No, not at all. That is not the issue. In this case, it is an issue of being able to recognize that specific real estate is public property. Let me come back to what I said a moment ago. On the one hand, this public property is properly used and on the other hand, Mr. Paquet's document, if I'm not mistaken, contains recommendations to the very same effect.
Now, are we violating the principle? I do not think that we are violating it. It would have to be proved.