Jump to content

European Commission seek explanation on Celtic land deals


Carling1873
 Share

Recommended Posts

Look at the length of time it took for a decision to be made :(

Got to go to work so just skimmed over it says it was between period 2007 to 2009 does it say when they started their investigation i can't see it. They have to wait til someone complains so it would depend on when that was.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to go to work so just skimmed over it says it was between period 2007 to 2009 does it say when they started their investigation i can't see it. They have to wait til someone complains so it would depend on when that was.

It says they started their "in-depth investigation" in June 2011.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly these things take as long as they take, there's no way to hurry it along especially as there seems to be more and more damming evidence appearing every couple of weeks. Btw, does anybody know if c****c had any other SLA's in place wit anybody else other than the EDC/Lennoxtown Partnership? It occurs to me if they were willing to pull the same trick with land purchases on a number of occasions they might well have been tempted to do the same with SLA's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly these things take as long as they take, there's no way to hurry it along especially as there seems to be more and more damming evidence appearing every couple of weeks. Btw, does anybody know if c****c had any other SLA's in place wit anybody else other than the EDC/Lennoxtown Partnership? It occurs to me if they were willing to pull the same trick with land purchases on a number of occasions they might well have been tempted to do the same with SLA's.

sounds like that should be a FOI to edc and gcc . I also think a FOI to gcc about using the scums stadium for conferences should be scrutinised more ie when they used it did they get quotes from elsewhere ? What were the prices quoted from all establishments ? When the list was published before they had about £100 k out of gcc while we got about £4k
Link to post
Share on other sites

Soulboy - "I also think a FOI to gcc about using the scums stadium for conferences should be scrutinised more ie when they used it did they get quotes from elsewhere ? What were the prices quoted from all establishments? When the list was published before they had about £100 k out of gcc while we got about £4k"

Totally agree, are we being led to believe that the GCC don't have an properties were these meetings could have been held? I don' see this one a they go and we got, I see it as a situation where tax payers money is being wasted, just how many people would be in attendance at these meetings? point was actually aimed at other councils outwith EDC and GCC, though I admit that there should be a look at their continuing use of c****c park as a venue for meetings regarding child safety. It may well be worthwhile to enquire as to any SLA commitments with the two Lanarkshire councils, and even East Renfrewshire who are within easy striking distance from parkhead.

I would have to say that I am making no claims of any links with these bodies, but would like to know for sure that c****c aren't up to the same tricks with them as they have with EDC. Indeed it may well be prudent to find out if our own club has any ongoing or previous council SLA's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've published this report to highlight some points. Although it is not a parallel to the scum deals it does show how the EC works.

1. As long as the law which PZJ is looking to have the scum done under was in effect when the UK joined the EU then they coud be liable.

2. Where transactions are not regularly updated ( the missing assessor report ) this doesn't matter since they should be viewed at regular market value. Any participant would be viewed to have gained an unfair competitive advantage if the transaction does not match fair market value. This competitive advantage is against EU rules.

3. the authority (GCC) must recover the incompatible state aid, or return the transactions to it's former state. (rebuild London Rd. school ).

4. they are allowed to make EUR 200,000 over three years and be okay, but we know the land was worth a lot more than that.

That is just my first impressions from my first scan of the report. You guys find find more points to give comfort. At least they are going to owe millions.

PZJ Loyal. Ooooft.

State aid: Commission orders Bulgaria to recover incompatible State aid granted to certain parties to forest swap transactions

European Commission - IP/14/971 05/09/2014

Other available languages: FR DE BG

Share

back.gif Back to the search results

100000000000010900000083F2518BF1.jpg

European Commission

Press release

Brussels, 5 September 2014

State aid: Commission orders Bulgaria to recover incompatible State aid granted to certain parties to forest swap transactions

After an in-depth investigation, the European Commission has concluded that a Bulgarian law that allowed the swapping of privately-owned against publicly-owned forest land was incompatible with EU State aid rules. The law, which was in force at the time of Bulgaria's accession to the EU in January 2007 until January 2009, conferred a selective advantage on undertakings which benefitted from these forest swap transactions, distorting competition in the Single Market. Bulgaria must now either recover the incompatible State aid from the companies that received it or undo the swaps concerned.

Following the receipt of two complaints the Commission launched an in-depth investigation in June 2011 into the Bulgarian forest swap transactions and subsequent change in the designated use of the swapped forest land that occurred in some cases (see JOCE C/273/2011). The Commission's investigation focused on the period from 1 January 2007, when Bulgaria joined the EU, until 27 January 2009, when the swaps were discontinued by Bulgarian authorities.

Under the contested legislation, private owners of forest land were allowed to swap their estates for publicly-owned forests. The value of the forest land – both private and public – was determined for the purpose of the swap by an administrative method prescribed by Bulgarian law. The scheme had not been notified to the Commission for prior authorisation as required by Treaty rules.

The Commission found that the administrative prices used in the context of the swap transactions were not regularly updated and did not sufficiently take into account market considerations. Consequently, in the majority of cases they were relatively far from market prices for similar forest estates. As a result, private parties participating in these swap transactions gained a competitive advantage. Such aid is incompatible with EU rules. In particular, the Commission did not find any indications that the aid had been limited to the minimum necessary to achieve a certain policy objective.

In its investigation, the Commission also examined the reclassification by Bulgarian authorities of the swapped forest into land available for construction that occurred in a number of cases. However, the Commission concluded that, while changing the designated use of the swapped forest land may increase its value, this increase was not financed by state resources and therefore did not constitute State aid within the meaning of the EU rules.

Bulgaria must now either recover the incompatible State aid granted to undertakings that participated in the forest land swaps, or undo the swaps concerned. In this respect the Commission notes that, even though the total number of swap transactions during the period under scrutiny was substantial – 132 transactions in total – the number of individual cases where aid recovery is necessary is expected to be much smaller. Indeed, physical persons not having an economic activity related to the forest estates they swapped are not subject to EU State aid rules since they are not considered undertakings under EU law. Consequently, they will not be required to pay back any advantage received. Moreover, if the advantage received by an undertaking did not exceed the equivalent of EUR 200 000 over a three-year period (and provided the other requirements of the de minimis Regulation1are respected), this is not considered as State aid under EU law and does not have to be recovered either.

Background

In the context of the Bulgarian legislation allowing the swaps of forest estates against administrative prices, the Commission has disputed the use of administrative prices that are not sufficiently close to market prices observed in similar transactions. The decision adopted today, therefore, does not call into question the use of administrative prices by Member State authorities as such, but only the lack of regular updates and the coefficients used for the administrative price-setting in the specific case of the swaps of forest estates in Bulgaria.

Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that Member States must notify State aid to the Commission for prior authorisation. If a Member State nevertheless grants State aid in breach of this obligation, the Commission may later examine the compatibility of the measures with EU State aid rules - either on its own initiative or following complaints. If the Commission then finds that the aid was incompatible with EU rules, generating an undue distortion of competition in the Single Market, then it must be recovered by the Member State concerned from the beneficiary undertakings. The corresponding amounts must be paid back to the Member State's own budget.

The Commission does not impose fines on Member States in State aid procedures. A fine on a Member State may only be imposed by the EU Court of Justice if a Member State has infringed EU law by failing to comply with a previous order to recover incompatible aid.

The non-confidential version of the decision will be made available under case number SA.26212 and SA.26217 in the State Aid Register on the Commission website once any confidentiality issues have been resolved. New publications of State aid decisions on the internet and in the Official Journal are listed in the State Aid Weekly e-News.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a reply from Jo Swinson MP

Dear Mr *******,

Thank you for your email, and please do accept my apologies for the delay in mine.

I have written to the Council to ask for details of the agreement, and I will let you know of the response I receive. If you want to submit a Freedom of Information request, details of how to do so can be found here: http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/law_and_licensing/data_protection,_freedom_of_in/freedom_of_information_act/freedom_of_information.aspx

Do let me know if there is anything else I can assist with.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Swinson MP

Fools Gold and thebluedoo like this
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a reply from Jo Swinson MP

Dear Mr *******,

Thank you for your email, and please do accept my apologies for the delay in mine.

I have written to the Council to ask for details of the agreement, and I will let you know of the response I receive. If you want to submit a Freedom of Information request, details of how to do so can be found here: http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/law_and_licensing/data_protection,_freedom_of_in/freedom_of_information_act/freedom_of_information.aspx

Do let me know if there is anything else I can assist with.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Swinson MP

Without having to go back through PZJ timeline on twitter I'm pretty sure Jo swinson when asked on twitter said she already had the info and if anyone in her constituency asked for it she would give it
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a reply from Jo Swinson MP

Dear Mr *******,

Thank you for your email, and please do accept my apologies for the delay in mine.

I have written to the Council to ask for details of the agreement, and I will let you know of the response I receive. If you want to submit a Freedom of Information request, details of how to do so can be found here: http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/law_and_licensing/data_protection,_freedom_of_in/freedom_of_information_act/freedom_of_information.aspx

Do let me know if there is anything else I can assist with.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Swinson MP

found her tweet this implies to me she already has the info

Reply to @pzj_1 Yes & I’ve written to EDC about it, if you're also a constituent,email me jo.swinson.mp@parliament.uk for a copy of reply

Mongoose maybe you should email her back with this copy of her tweet and ask why she needs to contact edc again when in the tweet she says she has already done so

The Mongoose likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have replied to Ms Swinson…..here is the email

Dear Ms Swinson

Thank you for your reply.I understand that it took a delay as obviously it is a busy time politically at the moment.

What I do not understand however is the fact that you have to write to East Dunbartonshire Council for details of the agreement, as in a previous tweet you indicated to another that you had the information. I await your response.

Regards

<p>

User Actions
Follow

Reply to @pzj_1 Yes & I’ve written to EDC about it, if you're also a constituent,email me jo.swinson.mp@parliament.uk for a copy of reply

2:50 AM - 11 Aug 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the referendum has been won there will be a residual bitterness against the Labour party in Glasgow.

Now is the time to capitalize on this and hold an anti corruption rally in George square to expose the corrupt

bheasts in the city chambers . :ukflag:

oB91hfAa_normal.jpegjohn stevens @pzj_1 · 59m

get down to the home of corruption (George square) 6.30 tonight with a union flag and celebrate the union of
Britain
eejay the dj likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

new update on footballtaxhavens today.

The shite keeps hitting the fan and their time will come just got to be patient

http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/scottish-enterprise-dunbartonshire-used-lennoxtown-initiative-charity-to-pass-funds-to-celtic-using-the-celtic-sla/

Tasty nuggets in there, fuck the corruption is astounding.

Mor3los_1 likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the media will run with it now!

I've said a few times now that I think it's the EU that are asking the media not to run with state aid stories as Swansea City and a welsh rugby team are also being investigated and nothing in the welsh media either other than a report to say they were being investigated at the beginning of the year and nothing since
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    • 21 October 2021 19:00 Until 21:00
      0  
      Rangers v Brondby
      Ibrox Stadium
      UEFA Europa League
×
×
  • Create New...