FrancophonIA/DGT-Translation_Memory huggingface dataset:
English: As regards 2010 specifically, the French authorities specified that the publicly owned establishment IFP had received four proposals for credit facilities amounting to EUR […] (*), at a one-year rate varying between EONIA + […] (*) % with [Bank No 4] (**) (plus commitment fee of […] (*) %, i.e. EUR […] (*)) or [Bank No 5] (**) (plus commitment fee of […] (*) %, i.e. EUR […] (*)) and EONIA + […] (*) % with [Bank No 3] (**) (plus commitment fee of […] (*) %, i.e. EUR […] (*)) or [Bank No 1] (**) (plus commitment fee of […] (*) %, i.e. EUR […] (*)). IFP also received another spot offer from [Bank No 3] (**) (depending on the term of drawdown chosen), for a rate equal to EURIBOR + […] (*) %. The Commission notes the fact that these rates are equivalent to those negotiated by IFP before its change of status in 2006, when it was still a legal person governed by private law not covered by a State guarantee.
Latvian: Īpaši attiecībā uz 2010. gadu Francijas iestādes precizēja, ka publiskā organizācija IFP saņēma četrus kredītlīniju piedāvājumus par […] (*) euro, ar procentu likmi uz vienu gadu starp EONIA + […] (*) % [Bankā Nr. 4] (**) (plus komisijas maksa par saistībām […] (*) %, proti, […] (*) euro) vai [Bankā Nr. 5] (**) (plus komisijas maksa par saistībām […] (*) %, proti, […] (*) euro) un EONIA + […] (*) [Bankā Nr. 3] (**) (plus komisijas maksa par saistībām […] (*) %, proti, […] (*) euro) vai [Bankā Nr. 1] (**) (plus komisijas maksa par saistībām […] (*) %, proti, […] (*) euro. Publiskā organizācija IFP saņēma arī citu “spot” piedāvājumu no [Bankas Nr. 3] (**) (atkarībā no izvēlētā aizņēmuma ilguma) ar procentu likmi, kas līdzvērtīga EURIBOR + […] (*) %. Komisija ņem vērā to, ka šīs procentu likmes līdzvērtīgas tām, par kurām publiskā organizācija IFP vienojās pirms statusa maiņas 2006. gadā, kad tā vēl bija privāttiesību juridiska persona, uz kuru valsts garantijas neattiecas.
English: As regards the following years, in accordance with Article 5(1) of decision C 51/2005, until the expiry date of the exclusive agreements, France is required to ‘submit to the Commission a detailed annual report on the projects carried out by IFP in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat’. The information contained in these annual reports allows a precise calculation to be made of the annual volume of the research services carried out by IFP on behalf of and in the exclusive fields of its subsidiaries.
Latvian: Attiecībā uz turpmākajiem gadiem atbilstoši iepriekšminētā Lēmuma C 51/2005 5. panta 1. punktam līdz ekskluzīvo nolīgumu termiņa beigām Francijai būs “jāsniedz Komisijai detalizēts gada pārskats par projektiem, ko publiskā organizācija IFP īsteno Axens un Prosernat ekskluzīvajās darbības jomās.” Informācija, kura iekļauta gada pārskatos, ļauj precīzi aprēķināt gada summu par publiskās organizācijas IFP sniegtajiem pētniecības pakalpojumiem tās meitasuzņēmumu vārdā un to ekskluzīvajā darbības jomā.
English: Pursuant to Article L. 225-248 of the Commercial Code, if a company’s equity capital falls below half of its share capital, the general meeting must record this and decide whether the company should be prematurely dissolved. If it is decided to continue the activity of the company, the company must, no later than the end of the second financial year after that in which the losses were recorded, reconstitute its equity to a value at least equivalent to half the share capital, and reduce the share capital if the equity has not been reconstituted otherwise.
Latvian: Atbilstoši Komerckodeksa L. 225.-258. pantam, ja sabiedrības pašu kapitāls ir kļuvis mazāks par pusi no tās kapitāla, kopsapulcei tas jākonstatē un jānolemj, vai nepieciešama paātrināta likvidācija, Ja tiek nolemts sabiedrības darbību turpināt, tai ne vēlāk kā līdz otrā finanšu gada noslēgumam pēc tam, kad tika konstatēti zaudējumi, jāatjauno tās kapitāls, kura vērtība ir vienāda ar vismaz pusi no sociālā kapitāla, to samazinot, ja kapitāls nav atjaunots citādi.
English: 419, note M. Vasseur. See also J.-L.
Portuguese: 419, nota de M. Vasseur; Adde ver também J.-L.
Latvian: 419, M. Vasseur piez., Adde, J.-L.
English: In the light of this particularity, the parent of the IFP group may carry on economic activities itself, under more advantageous conditions than other market participants not benefiting from comparable protection (7.1.1.1). As regards the activities carried out directly by the IFP subsidiaries governed by private law, which, for their part, are entirely subject to the ordinary law of bankruptcy, any direct liability of the publicly owned establishment, and therefore of the State, seems impossible. If a subsidiary’s assets are insufficient, therefore, it has to be considered whether the creditors of Axens, Prosernat and Beicip-Franlab could benefit from an indirect mechanism whereby the parent would be liable for its subsidiaries, equivalent to a guarantee mechanism (7.1.1.2).
Maltese: Għaldaqstant, fl-ipoteżi ta’ nuqqas ta’ assi ta’ sussidjarja, jaqbel li jiġi analizzat jekk il-kredituri ta’ Axens, Prosernat u Beicip-Franlab jistgħux jibbenefikaw minn mekkaniżmu indirett fuq il-bażi ta’ responsabbiltà eventwali tal-kumpanija possedenti minħabba s-sussidjarji tagħha, ekwivalenti għal mekkaniżmu ta’ garanzija (7.1.1.2).
English: In the opening decision, the Commission began by expressing doubts about the special arrangements governing the bankruptcy of EPICs, which departed from the ordinary law on such matters.
Dutch: In het besluit tot inleiding van de procedure heeft de Commissie in de eerste plaats geoordeeld dat de maatregel twijfel deed rijzen over de vraag of de uitzonderlijke ruime gemeenrechtelijke regeling die ten gunste van EPIC's op het gebied van faillissementen is ingesteld, samenvalt met een regeling van onbeperkte staatsgaranties waarmee publieke middelen worden aangesproken:
English: It considered that these were akin to an unlimited State guarantee mechanism which mobilised public resources:
Dutch: de insolventie- en faillissementsprocedures kunnen niet op EPIC's van toepassing zijn, vanwege het algemene beginsel dat goederen van publiekrechtelijke rechtspersonen niet in beslag kunnen worden genomen.
English: The Commission nevertheless notes, as its expert pointed out in the postal case, and as it explained in recital 130 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, that the obligation to enter State guarantees in a Finance Act is confined to the ‘giving’ (octroi) of such guarantees. To ‘give’ a guarantee the State must confer a guarantee on an organisation or an operation by an express manifestation of its intention. The scope of the obligation to enter guarantees in the Finance Act does not extend to guarantees that arise out of the legal form of an organisation, or out of an obligation established in case-law, which are guarantees of an implied and automatic character.
Dutch: De Commissie merkt echter op, zoals haar deskundige overigens al heeft aangegeven in de zaak-La Poste en zoals zij reeds heeft uiteengezet in overweging 130 van voornoemd besluit betreffende steunmaatregel C 56/2007 waarnaar zij mutatis mutandis verwijst, dat de werkingssfeer van de verplichting om de staatsgaranties in begrotingswetgeving te vermelden, beperkt blijft tot „de verlening” van dergelijke garanties; dat het feit van garantieverlening derhalve van toepassing is op de gevallen waarin de Staat door middel van een expliciete wilsuitdrukking besluit zijn garantie toe te kennen aan een orgaan of transactie; dat garanties die voortvloeien uit een rechtsvorm of een verplichting uit hoofde van rechtspraak en die als kenmerk hebben dat zij impliciet en automatisch zijn, dus niet vallen onder de werkingssfeer van de verplichting om garanties in begrotingswetgeving vast te leggen; dat deze tweede categorie niet voortvloeit uit een besluit van de Staat, maar uit het feit dat de Staat met een reeds bestaand juridisch kader te maken heeft waarvan de garantie slechts een gevolg is.
English: The Commission concludes, as it did in recital 131 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, that the argument put forward by the French authorities on the basis of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act is not convincing, because the fact that it is not stated in any Finance Act that the State extends a guarantee to IFP by virtue of its legal form does not mean that there is no implied guarantee. The Commission is not in any event bound by the description of the measure as a ‘guarantee’ for purposes of French law, or by the fact that a guarantee is or is not caught by the Organic Law governing the Finance Act. The only relevant consideration is how the measure is to be described for purposes of Union law.
Dutch: Hieruit concludeert de Commissie, net als in overweging 131 van besluit betreffende steunmaatregel C 56/2007 waarnaar zij mutatis mutandis verwijst, dat het op de LOLF gestoelde argument van de Franse autoriteiten niet overtuigend is en dat het feit dat in geen enkele begrotingswet wordt gesteld dat de Staat wegens de rechtsvorm van het IFP garant staat voor de onderneming, een dergelijke garantie niet uitsluit; dat de Commissie in ieder geval niet gebonden is aan de kwalificatie in het Franse recht van de maatregel als garantie, noch aan het feit dat het een garantie zou zijn waarop de LOLF van toepassing is; dat enkel de kwalificatie van deze maatregel op grond van het recht van de Europese Unie relevant is; dat er uit hoofde van dit recht sprake is van een impliciete garantie wanneer een lidstaat juridisch verplicht is een schuldvordering van een andere persoon te voldoen wanneer deze zelf niet bij machte is die in te lossen.
Slovenian: Komisija iz tega sklepa, kot je to storila v uvodni izjavi 131 Sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se smiselno sklicuje, da trditev francoskih organov, ki temelji na LOLF, ni prepričljiva, ker dejstvo, da v nobenem zakonu o financah ni določeno, da država zagotavlja poroštvo za osebo javnega prava IFP zaradi njenega statusa, ne izključuje obstoja implicitnega poroštva; da Komisije nikakor ne zavezuje niti opredelitev ukrepa kot poroštva v francoskem pravu niti dejstvo, da naj bi šlo za poroštvo, za katero velja LOLF; da je upoštevna samo opredelitev tega ukrepa na podlagi prava Evropske unije; da se v navedenem pravu priznava obstoj implicitnega poroštva, kadar je država članica pravno zavezana poplačati terjatev do druge osebe v primeru neizpolnitve obveznosti te osebe.
English: In view of the time needed for translation, they asked for extra time until 30 November 2008 in which to send their comments. By letter dated 7 November 2008, the Commission accepted that this request was justified and agreed to extend the deadline for UOP’s reply until 30 November 2008. By letter dated 28 November 2008, registered as received by the Commission on the same day, UOP’s legal advisers forwarded their client’s comments on the opening decision.
Polish: Uwzględniając terminy niezbędne na dokonanie tłumaczenia, wnieśli o przedłużenie terminu na przekazanie uwag do dnia 30 listopada 2008 r. Pismem z dnia 7 listopada 2008 r. Komisja wskazała, że zgadza się z uzasadnieniem wspomnianego wniosku i przedłuża spółce UOP Limited termin na przekazanie uwag do dnia 30 listopada 2008 r. Pismem z dnia 28 listopada 2008 r., zarejestrowanym przez Komisję tego samego dnia, doradcy spółki UOP Limited przedstawili uwagi swojego klienta dotyczące decyzji o wszczęciu postępowania.
English: To assess whether the application of a specific procedure in the event of insolvency confers an advantage on the entity subject to the procedure as compared with undertakings subject to commercial law, they challenge the need to fulfil the criteria of publicity [39] and equivalence [40] referred to by the Commission in recital 81 of the opening decision [41], but they use these same criteria to analyse the procedure established by the Law of 16 July 1980. As regards the publicity criterion, they consider that the procedure is correctly identified by the rating agencies as applicable in the event of the insolvency of an EPIC; as regards the equivalence criterion, they draw a distinction depending on whether or not there is a requirement for continuity of the public service, at the same time noting that the financial situation of IFP and its subsidiaries makes it unlikely that IFP might be short of assets, since available funds and investments at the end of 2007 (EUR 150,3 million) represented approximately five times the amount of borrowings and financial liabilities (EUR 25,2 million):
Polish: Kwestionują konieczność przestrzegania kryteriów jawności [39] i równoważności [40], ustanowionych przez Komisję w motywie 81 decyzji o wszczęciu postępowania w celu dokonania oceny, czy stosowanie szczególnej procedury w przypadku niewypłacalności przyznaje korzyść podmiotowi, który jej podlega w porównaniu z przedsiębiorstwami podlegającymi prawu handlowemu [41], ale wybierają te same kryteria w celu dokonania analizy postępowania ustanowionego na mocy ustawy z dnia 16 lipca 1980 r. Uznają, że jeżeli chodzi o kryterium jawności agencje ratingowe poprawnie wskazują na procedurę ustanowioną ustawą z dnia 16 lipca 1980 r. jako mającą zastosowanie w przypadku niewypłacalności EPIC, natomiast w odniesieniu do kryterium równoważności rozróżniają przypadek, w którym ma zastosowanie wymóg utrzymania ciągłości świadczenia usług publicznych od przypadku, w którym omawiany wymóg nie ma zastosowania, zauważając jednocześnie, że sytuacja finansowa przedsiębiorstwa publicznego IFP i jego spółek zależnych czyni nieprawdopodobną sytuację niedoboru aktywów grupy IFP, której środki i inwestycje (150,3 mln EUR) równały się na koniec 2007 r. około pięciokrotności kwoty pożyczek i zobowiązań finansowych (25,2 mln EUR):
English: IFP became an EPIC on 7 July 2006, by Decree of 6 July 2006, adopted under Law No 2005-781 of 13 July 2005. This change of legal form is the basis of an unlimited State guarantee granted to the publicly owned establishment IFP.
Polish: Na mocy dekretu z dnia 6 lipca 2006 r., przyjętego na podstawie ustawy nr 2005-781 z dnia 13 lipca 2005 r., IFP stało się przedsiębiorstwem EPIC w dniu 7 lipca 2006 r. Ta zmiana statusu stoi u źródeł przyznania przedsiębiorstwu publicznemu IFP nieograniczonej gwarancji państwowej.
English: Concerning Axens, the amendment […] (*) was signed [in] (**) 2009 by […] (*) IFP and […] (*) Axens. Concerning Prosernat, the amendment […] (*) was signed [in] (**) 2009 by […] (*) IFP and […] (*) Prosernat.
Polish: Jeżeli chodzi o Axens, […] (*) przedsiębiorstwo publiczne IFP i […] (*) Axens podpisały załącznik […] (*) [w] (**) 2009 r. Jeżeli chodzi o Prosernat, […] (*) przedsiębiorstwo publiczne IFP i […] (*) Axens podpisały załącznik […] (*) [w] (**) 2009 r.
English: The French authorities observe that since its change of legal form in 2006, the payments made by IFP to factors have increased. They say that this trend invalidates the Commission’s argument concerning the perception of third parties of the risk of default of EPICs.
Portuguese: As autoridades francesas constatam que os pagamentos efectuados a factors pelo estabelecimento público IFP aumentaram a partir da data de alteração do seu estatuto, em 2006, deduzindo daí que esta evolução invalidaria o raciocínio da Comissão no que se refere à percepção do risco de cumprimento dos EPIC por parte de terceiros.
English: They paraphrase the concealed information to ensure that the decision is comprehensible and coherent. Those parts are indicated between square brackets and are followed by two asterisks.
Portuguese: Essas partes, que constituem paráfrases das informações omitidas, destinadas a assegurar a compreensão e a coerência da decisão, são indicadas entre parênteses rectos, seguidos de dois asteriscos.
English: Roussel Galle, note cited above; P. Delmotte, ‘Les critères de la confusion de patrimoines dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation’, RJDA 2006-6. 539, No 14.
Portuguese: Roussel Galle, nota supracitada; P. Delmotte, «Les critères de la confusion de patrimoines dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation», RJDA 2006-6, p. 539, n.o 14.
English: Com. 13 October 1998, Bull. Joly 1999. 58, note P. Seerlooten.
Portuguese: Comm., 13 de Outubro de 1998, Bulletin Joly 1999, p. 58, nota de P. Seerlooten.
English: It must therefore be considered in what circumstances the controlling shareholder may be held liable in the light of the case-law of the Court of Cassation. In order to extend compulsory winding-up proceedings initiated in respect of a specific person (the subsidiary) so as to include another legal person (the parent), the conditions laid down are very strict.
Romanian: În aceste condiții, trebuie verificate condițiile de angajare a răspunderii acționarului majoritar în temeiul jurisprudenței Curții de Casație, însă, pentru a extinde o procedură de lichidare judiciară inițiată cu privire la o entitate determinată (filiala) la o altă persoană juridică (societatea-mamă), cerințele care se impun sunt foarte stricte.
English: R&D&I Framework —
Romanian: dispozițiile Cadrului C&D&I
English: The principle is also spelt out in full in the document, in the following terms: ‘IFP does not guarantee Axens’s acts or omissions’. The French authorities say that this rule applies to any contract or project that Axens might possibly conclude or conduct with customers, with suppliers or on the financial markets.
Slovak: Okrem toho sa táto zásada v dokumente pripomína in extenso týmito slovami: „IFP neručí za konanie alebo opomenutie zo strany spoločnosti Axens.“ Francúzske orgány jasne uviedli, že toto pravidlo sa vzťahuje na všetky zmluvy, ktoré by spoločnosť Axens mohla uzatvoriť alebo na všetky projekty, ktoré by mohla uskutočniť so svojimi zákazníkmi, dodávateľmi alebo na finančných trhoch.
Slovenian: To načelo je poleg tega v tem dokumentu v celoti navedeno: „IFP ne jamči za ravnanja ali opustitve družbe Axens.“ Francoski organi so pojasnili, da se to pravilo uporablja za vsako pogodbo, ki bi jo lahko družba Axens sklenila, ali projekt, ki bi ga lahko izvajala s strankami in dobavitelji ter na finančnih trgih.
English: Finally, the French authorities add that when IFP performs services (studies, research to order, tests, etc.) for its customers, whether subsidiaries or firms outside the group, IFP always seeks to limit its liability. The liability accepted by IFP then consists in a commitment to rectify the work carried out, while at financial level the principle is that the liability is limited to […] (*) % of the remuneration actually received, with a maximum which may reach up to […] (*) % depending on the case.
Slovak: Nakoniec francúzske orgány doplnili, že verejná inštitúcia IFP má zásadu obmedziť svoju zodpovednosť voči svojim zákazníkom (dcérskym spoločnostiam alebo spoločnostiam mimo skupiny) v prípadoch, keď pre ne zabezpečuje služby (štúdie, výskumy v oblasti zákaziek, testy atď.) Zodpovednosť prijatá verejnou inštitúciou IFP potom spočíva v záväzku opraviť vykonané práce, zatiaľ čo vo finančnej oblasti platí zásada, že zodpovednosť je obmedzená na […] (*) % a jej finančný limit môže v závislosti od prípadu dosiahnuť […] (*) %.
English: Contrary to the French authorities’ affirmation, the Commission is able to conclude that French law does acknowledge the existence of implied guarantees, and in particular the existence of a State guarantee deriving from the status of publicly owned establishment. The Commission rejects the arguments of the French authorities for the following reasons.
Slovak: Na rozdiel od tvrdení francúzskych orgánov Komisia môže usudzovať, že francúzske právo pripúšťa existenciu implicitných záruk a konkrétne existenciu štátnej záruky z dôvodu právneho postavenia verejnej inštitúcie a z týchto dôvodov odmieta argumenty francúzskych orgánov.
English: Finally, as indicated in recitals 146 and 147 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission notes the memorandum from the Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry dated 22 July 2003, concerning a ‘Census of implied and express guarantee arrangements granted by the State’, which confirms that there are implied State guarantees that derive from an administrative or legislative act which ‘produces and entails financial consequences for the State’. That memorandum shows that a State guarantee can derive from legal acts of very different kinds [84] and indicates that the setting up of a publicly owned establishment may entail an implied guarantee given by the State to the establishment’s creditors [85].
Slovak: Nakoniec ako sa uvádza v odôvodneniach 146 a 147 uvedeného rozhodnutia C 56/2007, na ktoré odkazuje mutatis mutandis, Komisia berie na vedomie oznámenie ministra hospodárstva, financií a priemyslu z 22. júla 2003, ktorého predmetom je „Registrácia mechanizmov implicitných alebo explicitných záruk poskytnutých štátom“, ktoré potvrdzuje existenciu implicitných záruk vyplývajúcich zo správneho alebo legislatívneho aktu, ktorý „vyvoláva a obsahuje finančné dôsledky pre štát.“ Toto oznámenie dokazuje, že štátna záruka môže vyplynúť z právnych aktov veľmi rôznorodej povahy [84], a uvádza sa v ňom, že založenie verejnej inštitúcie môže zahŕňať poskytnutie implicitnej štátnej záruky v prospech veriteľov tejto inštitúcie [85].
English: The ECHR found that there had been a breach of Article 6-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), and added that the judgments had to be implemented and that a State authority could not use lack of resources as a pretext for not honouring a debt based on a judicial decision. The ECHR also found that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention, the applicants having suffered interference with their property rights on account of a huge and special burden due to the non-payment of the sums which they should have received [96].
Slovak: Komisia poznamenáva, že ESĽP nakoniec uznal porušenie článku 6 ods. 1 Európskeho dohovoru o ľudských právach (ďalej len „dohovor“), najmä preto, lebo: „Je potrebné, aby tieto rozsudky boli vykonané, pričom súd pripomína, že štátny orgán nemôže nezaplatiť svoj dlh založený na súdnom rozhodnutí pod zámienkou nedostatku zdrojov […].“ Okrem toho ESĽP zistil porušenie článku 1 protokolu č. 1 k uvedenému dohovoru, pri ktorom došlo k zásahu do vlastníckeho práva žalujúcich strán tým, že na nich spočívalo osobitné a nadmerné bremeno z dôvodu nevyplatenia súm, ktoré im prislúchali [96].
Slovenian: Komisija ugotavlja, da je ESČP nazadnje ugotovilo kršitev člena 6(1) Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Konvencija), zlasti ker: „[je] [t]e sodbe torej treba izvršiti, pri čemer Sodišče opozarja, da se državni organ ne more izgovarjati na pomanjkanje sredstev, da ne bi poplačal dolga, ki temelji na sodni odločbi […].“ ESČP je poleg tega ugotovilo kršitev člena 1 Protokola št. 1 k navedeni konvenciji, ker je bilo poseženo v lastninsko pravico tožečih strank zaradi posebnega in pretiranega bremena, povezanega z neizplačilom zneskov, ki so jima bili dolgovani [96].