the judgment of 25 January 2008 concerning EUCC charges linked to water supply and waste collection<\/a>.<\/p>\nThis time, the court did not reconsider the substance of the case. Its purpose was simply to make sure that what had already been decided was actually carried out.<\/p>\n
And its conclusion was clear: by July 2010, the 2008 judgment had still not been fully enforced<\/span>.<\/p>\n
\n2008: the court had already decided the issue<\/h2>\n
In 2008, the court had annulled the EUCC charges insofar as they included amounts relating to water supply and waste collection.<\/p>\n
In other words, those expenses could not be included in that way in the urban development charges claimed by the EUCC.<\/p>\n
But two years later, the practical consequences of that decision had still not been fully applied.<\/p>\n
In simple terms:<\/span> the court had already ruled in 2008. In 2010, it had to intervene again to make sure that its decision was actually enforced.<\/p>\n
\nThe court orders G\u00e9rard Fenouillet to be reimbursed<\/h2>\n
The judge found that the sums concerned had still not been repaid to G\u00e9rard Fenouillet.<\/p>\n
The court therefore ordered the EUCC to reimburse the relevant charges, together with legal interest<\/span>.<\/p>\nAfter the reimbursement, a new calculation had to be made excluding the amounts relating to:<\/p>\n
\n- water supply;<\/li>\n
- waste collection.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The court allowed fifteen days<\/span> for this to be done.<\/p>\n
\nThe decision directly concerns G\u00e9rard Fenouillet<\/h2>\n
This order requires the reimbursement of the sums paid by G\u00e9rard Fenouillet in the context of his own legal action.<\/p>\n
It does not provide for the automatic reimbursement of all property owners in Planas del Rey<\/span>.<\/p>\nHowever, the legal principle applied by the court in relation to water and waste could clearly be relevant to other owners who were in a comparable situation.<\/p>\n
In simple terms:<\/span> the direct effect of this order concerns G\u00e9rard Fenouillet, even though the legal principle behind it has a broader significance.<\/p>\n
\nThe Town Council and the EUCC must identify those responsible<\/h2>\n
The court also imposed specific obligations on both Pratdip Town Council and the EUCC.<\/p>\n
Within five days, the Town Council had to tell the court which municipal body was responsible for enforcing the judgment and provide the identity of the main municipal officials concerned.<\/p>\n
The EUCC, for its part, had to provide the identity of its president, its governing members, its secretary, its treasurer and the people authorised to manage its funds.<\/p>\n
The objective was simple: the court wanted to know exactly who was responsible for carrying out its decision<\/span>.<\/p>\n
\nThe court warns of consequences if the decision is still not enforced<\/h2>\n
The judge did not simply set deadlines.<\/p>\n
The order also provides that, if the measures imposed are still not carried out, the case may be referred to the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office<\/span>.<\/p>\nThis shows that the court regarded enforcement of its decision as a serious matter.<\/p>\n
However, the document does not tell us whether such a referral to the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office actually took place later.<\/p>\n
\nWhat should be remembered from this decision<\/h2>\n
This order of 19 July 2010 is, in the end, quite straightforward to understand.<\/p>\n
In 2008, G\u00e9rard Fenouillet had obtained a favourable ruling concerning EUCC charges that included water supply and waste collection.<\/p>\n
Two years later, the court found that this ruling had still not been fully implemented.<\/p>\n
It therefore ordered:<\/p>\n
\n- the reimbursement to G\u00e9rard Fenouillet of the sums concerned;<\/li>\n
- payment of legal interest;<\/li>\n
- a new calculation of the charges;<\/li>\n
- the identification of those responsible for enforcement at the Town Council and the EUCC.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
And it warned that, if the decision was still not carried out, the case could be referred to the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n
In simple terms:<\/span> the court had already ruled in 2008, but in 2010 it still had to intervene to make sure that its decision was actually enforced<\/span>.<\/p>\nThis order is therefore an important document for understanding the difficulties encountered in Planas del Rey when it came to applying decisions concerning water supply and waste collection.<\/p>\n
Jim – La Tribune de Planas<\/p>\n
\n