natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under henvisning til disse oplysninger er der grund til at undersøge, om princippet om overførsel af gæld til staten eller til en anden offentligretlig juridisk person i tilfælde af likvidation finder anvendelse på La Poste, eftersom denne sidestilles med en offentlig erhvervsvirksomhed, også selv om La Poste ikke har en offentlig regnskabsfører.
In the light of the foregoing, and despite the fact that La Poste does not have a public accountant, it should be examined whether, in the event of a winding up, the principle of the transfer of the debts to the State or to another legal entity governed by public law is applicable to La Poste given that it is treated as equivalent to an EPIC.
Derfor ville fordringshaver have garanti for ikke at miste sin fordring og ville kunne nøjes med en mindre rente eller bevilge gunstigere betingelser og betalingsfrister, end hvis denne garanti ikke forelå.
If that were the case, creditors would be assured of not losing the money they are owed and could make do with a lower rate of interest or grant more favourable payment terms and conditions than they would if there were no such assurance.
En sådan overførsel ville derfor have de samme virkninger som en garanti.
Such a transfer would therefore have the same effects as a guarantee.
DIREKTE ADGANG TIL STATSKASSENS KONTI
DIRECT ACCESS TO TREASURY ACCOUNTS
Stadig ifølge Fitch»er ERAP's likviditet garanteret gennem virksomhedens direkte adgang til statskassens forskudskonti«.
Again according to Fitch, ERAP’s liquidity is guaranteed by its instant access to Treasury imprest accounts.
Eftersom ERAP er en offentlig erhvervsvirksomhed, er der grund til at undersøge, om også La Poste kan få adgang til statskassens forskudskonti.
As ERAP is an EPIC, the access which La Poste might also have to Treasury imprest accounts should be examined.
DE FRANSKE MYNDIGHEDERS BEMÆRKNINGER OG FORSLAG
OBSERVATIONS AND PROPOSALS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
DE FRANSKE MYNDIGHEDERS BEMÆRKNINGER
OBSERVATIONS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
De franske myndigheder anfægter på den ene side, at der foreligger en garanti, og på den anden, at der er tale om en fordel for La Poste.
The French authorities dispute the existence of both a guarantee and an advantage for La Poste.
MANGLENDE GARANTI
ABSENCE OF GUARANTEE
Ifølge de franske myndigheder er de offentlige virksomheder ikke omfattet af en automatisk garanti i kraft af deres status (A) og yderligere er Kommissionens ræsonnement i indledningsbeslutningen forkert (B).
First, according to the French authorities, publicly owned establishments do not enjoy an automatic guarantee because of their legal form (A) and, second, the Commission’s argument in the opening decision is flawed (B).
Offentlige virksomheder er ikke omfattet af en automatisk garanti i kraft af deres status.
Publicly owned establishments do not enjoy an automatic guarantee because of their legal form.
For det første findes der ingen retsakt, og heller ingen beslutning, der knæsætter princippet om, at staten principielt og ubegrænset skulle garantere offentlige erhvervsvirksomheders gæld.
First, no legislation or decision lays down the principle that the State would, out of principle, indefinitely guarantee the debts of EPICs.
For det andet er der ifølge retspraksis ingen garantier.
Second, the courts have found against the existence of guarantees.
For det tredje fastsættes det i organisk lov af 1. august 2001 om finanslovene (i det følgende benævnt »LOLF«), at der kun ved en finanslovsbestemmelse kan indføres en garanti.
Third, the Organic Law of 1 August 2001 governing the Finance Act (‘LOLF’) lays down that only a provision of a finance act can create a guarantee.
Ifølge de franske myndigheders ekspert har der derfor ikke siden den fuldstændige ikrafttræden af LOLF den 1. januar 2005 lovligt kunnet gives en implicit garanti.
Accordingly, according to the French authorities’ expert, it has been legally possible to give an implied guarantee since the full entry into force of the LOLF on 1 January 2005.
Den gæld, La Poste har stiftet siden den 1. januar 2005, skulle således ikke være omfattet af en implicit garanti.
Debts contracted by La Poste since 1 January 2005 are not, therefore, covered by an implied guarantee.
Med hensyn til gæld stiftet før den 1. januar 2005 mener de franske myndigheders ekspert, at det i mangel af en anfægtet afgørelse ikke kan fastslås, om man kan se bort fra ugyldigheden af de implicitte garantier, som blev givet før den 1. januar 2005, og som ikke var udtrykkeligt bemyndiget i finansloven, eller ej, af hensyn til respekten for kreditorernes forfatningssikrede rettigheder.
As for debts incurred before 1 January 2005, the French authorities’ expert takes the view that, in the absence of a court judgment, it is impossible to determine whether the lapsing of the implied guarantees given before 1 January 2005, the giving of which was not expressly authorised by a finance act, could be rejected on the basis of respect for constitutionally protected creditors’ rights.
For det fjerde, hvis de offentlige erhvervsvirksomheder var omfattet af en statslig garanti, ville en ændring af deres status kræve iværksættelse af foranstaltninger til beskyttelse af fordringshavernes rettigheder.
Fourth, if EPICs enjoyed a state guarantee, the change in their legal form would require the introduction of new measures to protect creditors’ rights.
En sådan mekanisme er imidlertid aldrig blevet etableret.
Such a mechanism has never been introduced.
Omvendt gav staten ved omdannelsen pr. 1. januar 1991 af post- og telekommunikationsvæsenet til en selvstændig juridisk person (La Poste) ved bekendtgørelse af 31. december 1990 en eksplicit garanti for gæld, der var stiftet før den 31. december 1990 og overført til La Poste.
On the contrary, when the Administration of Posts and Telecommunications was converted into an independent legal entity (La Poste) on 1 January 1991, the State, by order (arrêté) of 31 December 1990, granted an express guarantee for debts incurred before 31 December 1990 and transferred to La Poste.
Det ville ikke have været nødvendigt, hvis La Poste som en virksomhed sidestillet med en offentlig erhvervsvirksomhed (EPIC) i henhold til vedtægterne var omfattet af en statsgaranti.
That would not have been necessary if La Poste, as an establishment equivalent to an EPIC, had enjoyed a statutory state guarantee.
Der er ligeledes vedtaget love og administrative forskrifter, hvorved visse aktiviteter under ERAP og Agence française du développement, som er to offentlige erhvervsvirksomheder (EPIC), har fået en statsgaranti.
Legislative and regulatory provisions granting a state guarantee to certain activities of ERAP and of the French Development Agency (Agence française du développement), both of which are EPICs, have also been adopted.
Endelig citerer de franske myndigheder en artikel af den tidligere retsformand for Conseil d ' Etats afdeling for tvistemål, Daniel Labetoulle.
Finally, the French authorities refer to an article by Mr Labetoulle, the former President of the litigation division of the Council of State.
Ifølge Labetoulle »er der juridisk set ingen automatik i bevillingen, fordelen og omfanget af denne garanti [en statsgaranti, der uden videre skulle gælde for statens offentlige erhvervsvirksomheder].«
According to Mr Labetoulle, ‘in law, there is nothing automatic about the granting, enjoyment and scope of this guarantee [a state guarantee that applies ipso jure to state-owned public establishments]’.
Kommissionens ræsonnement om, at der skulle foreligge en garanti, er forkert
The Commission’s argument concerning the existence of a guarantee is flawed
Tilbagebetalingen af individuelle fordringer er ikke garanteret
The reimbursement of individual claims is not guaranteed
Loven af 16. juli 1980 kan ikke være grundlag for en garanti
The Law of 16 July 1980 cannot form the basis of a guarantee
Ifølge de franske myndigheder giver loven af 16. juli 1980 tilsynsmyndigheden en substitutionsbeføjelse i forhold til ledelsen hos den person, den træder i stedet for.
According to the French authorities, the Law of 16 July 1980 grants the supervisory authority power of substitution for the executive of the person whom it replaces.
I den egenskab kan tilsynet kun udøve den pågældende ledelses kompetencer, som ikke omfatter muligheden for at råde over statens budget.
Therefore, the supervisory authority may exercise only the powers of that executive, which do not include the possibility of having access to the state budget.
Der fastsættes således ikke nogen forpligtelse for staten til at indgå forpligtelser med sine egne ressourcer i loven af 16. juli 1980.
The Law of 16 July 1980 does not, therefore, provide an obligation for the State to commit its own resources.
De franske myndigheder henviser ligeledes til retsvidenskabelige artikler.
The French authorities also refer to academic articles.
Ifølge disse artikler henviser udtrykket »sørger for det« i artikel 1 i lov af 16. juli 1980 til en »substitutionsbeføjelse«, hvorefter »substitutten principielt har de samme kompetencer som den substituerede«, idet tildelingen af en særlig støtte i øvrigt skulle ligge »uden for en substitutionsbeføjelse« og dermed ikke skulle være fastsat i lov af 16. juli 1980.
These articles point out that the expression ‘y pourvoit’ in Article 1 of the Law of 16 July 1980 refers to a power of ‘substitution’ in which ‘it is a matter of principle that the substitute has the same powers as the substitutee’, the granting of an exceptional subsidy being, moreover, ‘outside the scope of the power of substitution’ and therefore not provided for by the Law of 16 July 1980.
Endelig anfører de franske myndigheder Conseil d'Etats afgørelser af 10. november 1999 og 18. november 2005 vedrørende Campoloro-sagen.
Finally, the French authorities cite the decisions of the Council of State of 10 November 1999 and 18 November 2005 in the Campoloro case.
Statens objektive ansvar kan ikke gøres gældende alene begrundet i utilstrækkelige aktiver
It is not possible to incur the strict liability of the State solely on the ground of lack of assets
Endvidere hævder de franske myndigheder, at offentligretlige juridiske personers kreditorers muligheder for på restriktive betingelser at få kompensation ved at gøre ansvar gældende ikke kan sidestilles med en form for garanti.
Moreover, the French authorities assert that the possibilities of compensation opened by incurring liability, under restrictive conditions, to creditors of legal entities governed by public law cannot be considered equivalent to a form of guarantee.
Garantien forudsætter, at garanten påtager sig ansvaret for den garanteredes forhold.
A guarantee requires the guarantor to accept the fact of the guarantee.
Såfremt det drejer sig om at påtage sig ansvaret for forsømmelighed eller i tilfælde af objektivt ansvar for følgerne af egne foranstaltninger, kan der ikke være tale om garanti.
If it is a matter of incurring liability for a fault or, in the case of strict liability, the consequences of one’s own action, there can be no question of a guarantee.
Herefter anfører de franske myndigheder, at statens ansvar under alle omstændigheder ikke kan gøres gældende udelukkende med den begrundelse, at præfekten eller tilsynsmyndigheden ikke kunne træffe nogen foranstaltning til at muliggøre betaling af fordringen på grund af myndighedens eller den offentlige erhvervsvirksomheds finansielle og formuemæssige situation.
Then the French authorities maintain that, in any event, the liability of the State cannot be incurred on the sole ground that the Prefect or supervisory authority was unable to take any measures that could allow the claim to be repaid because of the financial and asset situation of the regional or local authority or publicly owned establishment.
Med hensyn til den — oven i købet grove — forsømmelighed kan præfektens eller tilsynsmyndighedens undladelse af at udnytte sine kompetencer ikke i sig selv være culpøs, når ingen foranstaltning giver myndigheden eller den offentlige virksomhed mulighed for at tilbagebetale fordringen.
First of all, in the field of fault — gross negligence at that — the failure by the Prefect or the supervisory authority to exercise their powers where no measure can enable the claim to be repaid by the regional or local authority or the publicly owned establishment cannot in itself constitute a fault.
Med hensyn til objektivt ansvar må det af mindst to årsager lades ude af betragtning.
With regard to strict liability, at least two aspects suggest the idea be dismissed:
For det første kan ansvaret hos den person, som der kræves erstatning fra, kun gøres gældende, hvis det forhold (herunder undladelse), han tilskrives, har været direkte årsag til tabet.
first, the liability of the person from whom compensation is sought can be incurred only if the fact (including an omission) of which he is accused was the direct cause of the injury.
Men i tilfælde af utilstrækkelige aktiver ville det tab, kreditor har lidt, ikke være forårsaget af den administrative myndigheds handling eller undladelse, men af den lokale myndigheds eller den offentlige virksomheds insolvens.
Now, in the case of lack of assets, the action or omission by the administrative authority would not be the cause of the injury suffered by the creditor, rather the insolvency of the regional or local authority or the publicly owned establishment,
For det andet er objektivt ansvar afledt af princippet om lige fordeling af offentlige byrder.
second, strict liability stems from the principle of equality before public burdens.
Ifølge de franske myndigheder kan det i den foreliggende sag imidlertid vanskeligt præciseres, hvordan det tab, kreditor har lidt, skulle udmønte sig i en ulige fordeling af offentlige byrder.
Now, according to the French authorities, in the case in point it is hard to see how the injury suffered by the creditor could lead to a breach of the principle of equality before public burdens.
For i modsætning til den sag, der førte til Couitéas-dommen, har ingen statslig myndighed i den foreliggende sag besluttet ikke at håndhæve dommen af hensyn til almenvellet.
Unlike the case that gave rise to the Couitéas case law, in the present case, no state authority decided not to execute the judgment for imperative reasons of public interest.
I den omhandlede sag var det praktisk umuligt for den offentlige myndighed at træffe foranstaltninger til at håndhæve retsafgørelsen og betale kreditorerne. Det var ikke umuligt på grund af tvingende almene hensyn.
The case in question is one where the public authority is faced with the practical impossibility of taking measures that would enable the court judgment to be executed and the creditors to be reimbursed, and not an impossibility determined on the grounds of requirements of the public interest.
Ifølge de franske myndigheder kan påberåbelse af ansvar på grund af ulige fordeling af offentlige byrder således ikke kun skyldes, at der konstateres insolvens.
According to the French authorities, liability for a breach of equality before public burdens cannot, therefore, be incurred simply because of insolvency.
Vedrørende Kommissionens argument i indledningsbeslutningens betragtning 59, hvori det hedder, »hvis statens repræsentant prioriterede opretholdelsen af kontinuiteten i den offentlige service over kreditors ret til at få betalt sin fordring, ville det ikke være udelukket, at statens objektive ansvar kunne gøres gældende«, erkender de franske myndigheder, at statens repræsentant skal opfylde kravet om kontinuitet i den offentlige service under udøvelse af proceduren i henhold til loven af 16. juli 1980.
With regard to the Commission’s argument, set out in recital 59 of its opening decision, that ‘if the representative of the State gave preference to maintaining the continuity of the public service over the right of the creditor to have his debt repaid, it cannot be excluded that the strict liability of the State could be incurred’, the French authorities recognise that the requirement of continuity of the public service is imposed on the representative of the State when implementing the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980.
Men selv om dommeren skulle træffe bestemmelse om erstatning til kreditor, ville en sådan erstatning ifølge de franske myndigheder sætte kreditor i den samme situation som efter de almindelige bestemmelser, eftersom det pågældende aktiv i sidstnævnte tilfælde ville være blevet solgt, og kreditorerne ville have fået det tilsvarende beløb.
Nonetheless, according to the French authorities, even if the judge were to order the creditor to be compensated, such compensation would have the effect of reinstating the creditor to the situation in which he would have been under ordinary law because, in this latter case, the good in question would have been sold and the body of creditors would have received the corresponding amount.
Kreditor ville derfor ikke have nogen fordel som følge heraf.
There would therefore be no advantage to the creditor.
Den manglende anvendelse af den almindelige procedure for rekonstruktion og likvidation i forbindelse med offentligretlige juridiske personer udelukker ikke muligheden for, at en offentlig erhvervsvirksomhed kan gå konkurs, eller at der kan indledes en konkursbehandling imod den
The inapplicability to legal entities governed by public law of administration and winding-up procedures under ordinary law does not exclude the possibility of the bankruptcy of an EPIC or of bankruptcy proceedings against it
Ifølge de franske myndigheder bygger Kommissionen sin analyse på sin meddelelse fra 2000 angående statsstøtte i form af garantier, nærmere bestemt pkt. 2.1.3, hvori det hedder, at »Kommissionen anser også de mere gunstige finansieringsvilkår, der opnås af virksomheder, hvis retlige form udelukker konkurs eller andre insolvensprocedurer eller indebærer en eksplicit statsgaranti eller statens dækning af tab, for at være støtte i form af en garanti«.
According to the French authorities, the Commission’s analysis is based on its 2000 Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees (‘the 2000 Guarantees Notice’), and in particular point 2.1.3 thereof, which provides that ‘The Commission also regards as aid in the form of a guarantee, the more favourable funding terms obtained by enterprises whose legal form rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures or provides an explicit State guarantee or coverage of losses by the State’.
De franske myndigheder bemærker, at traktatens regler har forrang for meddelelsen fra 2000 angående statsstøtte i form af garantier, og anfører samtidig to elementer, som efter deres mening gør den nævnte meddelelse irrelevant i den foreliggende sag:
While noting that the rules of the Treaty take precedence over the 2000 Guarantees Notice, the French authorities identify two factors which, in their view, remove the case in question from the scope of Notice:
i meddelelsen fra 2000 om statsstøtte i form af garantier lægges der vægt på, at den eventuelle støtte følger af »mere gunstige finansieringsvilkår«, der kan tilskrives, at muligheden for konkurs eller andre insolvensprocedurer udelukkes. Men Kommissionen har ikke påvist, at der foreligger sådanne »mere gunstige finansieringsvilkår«
the 2000 Guarantees Notice stresses the fact that any aid would arise from ‘more favourable funding terms’ that would be imputed to the exclusion of the possibility of bankruptcy proceedings; but the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of ‘more favourable funding terms’,
meddelelsen fra 2000 om statsstøtte i form af garantier omhandler det tilfælde, hvor den retlige form udelukker enhver konkurs eller insolvensprocedure og ikke en særlig procedure. Men Kommissionen har ikke fastslået, at La Poste ikke kan gå konkurs og heller ikke, at ingen insolvensprocedure er mulig.
the 2000 Guarantees Notice examines the case where the legal form excludes all bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings and not specific proceedings; but the Commission has not established that La Poste cannot go bankrupt, nor that insolvency proceedings are impossible.
Ifølge de franske myndigheder er lov af 25. januar 1985 imidlertid kun en proceslov.
According to the French authorities, the Law of 25 January 1985 is merely a procedural law.
Det forhold, at offentlige erhvervsvirksomheder ikke indgår i dens anvendelsesområde betyder ikke, at en offentlig erhvervsvirksomhed (EPIC) ikke kan gå i betalingsstandsning og heller ikke, at loven forbyder, at der iværksættes en rekonstruktions-, likvidations- eller konkursprocedure mod den ad hoc.
The fact that EPICs lie outside its scope does not mean that an EPIC cannot be in default, nor that the law prohibits administration, winding-up or ad hoc bankruptcy proceedings being taken against it.
Anvendelsen af den »procedure«, der blev indført med lov af 16. juli 1980 i stedet for den almindelige kollektive procedure, giver ikke kreditor nogen fordel
The application of the ‘procedure’ introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980, rather than the collective procedure under ordinary law, does not confer any advantage on the creditor
Efter analyse af betragtning 68 i indledningsbeslutningen konkluderer de franske myndigheder, at Kommissionen benytter to kriterier til at vurdere, om anvendelsen af en særlig insolvensprocedure skaber en fordel for den enhed, som underkastes den pågældende procedure, i forhold til virksomheder, der er omfattet af handelsretten:
The French authorities, having analysed recital 68 of the opening decision, conclude that the Commission uses two criteria to assess whether the application of a specific procedure in the event of insolvency confers an advantage on the entity subject to the procedure in relation to undertakings subject to commercial law:
et offentlighedskriterium: Den procedure, der skal følges, hvis La Poste bliver insolvent, skal defineres og offentliggøres
a criterion relating to publicity: the procedure to be followed in the event of La Poste’s insolvency should be defined and made public,
et ækvivalenskriterium: Denne procedure skal enten være en privatretlig procedure eller en procedure, der giver La Postes kreditorer rettigheder, som ikke er bedre end dem, de ville have under anvendelse af handelsretten.
a criterion relating to equivalence: this procedure should be either the private-law procedure or a procedure that gives the creditors of La Poste rights that are no better than those they would have under commercial law.
De franske myndigheder anfægter nødvendigheden af at opfylde disse to kriterier, men i den udstrækning, hvor Kommissionen anser disse kriterier for at være nødvendige og tilstrækkelige, anvender de franske myndigheder dem til at analysere, om anvendelsen af bestemmelserne i lov af 16. juli 1980 giver offentligretlige juridiske enheders kreditorer en fordel i forhold til kreditorer mod virksomheder, der er omfattet af almindelige bestemmelser om kollektive procedurer.
Although the French authorities challenge the need to fulfil these two criteria, in so far as they are regarded as necessary and sufficient by the Commission, they have been used by the French authorities to analyse whether the application of the provisions of the Law of 16 July 1980 confers an advantage on the creditors of legal entities governed by public law compared with the creditors of undertakings subject to collective procedures under ordinary law.
For så vidt angår offentlighedskriteriet, mener de franske myndigheder, at kreditvurderingsbureauerne korrekt identificerer proceduren i henhold til lov af 16. juli 1980 som gældende i tilfælde af en offentlig erhvervsvirksomheds insolvens, som det er anført i de af Kommissionen nævnte notater fra bureauerne i forbindelse med ERAP.
With regard to the criterion relating to publicity, the French authorities take the view that the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 is correctly identified by the rating agencies as applicable in the event of the insolvency of an EPIC, as reported by the rating agencies referred to by the Commission in relation to ERAP.