Takk!
Ledelsen har jo ikke kommunisert noe ang civil liability. Bare se hvordan det har gått under radaren. De kom med pressemelding da anken ble omgjort av høyesterett, uten å omtale dette faktum. Så kom de noen måneder senere med pressemelding der de la ved den offisielle italienske dommen, uten kommentarer. Så litt senere kom de med engelsk variant, uten kommentarer. Man må enten gå gjennom de 61 sidene selv, eller få gjort den søkbar for å forstå faktum i saken.
Personlig gir jeg helt blanke i kursen, nå har man en klar tidslinje og forholde seg til, da er kursen uvesentlig.
what does this mean: The lawyer points out that the four companies indicated were summoned to appear in court in the dual capacity of parties civilly liable and accused entities pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 231/2001 in relation to charge D) and the first judge excluded the liability of the so-called vehicle companies, holding only Avaleos 5.A., Avelar Management Ltd 5.A. and Saem Energie alternative jointly and severally civilly liable with the convicted defendants. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of the civil party GSE against that decision and the ruling is not challenged in this case, with the result that the appeal ruling is res judicata in so far as it concerns the exclusion of civil liability of the entities Ens Solar Four, Enfo 3, Enfo 44 and Enfo 71:
ChatGPT
This passage describes a legal situation involving four companies and their involvement in a court case. Here’s a breakdown of what it means:
- The lawyer points out : This indicates that someone, presumably a lawyer, is drawing attention to a particular aspect of the case.
- The four companies indicated : Refers to four specific companies that have been identified or mentioned in the context of this legal case.
- Summoned to appear in court : These companies have been required to come to court, suggesting they are involved in the legal proceedings.
- In the dual capacity of parties civilly liable and accused entities : This means that these companies are being viewed in two roles within the case. First, as parties that can be held civilly liable for certain actions, and second, as accused entities facing criminal charges.
- Pursuant to Legislative Decree no. 231/2001 in relation to charge D) : This refers to a specific legal decree (Legislative Decree no. 231/2001) and a specific charge (charge D) that is relevant to these companies’ involvement in the case.
- The first judge excluded the liability of the so-called vehicle companies : The initial judge in the case ruled that some of these companies (referred to as “vehicle companies”) are not liable for the actions or charges related to the case.
- Holding only Avaleos 5.A., Avelar Management Ltd 5.A. and Saem Energie alternative jointly and severally civilly liable with the convicted defendants : This part of the sentence indicates that only three of the companies mentioned (Avaleos 5.A., Avelar Management Ltd 5.A., and Saem Energie alternative) are held responsible for civil liability along with the convicted defendants. In other words, these three companies are found liable in addition to the individuals who were convicted.
- The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of the civil party GSE against that decision : The Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a civil party named GSE but rejected it. This suggests that the Court of Appeal upheld the initial decision made by the first judge regarding the liability of these companies.
- The ruling is not challenged in this case : This means that the decision made by the Court of Appeal regarding the liability of the mentioned companies has not been disputed or challenged in the current legal case.
- With the result that the appeal ruling is res judicata in so far as it concerns the exclusion of civil liability of the entities Ens Solar Four, Enfo 3, Enfo 44, and Enfo 71 : This part clarifies that the decision of the Court of Appeal, which excluded civil liability for some companies (Ens Solar Four, Enfo 3, Enfo 44, and Enfo 71), is considered final and cannot be revisited or challenged in this case. “Res judicata” is a legal term that means the matter is settled and cannot be re-litigated.
what does this mean:ON THESE GROUNDS
This Court quashes the challenged ruling against Giorgi Marco, Akhmerov Igor and
Maggi Sebastiano and refers the case back to another Division of the Court of Appeal of
Mitan for further proceedings.
Declares the action brought by Giuseppina Pilotto to be inadmissible and orders her to pay
the costs of the proceedings and the sum of EUR 3,000 to the Cassa delle Ammende.
Quashes the challenged ruling against Alessandro Cavacece, with respect to the civil effects,
and refers the case back to the civil court having jurisdiction for the value at the level of the
appeal, to which it also refers the determination of the costs between the parties for this
instance.
Orders Marco-Giorgi, Igor Akhmerov, Sebastiano Maggi, Giuseppina Pilotto, Avelecs S.A,
Avelar Management Ltd and Saem s.r.l., jointly and severally, to reimburse the costs of legal
representation and defence incurred in these proceedings by the civil party
G.S.E., Gestore Servizi Energetici S.p.A., for a total of EUR 3,510.00, plus accessory costs
required by law.
Orders Marco Giorgi, Igor Akhmerov and the civilly liable parties Aveleos S.A., Avelar
Energy LTD and Enovos Luxembourg S.A., jointly and severally, to reimburse the costs of
legal representation and defence incurred in these proceedings by the civil parties Eam
Solar Asa and Eam Solar Italy Holding s.r.l., to which they shall pay the total amount of
EUR 4,000.00, plus accessory costs required by law.
Orders Marco Giorgi, Igor Akhmerov, Sebastiano Maggi and Giuseppina Pilotto, jointly
and severally, to reimburse the costs of legal representation and defence incurred in
these proceedings by the civil party Societd Agricola a.r.l. EN.FO 60, to be paid a total
amount of EUR 3,510.00, plus accessory costs required by law.
Orders lgor Akhmerov to reimburse the costs of representation and defence incurred in
the present proceedings by the civil parties Unicredit S.p.A and UBI Leasing S.p.A., which
are settled for each party for the sum of EUR 3,000.00, plus legal costs.
ChatGPT
The text you provided appears to be a legal document or court judgment. Here’s a breakdown of what it means:
The court has made several decisions and orders:
a. The court has quashed a ruling against individuals named Giorgi Marco, Akhmerov Igor, and Maggi Sebastiano. The case is being sent back to another Division of the Court of Appeal in Mitan for further proceedings.
b. The action brought by Giuseppina Pilotto has been declared inadmissible. She is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings and a sum of EUR 3,000 to the Cassa delle Ammende (a fund or treasury).
c. The challenged ruling against Alessandro Cavacece has been quashed concerning its civil effects. The case is being referred back to the civil court with jurisdiction for the value at the appeal level. The determination of costs between the parties for this instance will also be handled by this court.
Several individuals and entities have been ordered to reimburse the costs of legal representation and defense incurred in the proceedings by various civil parties. These orders specify the total amounts to be paid and mention the parties responsible for the reimbursement:
a. Marco-Giorgi, Igor Akhmerov, Sebastiano Maggi, Giuseppina Pilotto, Avelecs S.A, Avelar Management Ltd, and Saem s.r.l are jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing EUR 3,510.00, plus accessory costs required by law, to G.S.E., Gestore Servizi Energetici S.p.A.
b. Marco Giorgi, Igor Akhmerov, and the civilly liable parties Aveleos S.A., Avelar Energy LTD, and Enovos Luxembourg S.A are jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing EUR 4,000.00, plus accessory costs required by law, to the civil parties Eam Solar Asa and Eam Solar Italy Holding s.r.l.
c. Marco Giorgi, Igor Akhmerov, Sebastiano Maggi, and Giuseppina Pilotto are jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing EUR 3,510.00, plus accessory costs required by law, to the civil party Società Agricola a.r.l. EN.FO 60.
d. Igor Akhmerov is ordered to reimburse the costs of representation and defense incurred by the civil parties Unicredit S.p.A and UBI Leasing S.p.A for EUR 3,000.00 each, plus legal costs.
In summary, this text outlines various legal decisions and orders made by the court regarding the mentioned individuals and entities, including quashing rulings, declaring actions inadmissible, and specifying reimbursement of legal costs to various parties involved in the proceedings.
Disclaimer: korte utdrag fra rettsdokumentet linket over og chatgpt sin tolking
EAM bunnet ut for denne gang? Mcap kun på lave 54mill kr. Ikke mye som er innpriset ved medhold i de rettslige tvistene.
Fra enovos 2022 rapport.
Se nederste avsnitt.
Leser også i dokumentet fra høyesterett (punkt 1. s.36) at Enovos Solar Investments II ikke har «procedural status in the current proceedings», og at dette er res judicata…
Som betyr??? Har litt problemer med å sette meg inn i alt det juridiske.
ESI II er ikke del av P31 salget, men separate solparker som ble etterforsket for FIT svindel mot italienske staten på lik linje med de andre.
2 Likes
Gikk litt volum i dag. Spennende, tror flere ser at man kan få ett interessant resultat i starten av 2024.
Som nevnt før i tråden her, ekstremt essensielt at høyesterett anser Enovos som solidarisk ansvarlig. Det muligjør at man først får dømt, så får hentet ut pengene.
Skal finne frem, de har et meget nyansert syn på punkt F. Skal sette meg ned å finne frem når jeg har tid.
Husker jeg korrekt var nettopp dette et av punktene som EAM anket fra 1. instans domsavgjørelsen. EAM var fornøyd med 1. instansdommen - da den var veldig grundig og deskriptiv hvordan EAM var svindlet og hvordan de kriminelle handlingene var utført, men i motsetning til de innledende forhandlingene fra 13. sept 2016 hvor Milan var tydelig på at Aveleos var et «special purpose vehicle» av Avelar og Enovos, så var dette ikke lenger faktum i hovedommen fra oktober 2019 - og dette ble da Anket av EAM.
Det hadde vært veldig fint å fått tak i hoveddommen fra okt 2019 for å få verifisert. Den var delt med fileshare på eams sider, men opplastingen er utgått på dato nå.
Jeg kan ikke se problemstillingen er beskrevet og vurdert av Høyesterett. Det at enovos er beskrevet som Civilly Liable betyr ikke nødvendigvis at de er økonomisk ansvarlig for pkt. F. Det kan bety så lite som at de er en sivil involvert part i saken.
Kommentarer til skrivet fra høyesterett.
Skal oppdatere mer fyldig siden.
skriv_høyesterett.pdf (11,0 MB)
4 Likes
5 Likes
Takk for den. Ser du har jobbet godt med dokumentet, og kommentert underveis. Har trua på ett positivt utfall. Kun tiden vil vise. 
1 Like
Den presentasjonen der var veldig veldig god.
Takk
1 Like
Er så bra gjennom gang av “caset”, at du burde sendt det inn til Finansavisen.