European law is not the specialty of the day the Republic of the Centre. In its edition of September 4-5, 2010, we read an article entitled " Scott Paper: 12.3 million euros in public subsidies to reimburse " under the signature of Hamoudi Fellah (see page 5).
This article discusses the ruling by the First Chamber of the Court of Justice, September 2, 2010, European Commission against Scott SA, supported by the Department of Loiret, France being a party to the appeal, including the full text below.
Senator Jean-Pierre Sueur has reported that decision on his blog: http://www.jpsueur.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=941:affaire -scott-paper - a-judgment-of-the-most-of-court-justice-European & catid = 51: interventions-and-catch-of-position = 64 & Itemid
1. Shape errors.
1) The decision of the Court of Justice.
The author cited in his article mentions "... the decision on Thursday September 2, by the European Court of Justice . "This statement is incorrect for two reasons.
- There is no" European Court of Justice ", but since the Treaty of Lisbon (see Article 19 paragraph of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009) a Court of Justice who succeeds to the Court of Justice (ECJ). The term Court of Justice of the European Union can be used, but it encompasses, the Court of Justice, the Court and the Court of Civil Service.
- Being a person public corporation, in this case, an institution of the European Union, the use of capital letters is required.
had to write: "... by the Court of Justice ."
2) The decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Union.
The author refers to " the decision at first instance by the Court of European Communities .
There is no" court communities European "but" the Tribunal. "(see article Treaty of Lisbon supra. One can also use the term of the Court of First Instance of the European Union (TPUE).
He had to write" .. .. by the Tribunal or the Court of First Instance of the European Union (ECFI) . "
He had to write" .. .. by the Tribunal or the Court of First Instance of the European Union (ECFI) . "
2. The errors of substance.
1) The sum of 12 , 3 million € is only selling the land at a preferential price to Scott Paper.
Author wrote: " The amount due to taxpayers Orleans and the department is of the order of 12.3 million euros ." He continued: " In this case, the European Commission had estimated in a decision dated July 12, 2000 that the aid granted to Scott Paper in the form of a discount sale of land and water treatment levy, were inconsistent with Community rules on competition . "
In light of reading this text, everything suggests that public support amounted to 12.3 million euros and corresponds both to the sale of ground discount and the fee for sanitation.
But that is not the case.
According to paragraph 11 of the Judgement of the Court of Justice, September 2, 2010, supra, it is a " discount sales of land with an area of 48 hectares, an estimated $ 39.588 million FRF, about 6.03 million euros or, in present value to the sum of USD 80.77 million, or 12.3 million euros. "
Added to this is: " a preferential rate of levy sanitation enforcement in favor of Scott .. . "
2) The grant will recover more than 12.3 million €.
The author writes:" The amount due to taxpayers and department Orleans Loiret is around 12.3 million euros . "
The $ 12.3 million € is the amount of aid paid (see paragraph 11 of Case September 2, 2010 the Court of Justice). But to recover the amount will exceed this amount, since any illegal aid must be recovered with interest for the period from the date of the provision of aid to the beneficiary until the date of its recovery. (In this case, the interest rate is calculated by adding 100 basis points in the money market rates at one year and is being published annually by the European Commission).
3) A duplication.
The author writes: " Invited to resume its ruling, the court of the European Communities is now obliged to take into account the ruling of the European Court of Justice . "(2nd paragraph).
Further, it states:" The court the European Communities, which must again decide will not disregard the decision of the European Court of Justice . "(4th paragraph).
poorly understood that this repetition adds nothing to the idea developed above.
4) The future of the General Court ruling will not on the recovery of public assistance.
The author writes: " Invited to resume its ruling, the court of the European Communities is now obliged to take into account the ruling of the European Court of Justice . "(2nd paragraph).
Further, it states:" The court the European Communities, which must again decide will not disregard the decision of the European Court of Justice . "(4th paragraph).
poorly understood that this repetition adds nothing to the idea developed above.
4) The future of the General Court ruling will not on the recovery of public assistance.
The author writes about the ECFI " Only Following his second trial the green light to a refund should occur .
The reader infers that the General Court should adopt a new trial that will lead to condemn the French government to recover the aid. This statement is not strictly accurate.
In reality, the future trial of the General Court should take into account the ruling of the ECJ regarding the evaluation of aid and its method of calculation.
Reading the conclusions of the Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi, 23 February 2010 sheds light on the reasoning of the ECJ that followed these findings. They are clear and very educational in a particular case complicated.
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=fr&alljur=alljur&jurcdj=jurcdj&jurtpi=jurtpi&jurtfp=jurtfp&numaff=C-290/07 & nomusuel docnodecision = & = & docnodecision allcommjo allcommjo & affint = = = affclose affclose affint & & & docor alldocrec alldocrec = = = DocAve DocAve docor & & & docinf docsom docsom = = = alldocnorec alldocnorec docinf & & & radtypeord docnoor docnoor = = newform newform = on & & & docop docj docj = = = docop & docnoj docnoj & typeord = ALL & field = & words = & resmax = 100 & Submit = Search
In this case, Scott has filed a petition registered under number T-366/00 which resulted in a decision dated 29 March 2007, under which the Court (T-369/00) annulled the only section 2 the contested measure " insofar as it concerns the aid as a preferential price of land referred to in Article 1 Article . In other words, for cancellation of the decision of the European Commission of July 12, 2000, Scott has developed four ways: violation of procedural rights, violation of the principle of equal treatment, breach of trust legitimate and incorrect assessment of the aid. (See paragraph 8)
The Court limited its review to the only legal argument alleging erroneous assessment of not considering using the other three. Therefore, according to the Advocate General, " the case is not ready for trial by the Court and should be referred to the Tribuna l." (Item 174).
Consequently, the debate focuses on the value of public assistance as defined in principle between the difference between the market value of the land and the land value in view of the benefit granted (in this case a discount) and not on the recovery of public assistance.
The decision of the Court of Justice, September 2, 2010, can be summarized through the two recitals contained in paragraphs 79 and 80.
" 79. Finally, while it may be regretted that the Commission has not demonstrated a clear logic in determining the costs of acquiring the land undeveloped issue by considering the average price of staggered three transactions between 1975 and 1987 to determine the market value of the disputed land parcel whose origin has not been identified, the fact remains that, faced with an operation as complex as that at issue, the Tribunal has exceeded its level of judicial review in the circumstances of the case, stating, for the effect of a presumption that the Commission had violated its duty of care. Similarly, the Court also failed to identify a manifest error of appreciation that the Commission committed in choosing the method and its application.
80. In particular, it is quite legitimate for the Commission's preferred rely on the information given by the French authorities as well as the minutes of proceedings of the municipal council of the city of Orleans from May 27, 1994, rather than an assessment made by the French tax authorities used in a tax audit during 1993. In any event, in the circumstances of the case, characterized, as was the Advocate General in point 140 of his conclusions by a lack of overt cooperation from French authorities, such choice does not amount to an error of assessment. "
Moreover, Senator Jean-Pierre Sueur does not make a mistake which, in an article on his blog, sees this decision analysis and confirmation of decisions made when he was mayor of Orleans, during the vote on the resolution of the City Council of Orleans, 27 May 1994. Thus, he writes: "This ruling justify positions that were taken by the council of Orleans when j performing the duties of mayor. It justifies any particular depth analysis and discussions that were presented by Charles Fox, Assistant Finance. "
5) Scott Paper and Kimberly Clark have paid state aid issue.
This assertion follows from the decision of the Court of Justice of 20 May 2010 in Case C-2010/09 Scott Paper and Kimberly Clark SA SAS against the city of Orleans.
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=fr&alljur=alljur&jurcdj = jurcdj & jurtpi jurtpi & jurtfp = = = C-210/09 numaff jurtfp & & & docnodecision nomusuel = = = allcommjo allcommjo docnodecision & & & affclose affint affint = = = alldocrec alldocrec affclose & & & DocAve docor docor = = & DocAve docsom docsom = & & alldocnorec docinf docinf = = = alldocnorec & docnoor docnoor radtypeord & = on & & docj newform newform = = = docop docop docj & & & typeord docnoj docnoj = = ALL & field = & words = & = resmax 100 & Submit = Search
We learn in paragraph 13 that "The January 9, 2007, the Administrative Court of Orleans dismissed the appeals brought before it by Scott and Kimberly Clark, which have subsequently repaid, February 7, 2007, the principal the help they had unduly benefited . "
In paragraph 15 it says: "The December 8, 2008, Scott and Kimberly Clark have repaid the interest on the assistance they had received under the period 1990 to 1 st June 2008, March 24, 2009, they paid the interest assistance for the period between 1 st June and December 8, 2008 . "
The Court's answer about the question (in interpretation) posed by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nantes did not alter this situation.
While the Court accepts the cancellation of form of vouchers for receipts issued December 5, 2001 by the city of Orleans (the three titles of revenue issued by the city bear the stamps of the town hall, and a signature marked "for the mayor, Deputy Assistant," but they do not mention the area of delegation conferred by the mayor's assistant who signed these securities or the full name of it. See paragraph 9 of the Judgement of the ECJ).
But this cancellation of form has two limits set by the Court.
one hand, this flaw can be rectified in light of relevant legislation into national law.
Secondly and more importantly, the cancellation of form of vouchers for receipts
" reason why these sums are, even temporarily, again paid to the beneficiary of this aid." other words, Repayments by Scott and Kimberly Clark are definitely for the annulment of form may not lead to surrender the aid recipient firms.
The future ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nantes take into account the interpretation of the community facing the national provisions to rule definitively in the direction of the Court of Justice .
A word of conclusion.
In conclusion, this article in view of the 7 errors it contains (2 editorial on the merits and 5) shows that probably the The author of the article did not seek information at the source, that is to say, by purchasing off the Court and the opinion of the Advocate General found on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (http://curia.europa.eu). But it was probably simply to read the article by Senator Jean-Pierre Sueur did not purport to summarize all this, but simply to defend a legitimate point of view.
However, in the European Union's access to knowledge sources is essential to be able to navigate the maze community. That's why, a few years ago I wrote an article for the Journal of Mayors titled "How learn about the European Union? " which incorporated my experience in this field.
This shows that the Republic of the Centre does no columnist (see a previous article about the 7 mistakes made by Jacques Camus about an editorial in the May 10, 2010 entitled " Europe. general mobilization.") nor a journalist, who can properly handle questions Europe. A gap if the editor of the Republic of the Centre is aware that the Union European, as the Council of Europe, organize our lives of French citizens increasingly, so that the number of articles dealing with Europe will only grow in the future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment