73.
The facts we have found, additionally to those referred to in paragraph 2 above
in the October judgment, appear in paragraphs 17, 61 and 69 above.
Expedition
74.
We have carefully considered whether we should request expedition of the
reference pursuant to Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure. An application to
this effect was made to us by the Claimant and opposed by the Respondent.
75.
The grounds upon which the Claimant relied in support of its application for
expedition were as follows:
a. The issues are important and urgent, and straightforward for the Grand
Chamber to decide.
b. In Watson there was an order for expedition.
c. If there were an expedited hearing it would remove the necessity for
any application to be made to this Tribunal for interim relief.
76.
The Respondents’ responses, which we accept, were as follows:
a. The issues are not at all straightforward, and their importance to the
Member States would run counter to any foreshortening of the
opportunity for other Member States to consider whether to take any
part, and to participate if so advised.
b. In Watson there were three grounds for the order of expedition, only
the third of which was its importance, as appears from the order of the
Page 59