Mooring rates

Context :  Since City Hall cancelled the mooring contracts, the Capitainerie has charged annual mooring rates of 20€ per ml2 and has imposed the signing of an annual contract.

On 20/1/25, City Hall’s Board has voted délibération n°2025/O2/OO2 that spells out the 2025 mooring rates. These rates anticipate the “contrat de garantie d'usage” (CGU) and treat differently homeowners who sign a CGU and those who sign no such contract. Does such a distinction respect the principle that users of a public service must be treated equally?

Rates :  The document distinguishes 3 types of homeowners:

1.     Homeowners who sign a CGU + an annual mooring contract : 20€ per ml2

2.     Homeowners who sign ONLY an annual mooring contract :  60% of the public marina rate

3.     Homeowners who sign nothing : daily rate

Example  :

Mooring size          Homeowners who sign a CGU      Homeowners who sign ONLY      Homeowners who sign                                                                                                                   an annual  contract nothing

7m x 2,65m 371 € 1 166 € 6 819 €

13m x 4,60m     1 196 € 5 880 €       21 520 €

Is this rate structure legal ?
1.                 What is the equal treatment principle?

The equal treatment principle is a fundamental public law principle designed to guarantee non-discriminatory treatment for public service users.  It assures that all comparably situated users of a public service are equally treated. Exceptions are acceptable based on objective criteria and if in the public interest.  Disproportionate disparities are not acceptable.   For example, in its 18/7/24 decision, the Toulon administrative court held that the difference in rates between the Port Grimaud public marina and the “communal” port was disproportionate under the circumstances (340 to 500 euros v. 1 800 to 2 700 euros). The court held that the difference in service level did not justify such a wide range disparity. 

2.                 Is the 2025 rate structure contrary to the equality principle?
a. Comparison between private quay owners

If, as held in the court’s decision, the level of service received is a criteria for assessing rate differentials, then it seems that services offered/available to owners of a private quay are strictly identical, irrespective of whether such owners have signed or not signed a CGU.  Hence, how can it be justified that the owner of a private quay is charged rates 4 times higher than those charged to his neighbour who signed a CGU? And what to think of this other owner, similarly situated, who signed nothing and is charged 20 times more?  Can the simple signing of a contract for the financing of port investments justify such disparities in rates? And if it does, are the disparities proportionate?

    b. Comparison between private quay owners and public marina users

Other  disparity: That between a private quay owner who has not signed a CGU and the user of  a berth in the public marina.  Is it justified that the owner must be charged such a high rate, ie 60% of the public marina rate? In the marina, the user is given access to a berth, which he expects to be in good condition and working order, and to services such as water and electricity, black water pumping services, and other capitainerie services such as mooring assistance if needed, etc. A private quay owner receives none of such services nor does he need them.  He owns his own quay, provides his own water and electricity, and all maintenance of the quay and mooring apparatus are his reponsibility or that of the ASL.
 

To emphasize:

a.  *Différence in offered services* : The public marina offers services that justify the rates charged

b. *Type of use* : Private mooring are often designed for limited or single use.  By contrast, berths at the public marina are designed to accommodate multiple types of users who expect a range of services  

c. *Access to installations* : Installations available at the public marina such as water and electricity, the quay/pontoon itself, the access to roads, the presence of marina staff, etc. create a level of service that does not exist in the case of a private mooring.

One should keep in mind that a homeowner owns the quay from day one and that he has exclusive usage of the mooring in front of his house. Such a homeownerr cannot move his house nor his private quay, which serves as supporting structure to the waterway. The maintenance of which is the sole responsibility of the owner and ASL.

3.                 Legal conclusions

Such disparities, between private quay owners as well as between users in the public marina and private quay owners, could raise serious legal issues. If City Hall’s Board has acted outside the law, then its decision could be successfully appealed and stricken. One can also question whether such a decision is an illegal abuse of its dominant position where it acts to force owners to accept excessive rates lest they agree to a contract, the terms of which are not to such owner’s advantage.

The Works: An Unreasonable Link

The rate structure is premised on an undissociable link between a charge for mooring a boat and the works that City Hall envisions.  It so happens that Port Grimaud residents are protesting City Hall's projected works in that they would compromise the authenticity of Port Grimaud’s architecture and the environment. City Hall has not established that their project would resolve the silting at the port’s entrance.  Soon, a Public Enquiry will determine whetherr such project is indeed in the public interest.  Therefore, it seems abnomal to create a link between a mooring right and such a program still very much work in progress.

The Régie’s profitable results

The Régie, being a public service, Is supposed to manage so that it breaks even.  It is not supposed to make a profit. Yet, since 2022, the Régie has enjoyed a large surplus even though the rates at the public marina have remained pretty leveled. And that the number of merchant concessions has not increased. That surplus stems mostly from the mooring fees charged to homeowners since 2022. Thus, one could argue that the level of those charges is disproportionate relative to the needs of a break even objective.   

 Other points :

1) The document provides that a private quay owner who signs an annual mooring contract and agrees that a third party’s boat be docked in front of his house will be reimbursed his mooring charge in proportion to the time the third party occupies the space.  Is this a fair deal?  How much is the third parrty being charged by the regie?

2) The mooring charge is not proportionate to the boat size. Rather it’s calculated based on the authorized mooring surface.  Therefore two owners of a 13m x 4,40m mooring are charged the same amount even though one has a 12m x 4m boat and the other has a 7m x 2,65m boat.

Site Officiel du cercle de réflexion Port Grimaud - Perspectives 2025 (debatpublicportgrimaud@gmail.com)