I propose to take Questions Nos. 75 to 80 inclusive, together.
All of these questions relate directly or indirectly to the legal case mentioned by the Deputy which is pending before the Supreme Court. To the extent that the Deputy's questions relate to issues which impinge upon or are contingent on the outcome of legal proceedings, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.
With regard to the Article 169 proceedings I am satisfied as to the accuracy of the statements contained in the letter dated 5 March 1991 addressed to the Commission of the EC. These proceedings were opened by the Commission in their letter of 19 December 1990 and were suspended on 21 March 1991 pending the outcome of the action initiated by the plaintiff in the Irish courts. In the interim, the Irish Government had written to the Commission on 5 March 1991 refuting the contents of the Commission letter of 19 December 1990.
The matter has not yet been disposed of because, as I have indicated, the infringement proceedings have been suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings in the Irish courts on the matter. With regard to the steps taken by my Department to correct the breaches of procedure claimed in the Commission letter of 19 December 1990, the position is that my Department has implemented the ruling of the High Court in so far as it relates to such breaches. However, these matters are under appeal to the Supreme Court.
Eleven companies replied to the letter of 12 February 1990.
Damages, including interest, amounting to £450,596.17 were paid by my Department in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling of 16 July, 1992. No costs have been paid to the plaintiff. Any payment of costs to the plaintiff in this case is subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court case to which I have referred. State costs have not yet been quantified as the case has not been finalised.