Supreme CourtThe judgment of the Supreme recognizes that Fedex does not 'inflated freight rates' transport, as he argued the Government delegation in the Canary Islands.

A particular interpretation of the delegation of the Government resulted in an opinion, made by an officer linked to promotion, He questioned the legality of the aid collected by the Fedex transport tomato to the European Union in the campaign 2002/2003.

The litigió was generated about thirteen years ago, When the Ministry of economy and Hacienda It opened a record quantity reinstate and He claimed the Federation of exporters of fruit and vegetables in the province of Las Palmas, FEDEX 8,3 million euros, which were awarded in direct aid for the transport of the tomato. The rest of the money, 3,5 million euros, demanded corresponded to the accrued interest for the alleged debt.

FedEx appealed the decision of the Ministry before the second section of the Chamber for contentious administrative, the TSJC. In the trial, the expert who defended the thesis of the Ministry explained that study was based on prices established by the consultant Edei, for the transport of the tomato to the European Union. This rate was of 6,68 centimeters per kilo, faced with the 15,56 cents which claimed the Fedex to the State.

On the other hand, the Federation argued that made market analysis is had not taken into account transport dry goods, or the need to use refrigerated ships to carry tomatoes, cucumbers and avocados to the Peninsula. Also, are not contemplated in the report prices of shipping companies that normally work with the Fedex.

To the negative judgment of the Superior Court of Justice de Canarias (TSJC) that forced them to return 11,8 million euros for aid which, According to the judgment, they were charged in the transport of tomato and cucumber to Europe during exercise 2002-2003, FedEx appealed the judgment in appeal.

Now, four years later, the room of the contentious - administrative, Third section of the Supreme Court has come to give the reason the Federation, failing the verdict of the second section of the room of the contentious – Clerk of the Superior Court of Justice de Canarias of 7 November of 2012.

In this sentence, It dismissed the appeal by FEDEX against the judgment given by the delegate of the Government of the Canary Islands of 26 in January of 2011, about reinstatement of subsidies amounting to 8.305.896,66 main € and 3.507.079,53 interest €, grant that had been awarded by resolution of 15 may of 2003 compensation for maritime and air transport of goods with origin or destination in the Canary Islands, regulated by Royal Decree 199/2000, of 11 February, for the financial year 2002.

Among the foundations of the appeal by Fedex, referred to the non-compliance of each and every one of the procedures which establishes rules for the decision of reinstatement. In addition, the delegation of the Government of then, within a month he had to arrange the start of record for reinstatement or make the discrepancy was breached; in the event of discrepancy should rise ministerial holder so that it resolved within two months and, However, the record was paralyzed during 16 months.

He says the sentence that, the imbalance appreciated by the Chamber between the quantity perceived by FEDEX and that really would have corresponded him drift only of the erroneous estimation of the Administration. Considers that if had been applied, uniform and consistently, calculation criteria would have found that FEDEX should have perceived- how minimum and in the worst-case scenario- the 70% grant received.

If you had attended to identical criteria of proportionality, applying it to the difference in distance between the Canary Islands and the European Union, FEDEX would have perceived the 100% support. And if he had attended "refrigerated shipping" actual data (instead of collecting data of transport in 'dry container') It would have concluded that, minimum quantity which would have corresponded to him would be far superior to the alleged in the estimate made.

The President of FEDEX, Jose Juan Bonny, He has expressed his satisfaction by a sentence that comes to recognize that the exporters or defraudamos, We inflate or freight, We neither committed any offence in relation to which accused us delegation then.

In addition, Bonny pointed out that effects arising from the dispute have been determining factors in the drift of the sector, what breaches of the administrations were added, the international situation and the proliferation of pests.

However, José Juan Bonny concludes that This ruling is cause for great joy for the sector because, In addition to that you are coming to do justice in a lawsuit in which there has been much intentionality, It restores our honor and acknowledge that neither we delinquimos or infringes regulations.