Case: Sønderborg Forsyning A/S [SONFOR] & Municipality of Sønderborg

Date created: 2020 December 17.
Date updated: Monday, October 11, 2021
Cases

Part of this document is written in Danish. Can be translated to English by copying and pasting to translate.google.com.

Latest

2021 February 26:

I receive an invoice in which SONFOR demands payment yet The Prime Minister's Office of Denmark, Municipality Soenderborg and Ministry of Finance are not bothered replying to my simple questions.

I email the Prime ministers office in Denmark , the municipality and Ministry of Finance. I ask a few very simple questions:

I ask this because I learn SONFOR, a waste company, is owned by the Municipality of Sønderborg related to fullfiling, among other, regulations and Directive 2008/98/EC Article 8 Extended producer responsibility litra 4 as well as upholding the Commune de Mesquer case.

My email dated 2021 February 26 and I have not received a reply in almost a month. Omitting a reply is the last tool in their arsenal when their own laws and regulations and court-cases does not follow the principle which govern themselves and this case alone demonstrate that a whole, a country, is invalidating themselves. They, SONFOR (owned by the municipality) even has the audacity to send me an invoice without prior individual negotiation.

Bondage is suppose to be pretty hip - after you read how waste-polluter-pays-principle is inacted

Please read section Extended producer responsibility and Waste regulative (affaldsregulativ) for the quicky-way to unbond and get to feel real good while watching CBS Canada. Sønderborg Forsyning Holding A/S [SONFOR] is owned by Municipality of Sønderborg and to find out who owns said municipality, NUR has telephoned The Ministry of the Interior (Indenrigsministeriet) and Ministry of Finance (Finansministeriet) on the date of 2020 December 21. Neither of these two ministries knows who owns the municipalities yet SONFOR is owned by the municipality yet nobody (yet) knows who owns the municipalities. The obvious would be that people own - but it is an open question. The title Mayor in Denmark is called a Borgmester and borg=castle and a citizen=borger. Is it then the Mayor who owns the municipality who then owns SONFOR or is it in fact the citizens. NUR also telephoned Kommunernes Landsforening (the national association of municipalities) www.kl.dk and they also did not know - who the owner is of themselves. If and when this question is answered the reply will be shown on this page.

Case briefly explained

Preliminary. SONFOR sonfor.dk is a holding company which holds eight companies which operates waste, garbage, vast-water and heating and uses pricing based on regulations set by board members of the municipality. Customers has no way to negociate the contract with which house-owners and users are forced to enter into a contract without being able to choose a different waste-solution . This brings forward, yet again, the topic of contracts which must be individually negotiated which is not the case in the dispute brought forward by SONFOR against Niels Ulrik Reinwald:

Aftaleloven

§ 36. En aftale kan ændres eller tilsidesættes helt eller delvis, hvis det vil være urimeligt eller i strid med redelig handlemåde at gøre den gældende. Det samme gælder andre retshandler.

Stk. 2. Ved afgørelsen efter stk. 1 tages hensyn til forholdene ved aftalens indgåelse, aftalens indhold og senere indtrufne omstændigheder.

Aftaleloven: retsinformation.dk

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC and Guidance on the interpretation and application of same.

Derfor anvender jeg naturligvis, da den er vejledende for dansk lov, det følgende:

Article 3

1.   A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

NUR has called and emailed SONFOR and municipality numerous times on the issue of paying for something which at times it not used such as when traveling for extended periods on holiday or similar. Also there are fixed pricing set my municipality even if citizen/customer uses the service little or very little. SONFOR forwards any complaints to municipality and when contacting municipality the municipality forwards to SONFOR. The cartel is operating on he bases of letting the citizen having to pay SONFOR for garbage which SONFOR then uses as fuel to make heating and/or recycles the garbage. The person producing garbage has a perfect right to demand to be able to negociate any contract which includes removing the garbage because the garbage is still the consumers as long as it is in the hands of the consumer until the consumer is forced into a contract with which their is absolutely no escape or chance of negociating a better and cheaper price.

While NUR investigated this case thoughroughly 2020 December 21st, NUR realized by reading fiscal budgets for SONFOR, that SONFOR is actually owned 100% by the Municiplaity of Soenderborg.

Ownership

Fiscal rapport 2016 for SONFOR (page 30 litra 10) (produced by Deloitte), that SONFOR is owned 100% by the Municipality of Soenderborg https://sonderborgkommune.dk. SONFOR is abbreviation for Sønderborg Forsyning and the holding-company by the same name (see company structure page 6 of same fiscal rapport).

Waste regulative (affaldsregulativ)

https://sonderborgkommune.dk/erhverv/regulativer-og-forskrifter (local PDF) 2020 version page 2:

§4 Gebyrer

Kommunalbestyrelsen fastsætter gebyrer i henhold til miljøbeskyttelsesloven samt bekendtgørelse om affaldsregulativer, -gebyrer og -aktører m.v. Kommunalbestyrelsen vedtager efter bekendtgørelse om affaldsregulativer, -gebyrer og -aktører m.v. én gang årligt et gebyrblad, der angiver størrelsen på ovennævnte gebyrer. Gebyrbladet er tilgængeligt på Sønderborg Kommunes hjemmeside.

Translated: §4 Fees: The municipal council determines fees according to the Environmental Protection Act and the Executive Order on waste regulations, fees and actors, etc.

The fees we then find at the Municipal of Soenderborg: https://sonderborgkommune.dk/borger/takster (local PDF). The pamplet/PDF reads on page 2:

English: all fees covers the cost of collecting, sorting and recycling and the first fee even covers the running of the plant which processes waste.

Section Extended producer responsibility, in EU Directive 2008/98/EC without prejudice, says it is the producer of waste who must bare the cost of all waste (in all cycles of packaging which becomes waste) and not the consumer yet this municipality lays the burden of cost 100% on the consumer. When a consumers buys a product the consumer also pays for the packaging or the whole product which includes packaging and the producer takes its pay for this which in some cases actually makes the products very much more expensive since some packaging carries most of the cost including transport of the product. After using the product the consumer must then, in this municipality, and any other municiplaity in Denmark, pay for the disposal of the packaging now termed waste and this is in contradiction to the intentions of OECD, EU Directives and even to the Mesquer case which is referenced and even Deloitte with Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and it all becomes a very deep piece of jargon when we know and consider, that Deloitte is the Chartered Accountant (Statsautoriseret Revisor) for the company SONFOR (local PDF) (SONFOR owned by the Municipality of Soenderborg).

Cartel / unsubscription / deep linking (fraud by design)

Preliminary. If the waste-holder wishes to unsubscribe from the waste regulation: SONFOR links from its website sonfor.dk/afmeld/ - screenshot - to the municipality sonderborgkommune.dk/erhverv/regulativer-og-forskrifter and in this case related to unsubscription from the waste regulation (affaldsregulativ).

Deep linking cartel-structure: Clicking on the Green Ansøg (Apply) button brings the user to the domain https://sonderborg.renoweb.dk (renoweb.dk fooling the customer to believe we are now with the municipality Soenderborg). On the page with green button we read the fee is DKK 175 to unsubscribe. Notice the button is green leading to the term greenwashing (wiki).

Entering renoweb.dk alone in the browser redirects the user to a new domain called sweco.dk to https://www.sweco.dk/vi-tilbyder/cases/gisit/renoweb/ with a .dk domain yet the name on the website is SWECO AB and AB means Aktie Bolag (wiki) which is the swedish term used for a stockholding company, limited, incorporated etc.

Sweco A/S located at Ørestads Boulevard 41 2300 København S (Google maps).

Wikipedia writes: Sweco (originally "Swedish Consultants") is a European engineering consultancy company.

Parent company is Investment AB Latour (wiki) leading us to the controller of said Investment AB Latour; Count Gustaf Archibald Siegwart Douglas (born 3 March 1938) is a Swedish aristocrat, billionaire businessman, and politician. He has been a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences since 2007. Where we are now at www.latour.se/. At Wikipedia we are told parent company to Investment AB Latour (Count Douglas) is Förvaltnings AB Wasatornet (77,0%) which NUR googles and finds Wasatornet which has a visiting address GREV TUREGATAN 19 Ort 114 38 Stockholm (google maps )and we notice GREV in Swedish language mans Count in English which insidently it the title of Count Doughlas. (the building Turegatan 19 in street view by Google maps) [we are talking billions of SEK, DKK, US$, EUR€].

Prelim: Another address given is Förvaltnings AB Wasatornet, Mäster Samuelsgatan 1, 111 44 Stockholm, Sweden (Google maps). At the same address hitta.se tells us there are many other companies.

Unsubscribe from the waste regulation

At the webpage you can choose which municipality from which you wish to unsubscribe from the waste regulation: www.borger.dk/Handlingsside?selfserviceId=773673e2-3b44-428b-ab98-6199ab8b2bf1 (domain name borger.dk is the public/official portal operated by the state of Denmark registered by Statens IT). A pulldown menu and a click on Videre takes you to subdomain.renoweb.dk where subdomain is substituated by the actual name of the municipality. This takes you to sweco.dk to a Swedish company SWECO AB to eventually Count Gustaf Archibald Siegwart Douglas as per a quick inquest using common tools Sweco in Denmark is located with an office building which absolutely does not look like they work with waste but more with software by Sweco!

From here www.sweco.dk/vi-tilbyder/cases/gisit/renoweb/ we read: "Hjemmeside renoweb.dk" yet that website redirects to the same page namely sweco.dk which

This page shows the page where user can select to unsubscribe using one of fourt alternatives: application-unsubscribe.png. It reads the following:

Then follows documentation and the user can attach a max 20MB file.

Prelim: Banks and companies who hold many houses do not pay the waste-fee. Municipality also terms the price paid a fee and not a price as such yet the fee covers the whole chabang from removal to disposal of waste. Why then call it a fee? It sounds less like taking people for a ride. It is fraud plain and simple. If it was a fee that would then be a fee like the fee people has to pay to run their car called a Grøn Afgift (green fee) which can be a few thousands DKK per year.

Waste is value added

DEN STORE DANSKE (Danish Dictionary)

Afgift: "skat der skal betales ved produktion, import eller omsætning af en vare eller ydelse, og som staten opkræver for at skaffe økonomiske midler til det offentlige eller for at modvirke overforbrug eller miljøskadelig virksomhed"

So the user pays a fee to dispose of waste and this fee, which is a tax, is burned yet again with V.A.T. which in Denmark is called Moms (which in English means mothers) and Internal Revenue (skat.dk) calls this Moms a Merværdiafgift; meaning; Morevaluefee which nicely leads to value added tax abbreviated V.A.T. which then begs the question why not call it V.A.T. because skat in Danish means darling and that is why it has many names one may suppose. Here comes the magic: customer pays a fee, which is a tax, which is no less than value added tax, to rid the waste, and on top of that fee the customer pays yet again 25% Moms which is V.A.T. which then means, mathematically and all, that the customer pay V.A.T. on V.A.T. on something which has value added and this added value is waste, which then in natural terms leads to the equation called gravity; that the customer by paying V.A.T. to rid the waste adds value which explains why the holder of waste has a bargaining-value and should logically be able to negotiate the price of the value which is added to the waste which also explains why waste is a product just like any other commodity like sugar, coffee, metals, soybeans, palmoil etc.

The V.A.T. to rid waste, waste regulative, prices

This pamplet https://sonderborgkommune.dk/sites/all/files/Forvaltninger/samlet_takstblad_for_budget_2021_0.pdf (local PDF) shows you the fees the consumer/household pays - found from this page: https://sonderborgkommune.dk/borger/takster.

Example page 3 says Parcelhus 1.165,00 (DKK)

At sonfor.dk https://sonfor.dk/priser/ we find the price list found here: https://sonfor.dk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/genbrug-og-rest-madaffald-20201217.pdf and now the word Afgift (which is V.A.T. which is a value added tax) has been swapped for Bidrag meaning contribution. We also notice that SONFOR calls it a price and not a fee and price in Danish is pris where we read:

Pris: pengebeløb som noget koster (amounts of money that something costs)

Something cost: that means that waste has a value which is why waste no longer is worthless. Well, the consumers is forced into a contract where customer must pay a fee which covers all the cost of waste-disposal and that was not the intended as prescribed by OECD, Deloittes, EU Directives and .

There are 36.069 households in Soenderborg Kommune 2020 where SONFOR operated. Source dst.dk

Standard unit house (family house, parcel)

Description V.A.T. (Gebyr) V.A.T. incl. 25% V.A.T.
Fast bidrag (regular contribution) 1.165,00 1.456,25
Genbrugsbidrag 715,00 893,75
Tømningsgebyr 880,00 1.100,00
m3 Vandafledningsbidrag - wastewater per m3 inc. VAT.   49,50

First 3 figures total 3.450,- per parcel (house) per year for standard unit house and waste-water added is per m3. The 3.450 is only V.A.T. as a fee as told by the municipality and as far as I know, I have never heard of paying V.A.T. on V.A.T. of which the "price" was the V.A.T. until now. I call this phenomenon Uri Geller.

Individual pricing

Above prices are for Soenderborg Municipality. Here are the prices for two other municipalities:

Sønderborg Forsyning Holding A/S [SONFOR]

This pamplet at sonfor.dk has the logotype of Deloitte: https://sonfor.dk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/holding-arsrapport-2016.pdf (annual 2016 fiscal report for SONFOR Holding A/S (stock company)). This Holding company holds 8 (eight) listed companies on page 6 (six) seen in the pamplet.

The municiplity Sønderborg owns all stocks in SONFOR:

"Sønderborg Kommune ejer alle aktier i selskabet [Sønderborg Forsyning Holding A/S] og har dermed bestemmende indflydelse på dette." page 30 Deloitte fiscal rapport: https://sonfor.dk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/holding-arsrapport-2016.pdf (local PDF).

Copy-paste

The regulations shown with each waste-company are linked to regulation set forth in what is termed waste regulations. Here are two examples which show they are in esssense the same:

With slight variations just to show that someone may actually have written them individually. Waste of work because the waste+regulation should in essense be the absolute same.

Deloitte

Wikipedia writes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte:

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited  /dəˈlɔɪt ˈtuːʃ toʊˈmɑːtsuː/, commonly referred to as Deloitte, is a British multinational professional services network.[7] Deloitte is one of the Big Four accounting organizations and the largest professional services network in the world by revenue and number of professionals, with headquarters in London, United Kingdom.

Revenue US$ 47.6 billion (2020).

Waste regulation (affaldsregulativ)

sonderborgkommune.dk/sites/all/files/Forvaltninger/oekonomi-teknik-miljoe/erhverv-og-affald/regulativ_for_husholdningsaffald_4._oktober_2020.pdf

Competition / antitrust / case Google versus Vestager

There is absolutely no competition and the holder og waste is forced into a contract leading to antitrust: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html 

Antitrust: Commission fines Google €1.49 billion for abusive practices in online advertising.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager and the decision is in part based on:

(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

Thereby SONFOR and municipality have created a situation in which citizens and owners of garbage have been made to believe that owners of garbage must pay a company so this company can profit with huge revenue where the raw-material is even being paid for by the consumer to the company which uses this raw-material to create huge revenue.

The citizen/customer/user/owner (of garbage) has no other place to sell or negotiate selling the raw-material deeming this construction a cartel of which the consumers have already paid for lines to remove wast-water and have already paid for packaging when buying products where products are wrapped in plastic, glas etc. which are all raw-materials.

Exemptions

Section added soon.

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E/TXT

Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive)

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02008L0098-20180705

EU waste management law

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098

Extended producer responsibility

Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments

Wikipedia

Extended_producer_responsibility: In the field of waste management, extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a strategy to add all of the environmental costs associated with a product throughout the product life cycle to the market price of that product. Extended producer responsibility legislation is a driving force behind the adoption of remanufacturing initiatives because it "focuses on the end-of-use treatment of consumer products and has the primary aim to increase the amount and degree of product recovery and to minimize the environmental impact of waste materials".

Deloitte

Page 11 Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) (local PDF):

"According to the OECD definition, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is “an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle” 1 . In practice, EPR implies that producers take over the responsibility for collecting or taking back used goods and for sorting and treating for their eventual recycling. Such a responsibility may be merely financial or organisational as well. The policy first appeared in the early 1980s in a few European Member States, especially for packaging waste, and since then it has continuously spread around the EU (and abroad)."

OECD

Extended producer responsibility: "Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach under which producers are given a significant responsibility – financial and/or physical – for the treatment or disposal of post-consumer products."

Directive 2008/98/EC Article 8 Extended producer responsibility litra 4

4.   The extended producer responsibility shall be applied without prejudice to the responsibility for waste management as provided for in Article 15(1) and without prejudice to existing waste stream specific and product specific legislation.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0098

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02008L0098-20180705

Guidance on the interpretation of key provisions of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste

http://waste-prevention.gr/waste/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2012_Guidance%20interpretation%20Directive%2098-2008-EC_EN.pdf

Page 13: "According to the polluter pays principle, the costs of the management of such waste shall be borne by the original waste producer or by the current or previous waste holders. The CJEU, in the Commune de Mesquer case, stated in this context that ‘The application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle (...) would be frustrated if (...) persons involved in causing waste escaped their financial obligations as provided for by that directive, even though the origin of the hydrocarbons which were spilled at sea, albeit unintentionally, and caused pollution of the coastal territory of a Member State was clearly established’. 13" [this with reference only to waste at sea!]

Directive 2008/98/EC references the term/phrase "polluter pays principle" with reference to the Mesquer case.

Wikipedia: Polluter pays principle.

Commune de Mesquer case

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=ecli%3AECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2008%3A359

Therefore the "polluter pays principle" applies to the extended producer responsibility - without prejudice. I.e. it is the producer of packaging who pays for the disposal which explains why governance has laid the burden on consumers which is a violation of the principle laid out by Deloitte via OECD via Commune de Mesquer case where we read which:

12      Article 15 of Directive 75/442 provides:

‘In accordance with the “polluter pays” principle, the cost of disposing of waste must be borne by:

–      the holder who has waste handled by a waste collector or by an undertaking as referred to in Article 9,

and/or

–      the previous holders or the producer of the product from which the waste came.’

Citizen Kane was not born for no reason other than to entertain which explains why Meryl Streep took his place.

Where ...and/or the previous holders or producers of the products... is extended producer responsibility whom/which bares the cost of waste-disposal and not the consumer.

..or the producer: This explains why products are packaged to such a degree that packaging takes up much of the space and the more the better because waste produces business on a scale of trillions of EUR. The more waste the merrier and the incentive to get rid of packaging becomes obsolete. Mostly anything becomes waste one day yet much waste is produced such as scrap-cars etc etc. Waste and its disposal is another location where minimalism is destroyed.

Waste can be produced in small or larger quantities yet the producer of waste pays the same and a contract with the disposal company is not negotiable.

In Case C‑335/16

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Velika Gorica Municipal Court, Croatia), made by decision of 3 June 2016, received at the Court on 15 June 2016, in the proceedings

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0335&from=DE

"This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the polluter-pays principle and of Article 14(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC"

Extended producer responsibility is not mentioned in In Case C‑335/16 and the extended producer responsibility shall be considered without prejudice. Furthermore and very important; the alleged ruling is in direct violation with Extended producer responsibility.

Article 8

Extended producer responsibility

4.   The extended producer responsibility shall be applied without prejudice to the responsibility for waste management as provided for in Article 15(1) and without prejudice to existing waste stream specific and product specific legislation.

Directive 2008/98/EC

CBS Canada - Why buying plastic-free groceries is so hard

Extended producer responsibility is the new buzz word which makes watching CBS Canada Why buying plastic-free groceries is so hard (Marketplace) fun and it put the "polluter pays principle" in the light it was suppose to be and we find the evidence with OECD, EU, Deloitte (!) and the Commune de Mesquer case. Common sense says, that large Corp. must be where things starts to roll because they have a large scale organization behind them and all good intension can not and should not make a single consumer bare the brunt of the huge amount of waste that is wasted. Common sense.

The situation is however, that it takes more than CBS Canada and OECD etc. because when NUR calls SONFOR and the municipality then NUR is threatened because the municipality will take his possessions and house, car, dog, cat, pets in general and anything they want if you don't pay their fees. When asking municipality to show how many rats they have caught the obvious reply would be: "Well, yes, let us sere - we have so and so..." but rather the municipality tells the citizen "take a hike" and the citizen is left to go shopping for a bottle of something to swallow the load of waste they throw upon the citizen. It gets worse when citizens are also suppose to pay tax on the land the house-owner supposedly owns but that is a chapter which will will up probably the same as this page and no more - NUR hopes. The land where a rat-fee exists charged two times yearly at DKK 34,- (Rottebekæmpelse).

Court

NUR has been travelling and been outside the country 2018, 2019, 2020 and has not used this garbage-removal-service all that much. NUR has tried to negociate a price via email all denied by SONFOR and municipality. Because of exraordinary expenses to medical attension NUR suddenly sees bills accrue to nearly DKK 10.000 for a period of approximately 1.5 year where NUR almost has not used this service. SONFOR then files it with the court demanding their money. The case was listed at minretssag.dk but is now taken out from the court system which is shown in the following. SONFOR makes a claim just like Ikano yet the court tells NUR such cases (bailiff) are not given via minretssag.dk yet the SONFOR case was.

2020 December 10 minretssag.dk shown zero cases

2020 November minretssag.dk shows the case given to court by SONFOR as case No. BS-38833-2020-SON

Court files

Before removed I downloaded the whole set and files are listed her. SONFOR wants DKK 6.015,56 which includes court fees. Since the time of this figure the figuare may be much higher.

Communication with the cartel, rat count and threat

After NUR received the court-case NUR takes contact to SONFOR. NUR speaks with Rikke H. Lauridsen representing SONFOR. NUR asks if NUR can pay monthly installents of the demanded figure. Rikke H. Lauridsen denies this. NUR has not recorded the telephone-conversation. NUR Emails SONFOR and the court with this information saying SONFOR will not negociate and/or accept installments.

SONFOR then sends an email through SONFOR's own portal system and denies and now say installments can be made by NUR. Sønderborg Forsynings sikker mail portal.pdf

The court-case is removed from minretssag.dk and NUR stops communication until receiving fee for rat-catching in the municipality.

Municipality rat catching fee Faktura 2020 dec 19.PDF DKK 34 two times yearly. (also shows chimney cleaning fee).

In an email NUR contacts the municipality asking to see how many rats has been caught. Municipality never responds with a number or even shown any rats but threatens to set NUR's house up for forced auction (tvangsauktion) if rat-fee is not paid.
Email2020FEB21Grundskyld lån mv.pdf

As a side note NUR mentions: the house obtained by NUR january 2018 has been purchased on auktion by billigthus.dk for DKK 1,- (ne kroner) plus higest price which is the fee paid to court for stamps and deed to house. Billigthus then sells the house to NUR with a profit-margin of 19.999.900 million percent.

Email

NUR emails the cartel Email2020Dec18-Til Deres orientering.pdf inserted below.

´Retten i Sønderborg´ <sonderborg@domstol.dk>, info@sonfor.dk

Jeg har logget ind via minretssag.dk og der ses ingen sager. Se vedhæftede skærmbillede som er taget 10 December 2020.

Sagen drejer sig om Sønderborg Forsyning A/S CVR: 31875544 [SONFOR] og betaling.

Jeg har nogle gange kommunikeret med SONFOR om differencieret betaling for at komme af med affald og spildevand via kommunalt bestemte krav mod border som SONFOR henholder sig til. Kommuner inkl. Sønderborg har CVR numre hvor denne kommunes CVR er 29 18 97 73 med reference til https://sonderborgkommune.dk/erhverv/ean-og-cvr-nummer. Jeg har kommunikeret med SONFOR og kommune om dette i 2018, 2019 og 2020 uden resultat hvorfor:

Aftaleloven

§ 36. En aftale kan ændres eller tilsidesættes helt eller delvis, hvis det vil være urimeligt eller i strid med redelig handlemåde at gøre den gældende. Det samme gælder andre retshandler.

Stk. 2. Ved afgørelsen efter stk. 1 tages hensyn til forholdene ved aftalens indgåelse, aftalens indhold og senere indtrufne omstændigheder.

Aftaleloven: https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2016/193

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

DIRECTIVE 93/13/EEC and Guidance on the interpretation and application of same.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31993L0013
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/uctd_guidance_2019_en_0.pdf

Derfor anvender jeg naturligvis, da den er vejledende for dansk lov, det følgende:

Article 3

1. A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

Da kontrahering ikke er individuelt udformet mellem de kontraherende parter, så er dette i strid med Artikel 3, stk 2 og jeg anvender det forhold, at der under kontraktens tid er opstået en signifikant uballance til Niels Ulrik Reiwnald's ulempe til skade for konsumenten; Niels Ulrik Reinwald. SONFOR skal bevise, at kontrakten er udformet individuelt. Jeg har i god forretnings-princip fremsat forslag til individuel forhandlet kontrakt mellem SONFOR samt Sønderborg Kommune og Niels Ulrik Reinwald men alle disse er afvist af SONFOR hhv. Sønderborg Kommune. Jeg har naturligvis kommunikation via email der viser dette. Derfor:

at kontrakten mellem Niels Ulrik Reinwald og SONFOR annulleret,

at Niels Ulrik Reinwald ikke er SONFOR skyldig noget,

at kontrakt skal udfærdiges individuelt,

at det nævnte forhold gør sig gældende for alle borgere der er pålagt en tvungen og ikke-individual forhandlet kontrakt,

at Niels Ulrik Reinwald grundet manglende ikke-individuel udformet forhandlet kontrakt, skal tilbagebetales alle beløb betalt til SONFOR med tilbagevirkende kraft fra 1. januar 2018 fremdeles,

at et væsentligt erstatningskrav kan blive indgivet til domstolene,

at der via email fra kommune er truet med udlæg i ejendom til betaling af rottefangst hvor kommunen endnu til dags dato ikke empirisk har bevist at der reelt er fanget nogle rotter,

at denne trussels om ikke at betale rottefangst-gebyr muligvis har været medvirkende årsag til at Niels Ulrik Reinwald bliver alvorligt syg med seks timers operation i 2018 i maven og i 2020 Maj bliver svimmel og derefter bliver frataget retten til at føre bil samt at diagnose hjerneblødning, Apopleksi, der udløser en lang stribe af chikane, er falsk (den medicinske diagnose) og ikke er verificeret af anden og tredie uvildig part. CT og MRI scanning kan hackes,

at denne trussel kan blive imødeset med et meget stor krav økonomisk krav,

at alle aftaler med Sønderborg Kommune derfor med tilbagevirkende kraft er sat ud af kraft; enhver aftale der bla. ikke er individuel forhandlet såsom indgåelse af kontrakt om at betale grundskyld m.v,

at der er tale om betaling for noget der ikke anvendes i perioder, kortere eller længere, stadig med ikke individuelt forhandlet kontrakt,

at SONOFR henviser til kommunalt bestemt afgiftsystem, som så er et samarbejde, kaldet kartel, mellem Kommune og SONFOR i et ikke-konkurrence-baseret forhold,

at konkurrence, antitrust, er beskrevet via https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html hvor hele det viste vil indgå i sagen,

at affald er klassificeret som et produkt på lige fod med alle andre produkter hvorfor borgere, og Niels Ulrik Reinwald, er i stand til at forhandle prisen for dette affald,

at der kan tilkomme flere punkter til denne liste.

Derfor:

Domstol, retten, SONFR og kommune enkeltvis eller samlet eller i delmængder; behøver kun at svare I det omfang, at det har et indhold der har en væsentlig værdig reelt udmålt i Bruttonationalprodukt (Gross national product (GNP)) m.v.. Denne værdi fastsættes af Niels Ulrik Reinwald hvor Niels Ulrik Reinwald naturligvis tager alle til Dem fordele med i betragtning.

Niels Ulrik Reinwald
Skolebakken 22, 6430 Nordborg

Denne sag kan blive vist via nixrun.com

PS.

Jeg er bekendt med at systemer er hacket specielt Informations Teknologi via computere, som findes i alle typer af teknologi fra Mac til køleskabe, hvor modtagere af denne email bla. også har computere, og jeg lader dette emne hvile indtil videre.

Various

Sønderborg is a city in Denmark. Sønderborg will-can be spelled sonderborg, soenderborg but means Sønderborg.

Called KL.dk 2020 December 21. "KL ved ikke hvem der ejer kommunerne." sim.dk vidste det ej heller. Jeg anbefalede at ringe til Finansmin (havde tekniske prob. kl 09:36).

Høringssvar om udvidet producentansvar https://www.kl.dk/kommunale-opgaver/teknik-og-miljoe/hoeringssvar/affald-og-cirkulaer-oekonomi/udvidet-producentansvar/

https://www.danskindustri.dk/vi-radgiver-dig-ny/forretningsudvikling/gronne-forretningspotentialer/cirkular-okonomi/Udvidetproducentansvar/

EU-lovgivning om udvidet producentansvar

https://danskaffaldsforening.dk/sites/danskaffaldsforening.dk/files/media/document/MIM%20Producentansvar%2011082019.pdf

European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex:31994L0062

Affald: https://dakofa.dk/vidensbank/eu-love-rammebetingelser/

Forslag til lov om miljøbeskyttelse

2019/1 SF.L L 112
Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet
Yderligere oplysninger
Skriftlig fremsættelse (20. februar 2020)

Miljøministeren (Lea Wermelin):

Herved tillader jeg mig for Folketinget at fremsætte:

Forslag til lov om miljøbeskyttelse (Implementering af affaldsdirektivets minimumskrav til eksisterende udvidede producentansvarsordninger, indførsel af udvidet producentansvar for emballage og modernisering af indsamling og behandling af elektronikaffald)

(Lovforslag nr. L 112)

Udvidet producentansvar er et vigtigt element i at sikre en mere cirkulær økonomi, hvor vi undgår spild og bruger vores ressourcer med omtanke. Udvidet producentansvar betyder, at producenter tager ansvaret for deres produkter, også når disse bliver til affald. Når producenter har ansvaret for affaldsfasen, får de også økonomisk incitament til at reducere materialeforbrug og designe produkter, der kan genbruges og genanvendes med henblik på at reducere omkostningerne til affaldshåndtering. Producenter får samtidig mulighed for at etablere egne tilbagetagningsordninger, som giver større mulighed for at etablere lukkede materialekredsløb. Udvidet producentansvar er dermed et vigtigt element i at fremme en mere cirkulær økonomi.

Lovforslaget har 3 delformål. Det første formål er at bemyndige miljøministeren til at fastsætte supplerende direktiv-fastsatte minimumskrav i de eksisterende udvidede producentansvarsordninger for elektrisk og elektronisk udstyr, batterier og akkumulatorer samt person- og varebiler. Disse minimumskrav omhandler øget gennemsigtighed og økonomisk sikkerhed i ordningerne, egenkontrol af økonomisk forvaltning og datakvalitet, samt graduering af producenters økonomiske bidrag ud fra miljøhensyn, når de varetager deres producentansvar igennem kollektive ordninger.

Det andet formål er at tage de første skridt til at indføre et nyt udvidet producentansvar for emballage ved at bemyndige miljøministeren til at fastsætte de detaljerede regler for dette nye udvidede producentansvar i overensstemmelse med de direktiv-fastsatte minimumskrav for udvidede producentansvarsordninger. Det udvidede producentansvar for emballage skal fastholde og forbedre det nuværende høje niveau af genanvendelse og miljøbeskyttelse med et skærpet fokus på at øge genanvendelsen af plastikemballageaffald markant.

De to første formål gennemfører ændringer i artikel 8 og artikel 8a om minimumskrav til udvidede producentansvarsordninger i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2018/851/EU af 30. maj 2018 om ændring af direktiv 2008/98/EF om affald, samt gennemfører artikel 7, stk. 2 om obligatorisk udvidet producentansvar for emballage i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2018/852/EU af 30. maj 2018 om ændring af direktiv 94/62/EF om emballage og emballageaffald.

Det tredje formål med lovforslaget er at modernisere det udvidede producentansvar for elektrisk og elektronisk udstyr. Med lovforslaget lovliggøres en eksisterende affaldsstrøm ved, at virksomheder får mulighed for at indsamle elektronikaffald fra husholdninger uden om det udvidede producentansvar og den kommunale indsamlingsordning, som er de to muligheder, der er lovlige i dag. Lovliggørelsen vil sikre, at disse affaldsstrømme bliver dokumenteret, og at genbrug og genanvendelse sker med høj kvalitet. Samtidig skal lovforslaget sikre, at der kan fastsættes nærmere regler om miljøcertificering af de affaldsoperatører, der er involveret i indsamling og behandling af elektronikaffald.

Dette sidste formål gennemfører et initiativ i Aftale om udmøntning af pulje til Strategi for cirkulær økonomi (V, K, LA, DF, RV), som udmønter anbefalinger fra Partnerskabet for indsamling af elektronikaffald (2016) samt Advisory Board for Cirkulær Økonomi (2017).

Idet jeg i øvrigt henviser til lovforslaget og de ledsagende bemærkninger, skal jeg hermed anbefale lovforslaget til det Høje Tings velvillige behandling.

https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/ft/20191XX00483

(Links tilfoejet af NUR (governments tend to not link their documents online))

Into law LOV nr 807 af 09/06/2020 which is a reference to direktiv 2018/852/EU which is a reference to direktiv 2008/98/EF where we in Article 8 litra 4 read: "The extended producer responsibility shall be applied without prejudice to the responsibility for waste management as provided for in Article 15 and without prejudice to existing waste stream specific and product specific legislation." in which extended producer responsibility is inacted by law in Denmark with LOV nr 807 af 09/06/2020.

Loven har reference til emballage i forbindelse med bla. Cirkulær Økonomi.

In DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/852 we read:

"Reglerne vedrørende udvidet producentansvar fastlagt i direktiv 2008/98/EF bør derfor finde anvendelse på ordninger for udvidet producentansvar for producenter af emballage."

"The rules on extended producer responsibility laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC should therefore apply to extended producer responsibility schemes for producers of packaging."

https://www.ft.dk/samling/20191/lovforslag/l112/index.htm


Lov om ændring af lov om miljøbeskyttelse

https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/807#idd6afe665-f0bb-476d-ac6d-9a11e99746ea

 "indførelse af udvidet producentansvar for emballage"

"Udvidet producentansvar for emballage"

§ 9 p. Producenter og importører af emballerede produkter skal forholdsmæssigt i forhold til deres markedsandel af emballage for egen regning foranstalte tilbagetagning og særskilt håndtering af emballage, som er markedsført som del af et emballeret produkt, og affald heraf, medmindre der er fastsat andre regler i medfør af § 44 og § 45, stk. 2.

1) Loven indeholder bestemmelser, der gennemfører dele af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2008/98/EF af 19. november 2008 om affald og om ophævelse af visse direktiver, EU-Tidende 2008, nr. L 312, side 3, som ændret senest ved Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2018/851/EU af 30. maj 2018 om ændring af direktiv 2008/98/EF om affald, EU-Tidende 2018, nr. L 150, side 109, og dele af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2004/12/EF af 11. februar 2004, EU-Tidende 2004, nr. L 47, side 26, og Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2018/852/EU af 30. maj 2018 om ændring af direktiv 94/62/EF om emballage og emballageaffald, EU-Tidende 2018, nr. L 150, side 141.

https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/807

https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/807#idd6afe665-f0bb-476d-ac6d-9a11e99746ea

Bekendtgørelse af lov om miljøbeskyttelse

https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2019/241 (not in force (historisk)). Linked to from this page: https://mst.dk/service/lovstof/danske-miljoelove/ (local PDF).

Precedence of European law

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/primacy_of_eu_law.html

"According to the precedence principle, European law is superior to the national laws of Member States. The precedence principle applies to all European acts with a binding force. Therefore, Member States may not apply a national rule which contradicts to European law."

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al14548

"The principle of direct effect enables individuals to immediately invoke a European provision before a national or European court. This principle only relates to certain European acts. Furthermore, it is subject to several conditions."

Lawsuit

A preliminary case is being formulated to blow up this cartel. This page will contain information on all matters concerning antitrust, threats if not paying rat-catching-fee and making garbage a products which the consumer owns yet must pay a cartel to let the cartel profit by setting up regulations within the municipality protected behind a wall of democracy allowing distribution of wealth-garbage to go into a large corporation which on a global scale is a multi trillion dollar business.

Briefly; until waste disposal with SONFOR can be negotiated taking into account the amount of waste NUR shall not be obliged to pay. If again threats are enforced either by SONFOR and/or municipality/governance the waste thees two entities have produced will be exposed leading to the source of waste with producers of products of any type. Consumers has absolutely no say in what packaging if any shall exists. CBS Canada Marketplace https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Qbi_dB3Qo which to some shows supermarket looking more like art-galleries full of garbage. EU Directives and international law does not allow for a vivid imagination enough to see the obvious; packaging has reached levels that belongs in a Van Gogh painting (one of his early paintings if ever Gogh existed).

Fair price for waste disposal? Any price that makes a whole nation and a whole continent not stand on all corners yelling after CBS shows their program on waste might realize even the CBS program is waste and the evidense is, that packaging on a large scale goes one direction; more waste. Convenient? Yes but why not invent the let-us-wipe-it-for you because your art-gallery called foodmarkets/-stores look more like a place to feed the waste collectors dreams of more - waste. New York and other cities where historically very filthy places accumulating garbage just as was Versailles or any other place where there are people.

Sincerely

Niels Ulrik Reinwald