What happens next when Sisu appeal? (3 Viewers)

[Hobo]

The judge was extremely clear in his ruling, however he build his decision on two things:
1) The fact that the council already owns 50% of ACL so the loan can be seen as protection of their investment. On that basis he said it was not state aid. This could be seen as a national court protecting a national council, and may not be what the state aid legislation was intended for by the EU commission.
2) The rent strike was aimed at distressing ACL. While this is true it may not be illegal in itself and it can be argued it cannot be the foundation of deciding if state aid is unlawful or not.

I think Sisu's only chance of getting the judgement overturned is to get the case to the EU commission and looked at by 'European' rather than 'British' eyes.

So my question is - when they have exhausted all national options, can they bring it to the commission in Bruxelles or the EU court of Justice in Luxembourg?

On point 2 you need to read the legislation a bit more.

 

---

[shmmeee]

It was breach of contract, now of law, so not technically illegal.

Serious question: what is it when the judge orders you to pay and you don't?

 

[shmmeee]

On point 2 you need to read the legislation a bit more.

On point 1 he needs to read the judgement a bit more too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[fernandopartridge]

When I suggested they should have took it to the European Commission in the first place were you one of the posters telling me i was talking rubbish?

Because it's got to be heard by the court in the member state first.

 

[Senior Vick from Alicante]

If your still reading this Simon, have you got a statement out of the Higgs charity. They must be able to give an insight to their thoughts as well as their proposals for their share of ACL. PWKH has stated that the charity would like to sell and use the money for what it was designed for, are they allowed to sell their share if their is still appeals to go through?

 

[The Gentleman]

The judge was extremely clear in his ruling, however he build his decision on two things:
1) The fact that the council already owns 50% of ACL so the loan can be seen as protection of their investment. On that basis he said it was not state aid. This could be seen as a national court protecting a national council, and may not be what the state aid legislation was intended for by the EU commission.
2) The rent strike was aimed at distressing ACL. While this is true it may not be illegal in itself and it can be argued it cannot be the foundation of deciding if state aid is unlawful or not.

I think Sisu's only chance of getting the judgement overturned is to get the case to the EU commission and looked at by 'European' rather than 'British' eyes.

So my question is - when they have exhausted all national options, can they bring it to the commission in Bruxelles or the EU court of Justice in Luxembourg?

Fuck I bet you're happy they are appealing...........

 

[Godiva]

When I suggested they should have took it to the European Commission in the first place were you one of the posters telling me i was talking rubbish?

No I didn't say you talked rubbish - in fact I was surprised it was put before a national court.

But two things I was not aware of:
1) Only national courts may award damages and costs
2) If ruling went against ACL, the national court must issue a recovery order with immediate effect.

The main issue was whether a national court, seised by a competitor of an action for the recovery from a beneficiary of unlawful state aid, may stay those recovery proceedings until the Commission has taken a decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the common market.
The Court of Justice held that the national court may not stay the recovery proceedings in such circumstances but must rule on the matter without waiting for a Commission decision.

In effect this would force the loan to be repaid within 30 days and surely bankrupt ACL.

 

[Godiva]

On point 2 you need to read the legislation a bit more.

What part of the legislation? Can you quote the § I need to read?

 

[Hobo]

What part of the legislation? Can you quote the § I need to read?

How state aid can be granted legally...that legislation.

 

[Godiva]

How state aid can be granted legally...that legislation.

I get that, but the legislation is quite complex, so one more time - please provide the § I need to read. A link will be excellent.

 

[Hobo]

I get that, but the legislation is quite complex, so one more time - please provide the § I need to read. A link will be excellent.

Exactly it is complex, so quoting little bits potentially out of context does no one any favours...like someone during the JR quoting half a legal definition (I can't remember who and that bit doesn't matter).

But it is around changes in the market and I would suggest SISU deliberately trying to change the market is a key point. ACL being viable is key, as is the rent, being between 5 and 10 per cent of CCFC income is key (there are always costs in business and as a percentage that is an acceptable cost).

You may well read it and have a different take. I'd rather people read it with an open mind, rather than me try and influence people. But several posters pre JR were just quoting "it's illegal state aid" like its a given that funding over a certain amount constitutes state aid.

It is complex and I don't profess to have the legal knowledge on this; despite experience of deciphering legal definition and case law.

Plus it is potentially an example where legislation has not really been tested. Which is why SISU are not rolling over despite appearing to have lost dramatically.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Another minus 10 point start?

 

[Godiva]

Exactly it is complex, so quoting little bits potentially out of context does no one any favours...like someone during the JR quoting half a legal definition (I can't remember who and that bit doesn't matter).

But it is around changes in the market and I would suggest SISU deliberately trying to change the market is a key point. ACL being viable is key, as is the rent, being between 5 and 10 per cent of CCFC income is key (there are always costs in business and as a percentage that is an acceptable cost).

You may well read it and have a different take. I'd rather people read it with an open mind, rather than me try and influence people. But several posters pre JR were just quoting "it's illegal state aid" like its a given that funding over a certain amount constitutes state aid.

It is complex and I don't profess to have the legal knowledge on this; despite experience of deciphering legal definition and case law.

Plus it is potentially an example where legislation has not really been tested. Which is why SISU are not rolling over despite appearing to have lost dramatically.

Two persons reading a complex law text is more likely to interpret the text in two different ways. So it's no wonder if we disagree or emphasise different elements.

I assume you read the transcripts and the ruling, so you will remember the Austrian Dentist case. Here's a text that mention this case, but read on:

In practice, the European courts have unfortunately set the bar extremely low for
those seeking to prove that a subsidy has an impact on intra-community trade. Support
for dentists in Austria was recently found to have such an impact because Austrians
could go to Hungary, for example, for dental treatment if they so chose. However,
support in the UK for local trades-people, such as hairdressers or plumbers, corner
shops or musicians would normally be pretty safe, as would support for local
attractions run by not-for-profit bodies, such as stately homes and gardens or restored
steam train lines. Public authorities need to be much more careful if an activity is
subject to large firm competition or if a service might have the scale to attract foreign
visitors (who would not otherwise have come to the UK) or where foreign companies
might choose to set up in the UK to compete in our market.

'Attract foreign visitors' ... well, any international event will attract foreign visitors.
But this is more interesting: 'where foreign companies might choose to set up ... to compete'. Now remind me, who is talking about building a new stadium?

 

[wingy]

FFs really am sick of this off the field shit now enough is enough, there could be another 7 months of this shit

Just about the same time that the loans can be called In ,don't expect anyone to get paid costs or compensation.

 

[Godiva]

Just about the same time that the loans can be called In ,don't expect anyone to get paid costs or compensation.

Yes - the loans to the original investors are due on dec 31st.
Why?
That is one question I really would like an answer to.

 

[wingy]

Yes - the loans to the original investors are due on dec 31st.
Why?
That is one question I really would like an answer to.

Could you fill that out a bit more??

 

[Godiva]

Could you fill that out a bit more??

It's one for OSB, but he did notice that the loans in SBS&L to the original funds were due this December.
If true, why?

And what happens then?
No way the loans can be repaid, so will they be restructured? Bought by ARVO? Written off?

 

[wingy]

It's one for OSB, but he did notice that the loans in SBS&L to the original funds were due this December.
If true, why?

And what happens then?
No way the loans can be repaid, so will they be restructured? Bought by ARVO? Written off?

Didn't It already come out In court that they are already written off and much earlier than anyone thought ?/:thinking about:

 

[Godiva]

Didn't It already come out In court that they are already written off and much earlier than anyone thought ?/:thinking about:

Not that I remember, but it has been said a few times that the creditors have written off the loans. Only it doesn't show in SBS&L's books.

 

[Hobo]

Two persons reading a complex law text is more likely to interpret the text in two different ways. So it's no wonder if we disagree or emphasise different elements.

I assume you read the transcripts and the ruling, so you will remember the Austrian Dentist case. Here's a text that mention this case, but read on:

In practice, the European courts have unfortunately set the bar extremely low for
those seeking to prove that a subsidy has an impact on intra-community trade. Support
for dentists in Austria was recently found to have such an impact because Austrians
could go to Hungary, for example, for dental treatment if they so chose. However,
support in the UK for local trades-people, such as hairdressers or plumbers, corner
shops or musicians would normally be pretty safe, as would support for local
attractions run by not-for-profit bodies, such as stately homes and gardens or restored
steam train lines. Public authorities need to be much more careful if an activity is
subject to large firm competition or if a service might have the scale to attract foreign
visitors (who would not otherwise have come to the UK) or where foreign companies
might choose to set up in the UK to compete in our market.

'Attract foreign visitors' ... well, any international event will attract foreign visitors.
But this is more interesting: 'where foreign companies might choose to set up ... to compete'. Now remind me, who is talking about building a new stadium?

And as we have agreed it is complex. Also as I pointed out a bit of an unexplored area which is why I expect SISU to push it as long as they can.

I don't profess to be an expert far from it. But taking bits of the legislation out in isolation doesn't necessarily get you the correct answer. That was my point.

 

[Godiva]

But taking bits of the legislation out in isolation doesn't necessarily get you the correct answer. That was my point.

Isn't that what happens at most court cases?
Two parties using bits and pieces from the legislation to back their arguments and prove their case?

 

[Hobo]

Isn't that what happens at most court cases?
Two parties using bits and pieces from the legislation to back their arguments and prove their case?

It depends sometimes you need to prove something before you get to the next stage, sometimes you have to prove several elements.

But going back to your previous post...I note the state funds to redevelop Wembley and build the Olympic Stadium wasn't illegal state aid? Nor countless other sporting venues that have benefitted from state funding?

And you asked who is talking about building a new stadium? 'Talking' is the important word. Perhaps they need to decide does the loan prevent them buying the Ricoh or building an alternative? Did there own unscrupulous business practices bring the situation about? When there were alternatives, was it SISU who was distorting the market to get the Ricoh undervalue? The judge said they have a right to protect an investment. That is were the Judge has come down.

As it stands that is the ruling, their case has been kicked out. Will SISU appeal I expect they will and always thought they would if they could.

Will they be successful....haven't got a clue.

 

[wingy]

It depends sometimes you need to prove something before you get to the next stage, sometimes you have to prove several elements.

But going back to your previous post...I note the state funds to redevelop Wembley and build the Olympic Stadium wasn't illegal state aid? Nor countless other sporting venues that have benefitted from state funding?

And you asked who is talking about building a new stadium? 'Talking' is the important word. Perhaps they need to decide does the loan prevent them buying the Ricoh or building an alternative? Did there own unscrupulous business practices bring the situation about? When there were alternatives, was it SISU who was distorting the market to get the Ricoh undervalue? The judge said they have a right to protect an investment. That is were the Judge has come down.

As it stands that is the ruling, their case has been kicked out. Will SISU appeal I expect they will and always thought they would if they could.

Will they be successful....haven't got a clue.

It falls down on Unmeritous behaviour IMO.