C-195/90

My Lords, (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 96), amended by Council Decision 73/402/EEC of 22 November 1973 (OJ 1973 L 347, p. 48). In an opinion addressed to the German Government dated 15 June 1. In this case, the Commission asks the 1989, and issued pursuant to Article 2 of that Court to declare that the Law on Charges decision, the Commission expressed the view for the Use of Federal Motorways by Heavy that the proposed measures would be con- Lorries of 30 April 1990 (the trary to Articles 76, 95 and 5 of the Treaty. 'Straßenbenutzungsgebührengesetz', hereaf- The measures were, none the less, approved ter 'StrBG') is contrary to Articles 76, 95 and by the Bundestag and enacted into law. The 5 of the EEC Treaty. France, Luxembourg, Commission accordingly began the proce- Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark have dure provided for in Article 169 of the intervened in support of the Commission's Treaty by issuing a letter of formal notice on application. 11 April 1990. After receiving the German Government's observations, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion on 1 June 1990, in which the Commission concluded that, in adopting the StrBG, contrary to Articles 76, 2. The StrBG introduces a new tax (hereafter 95, 5 and 8a of the EEC Treaty, Germany 'road tax'), which applies to the use of heavy was in breach of its obligations under the lorries on certain German roads. In addition, Treaty. Germany was invited to take the it amends an earlier law, the Kraftfahrzeug- measures required to end the breach by steuergesetz ('Law on Motor Vehicle Tax') of 22 June 1990. O n receiving the German 1 February 1979, under which a tax (hereaf- Government's response to its reasoned opin- ter 'vehicle duty') is charged on all motor ion, the Commission concluded that no steps vehicles. had been taken to remedy the alleged infringement. The Commission accordingly brought the matter before the Court by an application lodged on 23 June 1990, in which 3. A draft of the StrBG was notified to the an infringement of Articles 76, 95 and 5 of Commission by the German Government on the Treaty was alleged. 21 March 1989, pursuant to Article 1 of the Council Decision of 21 March 1962, institut- ing a procedure for prior examination and consultation in respect of certain laws, regu- 4. O n the same date, the Commission lations and administrative provisions con- lodged a request for interim measures under cerning transport proposed in Member States Article 186 of the Treaty. After an oral hear- ing before the full Court, on 12 July 1990 the Court ordered Germany to suspend the levy * Original language: English. of road tax under the StrBG as regards vehi-

5. Before turning to the breaches of the 8. Paragraph 11 of Article 1 provides for Treaty which are alleged by the Commission, supervision of payment of the tax. By Para- it is necessary to consider the StrBG in graph 11(4), controls at borders with other greater detail. The relevant provisions are Member States may only be carried out by Article 1 of the law, which introduces the means of random checks in the course of car- new road tax, and Article 2, which amends rying out other controls. Finally, Paragraph the law relating to vehicle duty. 16 deals with the distribution of revenues from the tax, which are in part distributed to the ¿ ¿ W e r "according to amounts lost as a result of the reduction in vehicle duty made 6. By Paragraph 1(1) of Article 1, road tax is by Article 2 of the law (see below). The charged on the use by heavy lorries of two remaining revenues are to be applied to kinds of road, namely (a) federal motorways maintenance work on the roads covered by ('Bundesautobahnen') and (b) federal roads the new tax. ('Bundesstraßen') outside built-up areas; but it is not charged for the crossing of such roads by the shortest route. The categories of vehicles covered are defined by Paragraph 1(2); in particular, their permissible or actual total weight must exceed 18 tonnes, the total 9. Article 2 amends the Law on Motor Vehi- weight being the weight of the vehicle plus cle Tax of 1 February 1979, in particular by the weight of its fuel and load. Paragraph substituting a new scale of charges valid for 2 exempts certain special categories of vehi- the period 1 July 1990 to 31 December cle from the tax. By Paragraph 5, the tax can 1993 (the same period of validity as that laid be paid for periods not greater than a year. down for road tax in Article 5). As a result By Paragraph 6, the tax can be paid in of the amendment, the maximum annual respect of a particular vehicle or (where the charge in respect of a vehicle is DM 3 500, as period is at least three months) in respect of opposed to the previous maximum of D M a particular vehicle user. 11 000. The maximum supplementary charge for a vehicle trailer is reduced from nearly D M 6 000 to D M 300.

'Until the provisions referred to in Article 75(1) have been laid down, no Member State may, without the unanimous approval of the 11. According to the official statement of Council, make the various provisions gov- reasons presented to the Bundestag erning the subject when this Treaty enters {Drucksache 11/6336), the StrBG pursues into force less favourable in their direct or two goals: (1) by reducing the rate of vehicle indirect effect on carriers of other Member duty charged on heavy vehicles to a level States as compared with carriers who are closer to the European average, to equalize nationals of that State.' the conditions of competition between Ger- man transport undertakings and those of other countries; and (2) by introducing a new road tax, to ensure that the contribution of German heavy goods vehicles to infra- It is common ground that, at the time of the structure costs is not reduced, and the previ- adoption of the StrBG, no provisions rele- ously insufficient contribution of foreign vant to the present case had been laid down vehicles is increased. From that statement of under Article 75(1). reasons, it can be seen that there is a close connection between the introduction of road tax and the reduction of vehicle duty. The connection is apparent, equally, from Article 14. Although Article 76 can be described as 1, Paragraph 16, of the StrBG, which, as we a 'standstill' clause, it is clear that it does not have seen, distributes a part of the revenue preclude the adoption by the Member States raised from road tax in proportion to the of any provisions in the area to be covered amounts of vehicle duty revenues lost to the by common rules for transport. New provi- Länder as a result of the reduction in the lat- sions in the area of transport are forbidden ter duty. only if they make, directly or indirecdy, the

position of carriers from other Member both, measures would not be permitted States less favourable as compared with the which affected carriers from other Member Member State's own operators. That require- States more severely, even if they enjoyed a ment can, however, be read in two ways. O n relative advantage when the Treaty entered one interpretation, what is prohibited are into force. simply modifications to national rules which would result in carriers from other Member States being treated less favourably, under those rules, as compared with a Member State's own carriers. On that view, if the former group were originally treated more favourably as compared with the latter, it would be permissible to introduce provisions eliminating that more favourable treatment: see Erdmenger in von der Groeben et al., 16. In my view, the prohibition in Article Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag, 4th edition 76 is more naturally interpreted as imposing (Baden-Baden, 1991), p. 1235, and Frohnm- the stricter requirement.

15. On a stricter construction of the transport. By Article 61(1) of the Treaty, the requirement laid down by Article 76, how- general rules of the Treaty concerning the ever, such provisions would be prohibited. freedom to provide services do not extend to According to such an interpretation, it is for- transport: see Case 13/83 Parliament v bidden to introduce any new provision Council [1985] ECR 1513, at paragraph 62 of which would cause the relative position of the judgment; although particular provision carriers from other Member States to deteri- is made for the abolition of discrimination in orate, even if they were originally in a more certain cases: see Article 79(1).

It seems categories equally, and in particular to to me therefore that Article 76 must be introduce measures having adverse effects on intended to preserve the relative position of a

Member State's own carriers and carriers principle, prevent a State from reducing its from other Member States as it was when the rates of vehicle duty with a view to improv- Treaty entered into force: that is to say, it is ing the conditions of competition enjoyed by intended to preserve the status quo, with its own carriers. Such a measure would whatever relative advantages and disadvan- admittedly have an indirect effect on carriers tages that entailed. Moreover, it seems from other Member States, since their com- unlikely that the authors of the Treaty petitive position would by implication be intended to allow a Member State to remove affected; but in my view such effects would existing benefits enjoyed by carriers from be too remote to be caught by Article 76, other Member States, while not requiring it since they result from the differences to eliminate any discrimination in favour of between the relevant systems of national law, its own carriers. rather than arising from the provisions of any one system. By the same token, how- ever, a Member State cannot be permitted to impose a relatively greater increase in the burden of taxation borne by carriers from other Member States, with the aim of reduc- ing a supposed competitive advantage. For such a measure would make the provisions of its own legislation less favourable to those 17. The more strict interpretation is also carriers, in order to eliminate an advantage consistent with the approach the Court has arising, not under that legislation itself, but generally adopted in relation to transitional rather from differences between two national provisions of the Treaty. However, for the systems of taxation. purposes of deciding the present case, it may be unnecessary to reach a definitive conclu- sion on the interpretation of Article 76. For, even if it were permissible, consistently with that article, to eliminate a relative advantage enjoyed under national provisions by carri- ers from other Member States, it does not seem to me that it would be permissible to impose a new disadvantage designed to 19. Thus, even if a Member State were enti- redress inequalities in the conditions of com- tled, consistently with Article 76, to redress petition. an anomaly in its own legislation which gave more advantageous treatment to carriers from other Member States, it would not be entitled to offset a lower tax burden imposed in another Member State by increasing its own charges on such carriers. O n any possi- ble construction of Article 76, therefore, Germany would not be permitted to increase 18. It is true that such inequalities may the burden of taxation it imposes on carriers result, in particular, from differences in the from other Member States in order to elimi- rates of vehicle duty paid by carriers in then- nate an alleged competitive advantage. As the home States, combined with a network of German Government makes plain in its bilateral agreements preventing the double defence, however, the StrBG does in fact imposition of duty. As the German Govern- pursue the aim of reducing the competitive ment points out, the Treaty does not, in advantages which are enjoyed by carriers

23. I must however consider a number of arguments put forward by the German Gov- 21. It follows that, in deciding whether the ernment which, if successful, would avoid contested measures are compatible with that result. Article 76, it is not relevant that some carri- ers bear a lower burden of vehicle duty in their home State. The only question which need be considered is whether the StrBG treats carriers from other Member States less favourably than it treats the equivalent Ger- man carriers. 24. First, the German Government suggests that, because the reduction in vehicle duty and the imposition of road tax would, taken separately, each be compatible with the Treaty, a measure which accomplishes both 22. The answer to that question is, on the at the same time must also be compatible. face of it, clear. German carriers are compen- That argument cannot however be accepted. sated for the introduction of road tax by It may indeed be the case that Article 76 per- means of a reduction in vehicle duty. Such mits Germany to reduce its rates of vehicle compensation is not available to carriers duty, in the absence of any related increase in from other Member States, since none of other forms of taxation on motor vehicles, them pay German vehicle duty. Further- since as we have seen, such a reduction can- more, according to the figures cited by the not in itself be regarded as a measure having

I-3163

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-195/90

25. Similarly, it is true that Article 76 does not in principle prevent the introduction of a tax on road use affecting German and non- German carriers equally, since on that 27. Also to be rejected is the German Gov- hypothesis their relative position under Ger- ernment's argument according to which it is man legislation would be unaffected. How- the bilateral agreements which are the 'cause' ever, two measures may be contrary to the of the less favourable position resulting from Treaty when combined, even where each is the StrBG, and not the StrBG itself. It is true lawful when considered in isolation, for the that the agreements provide the background combined effect of the measures may differ against which the effects of the StrBG are to from the effect of either measure taken alone. be assessed; but it is clear that they are not At the hearing, the French Government gave themselves responsible for the deterioration an example of such a case. In Case in the position of the non-German carriers. 47/69 France v Commission [1970] ECR 487, They provide, at most, a convenient mecha- the measure at issue was state aid to the nism through which German carriers could French textile industry, financed by means of be compensated for the introduction of road a quasi-fiscal charge levied on both domestic tax by means of a reduction in vehicle duty and imported products. The Court held that, not affecting other carriers. even if the charge itself were held to be com- patible with Article 95 of the Treaty, and even if the aid, abstracted from its mode of finance, could be said to be compatible with Article 92, the Commission was none the less entitled to conclude that the aid was contrary to the Treaty when the aid was con- sidered in conjunction with its method of 28. Next, the German Government suggests financing: see paragraphs 13 to 16 of the that it would be more appropriate for the judgment. Commission to exercise its powers under

Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty, which Kingdom under a greater total burden of enable the Commission to propose measures taxation as compared with their German remedying distortions of competition caused equivalents. In the case of the United King- by differences in national laws, rather than to dom, the burden borne when United King- bring an action alleging a breach of Article dom vehicle duty is added to German road 76. However, the objection to the StrBG is tax is estimated at more than 150% of the not, primarily at least, that it introduces dis- burden on German carriers. Even on the tortions of competition, but rather that it German Government's own view of what attempts to remedy alleged distortions by measures are consistent with Article 76, means of unilateral action. Moreover, even to therefore, it is difficult to see how the StrBG the extent that the StrBG does in fact intro- could be compatible with the Treaty. In par- duce new distortions, it seems to me that the ticular, such an increase in the burden on Commission would still be entitled to bring United Kingdom carriers cannot be justified an action under Article 76, rather than using by the fact that, as the German Government its powers under Articles 101 or 102, since it claims, the number of United Kingdom car- is clear that the absence of approximating riers using German roads is relatively small. measures taken pursuant to Articles 100 to 102 of the Treaty does not excuse a breach of other provisions of the Treaty. It seems to me furthermore that, contrary to the sugges- tion advanced by the German Government in its defence, Article 76 is not to be regarded as a specific case of the more gen- eral provisions of Articles 101 and 102, and 30. Finally, the German Government sub- accordingly to be given a narrow construc- mits that the contested measures can be jus- tion. O n the contrary, Article 76 is a stand- tified on grounds of environmental protec- still provision of general scope which, if any- tion; to that end, it was necessary to ensure thing, is to be interpreted broadly. that the environmental costs resulting from the use of heavy lorries were borne by the operators of the lorries, including those from other Member States, in order, in particular, that freight might be diverted from road to rail.

33. It is no doubt true that when, in 1990, the German Government undertook the task of reforming its system of road and vehicle taxation, it was confronted with something of a dilemma. On the one hand, it wished, for reasons which are entirely laudable, to devise a system which conformed to the principle that 'the polluter pays', a principle 32. At the hearing, the German Government which moreover forms part of the Commu- suggested that the proportion of interna- nity's environmental policy (see Article tional freight crossing the German border 130r(2) of the Treaty). Thus, pursuant to that carried by rail was, at an estimated figure of principle, non-resident carriers should bear 10%, unduly low, as compared with an esti- some of the costs caused by their operations. mated figure of 2 1 % for internal German On the other hand, to impose an equal addi- freight. It suggested, moreover, that the rea- tional burden on German and non-German son for the discrepancy was to be found in operators alike would have increased the the lower burden of taxation borne by non- overheads of the former group to what was German carriers. The German Government considered an unacceptable level. The Ger- did not however explain how a reduction in man Government evidently took the view the burden of vehicle duty on German road that the dilemma could only be resolved by transport operators would contribute t o the devising a means of compensating German diversion of traffic to the rail network. In my carriers for the increased burden which view, the fact that 2 1 % of all German would otherwise arise from the introduction domestic freight is carried by rail is not suf- of road tax. ficient in itself to establish that the same pro- portion of international freight coming into Germany would be so transported if the costs presently borne by non-German carri- ers were increased. As the Commission points out, there is some likelihood that haulage business would be transferred to 34. If, however, it is true that the German German road carriers rather than to the rail Government was confronted by a dilemma, network. From the official statement of rea- it was one which could only lawfully be sons for the StrBG presented to the Bunde- resolved by Community action or agree- stag, it appears that the reason for requiring a ment. The fact that in 1990 the Community relatively greater increase on the amounts still had not exercised its powers under Arti- paid by non-German carriers was not, in cle 75(1) of the Treaty does not excuse uni-

38. In my view, it must be accepted that a carrier from another Member State is less likely to be able to take full advantage of the 35. I accordingly reach the conclusion that more favourable annual rate than a German introduction of road tax by the StrBG, com- carrier, and more likely to wish to pay at an bined with the reduction in vehicle duty appropriate daily rate. It is true that, as the made by the same law, is contrary to Article German Government points out, its own 76 of the Treaty. carriers will in part be engaged in interna- tional traffic, and will therefore be operating vehicles which do not circulate continuously in Germany. In the case of such vehicles, the annual rate may not be advantageous even 36. The Commission argues, in addition, for German carriers, although it is to be that even when considered in isolation from noted that it is also possible to pay the tax the reduction in vehicle duty, the introduc- on a person-related rather than a vehicle- tion of road tax in the form laid down by the related basis. However, some German carri- StrBG is contrary to Article 76. According ers will also be operating vehicles which cir- to the Commission, road tax, even consid- culate continuously on the home territory. ered in itself, is a measure which, in that Even if such vehicles remain idle for a por- form, bears more heavily on carriers from tion of the year, either on account of holi- other Member States. It seems to me that days or for other reasons, it seems to me there is much force in the Commission's implausible to suggest that, for those carri- argument. ers, substantial savings would not be made by paying at the annual rate. Accordingly, it seems to me difficult to escape the conclu- sion that road tax bears more heavily on car- riers from other Member States. 37. As the Commission points out, payment of road tax on an annual basis is consider- ably more advantageous than its payment by the month, week or day. The Commission suggests that German carriers are more likely to pay the tax by the longer period, whereas foreign carriers, who are more likely to make 39. That conclusion is not affected by the individual journeys to and from Germany, consideration that, as road tax is presently will tend to become liable on a daily or structured, many foreign operators might

42. At first sight, it might seem anomalous that the same measure could simultaneously offend against two independent provisions of the Treaty. In the present case, however, the measure is being considered from two dis- 40. In my view, therefore, the Commission tinct points of view: as a measure affecting has established a sufficient likelihood that the the transport operators, on the one hand, new tax introduced by Article 1 of the and as a measure affecting the goods carried, StrBG, even when considered in isolation on the other. Article 76 is relevant to the first from the reduction in vehicle duty made by aspect, but in the second case it is Article Article 2 of the same law, would affect carri- 95 which is the relevant provision. Thus, nei- ers from other Member States to a greater ther Article 76 nor Article 95 can be consid- extent than German carriers, and that the ered as a lex specialis in relation to the other. introduction of road tax is therefore contrary to Article 76 of the Treaty, even when the new tax is considered separately. As we have seen, however, the introduction of road tax is in any case incompatible with Article 76 when the effects of the reduction in vehi- cle duty are also taken into account. 43. I do not think that a reduction in vehicle duty paid by German carriers, considered in isolation, could be regarded as an imposition, even indirect, of a charge on the products transported by other carriers. It is true that in some circumstances a Member State's sys- tem of vehicle duty might be held to dis- criminate against the importation of the Article 95 vehicles themselves which are subject to the tax: see Case 112/85 Humblot [1985] ECR 1367, at paragraph 14 of the judgment. The Commission's complaint does not however 41. The Commission also claims that the relate to the effect of vehicle duty on the adoption of the StrBG infringes Article 95 of importation of motor vehicles, and its case

must accordingly rest upon the combined basis of periods of use of the federal road effect of the reduction in vehicle duty made network and the weight of the lorries by Article 2 of the StrBG and the imposition (including their permissible load). Thus, lor- of road tax made by Article 1. ries pay the tax even when they are empty. It seems to me, however, that a charge assessed on the latter bases has just as immediate an effect on the transportation costs of goods as does a charge based on distance travelled and actual weight of the goods carried. In partic- 44. As the Commission points out, it is clear ular, the charge paid by an empty lorry from the Court's judgment in Case returning from its point of delivery will have 20/76 Schöttle v Finanzamt Freudenstadt an immediate effect on the cost of the goods [1977] ECR 247, that Article 95 can apply, in carried on the outward journey. principle, to a charge imposed on the inter- national transport of goods by road. In para- graphs 12 to 15 and 22 of that judgment, the Court stated that the purpose of Article 95 is to remove disguised restrictions on the free movement of goods which may result from the tax provisions of a Member State, and that such restrictions may result, in particu- 46. As we have seen, the introduction of lar, from a tax imposed on a specific activity road tax will only be contrary to Article 95 if of an undertaking, rather than on products as it affects goods from other Member States such, provided that the tax has an immediate more severely than it affects domestic prod- effect on the costs of national and imponed ucts. Here it is to be noted that while, as the products. Such a tax will only be compatible German Government points out in its with Article 95 if it is applied in a manner defence, both German and other carriers which does not give rise to any discrimina- may be responsible for importing goods into tion, however minor and incidental, against Germany, the internal distribution of goods imported products. produced within Germany will in general be effected by German carriers, to the exclusion of carriers from other Member States. Thus, since transportation costs are an element of the total costs of the goods, a tax which imposes a greater burden on the latter group 45. It must therefore be considered whether of carriers will affect imported goods to a road tax, as introduced by the StrBG, satis- greater extent than it affects domestic prod- fies the criteria for a breach of Article 95 laid ucts. down in Case 20/76 Schüttle. In the first place, it is clear, in my view, that the tax imposes a charge on transport undertakings which has an immediate effect on the cost of the products carried by those undertakings. It is true that road tax differs in certain respects from the tax at issue in Case 47. As we have already seen when consider- 20/76 Schöttle. In particular, the latter tax ing the compatibility of the StrBG with Arti- was imposed according to distance covered cle 76 of the Treaty, carriers from other on national territory and the weight of the Member States are indeed affected more goods, whereas road tax is assessed on the severely than German carriers by the intro-

48. Accordingly, I reach the conclusion that the StrBG is a measure having the effect of 50. It is true that when the StrBG was discriminatory internal taxation, contrary to adopted, a Commission proposal for the Article 95 of the Treaty, as well as being con- implementation of Decision 65/271/EEC trary to the standstill provision contained in had been submitted to the Council: see the Article 76. Proposal for a Council Directive on the charging of transport infrastructure costs to heavy goods vehicles, COM(87) 716 final, submitted to the Council on 15 January 1988 (OJ 1988 C 79, p. 8), subsequendy Article 5 modified by COM(90) 540 final, which was submitted to the Council on 27 November 1990 (OJ 1991 C 75, p. 1). It does not seem to me however that the submission of such a proposal, in an area in which the Commu- 49. In addition to breaches of Article 76 and nity does not yet enjoy exclusive compe- Article 95 of the Treaty, the Commission tence, is in itself sufficient to preclude the alleges a separate breach of the duty of coop- adoption of national rules in the same eration contained in Article 5. In its letter of domain. formal notice, the Commission specified four respects in which the adoption of the StrBG might be contrary to that duty: (1) unilateral action by Germany would be liable to pro- voke, in response, unilateral measures on the part of other Member States, thereby making 51. There is of course no doubt that where more difficult the realization of a common the Community does enjoy exclusive compe-

I-3170

COMMISSION v GERMANY

55. It may however be appropriate to men- 53. It is true that even where Member States tion two further matters raised by the Ger- retain provisional competence, they must man Government which might raise issues still have due regard to their general duty, under Article 5, although neither is directly under Article 5, not to jeopardize the attain- relevant to any of the breaches of the Treaty ment of the Community's objectives: see which have been alleged by the Commission.

I-3171

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-195/90

56. First, the German Government suggests Thus, the elimination of double taxation was that it would be entitled to denounce the an objective laid down by the decision, but bilateral agreements with other Member not yet implemented by it. It is clear how- States on the non-imposition of vehicle duty. ever that such an objective laid down by a It concludes that, even if the imposition of decision made under the Treaty is included road tax combined with the reduction in among the objectives protected by Article vehicle duty were regarded as having an. 5 of the Treaty: see Case 71/76 Thieffry v effect similar to such a revocation, that Conseil de l'ordre des avocats à L· Cour de would not be a reason for holding the StrBG Paris [1977] ECR 765, at paragraphs 13 to to be contrary to the Treaty. 15 of the judgment.

I-3172

COMMISSION v GERMANY

bined with the reduction in German vehicle StrBG, far from being incompatible with duty, had the express aim of dealing with the Commission's proposals, was actually vindi- consequences of such disparities for the con- cated by them. Thus, according, in particular, ditions of competition of transport under- to Article 11 of the Commission's amended takings. Thus, such disparities were to be proposal: reduced, and in some cases eliminated, by raising some of the revenue previously raised by way of vehicle duty from a new road tax paid by all carriers using German roads.

I-3173

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-195/90

a precise and restricted definition of 'motor- 1990. However, the fact that such a proposal way'. Reimbursement of vehicle duty is per- was under consideration by the Council mitted by Article 11 only in respect of the could not in any case justify the adoption of amounts paid on the toll motorways thereby measures by Germany which are contrary to defined, and is determined by a precise for- Articles 76 and 95 of the Treaty. mula based on kilometres travelled.

63. Since the Commission has not estab- 62. Thus, it is questionable, in my view, lished any independent breach of Article 5, whether the measures introduced by the its application should be dismissed in that StrBG would have been permitted by the respect. Nevertheless, since it has succeeded proposed directive, even if it had been in in the principal allegations, it is entitled to force when that law was adopted on 30 April costs.

Conclusion

64. I am accordingly of the opinion that the C o u r t should: