BASI sued for £500 000

A snowHead

@balernoStu, yes, they're absolutely permitted to work in France, on their own account if they like.

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@rjs, D G Orf is correct. The other advantage of the French ruling is that it applies to SB's crew explicitly (and others implicitly) as well as himself. The BASI case was only about SB, and became irrelevant.

The role of the Eurotest has been made clear by the judgement. It is absolutely not a pre-requisite to teach skiing in France (as the SNMSF and BASI would have people believe). It is the test to be applied if there are substantial differences in training compared to the French diploma (which lack of a eurotest pass does not imply), which are not compensated by professional experience. The authorities must prove a substantial difference, and must prove lack of compensatory experience, before demanding a eurotest pass; and they must do that within a set timeframe after receiving a declaration. In all other cases, the declarer is free to practise professionally.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

So SB will be able to work as an independent instructor. This is what the Court decided?

How about another side of the story where SB employing lower level instructors for his buisness? As it was reported, under the French system only established training organisations (not all ski schools are training organisations) can do it?

You'll need to Register first of course.

@laundryman, My point is that I don't think the ruling automatically helps younger instructors, the Eurotest is part of BASI L4.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

@rjs, it looks very much like L3s can practise in France. Certainly the ones (and L2s also) who have already declared and been falsely refused can.

@mooney058, the court found that those people can practise in France in their own right (or be employed by somebody else). They do not have to be a part of the French training system.

After all it is free

Here are the facts, Any Lawyers care to comment on a google translation of the actual judgement from the Administrative court Wink

Or shall we all continue to speculate.

N ° 1403050
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
FROM LYON
N ° 1403050
___________
Mr. Simon BUTLER
___________
Ms. Mège Teillard
The
___________
M. du Besset
Public Reporter
___________
Hearing of 7 November 2016
Reading of 22 November 2016
___________
15-05-01-01-05
55-005-01
C-
FRENCH REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
The Administrative Court of Lyon
6th House
Considering the following procedure:
By a motion filed on April 3, 2014, supplemented by a memorandum dated October 14, 2016, Mr. Simon Butler, represented by Mr. Planes, asks the Tribunal in its latest written submissions:
(1) to annul the decision of 24 February 2014 by which the Prefect of the Rhône-Alpes Region decided to submit it to an aptitude test following his declaration of activities with a view to establishing himself as a quality Ski instructor on French territory and his application for a professional card;
2 ° to charge the State the sum of 2 500 euros under Article L. 761-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice.
Mr. Butler argues that:
- the impugned decision was signed by an incompetent authority, failing the prefect to justify the delegation of signature of its author;
- it is not sufficiently motivated;
- it was taken at the end of an irregular procedure; On the one hand, the Prefect acknowledged receipt of his declaration after the end of one month provided for in Article R. 212-89 of the Sport Code and intervened after the three-month period provided for by Article R. 212-90-2 of this Code; On the other hand, it disregards the investigation procedure provided for in Articles A. 212-184, A. 212-185 and A. 212-186 of the Sport Code, failing which for the Prefect, on the one hand , To have assessed the substantial differences between his qualification and the French reference qualification in the light of the knowledge acquired during his professional experience and, on the other hand, to justify opinions from the national pole of ski management and Mountaineering, the Permanent Alpine Ski Section of the Committee on Training and Employment of the High Council for Mountain Sports and the Qualification Recognition Commission;
- it is vitiated by an error of law, since the Prefect can not justify his decision by the fact that he is not the technical tester 'Eurostest', since he is not one of the Documents required for the filing of the declaration and that it can not constitute at the same time the aptitude test required in the event of substantial differences between the applicant's diploma and the French reference diploma and the substantial difference; The Minister can not plead in defense, in order to justify the refusal of the Prefect, that it does not fall within the scope of Article R. 212-90 of the Sport Code for lack of evidence And the profession is not regulated in Great Britain, to the extent that training is regulated there;
- it is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment on the one hand in relation to its level of qualification in relation to the level of qualification required in France within the meaning of the provisions of the Sport Code and Article 11 of the Directive No 2005/36 / EC of 7 September 2005; On the other hand, the Prefect did not ask him to communicate his FIS points, which dispense with the "Eurotest"; Finally, the prefect, who relies on contradictory reasons, does not establish a substantial difference between his level of qualification and the different levels of qualification enabling him to practice the profession of ski instructor in France;
- the "Eurotest" fitness test is contrary to the provisions of Article A. 212-186 of the Sport Code, since it is not adaptable to the qualifications or professional experience of the European nationals;
- the grounds for lack of professional experience and the absence of an examination of the situation as a whole constitute an obstacle to freedom of enterprise and freedom of movement for workers;
- he must be granted automatic recognition of his qualification, provided that he holds a British professional card enabling him to work as a ski instructor in France pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding Understanding ".
By a memorial registered on 25 June 2014, the Minister for Women's Rights, Town, Youth and Sports concluded that the application should be dismissed.
It submits that the pleas put forward by Mr Butler are unfounded.
By an order of 17 October 2016, the closure of the investigation was fixed at 31 October 2016.
A brief submitted for Mr. Butler was registered on 3 November 2016, after the closure of the investigation.
Considering the other documents in the file.
Viewed:
- the Sport Code;
- Ordinance 2008-507 of 30 May 2008 transposing Directive 2005/36 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications;
- the code of administrative justice.
The parties were regularly notified on the day of the hearing.
The following were heard during the public hearing:
- the report by Mrs Mège Teillard, Counselor,
- the conclusions of Mr du Besset, the public rapporteur,
- and the observations of Mr Planes, for Mr Butler.
1. Considering that Mr Butler holds a British Alpine Ski Instructor diploma from the British Association of Snowport Instructors (BASI); On 16 September 2013 he sent a declaration of activity as a national of the European Union with a view to obtaining a professional card enabling him to establish himself as an alpine ski instructor in France; That by a decision of 20 December 2013 the Prefect of the Rhône-Alpes region informed the person concerned that he was forwarding his file to the Committee for the Recognition of Qualifications for an opinion, considering that there was a substantial difference between his qualification and That required on French territory; That by the contested decision of 24 February 2014, the Prefect of the Rhône-Alpes region decided to submit Mr Butler to an aptitude test and refused him, pending the results, the issuing of the professional card allowing The exercise of the activity declared;
On end for annulment:
2. Considering that pursuant to Article L. 212-1 of the Sports Code: "I. Only can, against remuneration, teach, conduct or supervise a sport or physical activity or cause its practitioners, as an Primary or secondary occupation in the usual, seasonal or occasional manner, subject to the provisions of the fourth paragraph of this Article and Article L. 212-2 of this Code, holders of a diploma, professional title or certificate (1) Ensuring the competence of its holder as regards the safety of practitioners and third parties in the activity concerned; (2) And registered in the national register of professional certifications under the conditions laid down in II of Article L. 335-6 of the education code / (...) ./ II.- the diploma referred to in I may be a foreign equivalent diploma (...) ". that under Article L. 212-7 of the Code: "The functions mentioned in the first paragraph of Article L. 212-1 may be exerted on the national territory by nationals of Member States of the European Community Or States party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area who are qualified to exercise them in one of those States. (...) ", That Article L. 212-2 of the Code makes the exercise of an activity" in a specific environment involving compliance with special security measures "in the possession of a diploma, activity Of Alpine skiing being, according to Article R. 212-7 of this Code, among these activities;
3. Considering that the application of these provisions, Article R. 212-90 of the Code specifies the sports that "is deemed to meet the qualification requirement needed to exercise some or all of the activities in the functions mentioned Article L. 212-1 any national of a Member State of the European Community or of another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area who is in one of the following situations: / 1 ° Hold a certificate of competence or a training qualification prescribed and issued by the competent authority of a Member State of the European Community or of another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area in That access to the activity or its exercise is regulated and that attests, for all or part of the activities in the functions mentioned in Article L. 212-1, a level of qualification at least equivalent to the level immediately below To that required on national territory, within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2005/36 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications; , In a Member State of the European Community or another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area which does not regulate access to or pursuit of the activity on a full-time basis for at least two years Ten years or equivalent duration in the case of part-time work and hold one or more certificates of competence or one or more evidence of formal qualifications awarded by the competent authority of one of those States attesting the Preparation for the exercise of the activity for all or part of the activities in the functions referred to in Article L. 212-1 and a level of qualification at least equivalent to the level immediately below that required on the national territory, Within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2005/36 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications / 3 ° Hold a qualification at least equivalent At the level immediately below that required on national territory within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2005/36 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications issued by the competent authority d 'A Member State of the European Community or of another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area which does not regulate access to or pursuit of the activity, which entails regulated training specifically aimed at the or all of the activities in the functions mentioned in Article L. 212-1 and consisting of a completed course of study, if appropriate, by professional training, professional traineeship or professional practice (...) "; Under the terms of Article R. 212-90-1 of the same Code: "To exercise all or part of activities in the functions mentioned in Article L. 212-1, the professional qualification of the declarant, Certified in accordance with 1 °, 2 °, 3 ° (...) of Article R. 212-90, shall be deemed to be materially different from the professional qualification required in the national territory, Is not such as to guarantee the safety of practitioners and third parties ... ";
4. Considering that, in order to justify the decision in dispute, the Prefect of the Rhône-Alpes region, after consulting the Permanent Alpine Skiing Section of the Committee on Training and Employment of the Higher Council for Mountain Sports and Of the Committee on the Recognition of Qualifications, on the existence of a substantial difference between Mr Butler's level of qualification and the level of qualification required in France, arguing that his training on safety in the field was inadequate Mountaineer as to his level of knowledge and technical safety skills, failing to hold the "Eurotest"; he concludes that the training of the person concerned is not able to guarantee the safety practitioners and others, should be submitted to the 1 st round of the scheduled fitness test in section A. 212-188 of this code, before issuing him the professional card enabling him to establish himself in France; That, however, the Minister for Women's Rights, Town, Youth and Sports defers a substitution of grounds on the ground that the decision in dispute is justified by the fact that the person concerned Qualifications required to carry on business in France, within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions of Article R. 212-90 of the Sport Code, which is essential in order to establish whether there is a substantial difference between the Qualification of the declarant and that required by the State of establishment, as is apparent from the aforementioned Article R. 212-90-1 of the same Code;
5. Considering that the administration establishes, without being challenged, that the profession of Alpine ski instructor is not regulated in Great Britain and that the applicant does not have two years of professional experience in a Member State of the The European Union or another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area which does not regulate access to the activity; However, it can not conclude that Mr Butler falls outside the scope of the provisions of Article R. 212-90 of the Sport Code only if the training delivered in Great Britain is not Not regulated; Whereas in the present case the applicant produces emails from the English administration, the result of which is that the training provided in Great Britain is regulated, which is not contradicted by the administration; Whereas, consequently, it is not seriously disputed that the applicant's situation thus satisfies the requirements of the abovementioned provisions of 3 ° of the said Article; Accordingly, Mr Butler is justified in maintaining that the Prefect erred in law in refusing to issue him the required professional card on the ground that it did not fall within the scope of Article R 212-90 of the Sport Code;
6. Considering that it follows from the foregoing and without it being necessary to examine the other pleas in the application that Mr Butler is entitled to seek the quashing of the contested decision of 24 February 2014;
The claims to the provisions of Article L. 761-1 of the Administrative Justice Code:
7. Considering that, pursuant to the provisions of Article L.761-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice, the losing party should be ordered to pay Mr Butler, A sum of EUR 900 for costs incurred and not included in the costs;
RESOLVES:
Article 1: The decision of the prefect of the Rhône-Alpes region February 24, 2014 is canceled.
Article 2: The State shall pay Mr. Butler $ 900 (nine hundred euros), pursuant to Article L. 761-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice.
Article 3: This decision will be notified to Mr. Simon Butler and Minister of the city, Youth and Sports.
Copy will be sent to the prefect of the Rhône-Alpes region.
Deliberated after the hearing of November 7, 2016, at which sat:
Mrs Wolf, President,
Mr. Porée, First Counselor,
Mrs Mège Teillard, Advisor.
Read in open session on 22 November 2016.
The rapporteur,
K. Mège Teillard The president,
A. Wolf
The Clerk,
J.-P. Duret
The Republic shall order and order the Minister of the Town, Youth and Sports in respect of himself, or any bailiffs to that effect, with respect to common legal remedies against private parties, Implementation of this Decision.
For shipping,
A clerk,

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

A summary on PlanetSki here:

http://www.planetski.eu/news/8493

I don't know what this ECOE is - I imagine it has no more weight than something like the CBI - but what's interesting about the ruling is not only for the ski industry and the fact that the court has finally imposed French law, but that it applies to all outdoor sports. I seem to recall sailing and canoeing, for instance, have had similar problems. BASI doesn't come out of it very well, and it makes their statement sound again like just more spin

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Lockerbie spinning like a tornado - one man through stubbornness and it seems non negligible personal cost has achieved more for BASI members than the entire board for generations it seems when it comes to ability to ply a trade in a country where lots of Brits ski. At least that's what it seems to me - cosy stitch-ups are not the same thing. If I was a BASI member I'd certainly be looking at voting with my pieds to IASI.

snow reports

Lockerbie spinning like a tornado - one man through stubbornness and it seems non negligible personal cost has achieved more for BASI members than the entire board for generations it seems when it comes to ability to ply a trade in a country where lots of Brits ski. At least that's what it seems to me - cosy stitch-ups are not the same thing. If I was a BASI member I'd certainly be looking at voting with my pieds to IASI.

I thought that I was starting to understand this and then I read this bit

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

from Planetski:
"It claims that anyone with BASI Level 2 or above now has the right to work in France, as long as they declare themselves and their qualifications to the authorities in advance and allow 2 months for them to be considered."

So that's a massive victory for UK trained people who will benefit hugely. This guy is a hero, owed beer by more people than he'll ever meet.

And the BASI bosses did everything within their power to prevent what is an excellent result for their members.

A snowHead

A snowHead

A knighthood for services to skiing?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

At the centre of the Simon Butler French case is that the French Authorities could not demonstrate a “substantial difference” between BASI qualifications and the local equivalent.
Just how different is “substantial” and how is this checked by host nations? Sorry for the long post but If you wish to understand how this works within Europe please read further.

The European Area of Recognition Manual (EAR Manual, 2012) gives the following explanation for the interpretation of substantial difference:
===
Substantial differences are differences between the foreign qualification and the national qualification that are so significant, that they would most likely prevent the applicant from succeeding in the desired activity such as further study, research activities or employment.
The burden of proof of a substantial difference lies with the competent recognition authority of the host country and the accompanying guidelines are as follows:
Not every difference should be considered to be ‘substantial’; the existence of a substantial difference entails no obligation to deny recognition to the foreign qualification; the difference should be substantial in relation to the function of the qualification and the purpose for which recognition is sought.’
===
It would appear to me that differences have to be pretty substantial!
One mechanism used with the EC to compare qualifications between different countries called the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). Luckily for us BASI has begun the process of getting our qualifications graded by Edinburgh University on the Scottish SCQF scale which maps directly into the EQF scale. L1 and L2 grading was finished two and half years ago in May 2014.
At the Morzine AGM in Jan 2014 I asked when L3 and L4 would be done and Dave Renouf said it would be done by Oct 14. During a Webinar from March 2015 we heard they are "aiming" for Oct Nov 2015. Donald Musk said on Facebook in June 15 "The aim is still to complete the Alignment for level 3 and 4 Alpine this year" and that the level 3 will align with the SCQF level 9 and the Level 4 with align with the SCQF level 10.

Which means both the BASI Level 3 and Level 4 qualifications have been scored an EQF level of 6 and the BASI level 2 is an EQF 5
Have a look at a simple chart on the BASI website:

https://www.basi.org.uk/BASINewWebsite/Useful_Links/BASI_and_education/BASI/Site_mock_ups/More_about_snowsports/BASI_and_Education/BASI_and_Education.aspx?hkey=cb138b18-805a-4eac-b4b7-204cad30e985

It is now December 2016 and over two years later the L3 and L4 qualifications are still not actually finalised. BASI could help ALL members working rights by finalising this exercise so that our qualifications are graded and recognised throughout the EC. I would be keen to understand why this is not yet done and when we can expect completion.

Now on to why the French cannot show a substantial difference. The French have a single level of qualification, BEES : Brevet d'état d'éducateur sportif First level Alpine skiing option which has been granted an EQF Level of 4
There is a newer French qualification, DEJEPS which has been granted an EQF level of 5

So a BASI Level 3 qualification with an EQF Level of 6 will actually be a HIGHER level of qualification than the any French diploma demonstrating clearly that there is NO "substantial difference”.

You'll need to Register first of course.

@skimottaret, fascinating. And Brexit will render it all meaningless (though not for you.)

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

Perhaps not if we get some form of mutual recognition of qualifications post brexit. virtually all labour movement of professionals would cease if we dont. But in the here and now this is the deal... funny how BASI have dragged their heels on showing that L3 and L4's are the same in the eyes of the EC Wink

@davidof, You may surmise that but I couldn't possibly comment Wink

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

BASI has issued a response to last week's judgement in the Administrative Court in Lyon

BASI not even taking the opportunity to get on the front foot - rather a defensive and wash their hands of any advice statement.

You know it makes sense.

[The comma usage in that press release makes my eyes hurt.]

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

That's quite an incredible response from BASI.

What are they doing for their membership beyond providing links to resources?

A snowHead

A snowHead

@turbosmurf, the claim is that L2s, possibly with appropriate professional experience, are entitled to a Carte Pro, and therefore can work independently rather than join the French training system as a stagiere.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@davidof, thanks. Helpful, as always.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

@davidof, yes L2/3s should get their declarations in now, if there's the slightest chance they may wish to work in France in the next few years: while the ruling is clear and the administration is off balance. I'm sure Jean-Yves would be happy to assist with the paperwork - get a comma out of place and you're probably screwed!

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

Can you believe this... Email released from the court case, Dave Renouf wrote to Marc Vernier Jan 7th, Simon was then arrested 18th Feb and Dave Renouf informed Simon of situation 26th Feb BASI were to remove his MoU. When this email was presented in Scottish Court the reporting Telegraph reporter described it as akin to being thrown to the lions! Is BASI really an Association looking after their members? Do you think this was a set up?

https://www.docdroid.net/BjcHFlg/dave-renouf-letter-to-france-to-inform-on-simon-mou-status.pdf.html

Can you believe this... Email released from the court case, Dave Renouf wrote to Marc Vernier Jan 7th, Simon was then arrested 18th Feb and Dave Renouf informed Simon of situation 26th Feb BASI were to remove his MoU. When this email was presented in Scottish Court the reporting Telegraph reporter described it as akin to being thrown to the lions! Is BASI really an Association looking after their members? Do you think this was a set up?

https://www.docdroid.net/BjcHFlg/dave-renouf-letter-to-france-to-inform-on-simon-mou-status.pdf.html

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

So they informed the "Authorities" before they informed their member, that rather sucks and is dreadful behaviour from an organisation meant to represent its members

Help!!

BASI sued for £500 000

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste