JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

11 January 2000 (1)

(Appeal — Access to information — Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,Euratom — Scope of the exception relating to protection of the public interest —Inadequate statement of reasons — Article 6 of the European Convention for theProtection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Principles of equalitybetween the parties and rights of the defence)

In Joined Cases C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P,

Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by M.A. Fierstra and C. Wissels, DeputyLegal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agents, with an addressfor service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue C.M. Spoo,

appellant in Case C-174/98 P

and intervener at first instance,

and

Gerard van der Wal, residing in Crainhem, Belgium, represented by L.Y.J.M. Parret, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers ofA. May, 31 Grand-Rue,

appellant in Case C-189/98 P

and applicant at first instance,

APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the EuropeanCommunities (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 1998 in Case T-83/96 Van der Walv Commission [1998] ECR II-545, seeking to have that judgment set aside,

the other party to the proceedings being:

Commission of the European Communities, represented by W. Wils and U.Wölker, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service inLuxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service, WagnerCentre, Kirchberg,

THE COURT,

composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers),P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Cosmas,

Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 11 May 1999,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 July 1999,

gives the following

Judgment

1.

    By applications lodged at the Court Registry on 11 and 19 May 1998 respectively,the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-174/98 P) and Mr Van der Wal (CaseC-189/98 P) lodged an appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court ofJustice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 1998 inCase T-83/96 Van der Wal v Commission [1998] ECR II-545 ('the contestedjudgment‘) rejecting the application for the annulment of the Commission decisionof 29 March 1996, refusing access to certain documents ('the contested decision‘).

The action before the Court of First Instance

2.

    So far as the legal background is concerned, this was described by the Court ofFirst Instance as follows:

'1    In the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on7 February 1992 the Member States incorporated a Declaration (No 17) onthe right of access to information in these terms:

    ”The Conference considers that transparency of the decision-making processstrengthens the democratic nature of the institutions and the public'sconfidence in the administration. The Conference accordingly recommendsthat the Commission submit to the Council no later than 1993 a report onmeasures designed to improve public access to the information available tothe institutions.”

2    In response to that Declaration, the Commission published Communication93/C 156/05 which it sent to the Council, the Parliament and the Economicand Social Committee on 5 May 1993, concerning public access to theinstitutions' documents (OJ 1993 C 156, p. 5). On 2 June 1993 it adoptedCommunication 93/C 166/04 on openness in the Community (OJ 1993C 166, p. 4).

3    In the context of those preliminary steps towards implementation of theprinciple of transparency, on 6 December 1993 the Council and theCommission approved a code of conduct concerning public access toCouncil and Commission documents (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 41, hereinafter ”theCode of Conduct”), which sought to establish the principles governingaccess to documents held by those institutions.

4    Accordingly, in implementation of that agreement the Commission adopted,on 8 February 1994, on the basis of Article 162 of the EC Treaty, Decision94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public access to Commission documents (OJ1994 L 46, p. 58, hereinafter ”Decision 94/90”), under Article 1 of which theCode of Conduct was formally adopted. The text of that Code is set out inan Annex to Decision 94/90.

5    The Code of Conduct as thus adopted by the Commission sets out a generalprinciple in these terms:

    ”The public will have the widest possible access to documents held by theCommission and the Council.”

6    For those purposes the term ”document” is defined in the Code of Conductas meaning ”any written text, whatever its medium, which contains existingdata and is held by the Commission or the Council”.

7    After briefly setting out the rules governing the lodging and processing ofrequests for documents, the Code of Conduct describes the procedure to befollowed, where it is proposed to reject a request, in these terms:

    ”Where the relevant departments of the institution concerned intend toadvise the institution to reject an application, they will inform the applicantthereof and tell him that he has one month to make a confirmatoryapplication to the institution for that position to be reconsidered, failingwhich he will be deemed to have withdrawn his original application.

    If a confirmatory application is submitted, and if the institution concerneddecides to refuse to release the document, that decision, which must bemade within a month of submission of the confirmatory application, will benotified in writing to the applicant as soon as possible. The grounds of thedecision must be given, and the decision must indicate the means of redressthat are available, i.e. judicial proceedings and complaints to theombudsman under the conditions specified in, respectively, Articles 173 and138[e] of the Treaty establishing the European Community.”

8    The Code of Conduct describes the factors which may be invoked by aninstitution to ground the rejection of a request for access to documents inthese terms:

    ”The institutions will refuse access to any document where disclosure couldundermine:

    —    the protection of the public interest (public security, internationalrelations, monetary stability, court proceedings, inspections andinvestigations),

    —    the protection of the individual and of privacy,

    —    the protection of commercial and industrial secrecy,

    —    the protection of the Community's financial interests,

    —    the protection of confidentiality as requested by the natural or legalpersons that supplied the information or as required by the legislationof the Member State that supplied the information.

    They may also refuse access in order to protect the institution's interest inthe confidentiality of its proceedings.”

9    In 1993 the Commission adopted Notice 93/C 39/05 on cooperation betweennational courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86 of theEC Treaty (OJ 1993 C 39, p. 6; hereinafter ”the Notice”) ...‘

3.

    As regards the facts, the contested judgment states:

'10    The XXIVth Report on Competition Policy (1994) (hereinafter ”the XXIVthReport”) stated that the Commission had received a number of questionsfrom national courts ...

11    By letter dated 23 January 1996 the applicant, in his capacity as a lawyerand member of a firm which deals with cases raising questions ofcompetition at Community level, requested copies of some of theCommission's replies to those questions, namely:

    (1)    The letter dated 2 August 1993 from the Director-General of theDirectorate-General for Competition (DG IV) to theOberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court), Düsseldorf, concerningthe compatibility of a distribution agreement with CommissionRegulation (EEC) No 1983/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application ofArticle 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive distributionagreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 1);

    (2)    The letter dated 13 September 1994 from Commissioner van Miert tothe Tribunal d'Instance (District Court), St Brieuc, concerning theinterpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 26 of 4 April 1962applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade inagricultural products (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 129);and

    (3)    The letter sent by the Commission in early 1995 to the Cour d'Appel(Court of Appeal), Paris, which had asked it for an opinion oncontractual provisions concerning sales targets for motor vehicleagents in the light of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and CommissionRegulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on the applicationof Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicledistribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1985 L 15, p. 16).

12    By letter dated 23 February 1996 the Director-General of DG IV refusedthe applicant's request on the ground that disclosure of the requested letterswould be detrimental to ”the protection of the public interest (courtproceedings)”. He explained that:

    ”... When the Commission replies to questions submitted to it by nationalcourts before which an action has been brought for the purposes ofresolving a dispute, the Commission intervenes as an 'amicus curiae‘. It isexpected to show a certain reserve not only as regards acceptance of themanner in which the questions are submitted to it but also as regards theuse which it makes of the replies to those questions.

    I consider that, once the replies have been sent, they form an integral partof the proceedings and are in the hands of the court which raised thequestion. The points of both law and fact contained in the replies must ...be regarded, in the context of the pending proceedings, as part of thenational court's file. The Commission has sent the replies to that nationalcourt and the decision whether to publish that information and/or make itavailable to third parties is a matter primarily for the national court towhich the reply is sent.

    ...”

13    The Director-General also referred to the need to maintain a relationshipof trust between the Community executive and the national court authoritiesin the Member States. Such considerations, which are valid in all cases,must apply even more forcibly in cases such as the present, where no finaljudgment has yet been given in respect of the matters dealt with in thequestions submitted to the Commission.

14    By letter dated 29 February 1996 the applicant sent a confirmatoryapplication to the Secretariat-General of the Commission stating, inter alia,that he did not see how the conduct of the national proceedings could beundermined if information of a non-confidential nature provided by theCommission to the national court in the context of application ofCommunity competition law came to the attention of third parties.

15    By letter dated 29 March 1996 (hereinafter ”the contested decision”) theSecretary-General of the Commission confirmed DG IV's decision ”on theground that disclosure of the replies could undermine the protection of thepublic interest and, more specifically, the sound administration of justice”. He continued as follows:

    ”... there is a risk that disclosure of the replies requested, which compriselegal analyses, could undermine the relationship and the necessarycooperation between the Commission and national courts. A court whichhas submitted a question to the Commission would obviously not appreciatethe reply being disclosed, particularly where the question is relevant to apending case.

    ...”

16    The Secretary-General added that the procedure in the present casediffered considerably from that under Article 177 of the Treaty to which theapplicant had referred in his confirmatory application.‘

4.

    It is in those circumstances that, on 29 May 1996, Mr Van der Wal brought anaction for the annulment of the contested decision, which refused him access to theletters referred to above.

5.

    By order of 9 December 1996, the Court of First Instance granted the NetherlandsGovernment leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by Mr Vander Wal.

The appeal

6.

    By the contested judgment the Court of First Instance dismissed the action. TheNetherlands Government and Mr Van der Wal have each lodged an appeal, based,respectively, on the following pleas in law:

—    infringement of Decision 94/90 and the combined provisions of Articles 33and 44 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice;

—    infringement of Decision 94/90, the European Convention for the Protectionof Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ('the ECHR‘), the duty tostate reasons and the principle of equality between the parties and of therights of the defence.

The plea alleging infringement of Decision 94/90

The judgment of the Court of First Instance

7.

    In concluding that the Commission had correctly relied on the protection of thepublic interest as a ground for refusing access to the documents in question, theCourt of First Instance based its reasoning on Article 6 of the ECHR. In thatrespect, it stated at paragraph 47 of the contested judgment that 'The right ofevery person to a fair hearing by an independent tribunal means, inter alia, thatboth national and Community courts must be free to apply their own rules ofprocedure concerning the powers of the judge, the conduct of the proceedings ingeneral and the confidentiality of the documents on the file in particular.‘ Itadded:

'48    The exception to the general principle of access to Commission documentsbased on the protection of the public interest when the documents at issueare connected with court proceedings, enshrined in Decision 94/90, isdesigned to ensure respect for that fundamental right. The scope of thatexception is therefore not restricted solely to the protection of the interestsof the parties in the context of specific court proceedings, but encompasses

the procedural autonomy of national and Community courts (see paragraph47 above).

49    Its scope therefore entitles the Commission to rely on that exception evenwhen it is not itself party to the court proceedings which, in the particularcase, justify the protection of the public interest.

50    In that respect, a distinction must be drawn between documents drafted bythe Commission for the sole purposes of a particular court case, such as theletters in the present case, and other documents which exist independentlyof such proceedings. Application of the exception based on the protectionof the public interest can be justified only in respect of the first category ofdocuments, because the decision whether or not to grant access to suchdocuments is a matter for the appropriate national court alone, inaccordance with the essential rationale of the exception based on theprotection of the public interest in the context of court proceedings (seeparagraph 48 above).

51    When, in the context of proceedings pending before it, a national courtrequests certain information from the Commission on the basis of thecooperation provided for by the Notice, the Commission's reply is expresslyprovided for the purposes of the court proceedings in question. In suchcircumstances, the protection of the public interest must be regarded asrequiring the Commission to refuse access to that information, and thereforeto the documents containing it, because the decision concerning access tosuch information is a matter to be decided exclusively by the appropriatenational court on the basis of its own national procedural law for as long asthe court proceedings giving rise to its incorporation in a Commissiondocument are pending.

52    In this case, the applicant requested the production of three letters, allconcerning pending court proceedings. The applicant did not claim thatthose letters merely reproduced information which was otherwise accessibleon the basis of Decision 94/90. In that respect, furthermore, it should benoted that the first letter related to the compatibility of a distributionagreement with Regulation No 1983/83, the second concerned theapplication of Regulation No 26/62 and the third concerned theinterpretation of Regulation No 123/85 (see paragraph 11 above). Thoseletters thus concerned points of law raised in the context of specific pendingproceedings.‘

Arguments of the parties

8.

    The appellants argue essentially that the public-interest exception does not allowa whole category of documents to be excluded from the scope of Decision 94/90.

They maintain that that exception requires the Commission to verify in respect ofeach document whether, having regard to the information it contains, its disclosureis in fact capable of harming the public interest. In their submission, theinterpretation by the Court of First Instance of Decision 94/90 is a wideinterpretation which has no legal basis and undermines the uniform application ofCommunity law.

9.

    As regards the principle of procedural autonomy which the contested judgmentderives from Article 6 of the ECHR, the appellants maintain that the Court of FirstInstance has not explained how the independence of national courts could be calledinto question if the Commission were obliged to verify on a case-by-case basiswhether the disclosure of a document was capable of harming the public interest. They state in that respect that the contested judgment does not contain anyexplanation concerning the limitation of the principle of procedural autonomy todocuments drafted by the Commission for the purposes of particular courtproceedings for as long as those proceedings are pending.

10.

    The Commission argues that the principle of procedural autonomy relied on by theCourt of First Instance in interpreting Decision 94/90 must be understood in thelight of the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which cooperationbetween the Commission and the national courts in applying Articles 85(1) and 86of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81(1) and 82 EC) takes place within the limits ofthe applicable national law on procedure (Case C-234/89 Delimitis v Henninger Bräu[1991] ECR I-935, paragraph 53). Within the framework of that cooperation, theCommission's role is secondary; it is for the national court to decide, first, whetherit is necessary to consult the Commission, secondly, what questions to put to it, and,finally, what action should be taken in response to the answers obtained. According to the Commission, it follows that it is solely for the national court todetermine, on the basis of its procedural law, whether, at what time, and underwhat conditions, the Commission's reply may be disclosed to third parties.

11.

    The Commission adds that the reference in the contested judgment to the ECHRconstitutes only one factor in support of the principle of procedural autonomyaccording to which both national and Community courts must be free to apply theirown rules of procedure concerning the powers of the judge, the conduct of theproceedings in general and the confidentiality of the documents on the file inparticular. If paragraphs 45 and 46 of the contested judgment were removed, thejudgment would remain substantively unchanged. The limitation placed on thatprinciple by the Court of First Instance, to the effect that it applies only todocuments drafted by the Commission for the purposes of particular proceedingsfor as long as those proceedings are pending, represents an incidental opinion,which, moreover, is not formulated as categorically as the appellants claim.

12.

    In the Commission's submission, therefore, it is in the light of the above thatDecision 94/90 must be interpreted. The exception based on protection of the

public interest (court proceedings) covers all cases in which the disclosure of thedocuments in question is a matter for the national courts pursuant to their ownrules of procedure.

13.

    As regards the argument that the Court of First Instance's interpretation ofDecision 94/90 undermines the uniform application of Community law, theCommission maintains that the application of that decision is always identical andthat it is the application of different national rules which may lead to access todocuments being granted in some Member States and not in others.

Findings of the Court

14.

    Having deduced from Article 6 of the ECHR that the right of every person to afair hearing by an independent tribunal means, inter alia, that both national andCommunity courts must be free to apply their own rules of procedure concerningthe powers of the judge, the conduct of the proceedings in general and theconfidentiality of the documents on the file in particular, the Court of First Instanceheld, in paragraph 48, that '[T]he exception to the general principle of access toCommission documents based on the protection of the public interest when thedocuments at issue are connected with court proceedings, enshrined in Decision94/90, is designed to ensure respect for that fundamental right‘.

15.

    However, according to the contested judgment, the principle of proceduralautonomy thus deduced from Article 6 of the ECHR does not concern all thedocuments in the proceedings. It applies only to documents written by theCommission for the sole purposes of a particular court case, thus excluding otherdocuments which exist independently of such proceedings (paragraph 50), and onlywhile the matter is pending (paragraph 51).

16.

    As regards documents covered by the principle of procedural autonomy thusconceived, the contested judgment holds that it is for national courts alone to ruleon requests for access to those documents on the basis of their national procedurallaw (paragraph 51).

17.

    It is true that the general principle of Community law under which every personhas a right to a fair trial, inspired by Article 6 of the ECHR (see, inter alia, CaseC-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, paragraphs 20 and21), comprises the right to a tribunal that is independent of the executive power inparticular (on that point, see in particular the judgment of the European Court ofHuman Rights of 18 June 1971 in the case of De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp vBelgium, Series A, No 12, paragraph 78). However, it is not possible to deducefrom that right, as the Court of First Instance did in paragraphs 47 to 51 of thecontested judgment, that the court hearing a dispute is necessarily the only bodyempowered to grant access to the documents in the proceedings in question. Nor

can such a general principle be deduced from the constitutional traditions commonto the Member States.

18.

    The power to grant such access also cannot be deduced from Article 6 of theECHR, even limited to documents drafted with a view to the court proceedings inquestion.

19.

    Moreover, the risks that the independence of the court might be undermined aresufficiently taken into account by Decision 94/90 and by the protection afforded bythe courts at Community level with respect to measures of the Commission grantingaccess to documents which it holds.

20.

    In order to determine under what conditions, in the context of its cooperation withnational courts with a view to the application by them of Articles 85 and 86 of theTreaty, the Commission must refuse access to documents which it holds, on theground that the protection of the public interest, within the meaning of Decision94/90, may be undermined, it is necessary to consider the manner in which suchcooperation works in practice.

21.

    As the Notice shows, those courts may need information of a procedural nature 'toenable them to discover whether a certain case is pending before the Commission,whether a case has been the subject of a notification, whether the Commission hasofficially initiated a procedure or whether it has already taken a position throughan official decision or through a comfort letter sent by its services. If necessary,national courts may also ask the Commission to give an opinion as to how muchtime is likely to be required for granting or refusing individual exemption fornotified agreements or practices, so as to be able to determine the conditions forany decision to suspend proceedings or whether interim measures need to beadopted‘ (paragraph 37 of the Notice).

22.

    According to paragraph 38 of the Notice, national courts may also consult theCommission on points of law where the application of Articles 85 and 86 causesthem particular difficulties. Such difficulties relate in particular to the conditionsfor applying those articles as regards the effect on trade between Member Statesand as regards the question whether the restriction of competition resulting fromthe practices specified in these provisions is appreciable. In addition, wherenational courts have doubts as to whether an agreement, decision or concertedpractice in issue before them is eligible for an individual exemption, they may askthe Commission to provide them with an interim opinion.

23.

    Lastly, it follows from paragraph 40 of the Notice that national courts can obtaininformation from the Commission regarding factual data: statistics, market studiesand economic analyses.

24.

    It follows from the above that documents supplied by the Commission to nationalcourts are often documents which it already possessed or which, although draftedwith a view to particular proceedings, merely refer to the earlier documents, or inwhich the Commission merely expresses an opinion of a general nature,independent of the data relating to the case pending before the national court. Inrelation to those documents, the Commission must assess in each individual casewhether they fall within the exceptions listed in the code of conduct adopted byDecision 94/90.

25.

    Documents supplied by the Commission may also contain legal or economicanalyses, drafted on the basis of data supplied by the national court. In thosecases, the Commission acts as a legal or economic adviser to the national court anddocuments drafted in the exercise of that function must be subject to nationalprocedural rules in the same way as any other expert report, in particular asregards disclosure.

26.

    In those cases, national law may preclude the disclosure of those documents andcompliance with that law may be regarded as a public interest worthy of protectionunder the exceptions provided for by Decision 94/90.

27.

    That is, however, not enough to exonerate the Commission entirely from itsobligation to disclose those documents. In so far as they are held by theCommission, such documents fall within the scope of Decision 94/90, whichprovides for the widest public access possible. Any exception to that right of accessmust therefore be interpreted and applied strictly.

28.

    Consequently, the Commission does not discharge its duty merely by refusing anyrequest for access to the documents in question. Compliance with nationalprocedural rules is sufficiently safeguarded if the Commission ensures thatdisclosure of the documents does not constitute an infringement of national law. In the event of doubt, it must consult the national court and refuse access only ifthat court objects to disclosure of the documents.

29.

    Moreover, that procedure makes it unnecessary for the applicant to make a requestfirst to the competent national court and subsequently to the Commission if thatcourt considers that national procedural law does not preclude disclosure of thedocuments requested, but considers that the application of Community rules maylead to a different solution. The procedure is therefore also consistent with therequirements of good administration.

30.

    It follows that, by interpreting Decision 94/90 as meaning that the exception basedon protection of the public interest in the context of court proceedings obliges theCommission to refuse access to documents which it drafted solely for the purposesof such proceedings, the Court of First Instance erred in law, with the result thatthe plea alleging infringement of that decision is well founded.

31.

    Under Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, where the appeal iswell founded, the Court of Justice is to set aside the decision of the Court of FirstInstance. It may then itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state ofthe proceedings so permits. That is so in this case.

The action brought before the Court of First Instance for annulment of thecontested decision

32.

    It follows from paragraphs 14 to 29 of this judgment that, where the Commissionhas received a request for access to documents which it has supplied to a nationalcourt in the context of its cooperation with national courts in applying Articles 85and 86 of the Treaty, it must verify whether those documents constitute legal oreconomic analyses as defined in paragraph 25 of this judgment. If the documentsin question are of that kind, the Commission must ensure that their disclosure isnot contrary to national law. In case of doubt, it must consult the national courtand refuse access only if that court objects to disclosure.

33.

    Thus, in refusing access to the documents requested without verifying whether theyconstituted legal or economic analyses drafted on the basis of data supplied by thenational court, and, if that were so, without ensuring that their disclosure was notcontrary to national law, the Commission infringed Decision 94/90, with the resultthat the contested decision must be annulled.

Costs

34.

    Under the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, where theappeal is well founded and the Court itself gives final judgment in the case, theCourt is to make a decision as to costs. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules ofProcedure, applicable to appeals by virtue of Article 118, the unsuccessful party isto be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successfulparty's pleadings. Under Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Member Statesand institutions which intervene in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. Since the Commission has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay, in additionto its own costs, all the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court of FirstInstance and the Court of Justice by the appellants and by Mr Van der Wal asintervener in Case C-174/98 P. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to bearits own costs, as intervener in Case T-83/96 relating to the proceedings before theCourt of First Instance and as intervener in Case C-189/98 P relating to theseproceedings.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby:

1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the EuropeanCommunities of 19 March 1998 in Case T-83/96 Van der Wal v Commission;

2.    Annuls the Commission's decision of 29 March 1996 refusing access tocertain documents;

3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costsrelating to both sets of proceedings;

4.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs, as intervenerin Case T-83/96, in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and,as intervener in Case C-189/98 P, in these proceedings.

Rodríguez IglesiasMoitinho de Almeida Edward Sevón Kapteyn Gulmann Hirsch Ragnemalm Wathelet

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 11 January 2000.

R. Grass

G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias

Registrar

President

1: Language of the case: Dutch.