natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For det tredje understreger de franske myndigheder, at obligationsemissionerne således kun blev afgjort af markedets opfattelse af FT's evne til på egen hånd at opfylde sine forpligtelser uden garanti fra statslig side.
Thirdly, the bond issues were determined solely by the market's perception of France Télécom's capacity to honour its commitments unaided by any state guarantee.
Dette dokumenteres ved selskabets spreads, som stemte godt overens med FT's rating og dermed var mærkbart bedre end andre operatørers.
This is attested to by the spreads, which are consistent with France Télécom's credit rating and therefore appreciably higher than those of other operators.
Den tillid, som det fremgik, at markedet havde ved obligationsemissionerne, udsprang således dybest set af udskiftningen af ledelsesteamet og den positive reaktion på den nye strategi, der blev afsløret ved offentliggørelsen af ambitionsplanen 2005.
The confidence shown by the market at the time of the said bond issues is thus due essentially to the change in the management team and the favourable reception accorded to the new strategy revealed when the Ambition 2005 plan was presented.
Hvad angår overholdelsen af det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip i forbindelse med det hypotetiske aktionærlån understreger de franske myndigheder, at det var logisk, at staten ville fremskynde sin deltagelse, så snart beslutningen om at deltage i kapitalforøgelsen var truffet og de rette omstændigheder forelå (en troværdig plan og ledelsesgruppe, et garanterende konsortium).
As to compliance with the prudent investor principle in relation to any shareholder loan, the French authorities stress that, when the decision to take part in a capital increase was taken and the conditions therefor were met (credible plan and management, underwriting syndicate), it was logical that the State should make an upfront prepayment.
De første drøftelser om dette påtænkte aktionærlån foregik i november 2002.
The first discussions about the loan proposal date back to November 2002.
De franske myndigheder understreger også, at der ikke kan rejses tvivl om, hvorvidt en sådan foranstaltning er lovlig, fordi den som tidligere nævnt udsprang af en troværdig og detaljeret plan, hvis indhold i det væsentligste var kendt, da man den 4. december 2002 bebudede muligheden af et aktionærlån.
The French authorities also stress that the legitimacy of such a measure could not be challenged because, as is mentioned above, it was based on a credible, detailed plan the content of which was mostly known at the time of the announcement of the loan proposal on 4 December 2002.
Staten havde for øvrigt allerede fået tilsagn fra bankkonsortiet — betinget af, at der blev offentliggjort en troværdig plan — og havde ultimo november alle nødvendige oplysninger for at kunne afgøre, at denne betingelse ville være opfyldt, da staten havde set markedernes positive reaktion efter udnævnelsen af den nye ledelse.
Moreover, the State had already received the undertaking, conditional on the presentation to the market of a credible plan, from the banking syndicate and it knew full well at the end of November that that condition would be met given the market's positive reaction to the appointment of the new management.
De franske myndigheder understreger i den forbindelse, at det ikke er relevant at tage stilling til beløbsstørrelsen i den foreliggende sag, men at der jf. Alitalia-beslutningen skal fokuseres på, om finansieringsvilkårene er i overensstemmelse med de vilkår, der ville gælde for en virksomhed af sammenlignelig størrelse.
The French authorities stress in this connection that it is not pertinent to assess the amount involved in the present case but that, in accordance with the Alitalia judgment, it is necessary to examine the conformity of the conditions of financing the operation for a company of comparable size.
For så vidt angår forrentningen af det påtænkte aktionærlån understreger de franske myndigheder, at den var markedssvarende og omfattede sanktionsmuligheder, da der var tale om et efterstillet lån.
As to the remuneration of the potential loan, the French authorities stress that it was granted on normal market terms and that it was increased by a premium to reflect its subordinate nature.
De franske myndigheder understreger også, at låneudkastet omfattede en garantiprovision, og at den manglende sikkerhedsstillelse var i overensstemmelse med en fornuftig investors adfærd i forbindelse med et kortfristet aktionærlån til fremskyndelse af aktionærens medvirken i en kapitalforøgelse.
The proposal provided for a non-utilisation commission and the absence of security was in keeping with the practice of a prudent investor in the case of a short-term loan granted by a shareholder upfront of his subscription to a capital increase.
De franske myndigheder har også angivet, at tilbagebetalingen af beløb i aktier var gængs praksis og dermed sidestillet med kontant betaling.
The repayment of the sum in shares was customary and was based on the cash value.
De franske myndigheder pointerer, at det i henhold til retspraksis i Alitalia-sagen ikke er Kommissionens opgave at sammenligne den offentlige aktionærs valgte strategi med alternative løsninger, som ville have indebåret mindre risiko, men at vurdere, om en privat investor under tilsvarende omstændigheder ville have gennemført den pågældende foranstaltning.
The French authorities state that, in accordance with the Alitalia judgment, rather than compare the strategy chosen by the public shareholder with alternative solutions involving less risk, the Commission should assess whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor could have taken such a measure.
Statens tilkendegivelser
The announcements made by the State
De franske myndigheder understreger i deres bemærkninger af 29. juli 2003 den sammenhæng, som statens tilkendegivelser skal analyseres i ud fra dens rolle som informeret aktionær og ikke som offentlig myndighed.
In their comments of 29 July 2003, the French authorities stress the context which must be taken into account when analysing the declarations made by the State in its capacity as a prudent shareholder and not as a public authority.
Således fik staten i perioden september — december 2002 gennemført et ledelsesskifte i selskabet, hvis afgørende element var udskiftningen af bestyrelsesformanden, og staten fulgte nøje med i udarbejdelsen af en genopretningsplan, samtidig med at den sikrede sig støtte fra private investorer, hvis det senere skulle blive nødvendigt at gennemføre en kapitalforøgelse (en detaljeret beskrivelse af statens indgriben findes tidligere i dokumentet).
Thus, between the months of September and December 2002, the State engineered a change in management the key feature of which was the change in the Company's CEO and closely monitored the drafting of a rebalancing plan while at the same time ensuring the support of private investors with a eye to the launch of a possible capital increase (see above for a detailed description of the State's intervention).
Ifølge de franske myndigheder havde disse driftsforanstaltninger afgørende betydning for finansieringen og affødte både en yderst positiv reaktion på finansieringsmarkederne og en styrkelse af FT's aktiekurs.
According to the French authorities, these operational measures had a decisive financial impact, were very well received by the financial markets and led to the recovery in France Télécom's share price.
De franske myndigheder understreger, at staten aldrig angav eller antydede, at den ville yde FT en ubegrænset og ubetinget støtte.
The French authorities stress that the State never indicated or suggested that it would give France Télécom its unconditional and unlimited support.
De tilføjer, at »staten allerede om sommeren [hvormed de franske myndigheder henviser til økonomiministerens udtalelser den 12. juli] understregede, at den handlede som en velinformeret privat investor og ikke som offentlig myndighed, og at den havde til hensigt at gribe ind som aktionær på en måde (der endnu ikke var fastlagt), som ikke adskilte sig fra den, en privat investor ville vælge, hvilket nødvendigvis udelukkede, at staten allerede da skulle have truffet en ubetinget og uigenkaldelig beslutning om at gribe ind«.
They add that ‘the State … emphasised in the summer [the French authorities are referring to the statement made by the Minister for Economic Affairs on 12 July] that it would act like a prudent private shareholder and not as a public authority and that it intended to intervene as a shareholder in a way (still to be defined) which would be no different from that which a private investor would choose, which necessarily ruled out the possibility that the State had already decided to intervene in an unconditional and irrevocable manner’.
Disse tilkendegivelser, som ikke var anderledes end hvad en privat investor ville have valgt, udelukker reelt enhver ubetinget og uigenkaldelig støtte.
This declaration that the conditions would not differ from those of a private investor, excludes de facto any unconditional and irrevocable support.
De franske myndigheder hævder også, at deres erklæringer i perioden juli — oktober 2002 var »uspecifikke forberedende tilkendegivelser« uden »konkrete gennemførelsesforanstaltninger«.
The French authorities also argue that the declarations made by the French authorities between July and October 2002 constituted ‘vague prior declarations’ without any ‘corresponding practical measures’.
De franske myndigheder pointerer i den forbindelse, at de efterfølgende tilkendegivelser skal ses på baggrund af den første, og at det er forkert at hævde, at staten fra den 12. juli 2002 havde »forpligtet sig uigenkaldeligt til at støtte FT« og dermed også havde »forpligtet sig uigenkaldeligt til at deltage i styrkelsen af egenkapitalen«.
The French authorities state in this connection that the subsequent declarations were to be assessed in the light of the first declaration and that it is wrong to assert that as of 12 July 2002 the State had ‘committed itself irrevocably to supporting France Télécom’ and had, on that occasion, entered into ‘an irrevocable commitment to participate in the strengthening of the capital base’.
De franske myndigheder påpeger, at aktionæren først i september 2002 offentliggjorde sin hensigt om at deltage i styrkelsen af selskabets egenkapital, hvilket »skete i form af en markedsorienteret transaktion (hvormed menes, at tidsplanen blev fastlagt under hensyn til markedsvilkårene)«.
The French authorities point out that the State shareholder announced its intention to participate in the strengthening of the Company's capital base for the first time in September 2002 and that ‘this would take the form of a transaction followed by the market (reference to a timetable to be defined in the light of market conditions)’.
Tilkendegivelsen af 2. oktober 2002 dokumenterede ifølge de franske myndigheder, at fremlæggelsen af en overbevisende plan var en forudsætning for statens deltagelse.
Concerning the declaration of 2 October 2002, the French authorities argue that this confirmed that the presentation of a credible plan was a precondition for the State's participation.
De franske myndigheder pointerer, at man under alle omstændigheder ikke »af de uspecifikke angivelser i statens tilkendegivelser vedrørende FT i perioden juli-oktober 2002, hvor staten angav, at den ville bære sig ad som en fornuftig investor, kunne udlede, at staten havde tænkt sig, eller for den sags skyld forpligtet sig til, at træffe foranstaltninger, der var i strid med EU's statsstøtteregler.
The French authorities state that, at all events, it was not possible ‘to deduce from the lack of precision of the State's declarations concerning France Télécom between July and October 2002, despite the State having indicated that it would act like a prudent investor, any intention on the State's part — nor a fortiori any commitment- to take measures which would contravene the Community rules on state aid.
Man kan således ikke slutte, at traktatens regler er blevet overtrådt, ud fra de uspecifikke forberedende tilkendegivelser, som hverken indebar konkrete beslutninger eller gennemførelsesforanstaltninger«.
Infringement of the Treaty rules cannot be presumed and cannot be caused by vague declarations prior to a decision without any measures translating them into practice’.
De franske myndigheder hævder også, at »de eneste specifikke foranstaltninger, som staten påtænkte som flertalsaktionær i FT, var de foranstaltninger, som angives i den informations- og indberetningsskrivelse, som blev fremsendt til Kommissionen og offentliggjort den 5. december 2002, dvs. deltagelsen sammen med private investorer i en kapitalforøgelse på 15 mia. EUR af statens kapitalandel i FT og i et aktionærlån, som muligvis ville blive ydet mod almindelig markedsforrentning til fremskyndelse af kapitalforøgelsen.
The French authorities maintain that ‘the only specific measures envisaged by the State in its capacity as majority shareholder in France Télécom are those set out in the information/notification dossier forwarded to the Commission and announced publicly on 5 December 2002, namely the participation alongside private shareholders in a EUR 15 billion capital increase in proportion to the share held by the State in France Télécom's capital and a possible shareholder loan remunerated at market rates upfront of the capital increase.
Blot fordi staten mindede om, at den handlede som en fornuftig aktionær, er der på ingen måde tale om en statslig garanti.
The indication by the State that it would play its role of prudent shareholder in no way constitutes a state guarantee.
Et sådant udgangspunkt ville være i direkte modstrid med EU-rettens neutralitetsprincip, som anerkendes i EF-traktatens artikel 295«.
Such an approach would be contrary to the principle of neutrality of Community law as recognised by Article 295 of the EC Treaty’.
Udviklingen i FT's aktiekurs og spreads
Movements in France Télécom's share price and spreads
De franske myndigheder fremfører, at det udelukkende var de driftsmæssige foranstaltninger, der påvirkede FT's børskurs.
The French authorities argue that only the operational measures had an impact on France Télécom's share price.
Således steg selskabets aktiekurs den 2. oktober 2002 (over 10,4 % i forhold til ugen før) efter udnævnelsen af den nye bestyrelsesformand, som indebar en ny driftsadministration, og i endnu højere grad da selskabet offentliggjorde TOP-planen og den nye bestyrelse den 5. december 2002, hvorefter aktien på to dage steg over 25 %.
Thus, the Company's share price rebounded on 2 October 2002 (up more than 10,4 % on the previous week) following the announcement of the appointment of the new CEO, indicative of a new operational management style, and the share price's progress continued upwards with the announcement of the TOP plan and of the new executive board on 5 December 2002, which led to a rise of more than 25 % in two days.
De franske myndigheder mener, at statens deltagelse i en styrkelse af egenkapitalen og et eventuelt aktionærlån blev omtalt i pressen forud for den 5. december 2002, og derfor ikke kan betragtes som grunden til aktiekursens stigning.
The French authorities maintain that the participation by the State in a strengthening of the capital base and in a possible shareholder loan constituted measures described in the press before 5 December 2002 and cannot therefore be considered as being behind the share price increase.
De franske myndigheder påpeger, at statens principerklæringer i perioden juli-oktober 2002 ikke havde indflydelse på denne stigning og at kursudviklingen til stadighed varierede, fordi der ikke blev truffet driftsmæssige foranstaltninger, hvilket viser, at der var usikkerhed på markedet om selskabets situation, navnlig hvad angår risikoen ved Mobilcom.
The declarations of principle made by the State between July and October 2002 were not the determining factor in this increase and as long as there were no operational measures the share price fluctuated, reflecting the market's uncertainty about the Company's situation, and the Mobilcom risk in particular.
De franske myndigheder understreger, at denne opfattelse medførte et fald i børskursen, som nåede sit laveste punkt den 30. september 2002, dog afbrudt af en forholdsvis stabil periode om sommeren, hvor der ikke var nogen særlige bebudelser eller rygter.
This perception led to a fall in the share price, which reached its lowest point on 30 September 2002 following a period of relative stability during the summer in the absence of any specific announcements or rumours.
De påpeger, at statens tilkendegivelser i denne periode af, at den havde til hensigt at opfylde sin rolle som aktionær, ikke modvirkede FT-aktiens nedadgående tendens.
During that period, the State's declarations as to its intention to play fully its role of shareholder did not stop the downward trend in France Télécom's share price.
For så vidt angår udviklingen i FT's spreads pointerer de franske myndigheder, at den ikke er noget værd som dokumentation for, at tilkendegivelserne i juli indebar nogen støtte til selskabet.
As to movements in France Télécom's spreads, the French authorities state that they cannot be relied upon to highlight alleged support for the Company linked to the July declarations.
En sammenligning af FT's og Deutsche Telekoms spreads efter januar 2002 viser således et vist sammenfald gennem hele perioden: FT's spreads blev mindre i juli 2002 som følge af den generelle opfattelse af telesektoren, uafhængigt af statens tilkendegivelser.
A comparative analysis of the spreads of France Télécom and Deutsche Telekom since January 2002 shows a certain similarity throughout the period concerned: France Télécom's spreads narrowed in July 2002, reflecting the assessment of the telecoms risk independently of the State's declarations.
Desuden blev selskabernes spreads større i december 2002 efter at staten havde bebudet sine påtænkte driftsmæssige tiltag.
Moreover, the spreads widened in December 2002 following the announcement by the State of the operational measures it was considering taking.
De franske myndigheder konkluderer, at udviklingen i FT's spreads hænger sammen med telesektorens udvikling og at statens tilkendegivelser ikke havde afgørende indflydelse på dem.
The French authorities conclude that the movements in France Télécom's spreads are linked to trends in the telecommunications sector and that the State's declarations were not a decisive factor.
De franske myndigheder hævdede efter tilsendelse af konsulentfirmaets juridiske og økonomiske rapport den 9. og 10. juni 2003, at økonomi- og finansministerens udtalelser under det interview, som blev offentliggjort i Les Echos den 12. juli 2002, falder uden for undersøgelsesproceduren, som Kommissionen indledte den 30. januar 2003.
In response to the dispatch of the consultant's legal report and economic report on 9 and 10 June 2003, the French authorities maintained that remarks made by the Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance in an interview published in Les Échos on 12 July 2002 are outside the scope of the investigation procedure opened by the Commission on 30 January 2003.
Kommissionen skulle efter deres mening ikke kunne udvide proceduren til at omfatte disse udtalelser, eftersom den frist på 18 måneder, som fastlægges i artikel 7, stk. 6, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93, mere eller mindre var udløbet.
The Commission was, they claimed, no longer able to extend the procedure to include these remarks as the 18-month period provided for in Article 7(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty had almost expired.
Under alle omstændigheder forbeholder de franske myndigheder sig ret til at fremlægge yderligere ekspertudsagn for Kommissionen vedrørende konsulentfirmaets rapport.
At all events, they reserved the right to present to the Commission further expert opinions on the consultant's reports.
Vedrørende den juridiske rapport har de franske myndigheder fremlagt følgende bemærkninger:
The French authorities have presented the following comments on the legal report:
De mener »først og fremmest, at den juridiske rapport hviler på en fejlagtig (eller sågar tendentiøs) fortolkning af fakta.
They point out ‘first of all that the legal report is based on an erroneous (not to say tendentious) interpretation of the facts.
Rapporten omfatter bl.a. en kraftig forvrængning af økonomiministerens ellers entydige udtalelser i et interview, som blev offentliggjort i juli 2002.
In particular, … the report manifestly twists — albeit clear — remarks made by the Minister for Economic Affairs in the course of an interview with a journalist published in July 2002.
De franske myndigheder bestrider på det kraftigste, at sådanne uunderbyggede fortolkninger skulle give grundlag for juridiske konklusioner, såsom at hævde, at staten skulle have ydet nogen form for garanti over for France Télécom«.
The French authorities strongly contest that it is possible to propose interpretations as unfounded as these in order to draw legal conclusions and in particular to assert that there exists any guarantee granted by the State to France Télécom’.
»Myndighederne fastholder … at staten som aktionær i France Télécom ikke blot forstod at handle som en fornuftig investor over for France Télécom, men også valgte at give en entydig offentlig tilkendegivelse af, at dette var en forudsætning for ethvert eventuelt tiltag i sagen ...«.
‘They reiterate … that the State as shareholder in France Télécom has not only always intended to behave like a prudent investor with regard to France Télécom but has also chosen to express clearly and publicly that this position would be the point of departure for all of its potential actions in this area …’.
Interviewet med ministeren i juli 2002 indeholder ingen angivelse af, at der skulle være vedtaget nogen beslutning.
The Minister's July 2002 interview makes no mention of any decision being taken.
»… Staten har tiltro til selskabets rentabilitet og har blot udtrykt tvivl om selskabets øjeblikkelige situation, og staten bestræber sig nu som hovedaktionær på at foretage en nærmere analyse, uden at staten dog for nærværende kan stille nogen præcis diagnose eller træffe nogen afgørelse«.
‘… [W]hile remaining confident in the company's viability, the State was merely taking note of the market's doubts about France Télécom's situation and, in its capacity as majority shareholder, was trying to refine its analysis without being able, at that stage, to make an accurate diagnosis or take any decision’.
»Desuden er der ingen grund til på forhånd at gå ud fra, at udtrykket »passende foranstaltninger« netop skulle betyde økonomiske foranstaltninger«.
‘Moreover, there was no reason to suppose a priori that the phrase “appropriate steps” referred specifically to financial measures’.
»De franske myndigheder påpeger endvidere en række unøjagtigheder i de ræsonnementer, der opstilles i den juridiske rapport.
‘The French authorities have also noted numerous inaccuracies in the reasoning set out in the legal report.
Rapporten viser således en klar mangel på objektivitet, både ved at anlægge højst tvivlsomme juridiske analyser (navnlig hvad angår betydningen af hensigtserklæringer og omfanget af ensidige tilsagn i civil- og handelsretten) og ved at inddrage juridiske tolkninger fra uvedkommende sammenhænge i den foreliggende sag (f.eks. ved at gøre principper for virksomhedsledelse eller international handelsret gældende på forholdet mellem en virksomhed og dens hovedaktionær)«.
The report is thus manifestly short on objectivity, adopting highly contestable legal analyses (for example regarding the characterisation of letters of intent and the scope of a unilateral commitment in civil and commercial law) and making an unjustified application to the facts at issue of certain irrelevant legal precepts (this is the case, for example, with the application of the theory of business management or of the rules of public international law in relations between a company and its majority shareholder’.