Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Legal news
  4. No defence to action to recover unlawful state aid

No defence to action to recover unlawful state aid

7th September 2020 | europe , tax | EU / international , Corporate tax

A company wrongly exempted from a levy, the exemptions ultimately being held to contravene EU law as unlawful state aid, will have to pay the full amount due, despite it claiming not to have benefited, the Inner House has ruled.

Lord President Carloway, Lord Woolman and Lord Doherty gave the decision in refusing an appeal by John Gunn & Sons Ltd in an action by the Advocate General on behalf of the UK Government to recover £1,064,869 plus interest in respect of aggregates levy which the defenders had not paid over the period from November 2003 to March 2014 as a result of two statutory exemptions.

The levy was introduced by the UK in 2002. After lengthy proceedings involving the European Commission and the EU Court of Justice, the Commission ultimately decided that exemptions relating to shale and shale spoil amounted to unlawful state aid because they were not justified in environmental terms, and gave extractors of such material an unfair advantage over other traders in aggregate. The Commission ordered the UK to recover the aid from the “beneficiaries”. The Lord Ordinary held that there was no defence to the action and granted decree as sought.

On appeal the defenders argued that they only had to pay the amount which represented the actual advantage which the exemption had given to them. This sum was nil, since they had passed on the benefit of the exemptions to their customers. Further, the pursuer, by seeking the larger amount, was in breach of article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property); he was acting unlawfully by breaching HMRC’s Policy Brief 11 (2015) on the reinstatement of certain aggregates levy exemptions; and the domestic time limit of four years applied.

Lord Carloway, delivering the opinion of the court, said the principle set out in a CJEU decision involving Aer Lingus and Ryanair (2017) was that the obligation on the state to recover such aid was “to restore the situation as it was before the aid was granted”. Repayment forfeited the advantage gained; recovery involved restitution of the advantage, not of any economic benefit. Where the aid was in the form of a tax advantage, recovery mean that the transactions had to be subject to the same tax treatment as would have been applied without the unlawful aid. It followed that the challenge to the assessment of the amount due must fail. 

In any event such challenge should have been made before the CJEU. Upholding the defenders' contention would amount to holding the Commission's decision unlawful, which the Court of Session had no power to do.

Regarding the Human Rights Convention, since EU law encompassed the Convention rights, there was a presumption that a state acting in accordance with EU law, with no discretionary element involved, was behaving in a Convention compliant manner unless the protection afforded to Convention rights was “manifestly deficient”. There was no breach of article 1 of Protocol 1 since the deprivation the defenders would suffer was justified in the public interest. 

The HMRC policy brief, which prevented recovery of levy paid if the cost had been passed on to customers, had no relevance to the present situation; nor did the four year limitation period applying to making an assessment to the levy, since the order was for recovery of state aid, which had a different purpose from an assessment to pay the levy and could not be treated as analogous to it.

Lord Carloway concluded: “The recovery sought by the pursuer is what EU law requires and the pursuer has no option but to comply with it. The reclaiming motion must accordingly be refused. From the defenders’ perspective, this may seem hard. After all, the unlawful exemptions were the prevailing law at the material times. Nevertheless, the fact that they were unlawful state aid created distortion of the market. The consequences of that distortion require to be redressed.”

Click here to view the opinion of the court.

 

Add To Favorites

Additional

  • News and events

In this section

  • Law Society news
  • CPD & Training
  • Blogs & opinions
  • Events
  • 75th Anniversary

Categories

  • civil litigation
  • criminal law
  • employment
  • obituary
  • careers
  • practice management
  • law society of scotland
  • government-administration
  • welfare/benefits
  • family-child law
  • reparation
  • professional regulation
  • property (non-commercial)
  • insolvency
  • consumer
  • human rights
  • mental health-adult incapacity
  • planning/environment
  • europe
  • information technology
  • immigration
  • education-training
  • executries
  • corporate
  • commercial property
  • agriculture-crofting
  • dispute resolution
  • risk management
  • intellectual property
  • client relations
  • tax
  • licensing
  • banking-financial services
  • trusts-asset management
  • reviews
  • opinion
  • For the public
  • Research and policy
  • Regulation
  • Journal online news
  • interview

News Archive

  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013

Related articles

  • MSP committee majority backs Visitor Levy Bill
  • MSPs seek views on proposed Scottish aggregates tax
  • Aggregates Tax Bill introduced to Holyrood
  • UKSC holds director's option subject to income tax
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited