BOSPHORUS HAVA YOLLARI TURİZM VE TİCARET ANONİM ŞİRKETİ v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 28 together with any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties shall be taken into account. B. The Irish Constitution 101. The relevant part of Article 29 of the Irish Constitution reads as follows: “1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality. ... 3. Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States. 4. 1o ... 10o No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.” THE LAW I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 102. The Government maintained that the applicant company had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because it had not brought an action for damages (in contract or tort) against TEAM or initiated a constitutional action against Ireland. In any event, the application should have been introduced within six months of the ECJ ruling (since the Supreme Court had no choice but to implement that ruling) and was an abuse of the right of petition (given that the applicant company was not an “innocent” party, attempting as it did to mislead the domestic courts and this Court in a number of material respects). The European Commission added that the Supreme Court did not refer a question concerning Regulation (EC) no. 2472/94 to the ECJ because the applicant company had not relied on the regulation in the domestic proceedings. Other than referring to the Chamber's admissibility decision, the applicant company did not comment. The Chamber considered, for reasons outlined in its decision, that it would have been unreasonable to require the applicant company to have