Withdrawing a complaint to the european commission (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter mark_ccfc
- Start date
Otis
Well-Known Member
Or even Olderskyblue.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
That isn't for a state aid claim it's for consumers. It says at the very top it's for consumers.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
If the complaint is based on illegal state aid, they may be duty bound to investigate it whether it is withdrawn or not for integrity reasons? This is a guess on my part rather than factual knowledge.
This would for instance, prevent government bodies being able to bribe people into withdrawing a complaint to cover up state aid.
This would for instance, prevent government bodies being able to bribe people into withdrawing a complaint to cover up state aid.
mark_ccfc
Well-Known Member
It does say that yes - I have looked at state aid claim stuff an it all seems to be based around one member state complaining about another?
The whole thing is a rats maze, it needs someone with legal experience/knowledge to look at it.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
All those with legal expertise that have looked at it know that it can't be withdrawn.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
that's a new one on me.
D
Deleted member 2477
Guest
Why should they ???
mark_ccfc
Well-Known Member
So that wasps have no excuse not to strike a deal over the Ricoh.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
There is no way of withdrawing a compalint over illegal state aid once the EC has started to look into it
Give it a rest
Give it a rest
mark_ccfc
Well-Known Member
I haven't seen any proof of that - you give it a rest
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
dRoP tHe LeGaLs!!!!
mr_monkey
Well-Known Member
Or wasps drop the indemnity clause (which they only added at the last minute after knowing about the EU complaint for months before.. it's almost like they had a reason to try and force sisu to sell if the club didn't have anywhere to play
)
Astute
Well-Known Member
How did your beloved Wasps do last game?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
As others have said:
1. This is about consumers
2. It's about consumers that are dissatisfied with something they've bought from a trader, i.e. completely different from the circumstances of the Council / Wasps case.
CanadianCCFC
Well-Known Member
We’re all going to be PastExpiryDateSkyBlues by the end of this
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Stop chatting bubbles kid. It's well documented.
mark_ccfc
Well-Known Member
Give us a link then kid.
mark_ccfc
Well-Known Member
If there was no complaint they wouldn't have any need for the indemnity clause would they?Or wasps drop the indemnity clause (which they only added at the last minute after knowing about the EU complaint for months before.. it's almost like they had a reason to try and force sisu to sell if the club didn't have anywhere to play
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Because it’s a massive waste of everyone’s time and likely means we will be out of the City for up to a decade for no good reason?
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
This idiot thinks it is possible to withdraw a complaint to the ec over state aid. It's not you trumpter
mr_monkey
Well-Known Member
But why they did they put the clause in so late..... Think about it matey, nothing to do with Eastwood being part of Hoffman's group at all is it
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
What you have posted is not to do with state aid procedures. There is as far as i am aware no formal mechanism for a complainant to withdraw their complaint. The Commission are duty bound to investigate any complaint brought by a relevant person/entity. Once they have made a decision (even if no case to answer) then that can be challenged under annulment procedures by any side affected (the complainant or the beneficiary or the member state). So this could go on for years.
The financial effect of such a time period on wasps should not be underestimated (eg raising further finance might be affected badly by it until it is settled even if there was no case to answer). At worst it is the beneficiary that would need to make good the illegal state aid with added interest in a short period of time. As to whether any indemnity between CCC and wasps exists i do not know, even if it did then it maybe over ruled by EU law taking precedence. (would such a clause in itself be state aid?)
The only way it could have stopped was if the complainant failed to provide all the information required when making the complaint or if subsequently asked by the Commission for more information. In those circumstances it would have been deemed as withdrawn by the Commission not the complainant.
It wont be affected by Brexit because the period of transition means that the UK has to abide by EU rules but has no say in setting them
A relevant person or entity is someone that has been directly affected by the illegal state aid, i would think that means that Otium must be and remain involved as it is the only entity with direct links to the stadium.
The complaint is a legal procedure, that has the full weight of law behind it. It is not a court case but an investigation of a complaint that could have very serious implications for a beneficiary of illegal state aid. Europe tends not to have an adversarial based court system but instead bases its legals on investigation procedures. This has the full force of EU law behind it with hefty penalties possible. Arguing whether it is a court case or not misses the point.
The rules and regulations governing state aid and making of complaints go on for literally hundreds of pages. The forms that had to be filled in were extensive.
The complaint could also have been made against the Member State not just CCC
The financial effect of such a time period on wasps should not be underestimated (eg raising further finance might be affected badly by it until it is settled even if there was no case to answer). At worst it is the beneficiary that would need to make good the illegal state aid with added interest in a short period of time. As to whether any indemnity between CCC and wasps exists i do not know, even if it did then it maybe over ruled by EU law taking precedence. (would such a clause in itself be state aid?)
The only way it could have stopped was if the complainant failed to provide all the information required when making the complaint or if subsequently asked by the Commission for more information. In those circumstances it would have been deemed as withdrawn by the Commission not the complainant.
It wont be affected by Brexit because the period of transition means that the UK has to abide by EU rules but has no say in setting them
A relevant person or entity is someone that has been directly affected by the illegal state aid, i would think that means that Otium must be and remain involved as it is the only entity with direct links to the stadium.
The complaint is a legal procedure, that has the full weight of law behind it. It is not a court case but an investigation of a complaint that could have very serious implications for a beneficiary of illegal state aid. Europe tends not to have an adversarial based court system but instead bases its legals on investigation procedures. This has the full force of EU law behind it with hefty penalties possible. Arguing whether it is a court case or not misses the point.
The rules and regulations governing state aid and making of complaints go on for literally hundreds of pages. The forms that had to be filled in were extensive.
The complaint could also have been made against the Member State not just CCC
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
If they hadn't done anything wrong they wouldn't have tried to force the indemnity clause on us.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure Sisu are talking with various partiesBut why they did they put the clause in so late..... Think about it matey, nothing to do with Eastwood being part of Hoffman's group at all is it
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
On the Brexit point. Not sure that’s true actually. Will depend on when the resolution is and what the final trade deal is. Was reading this that says there’s scenarios where it’s not clear or it’ll fall to the CMA or U.K. Courts to decide. If I’ve read it right. Which with legal bollocks I’ve almost certainly not:
‘Brexit means Brexit’, but will state aid rules in the UK be lost in transition? | Oxera
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Come Miles Davis don't run away now
shepardo01
Well-Known Member
Yes, pretty sure Nick!!...somebody needs to tell Nick Eastwood (and the trust, and CWR) so they stop staying "drop the ""Legal*"" action" *even though it is not YET legal action and cannot be dropped as we have established!!!
As you saw on twitter too - apparently Wasps/Eastwood told CJ that SISU could "ask the EU Commission to "forget about the complaint"".... pretty sure those were his words......
How do they keep getting away with so much BS/spin.....!??!
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
isnt that focussed on leaving with no deal and pre election? if there is a deal and a period of transition the point stands i think