works carried out without the appropriate assessment of those effects, provided for in that provision, having been carried out beforehand and to make good the damage caused by those works. By contrast, it does not oblige that Member State to require individuals to make good such damage in cases where it is attributable to them.

[Signatures]

*1 Language of the case: Latvian.