Corte di giustizia UE n. 1882/2012

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 29 November 2012 ( * ) (Appeal – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Inclusion in the list of a site proposed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain – Site allegedly covering an area of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] territorial waters and an area of the high seas – Action for annulment – Measure merely confirmatory) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑416/11 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 3 August 2011, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by S. Ossowski, acting as Agent, D. Wyatt QC and V. Wakefield, Barrister, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by D. Recchia and K. Mifsud‑Bonnici, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant at first instance, supported by: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain, represented by N. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as Agents, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, acting for the President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], K. Lenaerts, G. Arestis, J. Malenovský and T. von Danwitz (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: J. Mazák, Registrar: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written procedure, having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] seeks to have set aside the order of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 24 May 2011 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]115/10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the order under appeal’), by which that court dismissed as inadmissible its action for partial annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2010/45/EU of 22 December 2009 adopting, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 92/43/EEC, a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2010 L 30, p. 322; ‘the contested decision’) to the extent that that decision lists the site called ‘Estrecho oriental’ (‘Site ES6120032’) as a site of Community importance (‘SCI’) for the Mediterranean biogeographical region. Legal context 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4(1) and (2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 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 Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 284, p. 1) (‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’), provides: ‘1.      On the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III (Stage 1) and relevant scientific information, each [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall propose a list of sites indicating which natural habitat types in Annex I and which species in Annex II that are native to its territory the sites host. ... The list shall be transmitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], within three years of the notification of this [OSCURATO:PERSONA], together with information on each site. That information shall include a map of the site, its name, location, extent and the data resulting from application of the criteria specified in Annex III (Stage 1) provided in a format established by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in accordance with the procedure laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21. 2.      On the basis of the criteria set out in Annex III (Stage 2) …, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall establish, in agreement with each [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a draft list of [SCIs] drawn from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ lists identifying those which [host] one or more priority natural habitat types or priority species. ... The list of sites selected as [SCIs], identifying those which host one or more priority natural habitat types or priority species, shall be adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in accordance with the procedure laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21.’ 3 According to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 20 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to be assisted by a committee (‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’). 4 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21 of that directive refers to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23), as amended by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006 (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 11), which provides: ‘1.      [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall be assisted by a regulatory committee composed of the representatives of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and chaired by the representative of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 2.      The representative of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall submit to the committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a time-limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered by the majority laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 205(2) and (4) of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is required to adopt on a proposal from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. The votes of the representatives of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] within the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall be weighted in the manner set out in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. The chairman shall not vote. 3.      [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall ... adopt the measures envisaged if they are in accordance with the opinion of the committee. …’ Background to the dispute and the contested decision 5 On 19 July 2006 the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted, on the basis of the third subparagraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4(2) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2006/613/EC adopting, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1). That list, set out in Annex 1 to the decision, included, inter alia, Site UKGIB0002, called ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ (‘Site UKGIB0002’), as proposed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 6 The adoption of that decision was preceded by an exchange of declarations between the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain, initiated by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain declared, inter alia, that any action by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in respect of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in relation to the Natura 2000 network is done, and must be understood to be done, without prejudice to the position of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain on her sovereignty over [OSCURATO:PERSONA], including its waters. 7 On 12 December 2008, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95/EC adopting, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2009 L 43, p. 393), still including Site UKGIB0002, and, for the first time, Site ES6120032, proposed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain. That decision states the name, surface area and geographical coordinates (longitude and latitude of the centre of the site) of the sites in question. The decision was notified to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 16 December 2008. 8 At the meeting of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 15 October 2009, the subject of which was, inter alia, the draft of the contested decision, concerning a third updated list of SCIs for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, which included, in the annex thereto, as previously, Sites UKGIB0002 and ES6120032, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] objected to the inclusion of that latter site in the list in question on account of its overlapping with Site UKGIB0002 and with what were allegedly [OSCURATO:PERSONA] territorial waters, and requested the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to reconsider the designation of Site ES6120032. 9 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain then argued that it had sovereignty over [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s marine waters and declared that it was in favour of retaining Site ES6120032 on the list. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated, inter alia, that its role was not to check whether proposed sites were concerned by territorial disputes. Nor did it have the task of ascertaining, in respect of each site proposed by a [OSCURATO:PERSONA], whether the site covered the same area as other proposals from other [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Furthermore, overlapping of sites had already occurred, even if it concerned a smaller surface area than in the present case. 10 All the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] present at that meeting of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] except the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] then voted in favour of the draft of the contested decision. Subsequently, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adopted the contested decision. Procedure before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the order under appeal 11 By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 4 March 2010, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] brought an action for annulment of the contested decision to the extent that it lists Site ES6120032 as a SCI for the Mediterranean biogeographical region. 12 By separate document, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] raised a plea of inadmissibility pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], submitting that, as regards the listing of Site ES6120032, the contested decision was a measure which was merely confirmatory of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95, which had not been challenged by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] within the prescribed period. 13 By the order under appeal, made pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 114 of the Rules of Procedure, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], without initiating the oral procedure, dismissed the action as inadmissible. 14 It firstly held that the disputed provision of the contested decision had already appeared in the earlier [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95 so that, as regards the designation of Site ES6120032 as a SCI, the contested decision contained no new factor. 15 Next, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observed that, nevertheless, the confirmatory or other nature of a measure cannot be determined solely with reference to its content as compared with that of the previous decision which it confirms. If the challenged measure constitutes the reply to a request in which substantial new facts are relied on, and whereby the administration is requested to reconsider its previous decision, that measure cannot be regarded as merely confirmatory in nature, since it constitutes a decision taken on the basis of those facts and thus contains a new factor as compared with the previous decision. Therefore, it was necessary to examine whether the overlapping of Sites UKGIB0002 and ES6120032 constituted a substantial new fact which led to the reconsideration of the designation of the latter site in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95. 16 In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] found that, since both sites were already listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95, their overlapping already existed in that decision and could not in itself be regarded as a new fact subsequent to the adoption of that decision. 17 Furthermore, it could not be accepted that neither the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] nor the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could have had prior knowledge of the overlapping of the sites when [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95 was adopted. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was involved in the procedure for the adoption of that decision and, in October 2008, was sent the list of SCIs for the Mediterranean biogeographical region including the sites proposed by all the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned and the information which was due to be included in that decision. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], for its part, was in possession of information relating to the sites proposed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] when the draft of that list was drawn up, information which included, inter alia, the most recent and definitive site map transmitted. 18 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concluded that the overlapping of Sites UKGIB0002 and ES6120032 in the contested decision could not be regarded as a new fact and that, consequently, the designation of Site ES6120032 in the contested decision could not be regarded as the result of a reconsideration of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95 on the basis of new facts. 19 In addition, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held that, from the notification of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95 to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 16 December 2008, that party could not claim to be unaware of the content of that decision or of the overlapping of the two sites in question. 20 Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concluded that, as regards the designation of Site ES6120032 in the list of SCIs, the contested decision had to be held to be merely confirmatory of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95, and that the action was therefore inadmissible. Forms of order sought 21 By its appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to: –        set aside the order under appeal; –        declare its action admissible and refer the case back to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for a decision on the substance; –        order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those of the proceedings at first instance relating to the plea of inadmissibility; and –        reserve the costs as to the remainder. 22 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain contend that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should dismiss the appeal and order the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. The appeal 23 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] advances two grounds in support of its appeal. By those grounds it disputes only the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] findings relating to the issue of whether the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could have known of the overlapping of the sites at issue, without calling into question other aspects of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] reasoning. 24 The first ground alleges an error of law in respect of the identity of the parties whose ‘constructive’ knowledge of the overlapping of Sites ES6120032 and UKGIB0002 was relevant. The second ground alleges an error of law, and manifest errors of appraisal of the facts, in respect of the issue of whether a party ‘could have had prior knowledge’ of the overlapping of those sites. Second ground of appeal Arguments of the parties 25 By its second ground, which it is appropriate to examine first, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] alleges that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] committed errors so far as concerns the test which enables the issue of whether a party ‘could have had prior knowledge’ of the overlapping of sites to be assessed. 26 First, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] reasoning shows that it did not identify the correct legal test. Knowledge cannot be imputed in cases where a prudent person could not have been expected to discover the fact in question. 27 Secondly, concerning the issue of what can be expected of a prudent person, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] incorrectly failed to take into consideration the fact that, in breach of the duty of sincere cooperation set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 10 EC and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain did not fulfil its obligation to notify the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the overlapping of the sites at issue. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could reasonably expect to be informed and had no reason to be particularly attentive. 28 In addition, in assessing whether it was reasonable to expect the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to have known of the overlapping of the sites at issue, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should have examined to what extent it was part of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s obligations to check whether proposed sites overlapped with other sites. 29 Lastly, it was not reasonable on the part of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to expect [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to check whether there was any overlapping of sites on the list of SCIs for the Mediterranean biogeographical region, since that list does not contain any map of the sites and contains thousands of sites, both new and existing. 30 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] properly established the constructive knowledge of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by relying on the notification of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95 to the latter. Application of the test of actual knowledge, as wished by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], would have the consequence of rendering the two-month period for bringing proceedings entirely subjective, defeating the objective of that time-limit of providing legal certainty, and would be unverifiable. Furthermore, the conduct of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain, specifically the issue of whether it infringed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law, is not relevant in an action for annulment. 31 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain essentially endorses the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s arguments. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 32 First of all, an action for annulment brought against a decision which is merely confirmatory of an earlier decision that was not challenged within the time-limit for bringing proceedings is inadmissible and it is common ground, in the present case, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not bring an action for annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95 before the expiry of the time-limit for bringing proceedings provided for in the sixth paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU. 33 So far as concerns assessment of whether the contested decision is merely confirmatory, it is also common ground that, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observes in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the order under appeal, Site ES6120032 was listed for the first time as a SCI in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95 and that site was then re-listed in an identical form in the list adopted in the contested decision. Thus, the contested provision of that decision was already included in the earlier decision, so that, in respect of the designation of Site ES6120032 as a SCI, the contested decision does not contain any new factor as such. 34 The only aspect of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] reasoning against which the appeal is directed consists of the examination of whether the contested decision might not have been confirmatory on the ground that, at the time of the adoption of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could not have known of the overlapping of Sites ES6120032 and UKGIB0002. 35 To reach the conclusion that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could have known of that overlapping, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relied, in paragraphs 34 to 36 of the order under appeal, on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] participation, as a member of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in the procedure for the adoption of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95, taking into consideration the various items of information provided to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] during that procedure and prior to the decision’s adoption, and the vote in favour of its adoption by the representative of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 36 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] merely claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] identified an incorrect legal test, in that knowledge cannot be imputed in cases where a prudent person cannot be expected to discover the fact in question. However, the appeal does not state what different, incorrect test the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] allegedly applied. Subsequently, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits only that the circumstances taken into consideration by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] were insufficient to enable the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to know of the overlapping of the sites at issue at the time of the adoption of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95 and that other factual matters should have been taken into consideration. 37 By that argument, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is in actual fact seeking to call into question the assessment made by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of all the factual matters submitted to it. Thus, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is, in essence, simply challenging the assessment of the facts made by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] without, moreover, pleading any distortion of the clear sense of the evidence in the file. 38 Such an appraisal of the facts does not, save where the clear sense of the evidence submitted to it has been distorted, constitute a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice on appeal. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 256(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an appeal lies on points of law only. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] therefore has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts (see, inter alia, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]53/92 P Hilti v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1994] ECR I-667, paragraph 42; [OSCURATO:PERSONA]238/06 P Develey v OHIM [2007] ECR I-9375, paragraph 97, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑431/07 P [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [2009] ECR I-2665, paragraph 137). 39 The second ground of appeal must therefore be rejected as inadmissible. First ground of appeal Arguments of the parties 40 By its first ground of appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] primary complaint is that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] committed an error of law in respect of the identity of the parties whose ‘constructive’ knowledge of the overlapping of Sites ES6120032 and UKGIB0002 was legally relevant. The correct test was what the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could have known. In its view, the issue of whether the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could have known of that overlapping is irrelevant. 41 [OSCURATO:PERSONA]141/97 Yasse v EIB [1999] ECR‑SC I‑A-177 and II-929, paragraphs 126 to 128, which is the underlying authority for the purposes of examination of ‘constructive’ knowledge, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] examined only what the applicant could have known, without mentioning the knowledge either of the ‘administration’ or of any other party. 42 In the alternative, if it was relevant to ascertain the circumstances of which the author of the decision could have known, in the present case the author of the contested decision was both the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and not the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] alone, since, in accordance with Articles 4 and 21 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could adopt the contested decision only with the approval of that committee. 43 According to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], this ground of appeal must be rejected as ineffective. First, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not disregard the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] constructive knowledge, which it expressly evaluated in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the order under appeal. Secondly, the analysis of the constructive knowledge both of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was not decisive for the purposes of the order under appeal, and was set out by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] only in response to the arguments put forward. Moreover, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] alone adopted the contested decision, albeit subject to certain procedural requirements, inter alia an opinion of the competent committee. 44 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain essentially endorses the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s arguments. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 45 It must be pointed out that, in accordance with settled case-law, where one of the grounds adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is sufficient to sustain the operative part of its judgment, any defects that might vitiate other grounds given in the judgment concerned in any event have no bearing on that operative part and, accordingly, a plea relying on such defects is ineffective and must be dismissed (see, inter alia, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]326/91 P de Compte v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1994] ECR I-2091, paragraph 94, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑496/99 P [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v CAS Succhi di Frutta [2004] ECR I-3801, paragraph 68). 46 As follows from paragraphs 32 to 36 above, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] determined that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could have known of the overlapping of the sites at the time of the adoption of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/95, and that finding has not been properly called into question by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 47 Accordingly, even if the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] committed an error of law in examining, in addition, the issue of whether the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also could have known of that overlapping, such an error would have had no effect on the outcome of the action at first instance and thus would have had no bearing on the operative part of the order under appeal. 48 Therefore, even if the first ground of appeal, according to which the correct test was what the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could have known, should prove well founded, it would not be such as to result in the order under appeal being set aside. 49 Consequently, this ground of appeal must be rejected as ineffective. 50 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the appeal must be dismissed. Costs 51 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, which applies to appeal proceedings pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184 thereof, 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 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has applied for costs and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. 52 In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which is also applicable by virtue of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184 thereof, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain is to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs; 3. Orders the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain to bear its own costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.