(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of movement of workers – Nationals of the Union or the EEA – Nationals of a non-member State associated with the Community by way of an agreement – Eligibility for election to workers’ chambers and works councils – Principle of non-discrimination as regards conditions of work)

Summary of the Judgment

(Art. 39 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 28; Council Regulation No 1612/68, Art. 8)

Such legislation is contrary to the general prohibition of all discrimination based on nationality underlying those provisions.

Neither the legal nature of those bodies, as defined under national law, nor the fact that certain of their functions could involve participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law, can justify that legislation.

(see paras 30, 33, 40, 56, operative part)

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality set out in the agreements in question requires that all workers, be they domestic nationals or nationals of one of the non-Member States concerned, enjoy identical conditions of work and employment and, in particular, be allowed to participate, in the same way, in elections organised by those bodies. A difference in treatment according to nationality is contrary to that general principle.

(see paras 48-49, 56, operative part)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Freedom of movement for workers – Nationals of the Union or the EEA – Nationals of a non-member State associated with the Community by way of an agreement – Eligibility for election to workers' chambers and works councils – Principle of non-discrimination as regards conditions of work)

In Case C-465/01,ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations,brought on 4 December 2001,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Sack, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

Republic of Austria, represented by H. Dossi, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kuris and G. Arestis, Judges,

Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: R. Grass,

Having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without a hearing or an Opinion,

gives the following

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 124, p. 1) (‘Directive 2011/92’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Waltham Abbey Residents Association and, on the other hand, An Bord Pleanála (Planning Board, Ireland; ‘the Board’), Ireland and the Attorney General (Ireland), concerning authorisation granted by the Board for a strategic residential housing development.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

3 Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

3. A description of any likely significant effects, to the extent of the information available on such effects, of the project on the environment resulting from:

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘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 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.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

Works councils, which are compulsory in Austrian undertakings above a particular size, are responsible for defending the interests of workers in the undertaking concerned and, in particular, for ensuring compliance with legal provisions adopted for their benefit.

Paragraph 53(1) of the Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz (Law on Organisation of Work, BGBl. 1974/22, in the version published in BGBl. 1993/460), which determines the conditions of eligibility for election to a works council states:

‘All employees who

(b) are nationals of a State which is party to the EEA Agreement, and

3. have been employed in the establishment or the undertaking to which the establishment belongs for at least six months, and

are eligible for election.’

The pre-litigation procedure

Taking the view that the Austrian rules are incompatible with the requirements of Community law in so far as, first, only Austrian nationals are permitted to stand for election to workers’ chambers and, second, workers who are legally employed in a Member State and whose country of origin has concluded an agreement with the Community under which such workers enjoy equal treatment as regards conditions of work are excluded from election to workers’ chambers and works councils, the Commission called on the Republic of Austria, by letter of 9 July 1999, to submit its observations on the matter within two months.

On 6 September 1999, the Austrian Government acknowledged that its legislation was incompatible with its obligations under Community law in respect of workers who are nationals of other Member States of the Community and the EEA, while also pointing out that the national provisions in question had been rendered ineffective by the direct effect of Community law. Nevertheless, it was in the process of making the necessary amendments to extend to all those workers, irrespective of their nationality, the right to stand for election to workers’ chambers. However, the Austrian Government disputed the Commission’s claim in respect of workers who enjoy equal treatment as regards conditions of work under an agreement between the Community and a non-member State as long as they are legally employed in a Member State.

On 29 December 2000, no amendment having been made to the Austrian provisions, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Republic of Austria calling upon it to adopt, within two months of its notification, the measures necessary to comply with obligations under Article 39 EC, Article 8 of Regulation No 1612/68 and Article 28 of the EEA Agreement, and with the provisions of the abovementioned bilateral agreements concluded by the Community.

As the Austrian Government’s reply to that reasoned opinion, contained in two letters of 27 February and 12 April 2001, did not include any new information, the Commission decided to bring the present action.

The action

In support of its action, the Commission raises two complaints. The first concerns the failure to grant workers who are nationals of other Member States of the Union or the EEA the right to stand for election to workers’ chambers. The second complaint concerns the exclusion of workers from non-member States, legally employed in Austria and covered by an agreement between the Community and their State which prohibits discrimination as regards conditions of work, from eligibility for election to the general assembly of workers’ chambers and to works councils.

The merits of those two complaints should be considered separately.

The first complaint

According to the Commission, the requirement, under the Austrian legislation, of Austrian nationality as a precondition for election to workers’ chambers is clearly incompatible with Article 39 EC and the first paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation No 1612/68, as interpreted by the Court, and with Article 28 of the EEA Agreement which contains similar provisions.

It is clear from Case C-213/90 ASTI [1991] ECR I-3507 (‘ASTI I’) and Case C-118/92 Commission v Luxembourg [1994] ECR I-1891 (‘ASTI II’) that a national rule denying workers who are nationals of other Member States the right to stand for election to bodies such as occupational guilds to which the workers concerned must belong and pay a membership contribution and which are responsible for defending and representing workers’ interests as well as to perform a consultative function in the legislative field is contrary to the general prohibition of discrimination based on nationality, laid down in Article 39 EC and the first paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation No 1612/68. That must also be the case with respect to Article 28 of the EEA Agreement, the relevant provisions of which are identical to those of Article 39 EC.

The Austrian Government requests that the Court reject the complaint, arguing that workers’ chambers are bodies governed by public law that participate in a significant way in the exercise of public-law powers, which justifies the exclusion of all foreign workers from eligibility for election to such bodies.

Findings of the Court

In order to consider the merits of the complaint, it should first be recalled that in the context of freedom of movement for workers within the European Union, Article 39(2) EC, which constitutes merely a particular expression of the general prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in the first paragraph of Article 12 EC, prohibits all discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.

That principle is reiterated in several specific provisions of Regulation No 1612/68, including, in particular, Articles 7 and 8 thereof.

More specifically, the first paragraph of Article 8 of that regulation provides that workers who are nationals of a Member State and who are employed in the territory of another Member State are to enjoy equality of treatment as regards membership of trade unions and the exercise of rights attaching thereto, and to have the right of eligibility for workers’ representative bodies in the undertaking.

The Court has already held, in ASTI I and ASTI II, that that provision applies to the right to vote and the right to stand in elections held by bodies such as occupational guilds to which workers are required to belong, to which they must pay contributions and which are responsible for defending and representing their interests.

As to the EEA Agreement, Article 28(2) of that agreement is drafted in terms essentially identical to those of Article 39(2) EC.

Against that background, it follows from Article 39(2) EC, the first paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation No 1612/68 and Article 28(2) of the EEA Agreement, that workers who are nationals of a Member State or a State belonging to the European Free Trade Association (‘EFTA’) and who are employed in another Member State must be treated in the same way as nationals of the host Member State as regards, in particular, conditions of work and employment, and, more specifically, the exercise of trade-union rights, including the right to stand for election to bodies responsible for the representation and defence of workers’ interests, such as workers’ chambers in Austria.

It is common ground, and not disputed by the Austrian Government, that under the national provisions to which this action relates Austrian nationality is a condition for eligibility for election to those workers’ chambers.

Such a condition, which is met only by Austrian workers, therefore constitutes direct discrimination against foreign workers.

It follows that the Republic of Austria’s legislation, which denies workers who are nationals of another Member State of the European Union or an EFTA State the right to stand for election to workers’ chambers solely on the ground that the workers concerned do not hold Austrian nationality is contrary to the general prohibition of all discrimination based on nationality underlying the provisions of Community law referred to above.

That conclusion is in no way called into question by the Austrian Government’s argument that workers’ chambers in Austria are bodies governed by public law which participate in the exercise of public-law powers.

It is clear from ASTI I and ASTI II that a national rule which denies workers who are nationals of other Member States the right to vote and/or the right to stand in elections held by bodies such as occupational guilds to which those workers are required to belong, to which they must pay contributions, and which are responsible for defending and representing workers’ interests is contrary to the general principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, despite the fact that under national law such guilds take the form of bodies governed by public law and perform a consultative function in the legislative field.

The Austrian Government has not provided any information from which it could be concluded that workers’ chambers in Austria differ in kind from the occupational guilds in Luxembourg at issue in the cases that gave rise to those judgments.

Moreover, specifically as regards workers’ chambers in Austria, the Court has already held that the nationality requirement to which the Austrian legislation submits eligibility for election to those chambers is incompatible with the prohibition – laid down in Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association (‘Decision No 1/80’), adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, which was signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 1; ‘The EEC-Turkey Association Agreement’) – of all discrimination based on nationality as regards conditions of work (Case C-171/01 Wählergruppe Gemeinsam [2003] ECR I-4301).

Article 10 of Decision No 1/80 is drafted in terms essentially identical to those of Article 39(2) EC and Article 28(2) of the EEA Agreement.

Furthermore, it is, in any event, settled case-law that the non-application of the rules laid down in Article 39 EC to activities which entail participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law is an exception to a fundamental freedom which must therefore be interpreted in such a way as to limit its scope to that which is strictly necessary in order to safeguard the interests which Member States are allowed to protect. It follows that that exception cannot permit a Member State to submit generally any participation in a public-law institution, such as the workers’ chambers in Austria, to a nationality requirement; it merely permits the exclusion of foreign workers, where appropriate, from certain specific activities of the institution in question which, in themselves, actually entail direct participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law (see, inter alia, ASTI I, paragraph 19, and Wählergruppe Gemeinsam, paragraph 92).

The Court thus concluded, in paragraph 93 of Wählergruppe Gemeinsam, in which it made reference to paragraph 20 of ASTI I, that the exclusion of foreign workers enjoying equal treatment as regards remuneration and other conditions of work, from eligibility for election to bodies that represent and defend the interests of workers, such as workers’ chambers in Austria, can be justified neither by the legal nature of the body in question, as defined under national law, nor by the fact that certain of its functions could involve participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission’s first complaint is well founded.

The second complaint

According to the Commission, the requirement, under the Austrian legislation, of Austrian nationality as a precondition for election to workers’ chambers is clearly incompatible with Article 39 EC and the first paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation No 1612/68, as interpreted by the Court, and with Article 28 of the EEA Agreement which contains similar provisions.

So far as concerns the exclusion from eligibility for election to works councils and workers’ chambers of workers who are nationals of non-member States with which the Community has concluded agreements under which they enjoy equal treatment as regards conditions of work, the Commission takes the view that there is no reason to interpret the term ‘conditions of work’ in that context more restrictively than in relation to the EC Treaty. Accordingly, even though workers from the non-member States concerned do not enjoy freedom of movement as guaranteed under the Treaty, those among them who are legally employed in a Member State should not find themselves in a less favourable legal situation than Community workers. That is the precise purpose of the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality laid down in the agreements to which this action relates.

The Austrian Government contends that the term ‘conditions of work’ as used in the agreements referred to by the Commission does not include the right of workers from the non-member States concerned to participate in elections to legal bodies representing employees’ interests such as workers’ chambers and works councils. The scope of that term is narrower than the scope of the same term used in Article 39 EC because, first, Article 39 EC has been clarified by Regulation No 1612/68, the first paragraph of Article 8 of which expressly refers to trade-union and related rights whereas precisely such a clarification is lacking in relation to the international agreements in question and, second, those agreements pursue less ambitious objectives than the EC Treaty in so far as they do not provide for freedom of movement for workers. In those circumstances, the Commission’s second complaint is unfounded.

Findings of the Court

It is already clear from the Court’s case-law that the first indent of Article 37(1) of the European Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 93/743/Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 348, p. 1) establishes, in favour of workers of Polish nationality, once they are legally employed within the territory of a Member State, a right to equal treatment as regards conditions of employment of the same extent as that conferred on Member State nationals in similar terms by Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2) EC) (see Case C-162/00 Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer [2002] ECR I-1049, paragraph 41).

Similarly, in the context of the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, the Court has held that Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80, whose wording is almost identical to Article 39(2) EC, imposes on each Member State, as regards the conditions of work for Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to its labour force, obligations analogous to those applying to nationals of other Member States (Wählergruppe Gemeinsam, paragraph 77).

The Court has already observed, in paragraph 37 of this judgment, that Wählergruppe Gemeinsam concerned the very nationality requirement to which the Austrian legislation submits eligibility for election to workers’ chambers in Austria.

As the Commission has correctly pointed out, there is no reason to give a different interpretation from that applied in relation to the Treaty – which, moreover, has already been applied by analogy in relation to the agreements concluded with Poland and Turkey (see paragraphs 44 to 46 of this judgment) – of the prohibition, set out in the provisions of other agreements concluded between the Community and non-member States, of all discrimination based on nationality as regards conditions of work.

In view of the findings the Court has just made in relation to the first complaint, relating to the European Union and the EEA, and for the same reasons, it must be held that the above prohibition precludes the application to nationals of another State, covered by an agreement which contains such a provision, who are legally employed in a Member State, of a rule such as that in force in Austria which denies such workers the right to stand for election to bodies representing and defending the interests of workers, such as workers’ chambers and works councils, on the sole ground that the workers concerned are foreign nationals.

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality set out in the agreements in question requires that all workers, be they domestic nationals or nationals of one of the non-member States concerned, enjoy identical conditions of work and employment and, in particular, be allowed to participate, in the same way, in elections organised by bodies that defend and represent employees’ interests. A difference in treatment according to nationality is contrary to that general principle.

The arguments put forward by the Austrian Government in support of the converse conclusion cannot be accepted.

First, for reasons set out more fully in paragraphs 81 to 86 of Wählergruppe Gemeinsam, the fact that the meaning of ‘conditions of work’ as used in Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2) EC) has been clarified by Regulation No 1612/68, particularly the first paragraph of Article 8 thereof which refers specifically to trade-union and related rights, while such clarification is missing in relation to the bilateral agreements in question in no way means that the scope of the term used in those agreements is narrower than that of the term used in Article 39(2) EC and, hence, that it does not include the right of workers from the non-member States concerned to participate, on the same terms as domestic nationals, in elections to bodies that represent and defend employees’ interests.

Second, it is clear not only from the wording of the prohibition of discrimination with regard to conditions of work, which features in various agreements between the Community and non-member States and which is drafted in terms essentially identical to those of Article 39(2) EC, but also from a comparison of the context and the purpose of those agreements and of the EC Treaty that there is no reason to assign to that prohibition a scope other than that given by the Court to Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 39(2) EC) in ASTI I and ASTI II (see, by analogy, Wählergruppe Gemeinsam, paragraphs 88 and 89).

Moreover, the above interpretation is the only one consistent with the aim and broad logic of the agreements concerned, since granting workers who are nationals of the non-member States party to such agreements and who are legally employed in the territory of a Member State entitlement to the same conditions of work as those enjoyed by workers who are nationals of the Member States is an important step towards creating an appropriate framework for the gradual integration of those migrant workers in the host Member State (see, by analogy, Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer, paragraph 42, and Wählergruppe Gemeinsam, paragraph 79).

In the light of those observations, the Commission’s second complaint must also be upheld.

The Commission’s entire action must therefore be considered well founded.

Accordingly, it must be held that

–by denying workers who are nationals of other Member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area the right to stand for election to workers’ chambers, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC, Article 8 of Regulation No 1612/68, and Article 28 of the EEA Agreement;

–by denying workers who are nationals of a non-member State with which the Community has concluded an agreement prohibiting discrimination, as regards conditions of work, against any such workers legally employed in a Member State, the right to stand for election to works councils and the general assemblies of workers’ and employees’ chambers, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under those agreements.

Costs

Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Republic of Austria has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.

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

1.Declares that:

2.Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Signatures.

Language of the case: German.