Federal Supreme Court Remand on Prior Proceeding Costs Imposition

This provision was cited prior to the dispositive and, given the context of the referral by the Federal Tribunal concerning costs of the previous procedure, it likely governs the decision on costs made in the final orders.

This provision is cited implicitly through the concluding order concerning the costs (though not explicitly stated as 'Art. 66 al. 1 LTF' in the final order, the imposition of costs generally relies on the relevant procedural cost articles, but as the dispositive only explicitly states the consequence (condemnation to pay costs) without citing the cost article directly in the numbered orders, and no other article is cited, the interpretation must rely strictly on explicit citation in the final orders. Since the preceding text lists 'Vu l’art. 69 al.1bis LAI' and the final order only orders payment of costs without citing a specific cost provision in the operative part, I must only include provisions explicitly cited immediately preceding the dispositive if they directly lead to the operative decision, or explicitly cited within the operative part. Since the operative part only orders the payment of costs without citing a specific procedural article for costs, and only Art. 69 al.1bis LAI is listed under 'Vu', I rely on the explicit citation provided before the operative part, as the decision is entirely about costs following the Federal Tribunal's mandate.