Mayor Sondalo talks about protection of citizens, as after the suspension of the TAR its resolution was no longer applicable, because has left the company to issue invoices to be correct ... I sometimes wonder if he knows the meaning of words he says. Let us explain ... below the end of the memory of the Committee presented to the Council of State.
bill by February 2010
1. indicative of the arrogance manifested in the context of this proceeding, the appellant company is also what happened after the publication of the second order for suspension of rates: despite the protective order of TAR . and a special warning to users, in fact, was sent a bill that does not take account of the suspension of the effectiveness of the provision of Court.
Throughout 2010, therefore, if it were not confirmed the contested order, the citizens of Sondalo and Tirano, continue to pay higher rates with increases ISTAT illegally approved by the Conference of Mayors.
THE periculum
1. Just this last report, indicates, inter alia, the conditions required to arrange and confirm the interim suspension of the contested decision in its time, as required by the Administrative Court of Milan:
• after the first injunction of the TAR Milan, dated 19.3.2009, has been applied only increase ISTAT + 30%;
• since October 2009, however, that withdrawal in self-defense after the resolution was suspended by the TAR and the restoration of the increases approved for 2008/2009, the company has demanded payment of charges increased by 12.53%, retroactive to March 2009: throughout 2009, therefore, the applicants have paid fees increased by 12.52% compared to the previous year, despite the suspension effectiveness of measures authorizing such increases;
• the same thing happened after the second protective order of the TAR in Milan dated 13.1.2010 : in this case, users not only have not received any reimbursement of sums wrongly paid in the previous year, but have unwittingly incur bills bearing still up 12, 53%, according to another administrative measure whose effectiveness had been suspended;
1. indicative of the arrogance manifested in the context of this proceeding, the appellant company is also what happened after the publication of the second order for suspension of rates: despite the protective order of TAR . and a special warning to users, in fact, was sent a bill that does not take account of the suspension of the effectiveness of the provision of Court.
Throughout 2010, therefore, if it were not confirmed the contested order, the citizens of Sondalo and Tirano, continue to pay higher rates with increases ISTAT illegally approved by the Conference of Mayors.
THE periculum
1. Just this last report, indicates, inter alia, the conditions required to arrange and confirm the interim suspension of the contested decision in its time, as required by the Administrative Court of Milan:
• after the first injunction of the TAR Milan, dated 19.3.2009, has been applied only increase ISTAT + 30%;
• since October 2009, however, that withdrawal in self-defense after the resolution was suspended by the TAR and the restoration of the increases approved for 2008/2009, the company has demanded payment of charges increased by 12.53%, retroactive to March 2009: throughout 2009, therefore, the applicants have paid fees increased by 12.52% compared to the previous year, despite the suspension effectiveness of measures authorizing such increases;
• the same thing happened after the second protective order of the TAR in Milan dated 13.1.2010 : in this case, users not only have not received any reimbursement of sums wrongly paid in the previous year, but have unwittingly incur bills bearing still up 12, 53%, according to another administrative measure whose effectiveness had been suspended;
• If College Codest not confirm the protective order issued by the Administrative Court of Milan, the applicants / users continue to pay for all of 2010 rates include an increase of more ISTAT increased by 30% - a measure approved by unfounded and completely identical to another whose effectiveness has already been suspended by the TAR in Milan by order was not challenged.
• It can not even referring to the alleged reduction of tariffs: contrary to what would have us believe the defense of the City of Sondalo, in fact, the reduction of 3% is applied to the previous increase of 12, 53% and is therefore always higher than the total revaluation ISTAT increased by 30%.
Clearly, then, what is in this case protect the subject from which up to now - besides having to bear the costs of a trial which saw him victorious thus far - has not even able to enjoy the benefits recognized by the TAR and is exposed to the risk of continuing to pay exorbitant fees and unlawful.
2. Specifically, then, despite assertions by the counterparties, the injury suffered by users is also quantitatively very significant, as shown in the following table:
Consider, in this regard, which, along with those already applied since 2001, the increase at issue here resulted in an overall increase of the rate equal to 63.90%, 39.55% of which was approved by the Board of Sondalo administered by Mr. Togni. In the face of this enormous
harm to users, for the forfeiture of the company unfairly increased prices constitute an unjust enrichment.
****
That said, the defendants, assisted and defended as above, request that the ECC. Mo State Council should grant the conclusions already formulated.
Milan / Rome, 4 March 2010
• It can not even referring to the alleged reduction of tariffs: contrary to what would have us believe the defense of the City of Sondalo, in fact, the reduction of 3% is applied to the previous increase of 12, 53% and is therefore always higher than the total revaluation ISTAT increased by 30%.
Clearly, then, what is in this case protect the subject from which up to now - besides having to bear the costs of a trial which saw him victorious thus far - has not even able to enjoy the benefits recognized by the TAR and is exposed to the risk of continuing to pay exorbitant fees and unlawful.
2. Specifically, then, despite assertions by the counterparties, the injury suffered by users is also quantitatively very significant, as shown in the following table:
Consider, in this regard, which, along with those already applied since 2001, the increase at issue here resulted in an overall increase of the rate equal to 63.90%, 39.55% of which was approved by the Board of Sondalo administered by Mr. Togni. In the face of this enormous
harm to users, for the forfeiture of the company unfairly increased prices constitute an unjust enrichment.
****
That said, the defendants, assisted and defended as above, request that the ECC. Mo State Council should grant the conclusions already formulated.
Milan / Rome, 4 March 2010
CONCLUSIONS ACCEPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF STATE THAT GAVE THE REASON FOR COMMITTEE AFTER THE TWO OF TAR precedent
0 comments:
Post a Comment