b'The Provision of Services Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2999) implements the Services Directive (2006/123/EC) which, under Article 13(2), includes licensing operated by the competent authority. This provides that the charges on an applicant that accompany an application shall be reasonable and proportionate to the cost of the authorisation procedures in question and shall not exceed the cost of the procedures. In this instance the fees were split into two parts: part 1 was the administration of the licence applications for granting or renewing licences for sex establishments and was non-refundable whether an application was successful or unsuccessful; part 2 was a fee for management of the licensing regime and refundable if the application was refused. The fees in 2011/12 for part 1 were 2,667 and for part 2 were 26,435. A group of seven sex shop owners claimed that part 1 was justifiedthe remainder, part 2, being spent by the Council on prosecuting unlicensed operators, which, it was argued, could not be charged back to the licensees. In May 2012, their claim was upheld in the High Court, but Westminster City Council appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that their charges were not affected by the new laws. In May 2013, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Councils appeal in relation to allowing the application fees to include the licence regime costs. In April 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the Councils appeal but due to the lack of clarity regarding the part 2 fee, referred to the ECJ for a preliminary hearing on whether the part 2 fee was contrary to Article 13(2) as it exceeded the cost of processing the application, even though it was refunded. The ECJ ruled that Article 13(2) must be interpreted as not including the requirement for the payment of a fee, at the point of submission of the application, for the costs of management and enforcement even if that part of the fee was refundable where an application is unsuccessful. So therefore in this instance the Council were unlawful in charging the part 2 fee when the application was submitted. The question on charging for the part 2 fee was considered by the Supreme Court. It held that it was acceptable for the part 2 fee to be charged by the Council for management and enforcement but further to the ECJs ruling this must be once the application has been accepted. The Local Government Association will be publishing guidance further to the ruling by the ECJ. Miscellaneous 17.7 The Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives any person, including foreign nationals and companies, access to any information held by public authorities, enabling the public to participate in the discussion of policy issues, improve the quality of government decision making, and hold government and other bodies to account. The case of Hemming (see 17.6) illustrates the use of those powers to examine and challenge the charging powers of local authorities in relation to license fees. As local authorities have a range of powers to trade commercially with private persons and bodies, as well as other public authorities, the use of these powers has created new risks for local authorities. Commercially sensitive information may be easily accessible to competitors, customers and suppliers, and this is the commercial reality for local authorities who are seeking to off-set the effects of local authority budget cuts by selling their services competitively.170'