8 EU-Philippines relations
| (35680)
18055/13
COM(13) 925
+ ADD 1
| Council Decision on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of the Philippines
Annex to the draft Council Decision
|
| Legal base
| Articles 207 and 209 conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) TFEU); QMV
|
| Document originated
| 18 December 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament
| 24 December 2013
|
| Department
| Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration
| EM of 20 January 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report
| None; but see (31949) 13615/10 and (32472) —: HC HC 428-xxviii (2010-12), chapter 3 (24 May 2011) and (31949) 13615/10 and (32472) —: HC 428-xvii (2010-11), chapter 5 (16 February 2011) and HC 428-xvi (2010-11), chapter 6 (9 February 2011)
|
| Discussion in Council
| To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
8.1 In November 2004, the Council authorised
the negotiation of individual Framework Agreements on Partnership
and Cooperation (PCA) with several countries in South-East Asia,
including the Philippines. Negotiations with the Philippines were
launched in February 2009 and concluded with the initialling of
the PCA by both sides on 25 June 2010.
8.2 The agreement is the second of its
kind in South East Asia, following the PCA with Indonesia, which
was signed in November 2009, and the first-ever bilateral agreement
with the Philippines. As the Commission noted, the PCA contains
legally binding commitments which it describes as central to the
EU's foreign policy, including provisions on human rights, non-proliferation,
counter-terrorism, the International Criminal Court, migration
and taxation, as well as "areas of current interest such
as the peace process and disaster risk management". The Commission
further noted that the Agreement:
— broadens considerably the
scope for mutual engagement in the economic and trade domain as
well as justice and home affairs, and provides opportunities for
cooperation in areas such as the environment and climate change,
energy, and science and technology, as well as maritime and air
transport;
— addresses money laundering
and terrorist financing, illicit drugs, organised crime and corruption;
— has an important development
component, including, for the first time, strict provisions for
the protection of the EU's financial interests; and
— also has an important trade
cooperation section, which should facilitate free trade agreement
(FTA) negotiations in accordance with EU policy to conclude FTAs
with ASEAN countries.
8.3 Politically, the Commission described
the PCA as marking an important step towards strengthening the
EU's role in South-East Asia, based on shared universal values
such as democracy and human rights, and as paving the way for
enhancing political, regional and global cooperation between two
like-minded partners; and as a basis for the promotion of the
EU's broader political and economic interests in a region that
is traditionally oriented towards China and the United States.
8.4 In an Explanatory Memorandum of
31 January 2011, the Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
described the PCA as key to strengthening the EU's relationship
with the Philippines and more widely the EU's role in South-East
Asia. He highlighted the prospect of cooperation on market access
and the Agreement being a necessary precursor to an eventual EU
Free Trade Agreement with the Philippines. He also noted that
it establishes cooperation in the areas of: migration and maritime
labour; promoting public sector reform, particularly in the area
of public finance management to improve the delivery of social
services; and reducing the impact and managing the consequences
of climate change: and that it contains a legally binding commitment
by the Philippines to respect human rights as well as obligations
in the areas of Counter Terrorism and WMD, and on combating terrorism
and transnational crimes. He also drew attention to the endorsement
of the Philippines by the Foreign Secretary and the National Security
Council as "an emerging power for enhanced UK engagement".
Council Decision No. 2012/272/EU[15]
8.5 The draft of this Council Decision,[16]
which we considered at our meeting on 25 May 2011, authorised
the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy (HR; Baroness Ashton) to sign the PCA on behalf of the
European Union. The text of the Agreement was attached to the
Decision. It was deposited earlier in 2011 because it had superseded
an earlier version, both of which we had considered at earlier
meetings in 2011, and had retained under scrutiny.[17]
8.6 The Committee had noted that, because
several provisions of the agreement contained content that falls
within the scope of Title V (Area of Freedom, Justice and Security)
of the TFEU, it had important legal implications. The Minister
had asserted that as the agreement was a mixed agreement (i.e.
between the Philippines and the EU and its Member States)
it was open to the UK to participate in these elements of the
agreement in its own right rather than to opt-in and participate
in them as part of the EU; that this could be accomplished via
appropriate recitals to both the Council Decision and the PCA;
and that a Title V legal base was not required.[18]
8.7 We had no questions to raise about
agreement per se, which we felt was plainly to be welcomed.
However, we were unclear about the appropriateness of the legal
basis upon which the Government said that it was proposing to
exercise the right not to opt into certain provisions.
8.8 The Minster's earlier Explanatory
Memorandum said that Articles 10, 11, and 23-27 of the
agreement fall within the scope of Title V, yet the Title V legal
base in the draft Council Decision is limited to Article 79(3),
which concerns readmission agreements. In informal correspondence
with the Minister's officials we were told that this was because
the obligation on the Philippines to readmit its nationals in
Article 26(3) was the exception to the general terms of the agreement,
in that it set out a "clear commitment". But, we noted,
Article 10(2) d) requires the EU Member States and the Philippines
to cooperate "by exchanging information on terrorist groups
and their support networks in accordance with international and
national law". This struck us as an equally clear (and extremely
sensitive) commitment and we asked the Minister to explain why
the relevant legal base, Article 87 TFEU, had not been cited.
8.9 In the absence of the citation of
other Title V legal bases we also asked the Minister to explain:
i) where in Title V the legal bases
for Articles 11 — cooperation in public administration,
24 — protection of personal data and 27 — maritime
labour, education and training are to be found; and
ii) why he said the opt-in did not
apply to Articles 21 — cooperation in combating illicit
drugs and 22 — cooperation in combating money
laundering and terrorism financing, the legal bases for which,
conversely, are to be found in Title V.
8.10 In the same correspondence we were
also told that the Government's position on the opt-in Protocol
(No. 21) is that it was engaged whenever a measure covers a matter
which falls within the JHA field, but that this was not dependent
on the citation of a Title V legal base. We were surprised
by this. By virtue of Article 2 of the opt-in Protocol "no
provision of any international agreement concluded by the Union
pursuant to that Title [V]" can be binding on the
UK unless it opts into it. From this we drew the logical inference
that the Decision to conclude the agreement has to state on its
face that some of its provisions are concluded pursuant to Title
V, otherwise those concerned by it are left unsure as to its precise
legal effect in the UK (and Ireland and Denmark) — as indeed
were we in trying to scrutinise the legal effects of this agreement.
Additionally, as we noted, the Court of Justice:
— has been clear on the requirement
to state a legal base: "explicit reference [to the legal
base] was indispensable where, in its absence, the parties concerned
and the Court are left uncertain as to the precise legal basis";[19]
— has also held that the requirement
of legal certainty means that "the binding nature of any
act intended to have legal effects must be derived from a provision
of Community law which prescribes the legal form to be taken by
that act and which must be expressly indicated therein as its
legal basis".[20]
8.11 Thus, without further explanation,
we were unable to agree with the Government's assertion that a
Title V legal base was unnecessary for it to assert that the opt-in
Protocol applies to provisions of an international agreement.
Rather, we concluded that the source of the power in EU law not
to be bound by a provision of an EU international agreement has
to be clearly stated.
8.12 We also noted that the agreement
contains obligations that fall within the remit of the Common
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as opposed to development cooperation
— for example Article 7 on the International Criminal Court,
for which the EU's mandate to act was contained in a CFSP common
position, or Article 8 on countering the proliferation of Weapons
of Mass Destruction. Again, we asked the Minister to say why the
CFSP legal base, Article 37 TEU, has not been cited.
THE MINISTER'S LETTER OF 15 FEBRUARY 2011
8.13 The Minister said that he was writing
to address the questions raised by the Committee, which he did
as follows:
"The Committee asks why the
Explanatory Memorandum states that Articles 10, 11, and 23-27
of the agreement fall within the scope of Title V. We have reviewed
the EM and, in agreement with the Committee, found this statement
in the EM to be an error.
"The proposed agreement is
a mixed agreement containing elements which remain within Member
State competence as well as matters falling within the EU's competence.
The proposed Council Decision on signature only covers the elements
of the agreement for which the EU is assuming responsibility.
The Member States will also sign the agreement in their own right.
The provisions of Title 2 of the PCA (Articles 5-11) are political
commitments which are being entered into by the Member States
in their own right and so do not need to be covered by the Council
Decision. Hence no legal bases covering these particular provisions
are cited. In any event Article 10 makes it clear that any sharing
of information should be pursuant to existing international and
domestic law commitments and does not therefore amount to the
creation of any new information sharing channels.
"The Committee asks specifically
why no Title V legal base has been cited in order to cover the
obligations set out in Article 10 of the PCA. This is because
these commitments are being entered into by Member States rather
than by the EU acting on their behalf. As stated above there is
only a need to cite legal bases in the Council Decision in respect
of the measures in the agreement which the EU is proposing to
sign up to in its own right — there is no need for a Title
V legal base to be cited where it is the Member States who are
assuming the commitments or obligations under the agreement with
a Third Country in their own right.
"The Articles of the agreement
which do fall within the scope of Title V are Articles 15, 20,
21, 22, 23, 25 and 26. Nevertheless, the nature and particular
commitments contained in these provisions need to be carefully
examined when the choice of legal basis is made. The position
of the EU Institutions is that it will only be necessary to add
a corresponding legal basis where a specific obligation or substantial
commitment is made. Accordingly, commitments which provide for
specific obligations or which involve provision or funding by
the Union or the participation of third countries in EU programmes
may serve as criteria in such an examination. Conversely commitments
providing simply for consultation do not in themselves require
the use of a specific legal basis. With the exception of Article
26(3) of the agreement most of the provisions in Titles IV and
V of the Agreement are formulated in general terms that are not
particularly binding. This is why the EU Institutions have proposed
that Article 79(3) TFEU is the only Title V legal base that needs
to be cited in the agreement.
"As stated above, we agree
with the Committee that Articles 11, 24 and 27 do not fall
within the scope of Title V.
"As stated above, we agree
with the Committee that Articles 21 and 22 do fall within
the scope of Title V but for the reasons stated they do not require
a legal basis to be cited.
"The Committee has commented
that it is surprised by the Government's view that whenever a
measure covers a matter which falls within the JHA field the Title
V opt-in is applicable and that this is not dependent on the citation
of a Title V legal base. Our view is that in light of the purpose
of the Protocol — namely to ensure that the UK and Ireland
can decide whether they wish to participate in EU action on justice
and home affairs — the words 'no provision of any international
agreement concluded by the EU pursuant to that Title [V]' must
be interpreted as meaning that the Protocol applies to any measure
including Title V content. In support of this point I would echo
the following comments made by my colleague, Minister for Employment
Relations, Consumer & Postal Affairs, Edward Davey, in a letter
to the European Scrutiny Committee on this same issue on 11 October
2010:
"As regards consistency with
the terms of the Title V Protocol, my view is that the wording
of Article 2 of the Title V Protocol supports the interpretation
that the UK opt-in applies to the provisions of international
agreements which fall within the scope of Title V even where the
relevant Council Decision to sign and conclude does not cite a
Title V legal base. Importantly Article 2 refers to a separable
"provision" of an international agreement not being
binding on the UK in the absence of an opt-in, rather to a "measure"
not binding the UK in its entirety. In my view this indicates
that the crucial question in assessing whether the protocol applies
is whether a specific provision of an international agreement
falls within the scope of Title V rather than whether the agreement
taken as a whole justifies the inclusion of Title V legal base
in the Council Decision to sign and conclude.
"I would also argue that this
interpretation of the terms of Article 2 is the one which is most
consistent with the intention behind the Title V Protocol. In
contrast, interpreting the Protocol so as to make the application
of the UK's opt-in conditional on the citation of a Title V legal
base would shift the focus from whether the content of a provision
of an international agreement falls within the scope of Title
V to a formalistic consideration of whether a decision has been
taken to include a particular legal base.'
"We agree with the Committee
that for clarity the EU should cite Title V legal bases where
possible, but it is clear from the ECJ's case-law that legal bases
will not be cited in respect of every different provision in an
Agreement.
"Regarding the question raised
by the Committee, Articles 7 and 8 of the Agreement fall within
Member State competence for the purposes of the Agreement. As
they do not fall within the EU part of the Agreement the Council
Decision does not refer to an EU legal base for these Articles."
Our assessment
8.14 The Minister's letter of 15 February
did not, we felt, answer our concerns; rather, it contained assertions
that did not appear to be borne out by a reading of either the
draft Council Decision or the agreement, or an understanding of
the role of EU institutions in the operation of Partnership and
Cooperation Agreements (of which, as the Minister noted in his
EM, this is one of seven at various stages of negotiation with
South East Asian countries).
8.15 Whilst we had no wish to hold up
the adoption of the agreement, we felt that there was sufficient
legal uncertainty surrounding it that we were unable to clear
it from scrutiny.
8.16 In light of our concerns with the
letter, we concluded that further correspondence with the Minister
would not assist us. Instead, we asked the Minister to come in
to explain in oral evidence the Government's approach to this
agreement — that evidence to concentrate on the points raised
in our previous Report on this agreement and his replies in the
letter of 15 February. In this connection, we noted that, as well
as the other PCAs being negotiated, there are other international
agreements on which the Government's assertion of its right to
opt-out was, we judged, legally uncertain; the Minister's explanation
and justification of the Government's policy in this regard would
thus be useful for wider scrutiny purposes.
8.17 We did, however, clear the first
text of the Council Decision,[21]
as this had been overtaken by the revised text[22]
which remained under scrutiny.
The Minister for Europe's evidence
8.18 The Minister gave evidence to us
on 27 April. In our Report[23]
on his evidence, we drew the following conclusions on opting into
provisions of international agreements:
· that there were several difficulties
with the Government's approach to when the opt-in Protocol applies.
Of greatest concern to the Committee was that a unilateral subjective
assessment of the content and legal effect of a provision of a
multilateral agreement would lead to legal uncertainty, if not
litigation. We thought the Minister's legal adviser was right
when he said the Government agreed that the better practice was
for a Title V legal base to be cited in an international agreement
because "it achieves the greatest level of legal certainty,
because in those circumstances it is clear on the face of the
legislation that there is a JHA content in the provision and the
opt-in is engaged."[24]
These, we suggested, were all the reasons why a legal base must,
rather than may, be cited;
· a further difficulty was
the consequence of the Government's approach for Denmark and Ireland.
A unilateral assessment by the UK that a provision in an international
agreement is made pursuant to Title V would mean that Ireland
would have to opt into the provision in order to be bound by it,
and Denmark would be excluded. Given such consequences, it was
hardly probable that the legal base need not identify the applicable
Treaty Article in Title V;
· it transpired that Ireland
and the Commission take a different view to the UK of whether
a legal base in Title V should be cited. In the case of Ireland,
this would lead to the unfortunate situation of the only other
beneficiary State to the opt-in Protocol taking the contrary view
of when the opt-in applies. In the case of the Commission, we
thought there was also a risk that it might bring an action in
the ECJ should the UK assert that it can opt out of a binding
provision in an international agreement without the need for a
Title V legal base;
· a Regulation or Directive
would always cite a Title V legal base if the opt-in was considered
to be engaged. The Government's approach to EU international agreements
therefore had the consequence of placing them in a category sui
generis, for which the Committee failed to find any
justification in the EU Treaties; and
· in addition, the Government's
approach could set an unhelpful precedent in a multilateral system
of law based on transparency, consistency and predictability:
other EU Member States may wish to take a similar approach to
Treaty obligations they would prefer not to be bound by.
8.19 In all, it seemed to us that the
Government was in a minority of one in arguing that its interpretation
of Title V was correct: were this not the case other Member States
(particularly Ireland and Denmark) and the EU institutions could
be expected to agree to the citation of a Title V legal base.
We thought this approach was based more on wishful thinking than
reasonable legal interpretation. More importantly, however, there
was a risk that it might lead to the consequences listed above.
We therefore asked the Government to reconsider its policy on
the application of Title V to EU international agreements.
Our further assessment
8.20 We were led to understand that
there was some pressure in Brussels to arrange a signing ceremony
for the Agreement, to coincide with a visit of the Foreign Minister
of the Philippines.
8.21 As we had said before, we would
not ordinarily stand in the way of the conclusion of an agreement,
on the contents of which we had no further comment. But the Government's
application of the opt-in Protocol to this and other international
agreements was, in our view, a matter of legal importance, and
so came fully within the Committee's mandate. As we stated (see
above), we judged this policy to be misguided — we saw no
short-term gain for the UK but several long-term difficulties
of wider concern — and, if pursued, as capable of undermining
the rule of law in the EU. Given the strength of these reservations,
we continued to be unable to clear the agreement from scrutiny.[25]
The further Council Decision
8.22 In his Explanatory Memorandum of
20 January 2014, the Minister for Europe notes that the PCA was
signed in Phnom Penh on 11 July 2012 at the ASEAN Regional Forum
ministerial meeting, and also in Brussels on the same date by
Baroness Ashton and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of the
Philippines, Albert del Rosario. Following signature, Member States
are proceeding with implementation and ratification of the agreement.
The Government's view
8.23 The Minister describes the agreement
in the same terms as before and notes again that the Philippines
has been endorsed by the Foreign Secretary and the NSC as an emerging
power for enhanced UK engagement. He continues as follows:
"The US remains uniquely influential
in the Philippines, and Japan and Australia have strong presences
backed by big aid programmes, whilst China and Korea are increasingly
influential as trade and investment partners. However the UK is
the largest EU investor in the Philippines and our credentials
are further reinforced as members of the International Contact
Group (together with Japan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia) assisting
peace talks to end the separatist conflict in the Muslim majority
areas of Mindanao. As such we are well placed to benefit from
improved commercial cooperation and market access. Mention our
contribution to Haiyan disaster relief and how that has cemented
our position.
"Our vision for the UK relationship
with the Philippines is to secure maximum benefit for the UK and
British business from the development of the Philippines as a
stable democracy and high-growth economy in East Asia, and as
a progressive partner for the UK in ASEAN and internationally.
This PCA paves the way for an EU Free Trade Agreement with the
Philippines which is desirable to create a more open environment
and level playing field for foreign business.
"The PCA will provide an additional
channel through which we can pursue UK objectives on human rights,
which are protected in the Philippines' law but not always upheld."
JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS AND PROTOCOL 21 TO THE TREATIES
8.24 The Minister deals with the legal
aspects of the PCA as follows:
"This Council Decision on conclusion
follows Council Decision No.2012/272/EU on the signature of the
PCA with the Philippines. The latter Council Decision was adopted
under Articles 91, 100, 79(3), 191(4), 207 and 209 in conjunction
with Article 218(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union. This choice of a range of legal bases is consistent with
the Agreement which contains obligations in the fields of the
environment, transport, migration, trade and development cooperation.
"Council Decision No.2012/272/EU
was subject to Parliamentary scrutiny in the usual manner. The
UK did not opt-into the JHA provision on re-admission and participated
in that provision in its own right.
"The nature of the Agreement has
not changed, and the Agreement that will be concluded under the
proposed Council Decision contains the same obligations.
"The agreement is a mixed agreement,
i.e., it is an agreement between the Philippines and the EU and
its Member States. As such, it contains some provisions that relate
to the exercise of EU competence and some provisions that relate
to the exercise of Member State competence.
"Article 26 (3) of the PCA on re-admission
includes a JHA obligation to be exercised by the EU; therefore
Protocol 21 applies to that provision and it is therefore open
to the UK to opt-into the provision and participate as part of
the EU or to participate in this obligation in its own right.
In line with the approach taken for the Council Decision on signature
of this agreement, the Government is minded not to opt-in to the
re-admission provision of this agreement and the UK will therefore
participate in this provision in its own right. The preamble to
the Agreement notes the applicability of Protocol 21 to the Agreement
in relation to the UK, Ireland and Denmark's participation in
JHA provisions of the Agreement. In relation to Articles 10 (Cooperation
in Combating Terrorism), Article 20, (Legal Cooperation), Article
21 (Cooperation in Combating Illicit Drugs), Article 22 (Cooperation
in Combating Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing), Article
23 (Combating Organised Crime and Corruption), Article 26 (Refugees
and Internally Displaced Persons, and Cooperation on Migration
and Development), the Government considers that these will either
be entered into by the Member States in their own right or they
are not of a nature such as to engage Protocol 21. There is, therefore,
no need to cite Title V legal bases for those provisions.
"In order to maintain consistency
with Council Decision No.2012/272/EU, the Government will push
for the citation of all substantive legal bases in the Decision
for Conclusion.
"Parliament will wish to be aware
that all language versions of the proposed Council Decision were
published on 19 December 2013, and as such the Government has
until 19 March 2014 to notify the Council of its decision under
Protocol 21 to the Treaties.
"It is important to note that Council
Decision No. 2012/272/EU on the signature of the PCA is currently
under consideration by the Courts of Justice of the EU (Court
Case C-377/12). The Commission has asked the Court to annul that
decision in so far as the Council added the legal bases relating
to readmission (Article 79(3) TFEU), transport (Articles 91 and
100 TFEU), and the environment (Article 191(4) TFEU). The UK intervened
in support of the Council, along with Germany, Austria, Ireland
and Greece; the Court is not expected to rule on this case until
later this year. The Commission has stated in its Explanatory
Memorandum accompanying the proposed Council Decision that "as
long as this case is pending, the procedure for conclusion of
this Agreement cannot be finalised".
SUBSIDIARITY
"The PCA is a mixed agreement.
It has been signed by the EU and the Philippines. Member States
are proceeding with implementation and ratification of this document.
The proposed Decision is in line with the earlier Council Decision
No. 2012/272/EU which provides a legal framework for EU-Philippines
relations. It covers issues including political dialogue, trade
relations, development assistance, science and technology, justice,
migration and asylum.
IMPACT ON UK LAW
"As this is a mixed agreement,
it will require specification as an EU Treaty in accordance with
section 1(3) of the European Communities Act, 1972. A draft specification
order has been drafted and is currently before the Joint Committee
on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) for pre-clearance. No additional
implementation measures are envisaged."
Conclusion
8.25 We have expressed on many occasions
our disagreement with the Government's policy on the application
of the opt-in protocol to EU international agreements in the absence
of Title V legal bases; not only in the context of the Council
Decision on the signature of this Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement, but also in relation to other Framework Agreements
including those proposed with Ukraine, Kozovo and Azerbaijan.
8.26 There seems little to be gained
from rehearsing our objections, particularly as we have already
pressed the Government recently to reconsider its policy following
recent adverse ECJ rulings in the Conditional Access and EEA Agreement
cases. We note also that the Government's policy has been further
undermined by the ECJ's ruling on 27 February where the Court
held in the EU/Switzerland Agreement on Free Movement of Persons
that Article 48 TFEU was the correct legal base for the corresponding
Council Decision, not Article 79(2)(b) TFEU.
8.27 Given that a Title V legal base
is absent, we do not comment on the Government's opt-in decision.
8.28 As the procedure for the EU's
conclusion of this PCA cannot be completed until the resolution
of the challenge before the ECJ in respect of the Council Decision
on the signature of the agreement, we see no immediate need to
clear this document. Instead, we ask the Government for its view
on the outcome of the case once it is known, and indeed its view
of the recent ruling on the EU/Switzerland agreement referred
to above.
8.29 The document therefore remains
under scrutiny.
15 The full text is available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:134:0003:0003:EN:PDF. Back
16
See headnote: (32472) -. Back
17
See headnote: (31949) 13615/10 and (32472) -: HC 428-xvii (2010-11),
chapter 5 (16 February 2011) and HC 428-xvi (2010-11), chapter
6 (9 February 2011). Back
18
For full details, see our earlier Report under reference: (31949)
13615/10 and (32472) -: HC 428-xxviii (2010-12), chapter 3 (24
May 2011). Back
19
C-45/86, para 9. Back
20
C-325/91, para 26. Back
21
(31949) 13615/10. Back
22
32472) -. Back
23
See Thirtieth Report of Session 2010-12, Opting into international
agreements and enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of opt-in decisions,
HC 955-I, 18 May 2011. Back
24
See Thirtieth Report of Session 2010-12, Opting into international
agreements and enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of opt-in decisions
HC 955-II, Q 40, 18 May 2011. Back
25
See headnote: (31949) 13615/10 and (32472) -: HC 428-xxviii
(2010-12), chapter 3 (24 May 2011). Back
| 
