Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:22:21.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Court of Justice of the European Union as a Transnational Actor through Judicial Review of the Territorial Scope of EU Environmental Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2019

Ioanna HADJIYIANNI
Ioanna HADJIYIANNI*
Affiliation:
Department of Law, University of Cyprus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When courts are faced with questions regarding the territorial scope of internal legislation, they are required to engage with controversial issues pertaining to the permissible boundaries of regulatory reach, which go beyond traditional conceptions of state sovereignty and non-intervention on which the functioning of courts is normally based. This Article examines the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) in reviewing the legality and interpretation of the extraterritorial reach of EU environmental law, including animal welfare. It assesses the extent to which judicial review by the CJEU serves as a transnational mechanism for addressing legitimacy concerns raised by the unilateral exercise of EU regulatory power beyond EU borders.

Keywords

environmentanimal welfareextraterritorialthird countrieslegitimacyjudicial review
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 21 , December 2019 , pp. 128 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Joanne Scott, Deirdre Curtin, Cedric Ryngaert, Anna Wallerman, Marta Morvillo, Tasos Keliris, and the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this Article. All views and any mistakes remain my own.

References

1 ‘CJEU’ refers both to the Court of Justice and to the General Court in accordance with Article 19(1) Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’). In certain instances, separate references will be made to the individual courts. When it is not necessary to distinguish between the two courts, references will be made to the ‘CJEU’ or the ‘EU courts’.

2 Scott, J, ‘The Geographical Scope of the EU's Climate Responsibilities’ (2015) 17 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ireland-Piper, D, Accountability in Extraterritoriality (Edward Elgar, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Art 21 TEU.

5 Art 3(5) TEU.

6 Scott, J, ‘Extraterritoriality and Territorial Extension in EU Law’ (2014) 62 American Journal of Comparative Law 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Parliament and Council Directive 2009/28/EC [2009] OJ L140/16, Art 17.

8 Parliament and Council Directive 2008/101/EC [2009] OJ L8/3.

9 Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 995/2010 [2010] OJ L295/23.

10 Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 1257/2013 [2013] OJ L330/1.

11 Council Regulation (EC) 1099/2009 [2009] OJ L303/1; D M Broom, ‘Animal Welfare in the European Union’, Study for the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament (January 2017).

12 Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 1007/2009 [2009] OJ L286/36.

13 Section IV below.

14 A Bradford, ‘The Brussels Effect’ (2012) 107 Northwestern University Law Review 1.

15 See note 6 above. For example, see Section V.A below in relation to the Aviation Directive.

16 Consolidated Version Directive 2003/87/EC [2003] OJ L275/32, Art 25a(2); note 8 above, Rec 17.

17 Hong Kong International Convention on the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 19 May 2009, SR/CONF/45 (not yet in force).

18 See note 9 above, Art 3.

19 Bodansky, D, ‘The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law?’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 596, 623CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 For the elaboration of this legitimacy framework, see Hadjiyianni, I, The EU as a Global Regulator for Environmental Protection: A Legitimacy Perspective (Hart Publishing, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Laïdi, Z, The Normative Empire: The Unintended Consequences of European Power (2008 Centre d’études européennes de Sciences Po)Google Scholar, https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00972756/document.

22 Davies, B G, ‘International Trade, Extraterritorial Power, and Global Constitutionalism: A Perspective from Constitutional Pluralism’ (2012) 13 German Law Journal 1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Cooreman, B, Global Environmental Protection through Trade: A Systematic Approach to Extraterritoriality (Edward Elgar, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Cottier, T and Matteotti-Berkutova, S, ‘International Environmental Law and the Evolving Concept of “Common Concern of Mankind”’ in Cottier, T, Nartova, O, and Bigdeli, S Z (eds), International Trade Regulation and the Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 See note 22 above.

26 Morgera, E, ‘Ambition, Complexity and Legitimacy of Pursuing Mutual Supportiveness through the EU's External Environmental Action’ in Van Vooren, B, Blockmans, S, and Wouters, J (eds), The EU's Role in Global Governance: The Legal Dimension (Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar.

27 Scott, J and Rajamani, L, ‘EU Climate Change Unilateralism’ (2012) 23 European Journal of International Law 469CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see note 2 above.

28 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 9 May 1992, 1771 UNTS 107, Art 3(1). See also Paris Agreement adopted under the UNFCCC, 12 December 2015, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9, Art 2(2).

29 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 12 August 1992, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26, Vol 1, Principles 6, 7.

30 Shaffer, G and Bodansky, D, ‘Transnationalism, Unilateralism and International Law’ (2012) 1 Transnational Environmental Law 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See note 22 above, p 1204.

32 Keohane, R O, ‘Global Governance and Democratic Accountability’ in Held, D and Koenig-Archibugi, M (eds), Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance (Polity Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

33 See note 22 above.

34 Benvenisti, E, ‘Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity: On the Accountability of States to Foreign Stakeholders’ (2013) 107 American Journal of International Law 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Caney, S, ‘Two Kinds of Climate Justice: Avoiding Harm and Sharing Burdens’ (2014) 22 Journal of Political Philosophy 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 See note 2 above.

37 J Scott, The Global Reach of EU Law: Territorial Extension and the ‘New Harms’ (paper presented at the EUI Law Faculty, March 2018); J Scott ‘The Global Reach of EU Law: Is Complicity the New Effects?’ in J Scott and M Cremona (eds), EU Law beyond EU Borders: The Extraterritorial Reach of EU Law (Oxford University Press, 2019).

38 Kingsbury, B, Krisch, N, and Stewart, R B, ‘The Emergence of Global Administrative Law’ (2005) Law and Contemporary Problems 15Google Scholar.

39 Shaffer, G, ‘International Law and Global Public Goods in a Legal Pluralist World’ (2012) 23 European Journal of International Law 669CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Arts 191, 192 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).

41 Art 11 TFEU.

42 Art 13 TFEU.

43 Ankersmit, L, Green and Fair Trade in and with the EU, Process-Based Measures in the EU Legal Order (Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Art 21 TEU.

45 Art 21(3) TEU.

46 Cremona, M, ‘Coherence and EU External Environmental Policy’ in Morgera, E (ed), The External Environmental Policy of the European Union: EU and International Law Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2012), p 37Google Scholar.

47 Korkea-Aho, E, ‘“Mr Smith Goes to Brussels”: Third Country Lobbying and the Making of EU Law and Policy’ (2016) 18 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 For a detailed assessment of these administrative mechanisms, see note 20 above, ch 3.

49 For a more detailed account on the issues arising in relation to access of third-country actors to the EU courts in this context, see Hadjiyianni, I, ‘The Extraterritorial Reach of EU Environmental Law and Access to Justice by Third Country Actors’ (2017) 2(2) European Papers 519Google Scholar.

50 For a more detailed account on the operation of the different grounds of judicial review in the context of the extraterritorial reach of EU law, see note 20 above, ch 4.

51 D Augenstein, ‘The Human Rights Dimension of Environmental Protection in EU External Relations Post-Lisbon’ in Morgera, note 46 above; Bartels, L, ‘The EU's Human Rights Obligations in relation to Policies with Extraterritorial Effects’ (2014) 25 European Journal of International Law 1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Balkan-Import Export GmbH v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof, C-55/75, EU:C:1976:8, para 14.

53 Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe in Swiss International Air Lines AG v The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Environment Agency, C-272/15, EU:C:2016:573, paras 58–59.

54 Fahey, E, The Global Reach of EU Law (Routledge, 2017), ch 2Google Scholar; see notes 37 and 43 above.

55 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, C-362/14, EU:C:2015:650; Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja Gonzalez, C-131/12, EU:C:2014:317; Bodil Lindqvist, C-101/01 EU:C:2003:596.

56 Gencor Ltd v Commission, Case T-102/96, EU:T:1999:65; InnoLux Corp v Commission, Case C-231/14 P, EU:C:2015:451; Intel v Commission, C-413/14, EU:C:2017:632.

57 Art 21 TEU.

58 Art 3(5) TEU.

59 Eeckhout, P, ‘A Normative Basis for EU External Relations? Protecting Internal Values Beyond the Single Market’ in Krajewski, Markus (ed) Services of General Interest Beyond the Single Market: External and International Law Dimensions (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

60 Cremona, M, ‘A Reticent Court? Policy Objectives and the Court of Justice’ in Cremona, M and Thies, A (eds), The European Court of Justice and External Relations Law: Constitutional Challenges (Hart, 2014)Google Scholar.

61 Larik, J, ‘Shaping the International Order as an EU Objective’ in Kochenov, D and Amtenbrink, F (eds), The European Union's Shaping of the International Legal Order (Cambridge University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

62 Art 19(3) TEU and Arts 263, 267(b) TFEU. The CJEU recently emphasised this distinction in Front Polisario, C-104/16, EU:C:2016:973, paras 81–86.

63 Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten, C-424/13, EU:C:2015:259; Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005 [2005] OJ L3/1.

64 See note 63 above, para 47.

65 Ibid, para 35.

66 J Lawrence, ‘Zuchtvieh-Export GMBH v Stadt Kempten: The Extraterritorial Reach of EU Animal Welfare Rules’ (European Law Blog, 18 June 2015), https://europeanlawblog.eu/2015/06/18/zuchtvieh-export-gmbh-v-stadt-kempten-the-extraterritorial-reach-of-eu-animal-welfare-rules.

67 Opinion of Advocate General Bot in Zuchtvieh-Export, C-424/13, EU:C:2014:2216, para 47.

68 Ibid, paras 93–94.

69 See note 43 above, ch 3.

70 C Ryngaert, ‘The Long Arm of EU Law: EU Animal Welfare Legislation Extended to International Road Transport’ (Renforce Blog, 24 August 2015), http://blog.renforce.eu/index.php/en/2015/08/24/the-long-arm-of-eu-law-eu-animal-welfare-legislation-extended-to-international-road-transport-2.

71 See note 63 above, para 31.

72 Ibid, para 25.

73 See note 67 above, para 62.

74 Mahoney, D, ‘Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v. Stadt Kempten: The Tension Between Uniform, Cross-Border Regulation and Territorial Sovereignty’ (2017) 40 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 363Google Scholar.

75 For example, standards relating to transport of animals under the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, http://www.oie.int/international-standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-online.

76 European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport, 6 November 2003.

77 Poulsen, C-286/90, EU:C:1992:453.

78 See note 10 above, Art 15.

79 Ibid, Art 23.

80 Lindqvist, note 55 above, para 69; Kuner, C, ‘Extraterritoriality and Regulation of International Data Transfers in EU Data Protection Law’ (2015) 5 International Data Privacy Law 235, p 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 See note 63 above, para 27.

82 COM (2011) 700 final, Report to the European Parliament and the Council on the impact of Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport. The Report does not refer to third-country impacts or address implications for international transport.

83 One of the main principles of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on animal welfare is that support should be given to good animal welfare practices in countries with less developed economies. FAO Investment Centre, ‘Review of Animal Welfare Legislation in the Beef, Pork, and Poultry Industries’ (2014), http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4002e.pdf.

84 Art 21 TEU.

85 Art 208(1) TFEU.

86 See note 63 above, para 54.

87 See note 70 above.

88 For example, see note 10 above, Art 15(5); Commission, ‘Requirements and procedure for inclusion of facilities located in third countries in the European List of ship recycling facilities—Technical guidance note under Regulation 1257/2013/EU on ship recycling’ (Communication) [2016] OJ C128/1.

89 For example, see note 16 above, Art 25(a); note 8 above, Rec 17.

90 Schrems, note 55 above.

91 Danske Svineproducente, C-316/10, EU:C:2011:863.

92 The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion in World Farming Ltd, C-1/96, EU:C:1998:113.

93 Oriolo, A, ‘The Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v. Stadt Kempten Case—The Triggering of a Substantial Link to “Export” EU Animal Welfare Law?’ in Capaldo, GZ (ed) The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2016 (Oxford University Press, 2017)Google Scholar.

94 Ibid.

95 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, 120/78, EU:C:1979:42.

96 See note 52 above, para 14.

97 Gourmetterie van den Burg, C-169/89, EU:C:1990:227; Criminal Proceedings Against Godefridus Van der Feesten, C-202/94, EU:C:1996:39; Hedley Lomas, C-5/94, EU:C:1996:205. See Davies, G, ‘“Process and Production Method”-Based Trade Restrictions in the EU’ (2007) 10 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ankersmit, L, Lawrence, J, and Davies, G, ‘Diverging EU and WTO Perspectives on Extraterritorial Process Regulation’ (2012) 21 Minnesota Journal of International Law Online 14Google Scholar.

98 European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Attorney General (EFCI), C-592/14, EU:C:2016:703; Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 1223/2009 [2009] OJ L342/59.

99 EFCI, note 98 above, para 43.

100 For example, Google Spain, note 55 above, paras 53–54.

101 See note 14 above.

102 European Parliament Resolution of 3 May 2018 on a global ban to end animal testing for cosmetics (2017/2922(RSP)).

103 Z Zakaria, ‘Cosmetic Safety Regulations: A Comparative Study of Europe, the USA and Malaysia’ (PhD Thesis University of Manchester 2012).

104 J Lawrence, ‘The Extraterritorial Reach of EU Animal Welfare Rules (Again): Case C-592/14 European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients’ (European Law Blog, 16 November 2016), http://europeanlawblog.eu/2016/11/16/the-extraterritorial-reach-of-eu-animal-welfare-rules-again-case-c-59214-european-federation-for-cosmetic-ingredients.

105 Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients, C-592/14, EU:C:2016:179, para 63.

106 Ibid, para 60.

107 Ibid, para 88.

108 Ibid, para 72.

109 Ibid paras 66–68.

110 COM (2013) 135 final, ‘Communication on the Animal Testing and Marketing Ban and on the State of Play in Relation to Alternative Methods in the Field of Cosmetics’, p 6; Commission response to Petition to the European Parliament 0471/2013.

111 See note 102 above.

112 Ibid, p 5.

113 Regulation (EC) 1223/2009, note 98 above, Art 18.

114 For example, with the US, Canada, and Japan under the network of International Cooperation on Cosmetic Regulation (‘ICCR’).

115 Arts 3(5), 21 TEU.

116 A Griffin, ‘Animal Sentience: What Is Really Going on with the Controversial Brexit Amendment?’ (Independent, 23 November 2017), http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-sentience-brexit-vote-caroline-lucas-michael-gove-truth-fact-argument-a8072071.html.

117 Air Transport Association of America and others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (ATAA), C-366/10, EU:C:2011:864; see note 8 above.

118 See note 8 above, Art 16(3).

119 Ibid, Arts 16(5)–16(12).

120 Directive 2003/87/EC, note 16 above, Art 25a(2).

121 Ibid; note 8 above, Rec 17.

122 See Morgera, E and Kulovesi, K, ‘The Role of the EU in Promoting International Standards in the Area of Climate Change’ in Govaere, I and Ghent, S Poli (eds), EU Management of Global Emergencies, Legal Framework for Combating Threats and Crises (Martinus Nijhoff, 2014)Google Scholar.

123 See note 47 above.

124 Art 191(1) TFEU.

125 Art 21(1) TEU.

126 Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Air Transport Association of America, C-366/10, EU:C:2011:637, para 186.

127 ATAA, note 117 above, para 128.

128 Ibid, para 127.

129 Ibid, para 125.

130 Havel, B F and Mulligan, J Q, ‘The Triumph of Politics: Reflections on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union Validating the Inclusion of Non-EU Airlines in the Emissions Trading Scheme’ (2012) 37 Air and Space Law 3Google Scholar.

131 Ibid, para 154.

132 ATAA, note 117 above, para 129.

133 In contrast, the CJEU explicitly endorsed effects-based jurisdiction in competition law: Gencor, note 56 above; Intel, note 56 above.

134 See note 126 above, paras 158–59.

135 See note 8 above, Rec 17.

136 See note 59 above.

137 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 11 December 1997, 2303 UNTS 148, Art 2(2). See ATAA, note 117 above, paras 77–78.

138 Ibid, para 107.

139 Ibid, para 110.

140 de Baere, G and Ryngaert, C, ‘The ECJ's Judgment in Air Transport Association of America and the International Legal Context of the EU's Climate Change Policy’ (2013) 18 European Foreign Affairs Review 389Google Scholar.

141 Eeckhout, P, ‘The Integration of Public International Law in EU Law: Analytical and Normative Questions’ in Eeckhout, P and Escudero, M L (eds), The European Union's External Action in Times of Crisis (Hart Publishing, 2016), p 199Google Scholar.

142 Commission v Germany, C-61/94, EU:C:1996:313, para 52.

143 See note 126 above, para 163.

144 Western Sahara Campaign UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, C-266/16, EU:C:2018:118.

145 J Larik, ‘A Line in the Sand: The Strict Observance of International Law in the Western Sahara Case’ (Verfassungsblog on Matters Constitutional, 2 March 2018), https://verfassungsblog.de/a-line-in-the-sand-the-strict-observance-of-international-law-in-the-western-sahara-case.

146 Parliament and Council Decision 377/2013/EU [2013] OJ L113.

147 COM (2013) 0722, Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in view of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure to international aviation emissions, p 2; Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2392 [2017] OJ L350/7, Rec 5; SWD (2017) 31 final, Impact Assessment on the Proposal for a Regulation amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community in view of the implementation of a single global market-based measure to international aviation emissions, p 96.

148 Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/757 [2015] OJ L123/55.

149 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council (Inuit I), T-18/10, EU:T:2011:419; P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v Parliament and Council (Inuit I), C-583/11, EU:C:2013:625. See note 12 above.

150 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council (Inuit II), Case T-526/10, EU:T:2013:215; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Commission (Inuit II), Case C-398/13, EU:C:2015:535; Commission Regulation (EU) 737/2010 [2010] OJ L216/1.

151 See note 12 above, Art 3(1).

152 See note 49 above.

153 Commune de Champagne v Council and Commission, T-212/02, EU:T:2007:194, para 2.

154 Inuit I, Case T-18/10, note 149 above, para 75.

155 Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Case C-583/11, EU:C:2013:21, para 71.

156 Inuit I, Case C-583/11, note 149 above.

157 AB Report on EC—Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/AB/R, WT/DS401/AB/R adopted 18 June 2014. However, unlike access to the CJEU, the WTO dispute settlement system is restricted to state disputes.

158 Inuit II, Case T-526/10, note 150 above, para 71.

159 Ibid, para 70.

160 Ibid, paras 55–56; Inuit II, Case C-398/13, note 150 above, paras 39–42.

161 Inuit II, Case T-526/10, note 150 above, para 70.

162 L Ankermsit, ‘The Seal Product Cases (II): Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapriit Kanatami and others’ (European Law Blog, 7 May 2013), https://europeanlawblog.eu/2013/05/07/the-seal-product-cases-ii-case-t-52610-inuit-tapriit-kanatami-and-others.

163 The CJEU did not examine this issue.

164 Inuit II, Case T-526/10, note 150 above, para 88.

165 Ibid, para 95.

166 Ibid, paras 97–98.

167 Vezzani, S, ‘The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami II Case and the Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: A Missed Opportunity?’ (2016) 1(1) European Papers 307Google Scholar.

168 Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C-402 and 415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461; Commission et al. v Kadi, Joined Cases C–584/10 P, C–593/10 P & C–595/10P, EU:C:2013:518.

169 Inuit II, Case T-526/10, note 150 above, para 109; Inuit II, Case C-398/13, note 150, paras 60–62.

170 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295, Art 19: ‘States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them’.

171 Inuit II, Case T-526/10, note 150, para 113.

172 Ibid, para 112.

173 Inuit II, Case C-398/13, note 150, paras 56–58.

174 Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, C-398/13 EU:C:2015:190, para 94.

175 Ibid; Inuit II, Case T-526/10, note 150 above, para 114.

176 However, the Regulation refers to the Declaration in general terms and not to the consultation rights under Art 19: Regulation (EU) 737/2010, note 150 above, Rec 14.

177 See the text of Art 19, note 170 above.

178 Fahey, note 54 above.

179 See note 167 above.