PENTLAND FERRIES AGAINST SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2019] ScotCS CSOH_39 (26 April 2019)

PENTLAND FERRIES AGAINST SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2019] ScotCS CSOH_39 (26 April 2019)

The Scottish Ministers acted within their discretion in designating the Scrabster route as a service of general economic interest and providing a subsidy, as the route was unviable without support and necessary for adequate transport provision. The evidence showed no manifest error in the assessment of market failure, necessity, or proportionality. Bundling of routes was justified and consistent with EU law and Commission guidance. The petitioner's arguments did not establish unlawfulness or irrationality in the decision-making process.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_39
Parties
Petitioner: Pentland Ferries; Respondent: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (petition) / Outer House, Court of Session – Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
State Aid, Public Service Obligations, Maritime Transport, Market Failure, Proportionality, Bundling of Public Contracts
Administrative Law European Union Law Competition Law Transport Law State Aid Public Service Obligations Maritime Transport Market Failure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pentland Ferries

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (petition) / Outer House, Court of Session – Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to subsidise the Scrabster ferry route and bundle it with other Northern Isles Ferry Services was lawful under EU and domestic law
  2. 2 Whether there was a manifest error in the Scottish Ministers' assessment of market failure and adequacy of transport services
  3. 3 Whether the subsidy and bundling were necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

The Scottish Ministers acted within their discretion in designating the Scrabster route as a service of general economic interest and providing a subsidy, as the route was unviable without support and necessary for adequate transport provision. The evidence showed no manifest error in the assessment of market failure, necessity, or proportionality. Bundling of routes was justified and consistent with EU law and Commission guidance. The petitioner's arguments did not establish unlawfulness or irrationality in the decision-making process.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Respondents' third and fourth pleas in law sustained
  • Petition dismissed