Luxembourg, 10/07/2001 (Agence Europe) - The Court of First Instance has rejected the appeal by a pub tenant Colin Arthur Roberts and his wife Valerie Roberts against the European Commission which refused to investigate a brewery contract that tied them to the regional brewers "Greene King". At the same time the Roberts disputed before an English Court the obligation to purchase beer as stipulated in the lease. The Court, presided over by Josef Azizi, rejected all the Roberts' arguments following a complex reasoning on which the Court did not choose to comment.
The Roberts have the right to appeal to the European Court of Justice to have this ruling annulled.
Free legal aid its unknown factors
Colin and Velerie Roberts had asked for legal aid and secured it by an order of October 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance, then presided over by Ludge Lenaerts. The latter agreed that the level of the couple's income, made up of social benefits, did not allow them to pay the fees of their legal experts (lawyers and solicitors) £41,477 (close to 250,000 euro). In his order, Koenraad Lenaerts had considered that the fees were manifestly "disproportionate" in view of the object and nature of the dispute, the points of law raised and the difficulties involved in the case. According to the President, the fees should not have exceeded 15,000 euro, legal aid thus having to be limited to that amount.
The Commission explained to the Court that it reserved the right to dispute the solicitors' fees of its adversaries were the latter to win the case and if the Court were to charge it for the legal fees. Rejecting the Roberts' appeal against the Commission, the Court decided to charge the couple for their legal costs and not the Commission.
Worth noting that another tenant of an English pub, Patricica Boyes, did not have the same opportunity of pleading before the Court of First Instance. The Third Chamber, chaired by Judge Jaeger (who was the judge raporteur in the Roberts case), having refused her legal aid. The Chamber had nevertheless observed that Patricia Boyes was ill, bankrupt and only living on disabled benefit. At the time, the experts recognised that for Ms. Boyes, asking compensation from the Commission, responsible, according to her, for a European policy that played in favour of breweries to the detriment of small tenants was a difficult task. By refusing legal aid, the Third Chamber had considered that her chances of success were next to none. But what had shocked certain legal experts was that the Court had, in its order, taken account of a letter from the Commission advising the judges not to grant this aid to a potential adversary, which, it claimed, did not have sufficient proof to act.
In its order, the Court recalled that Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure allowed it to refuse a request for legal aid without providing reasons for its refusal and without Patricia Boyes being able to appeal. Ms. Boyes died a little later and her children, asked by her legal experts, had refused to pursue the case.