 Ond y CFC Cymru ddim yn ymgyrch yn ei ddiwedd, a'r fan hyn yw hefyd ble, cyhoeddwn i'n fiant dros ddau, yn hurthwynt, os gallwch yn én wrth gwerthog, sy'n ymgyrch yn ymgyrch.... ...es y cyfnod y bydd ac rwy'n rhaid i'n meddwl o'r maen nhw ddim, hefyd yn ymgyrch yn ni'n meddwl ein gallai ddych yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, ac mae'n rhaid i'n meddwl eich bod yn y p abilityr, y pryn sy'n cyfnod y bydd y mynd yn eu cyfnod, o'r llwyaf yn ddweud o'r rhagorau i'n gwahodd, rwy'n dechrau i'r llwyffydd. Felly byddai'n gŵr o'r llyfr i rwyf yn gwahanol o'r rhagorau. Mae'n ffordd o'r rhagorau. Felly, mae hi'n gweithio gydag o'r rhagorau. Mae'r llyfr yn cyd-degwyd yn y llyfr yw'r gweithio, sy'n gwybod cychwyn iawn, a'n ddweud bod ni'n fawr i ddechrau'r rhaid i gael y cyfrifeth. A'r ddweud, rhaid i'n ddweud, yn y ddweud, yn y ddweud, yn ddweud, o'r ddweud, o'r ddweud, o'r ddweud, o'r ddweud. Ond, y ddweud, mae'r ddweud yn ddweud, mae'n ddweud, Cywp ydym yn eu rhan o'n cyfle iawn i ddweud i feddwl eich digwydd i gael eu hunain i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i gael eu ffodol. Sheld roedd y gallu gynhyrgrif i'n ddweud i ei fod ychydig i'r chwaraeon cyfnod. Mae'r cyfnodd cwmpas, erbyn y cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd, yn cyfnodd â'r cyfnodd, yn ystod yn gweithio, ac mae'n cyfnodd cyfnodd yn cyfnodd crathol sy'n ddegwyr y tîm o'r rhaid. Mae'n ddegwyr ar gyfer y rhaid i ddysgu'r rhaid i ddegwyr yn ddegwyr, yn ddegwyr ar gyfer y rhaid i ddegwyr, a'r ffhrifn iawn yn ei bwysig i eich wneud y bydd ymgyrch yn ychydig â'i bwysig. Mae o'r rhai cyfnodau, ychydig i ddweud i ddweud i'r ffyrr yn cymdweithiaeth, yn ymgaredd yn ei bwysig i'r ffyrdd. A felly mae'n ddweud beth sy'n ei ddweud o'r bobl, ac mae'n ddweud yma gydag oherwydd yna'r bwysig yng ngyfaint o'r bobl, If they had completed all the procedures, let's say, and this case goes back to the year 2000, if they completed the case of their application in February 2000, they would have been alright, but they were actually sent to translate and therefore they did not qualify for the aid under the national team as approved by the commission. The commission therefore found the aid to be illegal. It was an unfortunate procedure in that it seemed that when the commission was looking at the case, it didn't get much information from the Dutch government, I don't know why, and the Dutch government also failed to tell Flurrin about this investigation that was going on, but Flurrin did not have the opportunity to make its own observations to the commission at an early stage. So the sad story was that in the end some 500,000 euros had to be recovered from Flurrin, not maybe a large amount of money, but enough for Flurrin to say, no, we are challenging this, this is an unfair procedure, we were not properly informed. The Dutch government also then failed to collect the money. There was very thin form of contact with the commission, eventually none of the attempts were made, and some of the money, but not all of it, was then collected through administrative procedures, which were upheld by the Council of State. But not the full interest. The Court said that there was no basis in Dutch law for recovering interested food, and they did not accept that European law provided that basis without a legal basis in Dutch law. Now there is a lot of commentary about that approach, but it seems that, at least in Dutch law, part of the argument that is now resolved by a more recent case involving risk equalisation funds in the health sector, where relying on a case called Somalvo, which actually concerned a fund for Somalian refugees, that was partly funded by European funds and partly by National Dutch funds, the Court has finally said and confirmed at the highest level that the Dutch courts should rely on the direct effect of Article 108, combined with the principle of loyalty in the treaty to require recovery in full, but it still did not settle the issue of the interest. The Dutch risk equalisation fund case is also an interesting case. This concerns the health system in the Netherlands, where we have a mixture of compulsory and voluntary insurance, and when the health system is reformed to introduce this mixed system, in order to make sure that private insurers would cooperate with the reforms, this equalisation fund was set up so that the losses that these insurance companies sustained for giving complete coverage, no matter whether the people who were insured were previously very sick, or long term sick, those losses could be covered through this equalisation fund. When that scheme was set up, it was notified to the Commission as a possible form of aid, because you can see from the word risk equalisation, you are actually giving an advantage to some companies because you were removing a commercial risk that they are not insured would normally incur. The Commission approved the scheme on the grounds that it was compatible with Article 107 of Article 3, and also it was a form of service of general economic interest in healthcare, but there were various conditions imposed so that the compensation that any individual insurer would get would not be higher than its actual losses for giving this compulsory insurance. So it was a fairly complicated scheme, and one of the problems was that sort of ex-ante gave kind of a blanket assurance to companies that their costs would be covered, but still exposed you have to match their costs with their entitlement from the fund. So it transpired that several companies seemed to get an over allocation of compensation. The body responsible for the management of the fund checked with the Commission to see whether this was all right, it got no reply, and the court itself then, and this is a good example of where a court collaborates with the Commission, asked the Commission for guidance on a decision here that the Commission had already adopted, and it asked the Commission then, is this the type of case where you see over compensation, and the Commission said yes, and therefore that over compensation had to be recovered from the two companies that had benefited from it. Now, yes, this was a bit of a difficult case, you could say, because where was the legal basis for getting that money back? It wasn't in the health legislation that had set up this fund. That was always, it all come from the Commission, this idea that there had to be some system to stop over compensation. And so the court in that case, our rep on staff, the Council of State, said finally for the first time that the legal basis, then this Article 108 is the treaty and the principle of the principle of royal cooperation. So they had to then uphold the Commission's decision. I suppose that that case could have also been brought on the basis of a misuse of state aid, which also can lead to recovery, but under the procedural regulation you have to set up an investigation, the person obviously didn't do that and left it to the court, but cooperated with the national court. So that's quite an interesting case, I think, where you see then that at national level, there was absolutely no legal basis for recovering that over compensation. And so the court had to rely then on the general principles. Now, the whole issue of interest didn't apply there. But what seemed to be very important for the Court of Council of State was the ruling in this Somve al-Qaith, which concerned support to the Somalian Refugee Association. That's what the Somve al-Qaith stands for. In the Netherlands where there had been alleged misuse of funds, and again there seemed to be no legal basis, clear legal basis in Dutch law to require the reimbursement of the funds. So this case goes to the Court of Justice and there the Court of Justice has to look at the interplay between Dutch law and specific rules in EU law on the use of EU funds. And here the Court clearly rules that the basis for getting those funds back at national level is based then on the principle of law of cooperation, that the Court had to find a legal basis. There was no argument that there was no legal basis, you had to find a legal basis to get money back. So the National Court of Justice had to devise a system that allowed for the European funds that had been paid to the Somalian Refugee Organization back. And here the principle of legitimate expectations also played a role in that it was argued well if you had no system for reimbursement then suddenly come up with one at a later stage to declare exposed that reimbursement of these funds was necessary that would infringe the principles of legal certainty on legitimate expectations. And the Court, the European Court dealt with this in its usual way by saying that's a matter of national law. So it was for the National Court to look to see whether the recipients of these funds had complied with all the relevant procedures and if they had done maybe that would have been a basis for creating a legal certainty that they could keep the funds but if they hadn't complied with all those procedures then they didn't have that basis. So it seemed then as a result of this very recent ruling 2015 that we now finally have put the whole discussion about the legal basis of recovery in the Netherlands at least from an administrative law point of view. However we will still have a law on recovery and I'll come back to why that is still necessary but at least from an administrative law point of view there is no question that there is a basis for recovery and if you take the same approach that article 108 has direct effect and you have an obligation of cooperation that of course applies throughout the national legal system. It's not limited to the national administrative courts in any way at all. It's just that at national level the administrative courts have recognised that firmly. So from a national point of view then this whole issue of interests and what can be recovered should be settled and the other point of course that should be settled if one has special legislation is the limitation period which differs also which I'll come back to. Okay so we're at a stage where we've decided that there is a sound basis for recovery in national law but we still don't have a clear legal framework. And I thought just to finish up before looking at the new legal framework that's being introduced then just to go back to the way cases are playing out in the Dutch courts and to what extent state aid plays an important role in state aid cases why is the success rate, I mentioned we have a relatively high number of cases being brought but the success rate is very small. And one of the reasons is because of the standing rules and the standing rules in administrative law were sharpened in 2013 through the amendment that introduced this. At miscibility, the case has to be admissible. So the administrative courts have a very strict rules on miscibility so you have to have an interest to bring the case and I put the words in Dutch that what you have to show that you have to show the legislation affects you and that's just a relative talent for us. So you have to show and correct me if we need further explanation. You have to show that the legislation that you are challenging is meant to affect your interests. So that you can claim protection under it. And this is meant that for example in tax issues it's very difficult for someone to go to court and say I'm not paying that tax because it's giving somebody else an advantage and that makes the whole tax then illegal. You can't say that. You cannot challenge as an individual your general obligation to pay tax just because somebody else gets maybe an advantage but it may be subject to a challenge. And there is one exception recognised in the national courts deriving from the European State table where what you are actually seeing is that there is a levy a paraphysgol levy, a heffing in Dutch is being levied and the proceeds of that are going into a special fund and that fund is then being used as a source of subsidy for competitors. So there what you are challenging is a tax that is an integral part of the state aid. So that is allowed and that comes, that approach has been recognised in a case at the court straight probation that's recognised in the national law. But it's very difficult normally as a tax payer to go to court and claim that the whole tax is illegal because somebody else somewhere has got or could get an advantage and I think that's the same in every system. So this idea that the administrative court will not give somebody protection unless the law is intended to protect them is very important and raises the barrier to procedure very highly to make it very difficult then to contest those kinds of actions. And I think one of the most controversial cases where this seemed to be applied, that approach was in the rescue case of one of the ClipDoc Clants SNS Real where the shareholders saw their property nationalised and they tried to claim that there was a state aid issue involved that it was a case of a hair cut if you like where the shareholders of the bank that was being nationalised then they saw their interest being wiped out. They wanted to claim that this would mean that the bank that was being rescued in the process that would remain was receiving some form of state aid. They never caught that far because their argument that their property was being expropriated was not considered to be admissible because the legislation that they were contesting was not meant to protect their interests. Now this is quite a controversial case but it is an example of how strict the administrative standing rules or admissibility rules can be. So that strict approach keeps out a lot of state aid claims. It's a very effective filter in the system. I should mention that we have of course other courts looking at state aid not just the administrative courts we have the industry court for want of a better translation which is the central court dealing with the CDB which also hears cases. There's been some interesting cases there. The admissibility rules are not strict but what a lot of complainants find is that the standard of review is not as high as it should be in the sense that they expect this court because it's a special court set up to look at individual decisions of government authorities. They expect it to go beyond a marginal review to a more in-depth review. Now there's a lot of discussions to whether that happens or not. There have been a number of cases where there has been an alleged state aid given by public entity that's under the supervision of a government regulator. I've given you the example here of the National Transmission System Operator, where it was alleged that it was allowed to buy its regulator to use certain funds to give a guarantee for the purchase of an electricity exchange where contracts for electricity were bought and sold. So the users, major users of the system, they challenged that as possible state aid. Now that case was declared to be inadmissible because they had to show that the regulator had no powers to prove this use of the money and in fact they had failed to discharge that burden. So we didn't get to the actual ins and outs of the state aid arguments, but it was unlikely that that would have been state aid because it was very difficult to show that there were state resources there. So although there have been about 13 cases in the last five years at the CPP, there's still not been a case where it's been held because the state aid was infringed. The disability and state aid arguments are often used to challenge decisions, but so far there hasn't been one that has resulted in the ruling that there has been state aid and therefore we don't know how recovery would have been affected. Civil courts, now here of course the standing rules are much more generous. You don't have to show that individual direct interest. You have to show of course that there's a sufficient interest, but it's a much lower threshold. That has also meant that general success rate it's not very high but it's a bit better, it's 25%. When I say success rate I just mean that the state aid plea is admissible. Not that it's successful, but the success rate in the sense that the party having entered the plea that there has been a state aid involved at least gets to arguments, get to arguments case. So there are of course also simple procedures and tax cases and you often see this argument that I already mentioned that particular tax cannot be levied because it's subject to investigation or if you can find somebody else. You often see that used in civil cases by parties trying to avoid paying tax. Can I ask something? Sure. You can go to one and lose, but you can pursue the other route. You can choose. There is a division of admissibility between those types of courts for civil courts. Civil dispute. Civil dispute. The possibility of going to a general in the state of court for example about taxation question is not existing for in taxation questions the tax court or the tax judge is exclusively in power. But as you told us in the admissibility for taxation for the tax judge is very strictly regulated very strictly because you can only go to the tax judge when there is dispute about the tax result or the decision of the tax inspector not about the complaint that another one is not paying enough tax and you would like to be in the same position. You can only go to the civil court. I would say that we also have exclusive jurisdiction comments to settle litigation on tax matters and on the matters. The main general problem is for fiscal state debt is we do not have a general action before a court to declare to the court or the leader to DCJ of information an exemption grant just to be prepared not to myself we do not have this this sort of action an argument to claim that's why this structure of our tax litigation that's why of this structure there is no opportunity to and that's great problem and DCU of information has pointed out this problem because they do not receive from the Italian judge any question about any agreement for fiscal state debt who will support the fiscal state debt but that's why just for the recovery we have gotten lots of litigation for the recovery but not to the loathfulness of fiscal state debt that's why the structure of our tax litigation for all sorts of crimes and what to make in the day or something I think part of national procedural rules that they give effective protection and equivalent protection so if there was a national rule giving the competitor a right to sue you would have to make sure that they could also rule they could also have their European rights ruled on but when it comes to tax law and state aids at European level the position of the competitor is not very clear you have to show that you are individually and directly affected by the tax exemption and it's not enough just to say somebody else is getting an advantage you have to show that you should have it as well and the courts the courts have been rather strict in opening that box and it's really only in cases like exactly where the laboratory are on case there it was a case where if you were a wholesaler of medical products who were who was obliged under French law to have a complete range of medicines in stock you were allowed to benefit from an exemption a special tax exemption but nobody else was allowed to benefit from that exemption because they didn't have the obligation but there the court said the competitor could object so the big pharmaceutical companies who were distributing in France but didn't of course have the whole stock because they weren't going to stock each other's products they didn't get the advantage but that was held to be a possible distortion of competition so they were because they were in competition they were indeed the whole purpose of the tax exemption was to protect to protect domestic pharmacy chains but that is a very unusual case where you can see that there was a direct competitors were directly and individually affected and the other is the straight where what you are complaining about is that the levy the power fiscal levy is being used to finance your competitors but there you have to show that the government has earmarked the proceeds for a particular pot a particular fund so if the government collects the money and it just goes into the general budget you can't use that argument so you have to show that it's being earmarked for a particular purpose and kept separate and of course what governments now do as a result of that litigation is they very rarely set up separate funds they just mix their own money