Mr. Tom Flynn:

It is one of the difficulties with the phrase "not prohibitively expensive". First of all, it has not been definitively defined. The CJEU decision on the Edwards case gives some criteria in that regard. It is dynamic because the courts are constantly interpreting what constitutes "not prohibitively expensive". The Aarhus compliance commission also deal with this issue of defining "not prohibitively expensive". It will not, therefore, be a one-size-fits-all approach.

One important thing is that we have to consider the legal cost context and the wider context of the legal system with which we are dealing. What is not prohibitively expensive in Sweden, for example, is different from what would not be prohibitively expensive in Ireland, not just in pure monetary terms but having regard to the legal systems they have there. They have different processes in that regard. Therefore, when we talk about what is not prohibitively expensive and what it would mean in an Irish context, we must relate that to the Irish legal system and what is not prohibitively expensive having regard to Irish procedures and Irish legal costs.