President of the Court in that case dated 1 February 2016, the other two
plainly being primary and significant:
i. The desirability of joining Watson with the Swedish case,
which was already far advanced.
ii. The existence of the ‘sunset clause’ expiring 31 December
2016 in relation to DRIPA referred to in paragraph 20 above.
In the event, the Grand Chamber’s Judgment of 21 December
2016 only just met that deadline.
Those reasons plainly do not apply in this case.
c. That if the Claimant wishes to make an application for interim relief
they are free to do so.
77.
In the circumstances, for the reasons set out in paragraph 76 above, we do not
consider it appropriate to make any request for expedition.
POSTSCRIPT
78.
Since the completion of this Judgment by the Tribunal, the Grand Chamber
has delivered its Opinion 1/15 (ECL1:EU:C: 2017:592) dated 26 July 2017
(in relation to which the Tribunal recited some paragraphs of the Opinion of
Mengozzi AG of 8 September 2016 in paragraphs 36(i), 56, 61 and 63 above).
We have not therefore taken into account the Grand Chamber’s Opinion in
reaching our determinations in this Judgment. We invited brief submissions
from the parties as to the effect of that Opinion on our Judgment. The
Claimant submits that this Opinion supports its interpretation of Watson and
Page 60