PSO definition

View the related practice notes about PSO

Case C- 586/18 Buonotourist v Commission and Case C- 587/18 CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission [Archived]

Case C- 586/18 Buonotourist v Commission and Case C- 587/18 CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission [Archived] CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgments of 4 March 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals of the General Court judgments in Cases T- 185/16 and T- 186/15 which dismissed actions for annulment of the Commission’s decisions in State aid Cases SA.35842 and SA.35843—PSO compensation for Buonotourist and CSTP Azienda della Mobilità. Latest developments On 4 March 2020, the Court of Justice issued its judgments in which it dismissed the appeals in their entirety. Parties Appellants:• Buonotourist S.r.L. (Buonotourist). Buonotourist is a private company providing local public transport services based on regional and municipal concessions. More specifically, Buonotourist operates a network of bus routes as concessionaire of the Italian region of Campania (the Region) throughout the period under review covering approximately 1.8m km per year• Consorzio Salernitano Trasporti Pubblici...

Conflict in Ukraine—EU State aid decisions

Conflict in Ukraine—EU State aid decisions On 23 March 2022, the European Commission (Commission) adopted a Temporary Crisis Framework (TCF) to enable Member States to use the flexibility foreseen under State aid rules to support the economy in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, based on Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. On 9 March 2023, the Commission adopted the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework (TCTF) to support measures in sectors which are key to accelerate the green transition and reduce fuel dependencies—the TCTF prolongs in part, and amends, the TCF. This document tracks all Commission decisions issued under the TCF and TCTF in relation to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. NOTE—For all State aid decisions issued by the Commission under the Temporary Framework adopted in the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, see further—Coronavirus (COVID-19)—State aid case tracker NOTE—For all ongoing and completed Commission decisions involving State aid under the normal rules, see further, EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker and EU State aid decisions—closed cases tracker ...

View the related q&as about PSO

Where an order is sought preventing a named person, other than a parent, from having contact with a child, should that order be a prohibited steps order and should it be against the third party or against the resident parent?

Where an order is sought preventing a named person, other than a parent, from having contact with a child, should that order be a prohibited steps order and should it be against the third party or against the resident parent? A prohibited steps order (PSO) is defined in section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) as: ‘…an order that no step which could be taken by a parent in meeting his parental responsibility for a child, and which is of a kind specified in the order, shall be taken by any person without the consent of the court…’ The conduct which can be restrained by a PSO must be a step which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child and it must be of a kind specified in the order. The requirement to specify the kind of conduct which is prohibited means that the order must set out clearly what it is that the person who is subject to the order...

View the related News about PSO

Local Government weekly highlights—7 November 2024

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes expert analysis on the decision in Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd where the court ruled that the healthcare provider was not a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998; and analysis of the decision in Hajan v Brent LBC where the court permitted amendment of the possession claim to add absolute ground. Case reports include the decision in Wathen-Fayed v SSLUHC where the Supreme court granted an appeal concerning planning permission for construction of crematorium in the Green Belt, the decision in AS v Waltham Forest LBC where court held that an indefinite Prohibited Steps Order should be made in exceptional circumstances in case concerning FGM. This week’s edition further includes updates on Governance, Social care, Social housing, Education, Children’s social care, Healthcare, Pensions and Planning.

PSO correctly calculated at valuation date as set percentage of cash equivalent (Mr S, CAS-30342–Z1B0)

Pensions analysis: In the determination of Mr S, CAS-30342–Z1B0, the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) has rejected a complaint about the calculation of a pension sharing order (PSO). The complainant had disagreed with the methodology used by the administrators for the purposes of calculating the value of the pension credit on the valuation day and also complained of delays responding to his complaint, potentially suffering financial loss as a result. The PO disagreed, finding that the administrators were correct to encash further units to ensure that the same sum as had been calculated at the valuation date was transferred to the ex-spouse’s pension arrangement, even if that resulted in a higher percentage of his cash equivalent being transferred. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.