Displaying items by tag: Court

Israel: The Supreme Court has posted a temporary injunction preventing the Israel Ports Development & Assets Company and the Ashdod Port Company from halting the cement imports of Lev Baron Commodities. The injunction was imposed in response to an appeal by Lev Baron against Israel Ports and Ashdod Port, according to Israel Business Arena. The move by the court is the latest in a battle between Lev Baron and Israel Ports over the terms of their relationship.

Lev Baron imports cement into Israel, mainly from Cyprus and Turkey. In 2015, it imported 800,000t of cement and is expected to reach 900,000t in 2016. Lev Baron’s imports account for 14% of the cement supply in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Australia: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has filed an appeal against a US$12.6m fine against Cement Australia, which it views is too low. On 16 May 2016 a Federal Court published orders imposing a penalty of US$13.7m on the cement producer. One order was then set aside, reducing the fine to US$12.6m. However, the ACCC contends that a penalty of over US$66m is more appropriate for the breaches of Australia’s competition legislation.

“The ACCC will argue to the Full Court that the penalties imposed on Cement Australia are manifestly inadequate, and not of appropriate deterrent value,” said ACCC Chairman Rod Sims. He added that suitable financial penalties were considered ‘essential’ as a deterrent to anti-competitive conduct and to prevent businesses viewing such behaviour as an acceptable cost of doing business.

The proceedings relate to contracts that were entered into by Cement Australia companies between 2002 and 2006 with four power stations in South East Queensland, to acquire fly ash. The court found numerous contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It also fined Christopher White, a manager in the Cement Australia fly ash business during the relevant period, a penalty of US$14,700 for his involvement in making the contravening contracts with the operator of the Swanbank power station in 2005.

India: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed two petitions by members of the Birla family intending to challenge the takeover of Reliance Infrastructure by Birla Corporation. Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya held that the petitions were not maintainable stating that decisions taken by the directors could not be called into question by the probate court.

The challenge by the Birla family represents the latest move in a long-running legal battle between the family and accountant R S Lodha, father of the current chairman of Birla Corporation. The cement company announced in February 2016 that it was planning to buy Reliance Infrastructure for US$715m.

Slovenia: Slovenia faces EU judicial proceedings for its alleged failure to fully-implement a system of environmental permits for its large industrial plants. The case referred to the EU Court of Justice relates to one of the country's two cement producers, which continues to operate without permits.

The Commission said that matter would be referred to the court for failure to implement provisions of the integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) directive of 2007, which requires that industrial plants be licensed to verify that they meet strict environmental controls. It is the second time that Slovenia has faced EU court action over the IPPC directive, after the Court of Justice found in 2010 that Slovenia was running afoul rules requiring that all plants meet the set requirements.

The EU is seeking a base fine of Euro1.6m for the country plus Euro9009 for each day that the violation persists. The Slovenian Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning said that it was, "Striving to implement as quickly as possible the alleged violations of EU law." Licenses under the IPPC directive became a requirement for member states as of 30 October 2007. According to the Commission, Slovenia has made considerable progress since the 2010 ruling, but full compliance with the judgement has still not been reached.

The new case concerns 'a major cement factory,' which continues to operate without a permit. While it avoided naming the plant, Slovenia has two cement plants owned by Salonit Anhovo and Lafarge. Whereas Salonit Anhovo is a licensed IPPC plant, Lafarge is involved in lengthy bureaucratic and legal proceedings in seeking a permit. It has faced ongoing protests from local groups against it being granted a license. Despite not having a license, the plant continues to operate.

The Environment Ministry said that one of the factors influencing the length of procedures was a ruling by an administrative court in Slovenia demanding that Lafarge's plant be treated as a new facility rather than an existing installation. The Environment Agency, which issues permits, is therefore obliged to complete all procedures prescribed for licensing of new plants.

Egypt: The Supreme Administrative Court has decided to pause an investigation into the appeal against the privatisation of Beni Suef Cement Company.

The court ordered the reinstatement of workers to the company, but decided to suspend looking into the appeal of the privatisation. The suspension is pending another court decision in a case questioning the constitutionality of a law issued in 2014, which bans third parties from challenging sales or investment contracts signed between the government and investors.

The law in question stipulates that courts must suspend viewing appeals of contracts, even if the cases were brought to court prior to the issuance of the law. The law was approved in April 2014 by former interim president Adli Mansour and was heavily criticised by the Egyptian Centre for Social and Economic Rights (ECESR) for its issuance. The ECESR said that the law 'wastes the rights of citizens and workers from detecting suspicions of corruption' in contracts.

The controversy over Beni Suef Cement is more than a decade old. The plant, which has an annual production capacity of 1.5Mt/yr, was sold in 1999 and was then owned as a joint venture project by Lafarge and Titan. In 2002, Titan acquired the shares owned by Lafarge and has since wholly-owned the plant.

In February 2014, an administrative court ruled in favour of the privatisation but ordered reinstating the workers, as stipulated in the sales contract. The court ruling was appealed by the workers, who want the privatisation to be reversed and by company officials, who do not want to bear the costs of reinstating the workers.