natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den franske regering regner med, i stedet for CRP-RATP, at påtage sig at betale disse udligningsbeløb til de almindelige ordninger for således at sikre den finansielle neutralitet ved tilslutningen af RATP’s særlige ordning til disse modtagende ordninger.
The French Government anticipates taking responsibility, on behalf of the CRP-RATP, for payment of these cash payments to statutory schemes in order to ensure that affiliation of the RATP special scheme to these receiving schemes remains financially neutral.
Erhvervede basisrettigheder efter tilslutningen
Basic rights acquired after affiliation
Vedrørende de basisrettigheder, der erhverves efter tilslutningen, ventes det, at RATP og dets ansatte betaler almindelige pensionsbidrag til gengæld for, at den generelle ordning og tillægsordningerne yder dækning.
Given that these are basic rights acquired after affiliation, RATP and its staff are to pay statutory pension contributions in exchange for the intervention of the general scheme and supplementary schemes.
BEGRUNDELSE FOR BESLUTNINGEN OM INDLEDNING AF PROCEDUREN
REASONS BEHIND THE ADOPTION OF THE DECISION TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE
I sin beslutning om at indlede proceduren gav Kommissionen udtryk for tvivl om, hvorvidt den anmeldte reform var forenelig med det indre marked.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission questioned whether the reform notified was compatible with the common market.
Kommissionen nævnte, at formålet med proceduren var at fastslå, om den anmeldte reform udgjorde en støtte til RATP.
The Commission mentioned that the purpose of the procedure was to establish whether the reform constituted aid granted to RATP.
For det første satte Kommissionen spørgsmålstegn ved den tætte forbindelse mellem oprettelsen af CRP-RATP og tilslutningen til de almindelige ordninger og fandt det nødvendigt at kontrollere, om tilslutningen af basisrettighederne ikke udgjorde en statsstøtte til RATP.
The Commission first discussed the close link between the CRP-RATP being set up and affiliation to statutory schemes, deciding that it was necessary to verify whether or not the affiliation of basic rights constituted State aid in favour of RATP.
Dernæst udtrykte Kommissionen tvivl om udsagnet om, at statens finansiering af de specifikke rettigheder under RATP’s pensionsordning ikke udgjorde en statsstøtte og om, at denne i givet fald var forenelig med det indre marked.
It then questioned the proposal that the financing by the State of specific entitlements under the RATP pension scheme did not constitute State aid and, where necessary, whether or not the scheme was compatible with the single market.
Endelig fremsatte Kommissionen tvivl om, hvorvidt den anmeldte reform var nødvendig, og om den overholdt proportionalitetsprincippet i forhold til almenvellet.
Finally, the Commission questioned the need for the reform notified and its proportionality with regard to common interest.
Vedrørende den anmeldte reforms nødvendighed satte Kommissionen spørgsmålstegn ved, om markedet for kollektiv transport i Paris-regionen reelt og effektivt bliver åbnet samt om, hvorvidt den fjerner de særlige elementer i RATP’s juridiske og faktuelle forhold, som kan stå i vejen for en effektiv konkurrence.
With regard to whether or not the reform was necessary, it discussed the actual and effective opening up of the public transport market in the Paris region and the removal of factors in the legal and actual situation of RATP which could hinder effective competition.
Kommissionen har ligeledes udtrykt tvivl om det rimelige omfang af den anmeldte reform med den begrundelse, at den også vedrører de særlige pensionsforpligtelser for medarbejdere, der ansættes efter reformens iværksættelse.
It also questioned whether the reform notified was proportional, essentially on the grounds that it would also affect special pension commitments with regard to employees recruited after the reform was implemented.
I sin beslutning af 10. oktober 2007 konkluderede Kommissionen derimod, at statens finansiering af underskuddet på RATP’s pensionsordning i perioden 1995-2005 udgjorde en eksisterende statsstøtte i medfør af artikel 1, litra b), nr. iii), i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 [24] (jf. betragtning 0 i nærværende beslutning).
However, in its decision of 10 October 2007, the Commission concluded that the financing by the State of the RATP pension scheme's shortfall for the period 1995-2005 constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(iii) 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 [24] (see recital 15 of this Decision).
Kommissionen mente endvidere, at EF-traktatens artikel 87 ikke gjaldt for CRP-RATP, idet der ikke er tale om en virksomhed (betragtning 67 i nævnte beslutning).
The Commission also considered that Article 87 the EC Treaty did not apply to the CRP-RATP, since RATP was not a company (recital 67 of this Decision).
Kommissionen fandt endelig, at den garanti, den franske stat havde givet rettighedshaverne under særordningen, var direkte til gavn for RATP’s medarbejdere og ikke for RATP selv, og at den derfor ikke ville kunne betegnes som en økonomisk fordel for en virksomhed (betragtning 70 i den omtalte beslutning).
Finally, the Commission decided that the guarantee provided by the French State to beneficiaries under the special scheme directly benefited RATP staff, rather than RATP itself. This guarantee could not therefore be considered to provide the company with an economic advantage (recital 70 of this Decision).
DE FRANSKE MYNDIGHEDERS ARGUMENTER EFTER INDLEDNINGEN AF PROCEDUREN
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES FOLLOWING THE INITIATING OF THE PROCEDURE
De franske myndigheder anfører i deres brev af 22. januar 2008, at den anmeldte reform efter deres mening institutionaliserer en støtte til enkeltpersoner og ikke til virksomheden RATP, og at der derfor ikke kan være tale om statsstøtte til RATP.
In their letter of 22 January 2008, the French authorities recalled that, from their point of view, the reform in question constituted assistance to individuals, as opposed to RATP and therefore could not be regarded as State aid benefiting RATP.
Selv om RATP faktisk skulle blive begunstiget af den anmeldte reform, mener de franske myndigheder endvidere ikke, at reformen kan påvirke handlen mellem medlemsstater og heller ikke fordreje konkurrencen, eftersom RATP kun opererer på ét marked, nemlig markedet for kollektiv bytransport i Ile-de-France, der endnu ikke er åbent for konkurrence, og hvor reformen ikke har nogen virkninger for RATP’s datterselskabers aktiviteter eller på de markeder, hvor disse opererer.
Furthermore, although RATP would be the actual beneficiary of the notified reform, the French authorities consider that trade between Member States is not affected by the reform, nor is competition jeopardised, in so far as RATP's activities are restricted to a single market (the urban public transport market in Ile-de-France) which is not yet open to competition and also in so far as the reform has had no impact on the activities of RATP subsidiaries or the markets in which those are active.
Vedrørende tilslutningen af basisrettigheder
Affiliation of basic entitlements
De franske myndigheder mener ikke, at CRP-RATP’s tilslutning til den generelle ordning indeholder elementer af statsstøtte til RATP, eftersom der ikke er nogen fordele for RATP.
According to the French authorities, affiliation of the CRP-RATP to the general scheme does not constitute State aid benefiting RATP, given that the latter has not been advantaged.
For det første mener de franske myndigheder, som Kommissionen selv har bemærket i betragtning 69 i åbningsbeslutningen, at »anden etape af reformen, dvs. betaling af udligningsbeløb og overførsel af finansieringen af basisrettighederne fra CRP-RATP til CNAV og AGIRC-ARRCO, ikke længere påvirker RATP’s økonomiske situation«.
Firstly, the French authorities believe that, as the Commission itself indicated in point 69 of the decision to initiate the procedure, ‘the second stage of the reform, i.e. the provision of cash payments and the transfer of the financing of basic rights from the CRP-RATP to CNAV and AGIRC-ARRCO no longer affect RATP's economic situation’.
Endvidere finder de franske myndigheder, at RATP’s forpligtelser, der svarede til basisrettighederne, ikke udgjorde omkostninger, som normalt burde have belastet dets budget i henhold til Fællesskabets retspraksis.
The French authorities also feel that RATP's obligations corresponding to basic rights were not costs that would normally have put a strain on its budget within the meaning of Community case law.
Ifølge de franske myndigheder belastes franske virksomheders finansielle ressourcer nemlig normalt af frigørende bidrag, der betales til de almindelige pensionskasser, men ikke af en forpligtelse til at udbetale pensioner til erhvervsaktive og pensionerede medarbejdere, som det var tilfældet for RATP, der indtil den anmeldte reform havde pensionsafdelingen i virksomheden.
In their view, the financial resources of French companies are normally burdened by payments in full discharge of liabilities made to statutory pension funds but not by the obligation to pay pensions for current employees and retired persons, as was the case with RATP, whose head office included a department responsible for pensioners until the time of the notified reform.
Så når CRP-RATP’s tilslutning til den generelle ordning og statens betaling af udligningsbeløb til den generelle ordning sker samtidig med betalingen af et frigørende bidrag på niveau med det almindelige, medfører det ikke, at RATP undgår at bære de omkostninger, virksomheden normalt skulle have afholdt.
Consequently, since they are accompanied by payments in full discharge of liabilities at the same level as under statutory arrangements, the affiliation of the CRP-RATP to the general scheme and the provision of cash payments by the State to the general scheme has not meant that RATP avoided paying costs that would normally have placed a burden on its financial resources.
Da særordningen blev indført af staten ved oprettelsen af RATP i 1948, mener de franske myndigheder endelig ikke, at det ville være rimeligt, at virksomheden skulle betale de udligningsbeløb, der skal erlægges til gengæld for CRP-RATP’s tilslutning til den generelle ordning.
Lastly, according to the French authorities, given that the special scheme was imposed by the State when RATP was set up in 1948, it would not be normal for the company to have to meet the cost of the cash payments paid in exchange for affiliation of the CRP-RATP to the general scheme.
Vedrørende finansieringen af de specifikke rettigheder
Financing of special rights
For det første mener de franske myndigheder, at den retspraksis for, at omkostninger som følge af en kollektiv overenskomst i sagens natur er en omkostning, som en virksomhed normalt skal afholde af sit budget, hvad enten virksomheden har accepteret overenskomsten frivilligt, eller den er blevet udvidet til den pågældende virksomhed ad lovgivningens vej [25], ikke gælder i det foreliggende tilfælde, eftersom pensionsordningen for ansatte hos RATP ikke udspringer af en kollektiv overenskomst.
Firstly, the French authorities believe that the case-law according to which costs resulting from collective agreements constitute, by their nature, a cost which normally places a burden on a company's budgets, and that the company has voluntarily accepted this agreement or that it was extended to this company on the basis of regulations or law [25], does not apply in this particular case in so far as the RATP staff pension scheme was not established on the basis of a collective agreement.
For det andet mener de franske myndigheder ikke, at det på nogen måde er en fordel for RATP, at der findes specifikke rettigheder.
Secondly, according to the French authorities, the existence of special rights does not constitute any advantage for RATP.
Den kendsgerning, at RATP fortsat vedtægtsansætter medarbejdere, der begunstiges af specifikke rettigheder, beviser ikke, at det skulle udgøre en økonomisk fordel for RATP, at der findes specifikke rettigheder.
The fact that RATP continues to recruit staff in posts governed by service regulations who enjoy special rights does not prove that the existence of special rights places the organisation at an economic advantage.
For det tredje fastholder de franske myndigheder, at den offentlige finansiering af specifikke rettigheder udgør en nøje kompensation for unormale omkostninger, som RATP bærer.
Thirdly, the French authorities maintain that the public financing of special rights constitutes the strict compensation for abnormal expenses borne by RATP.
De franske myndigheder anfører, at konklusionen om, at finansieringen af de specifikke pensionsrettigheder ikke er statsstøtte, følger af de principper, der er blevet fastlagt i Fællesskabets retspraksis siden Fællesskabets oprettelse, og hvorpå dommene i Combus-sagen [26] og Enirisorse-sagen [27] kun er de seneste eksempler.
In their view, the conclusion that the financing of special pension rights does not constitute State aid is the result of principles which have emerged from Community case law since the Community was established, the Combus [26] and Enirisorse [27] rulings being merely the most recent examples of this.
Vedrørende den anmeldte reforms forenelighed med det indre marked
Compatibility of the reform notified with the single market
Såfremt Kommissionen vurderer, at den anmeldte reform omfatter statsstøtteelementer, mener de franske myndigheder, at reformen under alle omstændigheder er forenelig med det indre marked.
If the Commission feels that the reform in question contained elements of State aid, the French authorities take the view that the reform is in any case compatible with the common market.
De franske myndigheder fastholder deres synspunkt om, at den anmeldte reform er i overensstemmelse med teorien om strandede omkostninger og er konkurrencefremmende.
The French authorities maintain their view that the reform notified complies with the theory of stranded costs and is pro-competitive.
Endvidere mener de franske myndigheder, at den nye finansiering af pensionsrettigheder fra 2006 er nødvendig og rimelig for at opnå konkurrence på markedet.
The authorities also feel that the new financing of pension rights starting in 2006 is necessary and proportionate in order to ensure competition within the market.
De franske myndigheder mener, at den anmeldte reform er nødvendig, eftersom den er en forudsætning for at åbne bytransportsektoren i Ile-de-France for konkurrence, jf. forordning (EF) nr. 1370/2007.
The French authorities believe the reform notified is necessary in order to prepare for the Ile-de-France urban transport sector opening up to competition, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.
Den vil gøre det muligt dels at forebygge konkurrenceforvridning mellem offentlige og private operatører og dels definitivt at fjerne barrieren for adgang til markedet, som lå i RATP’s måde at finansiere pensioner på.
It will prevent distortions of competition between public and private operators and also ensure the permanent removal of the barrier to entry formed by the means of financing pensions within RATP.
Vedrørende proportionaliteten i den anmeldte reform har de franske myndigheder ved brev af 23. april 2008 orienteret Kommissionen om reformen af RATP’s særlige pensionsordning, som den franske regering har indledt, og som harmoniserer RATP’s særlige pensionsordning med de almindelige regler.
As regards the proportionate nature of the reform, in their letter dated 23 April 2008 the French authorities informed the Commission of the reform of the RATP special pension scheme instigated by the French government, a reform which brings the RATP special pension scheme into line with statutory rules.
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA INTERESSEREDE PARTER EFTER INDLEDNING AF PROCEDUREN
OBSERVATIONS OF INTERESTED PARTIES FOLLOWING THE OPENING OF THE PROCEDURE
Ved brev af 13. februar 2008 gjorde fagforbundet SUD de la RATP indsigelse mod det af de franske myndigheder anmeldte projekt, idet det udelukkende havde til formål at omdanne RATP til en stor international koncern med økonomisk vinding for øje.
In a letter dated 13 February 2008 the RATP branch of the SUD trade union expressed its opposition to the plans notified by the French authorities, stating that the sole objective of the latter was to transform RATP into a large international group driven by the desire to make profit.
I brevet gjorde SUD de la RATP Kommissionen opmærksom på, at ansatte hos RATP efter dets mening ikke har status af overenskomstansatte, der er omfattet af samlingen af arbejdsretlige regler (code du travail).
In its letter the RATP branch of the SUD trade union drew the Commission's attention to the fact that, in its view, the staff of RATP did not have the status of employees under private law subject to the Labour Code.
SUD de la RATP hævder endvidere, at reformen af RATP’s pensionsordning burde være udarbejdet af en paritetisk blandet kommission, eftersom den indgår i den kollektive forhandling mellem arbejdsmarkedets parter.
The RATP branch of the SUD trade union also claimed that the reform of the RATP retirement scheme should have been developed by a joint committee since the scheme is subject to collective bargaining between the social partners.
FRANKRIGS KOMMENTARER TIL DE INTERESSEREDE PARTERS BEMÆRKNINGER
COMMENTS OF FRANCE ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES
Vedrørende den retlige ordning, der gælder for RATP-ansatte, præciserer de franske myndigheder i deres brev af 3. april 2008, at bestemmelserne i samlingen af arbejdsretlige regler skal gælde for RATP’s vedtægtsansatte, medmindre det udtrykkeligt deri hedder eller følger af retspraksis, at disse bestemmelser ikke gælder for disse medarbejdere.
With regard to the legal regime applicable to RATP staff, the French authorities state in their letter of 3 April 2008 that the provisions of the labour code are intended to apply to RATP staff in posts governed by service regulations, except if the labour code or case law expressly states that these provisions should not apply to such staff.
Forekomsten af sådanne undtagelser er ifølge Frankrig ikke tilstrækkelig til at afgøre, at medarbejdere hos RATP skulle indgå i et offentligretligt ansættelsesforhold.
According to France, the existence of such exceptions is not sufficient to consider RATP staff as being subject to contracts of employment under public law.
Frankrig anfører desuden, at dekret nr. 60-1362 af 19. december 1960, der giver den paritetiske blandede kommission hos RATP kompetence vedrørende personalevedtægten, ikke indeholder bestemmelser om pensionsordningen.
France also indicates that Decree No 60-1362 of 19 December 1960, which delegates competence to the RATP joint committee for matters relating to the status of personnel, does not refer to the retirement scheme.
Ifølge de franske myndigheder er RATP’s pensionsordning ikke resultatet af kollektive forhandlinger, men blev administrativt pålagt RATP af staten
According to the French authorities, the RATP pension scheme is not the result of collective bargaining; it was imposed on RATP by the State by means of administrative procedures.
RÆKKEVIDDEN AF NÆRVÆRENDE BESLUTNING
SCOPE OF THE PRESENT DECISION
I denne beslutning tages der stilling til, om den nye pensionsfinansieringsordning er forenelig med Fællesskabets regler om statsstøtte.
The present decision relates to the compatibility of the new pension financing scheme with Community regulations on State aid.
Indledningen af proceduren af 10. oktober 2007 og navnlig kommentarerne fra de franske myndigheder har givet Kommissionen mulighed for at få klarhed over de nærmere betingelser for iværksættelse af den anmeldte reform og dermed for at identificere tre foranstaltninger, der kan indebære elementer af statsstøtte.
The opening of the procedure on 10 October 2007 and, in particular, the comments of the French authorities have enabled the Commission to clarify the terms of implementation of the reform notified and, subsequently, to identify three measures which may include State aid components.
For det første blev CRP-RATP pr. 1. januar 2006 eneste retlige debitor i forhold til alderspensioner for vedtægtsansatte medarbejdere i stedet for RATP.
Firstly, on 1 January 2006 the CRP-RATP became the sole legal debtor for the retirement pensions of staff in posts governed by service regulations; prior to then, RATP had been the debtor.
For det andet har staten siden 1. januar 2006 udbetalt støtte til CRP-RATP med henblik på udligning af selskabets regnskaber.
Secondly, since 1 January 2006, the State has been paying a subsidy to the CRP-RATP in order to balance its accounts.
Denne offentlige støtte dækker det demografiske underskud og meromkostningerne ved RATP’s særordning.
This public subsidy covers the demographic deficit and the additional cost of the RATP special scheme.
For det tredje indebærer den påtænkte reform muligheden for, at CRP-RATP tilslutter basispensionsrettighederne under særordningen til de almindelige ordninger.
Thirdly, the reform notified provides for the possibility for the CRP-RATP to affiliate the basic pension rights of the special scheme to statutory schemes.
Staten påtager sig at betale udligningsbeløb i stedet for CRP-RATP, således at princippet om streng finansiel neutralitet overholdes.
The State undertakes to make balancing payments in order to comply with the principle of the strict financial neutrality of the affiliation in place of the CRP-RATP.
VURDERING AF DEN FØRSTE FORANSTALTNING: OPRETTELSE AF CRP-RATP
ASSESSMENT OF THE FIRST MEASURE: CREATION OF THE CRP-RATP
Kommissionen bemærker, at CRP-RATP pr. 1. januar 2006 blev eneste retlige debitor i forhold til alderspensioner for vedtægtsansatte i stedet for RATP.
The Commission observes that, on 1 January 2006, the CRP-RATP became the sole legal debtor for the retirement pensions of staff in posts governed by service regulations; prior to then, RATP had been the debtor.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at det pensionsbidrag, RATP samtidig betaler til CRP-RATP, er blevet frigørende.
The Commission observes that, simultaneously, the contribution paid by RATP to the CRP-RATP for pensions became a contribution in full discharge of its obligations.
Kommissionen bemærker, at det i henhold til den ordning, der var gældende før den 1. januar 2006, retligt påhvilede RATP at opfylde pensionsforpligtelserne under særordningen.
The Commission notes that, under the system in place before 1 January 2006, RATP was legally liable for the pension commitments under the special scheme.
Dermed afveg finansieringen af særordningen for vedtægtsansatte hos RATP fra de almindelige ordninger, idet RATP var garant for den pågældende ordnings finansielle ligevægt, og det »arbejdsgiverbidrag«, RATP betalte til særordningen, således ikke var frigørende.
In this respect, the financing system for the special scheme for RATP staff differed from the provisions under statutory law: RATP was the guarantor of the financial equilibrium of the scheme in question; the ‘employer’ contribution paid by RATP to the special scheme did not constitute full discharge of its obligations.
Kommissionen konkluderer som følge heraf, at den vigtigste virkning af bestemmelserne i den anmeldte reform har været at give det »arbejdsgiverbidrag«, RATP har betalt til sine ansattes pensioner, frigørende virkning, idet RATP således er blevet frigjort fra den historiske forpligtelse til at sikre særordningens ligevægt.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the main effect of the provisions foreseen by the reform notified has been to transform the ‘employer’ contribution paid by RATP for the pensions of its staff into a contribution discharging it from its obligations, thus relieving it of its historical obligation to ensure the financial equilibrium of the special scheme.