natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med andre ord er ansvaret for finansiel ligevægt på den pågældende særordning hos RATP med den anmeldte reform blevet overført til CRP-RATP og i sidste instans til staten.
In other words, the reform notified has transferred responsibility for the financial equilibrium of the special scheme in question from RATP to the CRP-RATP and, ultimately, the State.
Kommissionen konstaterer desuden, at RATP’s forpligtelse til at sikre finansiel balance i særordningen uden den anmeldte reform ville have betydet, at RATP skulle have opført en forpligtelse over for staten, som der ville skulle ydes dækning for i regnskabet ved overgangen til IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), som har været gældende for RATP siden den 30. juni 2007 [28].
The Commission further observes that, in the absence of the reform notified, the obligation to ensure the financial equilibrium of the regime which had been incumbent upon RATP would have given rise to the entering of a commitment in respect of the State, which would have been provisioned in the accounts upon the transition to the IFRS standards (International Financial Reporting Standards), applicable at RATP since 30 June 2007 [28].
Kommissionen ønsker her at understrege, at det spørgsmål, oprettelsen af CRP-RATP rejser, er identisk med problemstillingen i forbindelse med reformen af finansieringen af pensionerne til tjenestemandsansatte i Postvæsenet (La Poste) [29].
The Commission would like to emphasise at this stage that the question raised by the creation of the CRP-RATP is identical to the question which arose in conjunction with the reform of the financing arrangements for the pensions of civil servants working for La Poste [29].
Derfor vil Kommissionen kontrollere, om den omhandlede foranstaltning i den foreliggende sag indebærer elementer af statsstøtte ved at anlægge samme synsvinkel som i ovennævnte beslutning.
Consequently, the Commission will assess whether the measure under assessment includes State aid components by means of the same procedure as was adopted for the aforementioned decision.
FOREKOMST AF STATSSTØTTE
EXISTENCE OF STATE AID
Det bestemmes i traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, at »bortset fra de i traktaten hjemlede undtagelser er statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med fællesmarkedet i det omfang, den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.«
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty provides: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
For at betegne en national foranstaltning som statsstøtte i henhold til traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, skal følgende kumulative betingelser være opfyldt, dvs. at: 1) den pågældende foranstaltning medfører en selektiv økonomisk fordel, 2) fordelen finansieres ved hjælp af statsmidler, 3) fordelen fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene og endelig, at 4) fordelen påvirker samhandlen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The classification of a national measure as State aid as provided for in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty requires the following cumulative conditions to be fulfilled, namely: (1) the measure in question confers a selective economic advantage; (2) that advantage is financed via State resources; (3) that advantage distorts or threatens to distort competition and, lastly, (4) that advantage has an effect on trade between Member States.
I det følgende gennemgås de årsager, der giver grund til at mene, at den pågældende foranstaltning opfylder disse kumulative betingelser og dermed udgør statsstøtte til fordel for RATP i henhold til traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
The reasons for considering that the measure in question meets these cumulative conditions and thus constitutes State aid in favour of RATP within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty need to be explained.
TILSTEDEVÆRELSEN AF EN SELEKTIV ØKONOMISK FORDEL FOR RATP
EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE IN FAVOUR OF RATP
For at vurdere, om den pågældende foranstaltning omfatter statsstøtteelementer, skal det fastslås, om den giver RATP en økonomisk fordel ved at gøre det muligt for virksomheden at undgå omkostninger, der normalt skulle have været afholdt over dens kapital, og om de derved har hindret markedskræfternes frie spil [30].
In order to assess whether the measure under assessment incorporates State aid components, it must be established whether this measure confers an economic advantage on RATP by enabling it to avoid having to bear costs which would normally have had to be met out of the undertaking's own financial resources, thereby preventing market forces from having their normal effect [30].
Ifølge fast retspraksis er en normal omkostning i den forbindelse en omkostning, som en virksomhed normalt skal afholde i forbindelse med den daglige drift eller sine normale aktiviteter [31].
It that context, it is settled case law that a normal burden is a normal charge inherent in the day-to-day management or usual activities of an enterprise [31].
Domstolen vurderede ligeledes, at en støtte består i en lettelse af de byrder, der normalt belaster virksomhedernes budget, idet der tages hensyn til den ordnings karakter eller opbygning, hvori de indgår, hvorimod en særlig byrde består i en meromkostning i forhold til de normale omkostninger [32].
The Court also held that an aid consists of a mitigation of the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking, taking account of the nature or general scheme of the system of charges in question, whereas a special charge is, on the contrary, an additional charge over and above those normal charges [32].
På baggrund af Domstolens retspraksis og i overensstemmelse med dens beslutningspraksis [33] mener Kommissionen, at betegnelsen »normal« eller »særlig« byrde indebærer, at der anvendes en referenceramme eller sammenligningsfaktor for at fastslå, hvilke virksomheder der befinder sig i en tilsvarende retlig og faktisk situation i lyset af den pågældende foranstaltnings målsætning.
In the light of the case-law of the Court, and in line with past practice [33] the Commission considers that in order to determine whether a charge is ‘normal’ or ‘special’ a reference framework or comparison must be defined, with the objective of identifying companies which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question.
I den forbindelse skal det understreges, at der ved anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, udelukkende skal tages stilling til, om en statslig foranstaltning som led i en bestemt retlig ordning kan begunstige »visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner«, jf. traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, i forhold til andre virksomheder, der under hensyntagen til det formål, som forfølges med den pågældende foranstaltning, befinder sig i en tilsvarende faktisk og retlig situation.
In this respect, it has to be recalled that, for application of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, the only question to be determined is whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State measure is such as to favour ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question.
Nærmere betegnet anfører Domstolen, at valget af referenceramme følger en totrinsstrategi. Først fastlæggelse af den udgiftsordning, der er berørt af den pågældende foranstaltning og dernæst fastlæggelse af den generelle ordning, som gælder for den omhandlede udgiftsordning.
More precisely, the Court indicates that the choice of the reference framework follows a two-step approach: firstly, the determination of the system of charges which is the object of the measure under assessment and, secondly, determination of the general scheme applicable to the system of charges in question.
Såfremt der kan afdækkes en relevant eksogen sammenligningsfaktor, hvorved det kan fastslås, at der er tale om »unormale« omkostninger, udgør den pågældende foranstaltning ikke statsstøtte, jf. traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
On the assumption that an appropriate external comparison can be identified, by reference to which the existence of ‘abnormal’ charges could be defined, the measure under assessment would not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
I modsat fald udgør den omhandlede foranstaltning en statsstøtte i henhold til samme bestemmelse.
If this is not the case, the measure under assessment would constitute State aid within the meaning of that provision.
Ingen eksogen sammenligningsfaktor i det foreliggende tilfælde
Absence of an external comparison in the present case
Efter anvendelse af denne metodik på den foreliggende sag mener Kommissionen, at den af den omhandlede foranstaltning berørte udgiftsordning består af socialsikringsbidrag betalt af en arbejdsgiver inden for rammerne af dennes medarbejderes obligatoriske aldersforsikring.
Applying this methodology to the case in question, the Commission considers that the system of charges concerned by the measure under assessment comprises social contributions paid by an employer into a mandatory pension scheme for employees.
Teoretisk set skelner Kommissionen mellem to potentielle referencerammer:
From a theoretical standpoint the Commission distinguishes between two potential reference frameworks:
bestemmelserne for obligatorisk aldersforsikring, der gælder for de almindelige pensionsordninger, dvs. socialsikringsordningen, der forvaltes af CNAV, og tillægsordningerne, der forvaltes af AGIRC og ARRCO
provisions relating to mandatory old-age pensions insurance applicable to statutory pension schemes, i.e. the social security scheme managed by CNAV and the complementary schemes managed by AGIRC and ARRCO,
bestemmelserne for obligatorisk aldersforsikring, som gælder for andre offentlige virksomheder.
provisions relating to mandatory old-age pensions applicable to other public enterprises.
Vedrørende den første mulige sammenligningsfaktor, dvs. de almindelige pensionsordninger, bemærker Kommissionen, at RATP siden den 1. januar 2006 har betalt et socialsikringsbidrag på niveau med det socialsikringsbidrag, virksomheder betaler til pensionskasser, som forvalter de almindelige ordninger.
With reference to the first potential basis for comparison, namely statutory pension schemes, the Commission notes that, since 1 January 2006, RATP has been paying a social contribution, the level of which is identical to the social contribution paid by companies affiliated to the pension funds responsible for statutory schemes.
Kommissionen bemærker imidlertid, at de ydelser, der pr. 1. januar 2006 er udbetalt til de ydelsesberettigede hos RATP fra den særlige ordning, som forvaltes af CRP-RATP, er højere end de ydelser, der gives til arbejdstagere tilknyttet de almindelige ordninger.
The Commission observes however that, at 1 January 2006, the benefits paid to RATP beneficiaries by the special scheme managed by the CRP-RATP are in excess of the benefits paid to employees affiliated to statutory schemes.
Endvidere konstaterer Kommissionen, at de, der er tilsluttet de almindelige ordninger, er overenskomstansatte, mens medarbejderne hos RATP er vedtægtsansatte.
Moreover, the Commission finds that the members of the statutory schemes are employees under private law contracts whereas the conditions of RATP employees are governed by service regulations.
I den forbindelse skal det nævnes, at de RATP-ansattes status på flere måder afviger fra de almindelige regler (jf. fodnote 6).
In this respect, it should be noted that the status of RATP staff diverges from statutory law in several respects (see footnote 6).
Kommissionen mener på baggrund af ovenstående overvejelser og sin beslutningspraksis [34], at de bestemmelser, der gælder for de almindelige obligatoriske aldersforsikringsordninger ikke kan tjene som sammenligningsfaktor i den analyse, Kommissionen foretager for at fastslå, om der foreligger en økonomisk fordel, jf. traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
In the light of the considerations set out above and its practice in previous decisions [34], the Commission considers that the provisions applicable to statutory schemes for mandatory old-age pensions cannot provide a basis for comparison in the analysis conducted by the Commission to determine the existence of an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
For så vidt angår den anden mulige sammenligningsfaktor, dvs. de offentlige virksomheder, har Kommissionen ikke kunnet påvise en ensartet gruppe af økonomiske aktører, der kan anvendes som sammenligningsfaktor.
With regard to the second possible basis for comparison, namely public enterprises, the Commission has not been able to identify a set of economic operators constituting a homogenous group which could provide a basis for comparison.
RATP er nemlig på mere end én måde i Frankrig i en meget speciel retlig og faktisk situation [35].
The situation of RATP in France is therefore very particular from the legal and factual point of view in more that one respect [35].
Kommissionen konkluderer, at der ikke findes en eksogen sammenligningsfaktor, som giver mulighed for at fastsætte et »normalt« bidrag for virksomheder, der befinder sig i samme retlige og faktiske situation som RATP med hensyn til den pågældende foranstaltnings mål
In conclusion, the Commission considers that there is no external basis for comparison which could be used to define a ‘normal’ contribution supported by undertakings in a legal and factual situation comparable to that of RATP in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question.
Enirisorse-dommen [36], som Frankrig anfører, ændrer ikke Kommissionens konklusioner om tilstedeværelsen af en fordel for RATP.
The Enirisorse [36] case, cited by France, does not change the Commission's conclusions as to the existence of an advantage in favour of RATP.
I den dom bygger Domstolen nemlig sin konklusion på en sammenligning af den omtvistede foranstaltning og en »normal situation«, som Domstolen kunne fastslå, men som ikke findes på lignende måde i den foreliggende sag.
In this case the Court based its conclusion on a comparison of the contested measure with a ‘normal situation’ which the Court had been able to define; a similar comparable situation does not exist in the present case.
Da der ikke findes nogen relevant eksogen sammenligningsfaktor, mener Kommissionen, at referencerammen for vurdering af, om der er tale om en fordel, jf. traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, vil være RATP’s egen situation inden gennemførelsen af foranstaltningen.
In the absence of an appropriate external comparison, the Commission considers that, in order to determine the existence of an advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, the reference framework for assessing the existence of the advantage is the situation of RATP itself prior to the implementation of the measure.
Tilstedeværelsen af en økonomisk fordel
Existence of an economic advantage
Som anført ovenfor var RATP inden for rammerne af den ordning, der var gældende før den 1. januar 2006, retligt forpligtet til at opfylde pensionsforpligtelserne under særordningen.
As indicated above, under the system in place before 1 January 2006, RATP was legally liable for the pension commitments under the special scheme.
Dermed var RATP garant for den pågældende ordnings finansielle ligevægt, idet det »arbejdsgiverbidrag«, RATP betalte til særordningen, ikke var frigørende.
In this capacity, 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 har konstateret, at den vigtigste effekt af bestemmelserne i den anmeldte reform var at give det »arbejdsgiverbidrag«, RATP betalte til sine medarbejderes pension, frigørende virkning.
The Commission has observed that the main effect of the provisions foreseen by the reform notified is to transform the ‘employer’ contribution paid by RATP for the pensions of its staff into a contribution discharging it from its obligations.
Kommissionen konkluderer derfor, at de omhandlede foranstaltninger fritager RATP for udgifter, som selskabet skulle have afholdt i henhold til ovennævnte lov fra 1948.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures under assessment relieve RATP of charges it would otherwise have had to bear under the provisions of the aforementioned 1948 law.
Med hensyn til en analyse af, om RATP’s pensionsudgifter skal betragtes som normale eller ej, mener Kommissionen, at de forpligtelser, en virksomhed selv har til at betale som fratrædelsesgodtgørelse og/eller førtidspension i henhold til lovgivningen på arbejdsmarkedsområdet eller kollektive overenskomster med fagforeningerne, er en del af de normale driftsomkostninger, en virksomhed skal dække ved hjælp af egne midler [37].
In the context of an analysis of the normal or abnormal nature of the retirement pension charges for RATP itself, the Commission considers that the obligations a company itself bears under employment legislation or collective agreements with trade unions to provide redundancy benefits and/or early retirement pensions are part of the normal costs of a business which a firm has to meet from its own resources [37].
Kommissionen mener på denne baggrund, at RATP’s pensionsudgifter i henhold til 1948-loven er normale omkostninger.
By extension, the Commission considers that the charges incumbent on RATP under the 1948 law are normal charges.
Da RATP gennem den pågældende foranstaltning undgår at skulle afholde omkostninger, som selskabet normalt skulle have afholdt over sine egne midler, mener Kommissionen, at foranstaltningen giver selskabet en økonomisk fordel, jf. traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
Consequently, since the measure under assessment enables RATP to avoid having to bear costs which would normally have had to be met out of the undertaking's own financial resources, the Commission considers that this measure confers an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Fordelen er selektiv, for den vedrører kun RATP.
This advantage is selective since it concerns a single beneficiary only.
Kommissionen konstaterer desuden, at RATP’s forpligtelse til at sikre finansiel ligevægt i særordningen uden den anmeldte reform ville have betydet, at RATP skulle have opført en forpligtelse over for staten, som der skulle være ydet dækning for i regnskabet ved overgangen til IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), som har været gældende for RATP siden den 30. juni 2007.
The Commission has further observed that in the absence of the reform notified the obligation to ensure the financial equilibrium of the special regime which had been incumbent upon RATP would have given rise to the entering of a commitment in respect of the State on the RATP balance sheet, which would have been provisioned in the accounts on the adoption of the IFRS standards (International Financial Reporting Standards), which have been applicable at RATP since 30 June 2007.
Dette element bekræfter, at oprettelsen af CRP-RATP begrænser de udgifter, RATP normalt skulle have afholdt.
This confirms that the creation of the CRP-RATP relieves RATP of charges that it would normally have had to bear.
Retspraksis fra Combus-sagen finder ikke anvendelse i den foreliggende sag
Inapplicability of the Combus ruling to the present case
De franske myndigheder gør detaljeret rede for Combus-dommen [38], hvori Retten betragtede »unormale« byrder som byrder, der skyldes de ansattes særlige status i en virksomhed, der som følge af en reform befinder sig i samme situation som sine konkurrenter, når det gælder personaleadministration. Retten anfører således, at »formålet med den pågældende foranstaltning var at erstatte den gunstige og bekostelige ordning, som gjaldt for de tjenestemandsansatte, der var beskæftiget af Combus, med overenskomstvilkår svarende til dem, der gjaldt for ansatte i andre busselskaber, som var i konkurrence med Combus. Formålet var altså at frigøre Combus for en strukturel ulempe i forhold til dets private konkurrenter.
The French authorities refer at length to the Combus [38] judgment, in which the Court of First Instance considered as ‘abnormal’ charges the charges resulting from a reform whereby the special status of the staff of an undertaking is transformed into a statutory status, therefore identical to that of its competitors in terms of the management of staff.
Artikel 87, stk. 1, EF tilsigter alene at forbyde de fordele, som favoriserer visse virksomheder, idet begrebet støtte kun omfatter indgreb, der letter de byrder, som normalt belaster en virksomheds budget, og som må betragtes som en økonomisk fordel, som den støttemodtagende virksomhed ikke ville have opnået på normale markedsvilkår. […]. I øvrigt ville den danske stat, i stedet for at udbetale beløbet på 100 mio. DKK direkte til de af Combus beskæftigede tjenestemænd, have kunnet opnå samme resultat ved at genplacere de pågældende tjenestemænd andetsteds i den offentlige forvaltning uden særlig godtgørelse, hvorved Combus ville have haft mulighed for straks fra begyndelsen at rekruttere personale på overenskomstvilkår.«
The Court stated that: ‘the measure in question had been introduced to replace the privileged and costly status of the officials employed by Combus with the status of employees on a contract basis comparable to that of employees of other bus transport undertakings competing with Combus. The intention was thus to free Combus from a structural disadvantage it had in relation to its private-sector competitors. Article 87(1) EC is aimed merely at prohibiting advantages for certain undertakings and the concept of aid covers only measures which lighten the burdens normally assumed in an undertaking's budget and which are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions. […]. Moreover, instead of paying the DKK 100 million directly to the officials employed by Combus, the Danish Government could have obtained the same result by reassigning those officials within the public administration, without paying any particular bonus, which would have enabled Combus to employ immediately employees on a contract basis falling under private law.’
Domstolen har således konstant fastslået, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der er tale om støtte, skal vurderes på grundlag af statsindgrebets virkninger og ikke på grundlag af dets årsager eller formål [39].
In this regard, the Court has constantly held that the existence of aid is to be assessed in relation to the effects and not in relation to the causes or objectives of State intervention [39].
Domstolen har også fastholdt, at begrebet støtte omfatter fordele, som de offentlige myndigheder giver en virksomhed, og som på forskellig måde letter de byrder, der normalt belaster en virksomheds budget [40].
The Court has also held that the concept of aid includes advantages granted by public authorities which, in various forms, reduce the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking [40].
Domstolen har også klart anført, at virksomhedernes lønomkostninger naturligvis belaster deres budget, uanset om disse omkostninger skyldes lovgivning eller kollektive overenskomster [41].
The Court has also clearly stated that the costs linked to remuneration of employees naturally place a burden on the budgets of undertakings, irrespective of whether or not those costs stem from legal obligations or collective agreements [41].