natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Naturligvis er dette pres blevet inddraget og analyseret som en svækkelse af den støtte, staten ville kunne yde La Poste. Det påvirker dermed kreditvurderingen.
Of course, these pressures are taken into account and analysed as a weakening of the support that the State could provide to La Poste: they therefore influence the rating.
Det er i øvrigt årsagen til, at kreditvurderingsbureauet Fitch den 4. oktober 2006 på dagen, hvor Kommissionen bad Frankrig bringe den ubegrænsede garanti til La Poste som offentligretlig juridisk person til ophør, nedjusterede sin vurdering (fra AAA stabil til AAA negativ) med den begrundelse, at man må fortolke »Europa-Kommissionens henstilling som det første håndgribelige tegn på pres på La Postes juridiske status og dermed på virksomhedens kreditvurderinger«, hvilket bekræfter, at den juridiske status er en central faktor.
Moreover, that is why, on 4 October 2006, the day the Commission recommended that France terminate the unlimited guarantee enjoyed by La Poste as a legal entity governed by public law, the rating agency Fitch lowered its rating (from AAA stable to AAA negative) on the grounds that ‘the European Commission’s recommendation’ had to be interpreted as ‘the first tangible sign of pressure on La Poste’s legal status and, therefore, on its rating’, which confirms that the legal status is a key factor.
For at illustrere nødvendigheden af at begrunde alt andet lige minder Kommissionen om, at S & P i samme vurdering fra 2007 ligeledes præciserede, at en ændring i La Postes ejerskabsstruktur (og dermed et tab af garantien) ville medføre en ændring i den metodologi, der anvendes for at fastlægge kreditvurderingen, men at denne ændring ikke nødvendigvis ville føre til en ændring af kreditvurderingen af La Poste på grund af den forventede forbedring af La Postes egen situation i de kommende år.
In order to illustrate the need to argue on the basis of the ceteris paribus assumption, the Commission would point out that S & P, in the same note from 2007, also spelled out that a change in La Poste’s ownership structure (and hence a loss of the guarantee) would lead to a change in the methodology applied to determine the rating, but that the change would not necessarily lead to a change in the La Poste’s rating given the expected improvement in La Poste’s stand — alone situation in the coming years.
Det synes at bekræfte, at La Poste uden denne status skal forbedre sin egen situation for at opretholde den samme vurdering.
This seems to confirm that in the absence of this status, La Poste would have to improve its stand-alone situation to maintain the same rating.
Hvis La Postes egen situation forblev konstant, burde en nedsættelse af statens støtte til La Poste derimod føre til en nedskrivning af virksomhedens kreditvurdering .
However, assuming that La Poste’s stand-alone situation were to remain constant, the weakening in the state support given to La Poste would lead to its rating being downgraded .
De franske myndigheders argumenter om, at La Postes status og den deraf følgende garanti ikke er de eneste elementer, kreditvurderingsbureauerne tager i betragtning, rokker på ingen måde ved Kommissionens bevisførelse
The French authorities’ arguments intended to demonstrate that La Poste’s legal status and the resulting guarantee are not the only factors taken into consideration by the rating agencies in no way invalidate the Commission’s argument
De fleste af de franske myndigheders bemærkninger, der har til formål at vise den påståede »manglende virkning af garantien på kreditvurderingen af La Poste«, viser udelukkende, at garantien ikke er det eneste element, kreditvurderingsbureauerne tager i betragtning.
Most of the observations made by the French authorities intended to demonstrate the alleged ‘absence of effect of the guarantee on La Poste’s rating’ simply amount to demonstrating that the guarantee is not the only factor taken into account by the rating agencies.
Imidlertid anerkender Kommissionen dette punkt, det rokker på ingen måde ved det forhold, at kreditvurderingsbureauerne tager garantien i betragtning, når de fastlægger postvirksomheders kreditvurdering.
The Commission accepts this point: it in no way invalidates the finding that the guarantee is taken into account by the rating agencies when determining the rating of postal operators.
Endvidere ræsonnerer de franske myndigheder ikke alt andet lige.
Moreover, the French authorities do not argue on the basis of the ceteris paribus assumption.
De franske myndigheders argumenter fra kreditvurderingsbureauernes doktrin om kreditvurdering af postvirksomheder
Arguments by the French authorities drawn from the rating agencies’ doctrine on the rating of postal entities
De franske myndigheder gennemgår den metodologi, kreditvurderingsbureauerne benytter, på grundlag af S & P's vurdering af statsstøttens indflydelse på vurderingen af postvirksomheder.
The French authorities examine the methodology used by the rating agencies set out in the S & P note on the influence of government support on the ratings of postal operators.
De understreger, at tilhørsforholdet til kategori 1 i den klassificering, S & P beskriver, opfylder brede kriterier, men omtaler ikke den vurderede virksomheds status.
They stress that, in the classification described by S & P, qualification for category 1 is based on broad criteria but does not refer to the status of the operator being rated.
De franske myndigheder konkluderer heraf, at status ikke udgør et vigtigt analyseelement for kreditvurderingsbureauerne.
The French authorities conclude that legal status is not an important factor for the rating agencies.
Kommissionen anfægter denne analyse og anfører, at S & P klart definerer virksomhedernes status som et af de centrale elementer til at vurdere omfanget af statsstøtten (jf. betragtning 264-267 om S & P's metodologi).
The Commission challenges this analysis and points out that S & P clearly defines the legal status of operators as one of the key factors in assessing the strength of state support (see paragraphs 264-267 on S & P methodology).
Endvidere understreger de franske myndigheder, at S & P klassificerede det italienske postvæsen i samme kategori som La Poste, selv om det har en privatretlig status og økonomiske resultater, der ikke berettigede en klassificering i denne kategori.
Moreover, the French authorities stress that the Italian Post Office was classified by S & P in the same category as La Poste, even though it is governed by private law and its financial performance does not justify its being classified in this category.
Den kendsgerning, at et kreditvurderingsbureau kan betragte en postvirksomhed med privatretlig status, in casu Poste Italiane, som omfattet af en stærk statsstøtte og klassificere den i samme kategori som La Poste, rokker på ingen måde ved Kommissionens bevisførelse, som sigter mod at fastslå, at der foreligger en garanti i kraft af La Postes status, der tages i betragtning af kreditvurderingsbureauerne.
The finding that a postal operator governed by private law, namely Poste Italiane, may be regarded by a rating agency as enjoying strong state support and classified in the same category as La Poste in no way invalidates the Commission’s argument to establish that the existence of a guarantee dependent on La Poste’s legal status is taken into account by the rating agencies.
Kommissionen erkender nemlig, at postvirksomheder som Poste Italiane kan få en klassificering i samme kategori som La Poste uden at være omfattet af en garanti, eftersom andre oplysninger dokumenterer, at de også får en stærk statsstøtte.
The Commission recognises that postal entities such as Poste Italiane may be classified in the same category as La Poste without enjoying a guarantee because other factors show that they also have strong state support.
For at påvise, at garantien ikke har nogen indflydelse på kreditvurderingen, skulle man have påvist, at Poste Italiane og La Poste var i en strengt sammenlignelig situation med hensyn til de forskellige elementer, kreditvurderingsbureauerne tager i betragtning for at anslå statsstøtten, og at den eneste forskel mellem de to virksomheder er, at der foreligger en garanti til fordel for La Poste.
In order to demonstrate that the guarantee has no influence on the rating, it would have to be shown that Poste Italiane and La Poste were in a strictly comparable situation with regard to the different factors taken into account by the rating agencies to estimate the level of state support and that the only difference between them was the existence of a guarantee enjoyed by La Poste.
For at sammenligningen kan give mening, er det med andre ord nødvendigt at fastslå, at »alt andet er lige«, hvilket de franske myndigheder ikke har gjort.
In other words, in order for the comparison to be meaningful, it must be shown that ceteris paribus applies, which the French authorities have not done.
Selv om de franske myndigheder havde påvist, at Poste Italianes og La Postes situationer er fuldstændig sammenlignelige — bortset fra, at der foreligger en garanti til fordel for det franske postvæsen — (hvilket ikke blev påvist), bemærkes det desuden, at S & P under alle omstændigheder foretager en anden vurdering af den grad af støtte, den italienske stat og den franske stat yder til deres respektive postvæsener.
Moreover, even if the French authorities had demonstrated that the situations of Poste Italiane and La Poste are strictly comparable — apart from the existence of a guarantee in favour of the French Post Office (which has not been demonstrated) — it should be noted in any event that S & P has a different assessment of the degree of support provided by the Italian and French States to their respective post offices.
Faktisk anser S & P den potentielle støtte, den italienske stat yder Poste Italiane for »stærk«, mens støtten fra den franske stat til La Poste anses for »særdeles stærk«.
S & P takes the view that the potential support provided by the Italian State to the Italian Post Office is ‘strong’, whereas the support provided by the French State to La Poste is ‘extremely strong’.
Kommissionen udelukker ikke, at man i denne forskel i vurdering skal se indflydelsen fra den garanti, hvis eksistens S & P anfører i samme vurdering lige efter påstanden om, at La Poste er omfattet af en særdeles stærk støtte.
The Commission does not rule out that this difference in assessment should be seen as the influence of the guarantee, whose existence was recalled by S & P in the same note just after the confirmation that La Poste enjoyed extremely strong support.
Under alle omstændigheder er der ikke grund til at drage konklusioner om årsagerne til, at Poste Italiane på et givet tidspunkt er blevet klassificeret i samme kategori som La Poste.
In any event, there are no grounds for drawing any conclusions about the reasons why the Poste Italiane was, at a particular moment, classified in the same category as La Poste.
Dels vedrører denne procedure ikke disse årsager.
First, the current proceedings do not address those reasons.
Dels gør de mange elementer, kreditvurderingsbureauerne skal tage i betragtning i deres evaluering det ikke muligt at konkludere noget om den specifikke virkning af, om der foreligger en lovbestemt garanti i sidste instans eller ej.
Second, the many different factors that the rating agencies have to take into account in their assessments means that it is not possible to draw conclusions about the specific effect on the rating of the existence or otherwise of an ultimate statutory guarantee.
De franske myndigheders argumenter fra kreditvurderinger i den private sektor
Arguments by the French authorities drawn from ratings in the private sector
De franske myndigheder anfører, at »der er masser af tilfælde i den private sektor, hvor kreditvurderingen af et datterselskab hænger sammen med moderselskabets«.
The French authorities recall that ‘there are many cases in the private sector where the rating of a subsidiary is linked to the parent company’s rating’.
De konkluderer, at den tilgang derfor ikke udgør et særligt kendetegn ved den offentligretlige status.
They conclude that this type of approach is therefore not a specific feature of the status of a legal entity governed by public law.
Kommissionen anfægter ikke, at kreditvurderingen af et datterselskab kan hænge sammen med moderselskabets, også i den private sektor og især med den grad af støtte, moderselskabet formodes at være rede til at yde sit datterselskab, evt. i form af de garantiforpligtelser, førstnævnte påtager sig.
The Commission does not deny that the rating of a subsidiary may be linked to that of its parent company, including in the private sector, and in particular to the estimated degree of support that the parent company is willing to offer its subsidiary, which may possibly be reflected in guarantee commitments made by the parent.
Dette argument bekræfter kun Kommissionens analyse.
This argument serves only to confirm the Commission’s analysis.
Det illustrerer nemlig, at status som offentlig virksomhed samt den deraf følgende garanti er et element, der beviser statens støtte, som kreditvurderingsbureauerne har taget i betragtning ved kreditvurderingen af La Poste.
It illustrates that the status of établissement public and the resulting guarantee are factors demonstrating state support that have been taken into account by the rating agencies when rating La Poste.
De franske myndigheders argumenter fra kreditvurderingen af La Poste
Arguments by the French authorities drawn from La Poste’s rating
De franske myndigheder understreger ligeledes, at S & P i 2005 nedskrev kreditvurderingen af La Poste til AA- med stabile udsigter, selv om der ikke var sket nogen udvikling i status.
The French authorities also stress that in 2005 La Poste’s rating was downgraded by S & P to AA– with a stable outlook even though there had been no change to its legal status.
De franske myndigheder konkluderer, at La Postes kreditvurdering ikke kun er en følge af virksomhedens status.
The French authorities conclude that La Poste’s rating is not a consequence of its legal status.
De franske myndigheder anfører ligeledes, at de to elementer, S & P nævner i sin vurdering af La Poste af 3. april 2007 til støtte for kreditvurderingen, er public service-opgavernes økonomiske omfang og »strong shareholding backing« og ikke status.
The French authorities also point out that the two factors mentioned by S & P in support of the rating are the economic importance of the public service tasks and the strong shareholder backing, not the legal status.
Som anført ovenfor erkender Kommissionen, at eksistensen af en garanti ikke er det eneste element, kreditvurderingsbureauerne tager i betragtning, når de vurderer, hvor stor en støtte de offentlige myndigheder er rede til at yde en virksomhed i vanskeligheder.
As pointed out above, the Commission recognises that the existence of a guarantee is not the only factor taken into account by the rating agencies when assessing the degree of support that the public authorities are willing to provide to an undertaking in difficulty.
På grundlag af S & P's undersøgelse af statsstøttens indflydelse på postvirksomheders kreditvurderinger har Kommissionen ikke desto mindre vist, at kreditvurderingsbureauerne tager eksistensen af en garanti i betragtning som et væsentligt element af den støtte, staten yder La Poste.
In basing its argument on the S & P study on the influence of government support on the ratings of postal operators, the Commission has nonetheless shown that the existence of a guarantee is taken into account by the rating agencies as an essential component of the state support for La Poste.
I den forbindelse anfægter Kommissionen de franske myndigheders analyse af, at »strong shareholder backing«, som S & P nævner i sin vurdering af 3. april 2007, skulle adskille sig fra spørgsmålet om offentlig status og garanti.
In this regard, the Commission challenges the analysis by the French authorities that the strong shareholder backing referred to by S & P in its note dated 3 April 2007 is distinct from the question of the public status and of the guarantee.
Af undersøgelsen om statsstøttens indflydelse på kreditvurderingen af postvirksomheder fremgår det nemlig, at status og garanti ganske rigtigt er væsentlige elementer til at anslå den støtte, staten yder La Poste.
The study on the influence of government support on the ratings of postal operators shows that the legal status and the guarantee are indeed essential factors when estimating the level of state support for La Poste.
Kommissionen anfægter ligeledes de franske myndigheders fortolkning af vurderingen fra april 2007, hvorefter S & P udelukkende har valgt en top-down-metodologi på grundlag af sin hypotese om, at staten skulle forblive 100 % aktionær i La Poste på mellemlang sigt og på ingen måde på grundlag af La Postes offentligretlige status og den garanti, der er knyttet til den status.
The Commission also challenges the interpretation by the French authorities of the note dating from April 2007 stating that S & P chose a top-down methodology solely on the basis of its hypothesis that the State would remain a 100 % shareholder in La Poste over the medium term and not at all on the basis of La Poste’s status as an entity governed by public law and the guarantee associated with that status.
Kommissionen minder om, at en »sandsynlig kommende ændring i kapitalstrukturen«, som ifølge S & P ville medføre et tab af status som offentlig virksomhed og den dertil knyttede garanti, eksplicit indgår i S & P's vurdering.
The Commission would point out that the ‘likelihood of a change in the group’s capital structure’ which, according to S & P, would lead to the loss of the status of a publicly owned establishment and the guarantee attached to that status, is explicitly taken into account by S & P in its rating.
Det er således klart, at det for S & P ikke kun er ændringen i kapitalstruktur, der er vigtig, men ligeledes følgevirkningerne (tab af offentlig status og garanti), idet ændringen af kapitalstruktur udgør det mest radikale skridt i La Postes bevægelse hen imod voksende autonomi i forhold til staten.
It is therefore clear that for S & P, it is not only the change in the capital structure that is important, but also the implications (loss of publicly owned establishment status and of the guarantee); the change in capital structure is the most far-reaching step in the La Poste’s increasing independence from the State.
De finansieringsvilkår, La Poste rent faktisk opnåede
The borrowing terms actually obtained by La Poste
De franske myndigheder gør gældende, at Kommissionens meddelelse om garantiens eksistens og snarlige ophævelse som følge heraf ikke har påvirket La Postes finansieringsvilkår.
The French authorities argue that the announcement by the Commission of the existence of the guarantee and of its imminent removal as a result have had no effect on La Poste’s financing terms.
La Poste opnåede nemlig ved emissionen af et obligationslån i oktober 2006, lige efter Kommissionens bebudelse af henstillingen om formålstjenlige foranstaltninger, et spread på 12 basispoint over mid swap for en emission over 15 år og på 4 basispoint for emissionen over 7 år.
During the bond issue in October 2006, just after the Commission’s announcement of its recommendation that measures be taken, La Poste obtained a mid-swap spread of 12 basis points for the 15-year bond and 4 basis points for the 7-year bond.
Men den foregående obligationsemission, der blev foretaget i 2004, vedrørte en 15-årig obligation og havde ført til et spread på 8 basispoint over mid swap.
In 2004, on the occasion of the previous bond issue of a 15-year bond, the mid-swap spread was 8 basis points.
De franske myndigheder konkluderer, at La Postes finansieringsbetingelser ikke bygger på, om der retligt eller faktisk foreligger en garanti.
The French authorities conclude that La Poste’s financing terms were not based on the de jure or de facto existence of a guarantee.
Kommissionen mener, at de franske myndigheders konklusion om, at Kommissionens meddelelse ikke har haft nogen virkning på finansieringsbetingelserne er ubegrundet, eftersom man tværtimod kan konstatere en forværring af spreadet, der stiger fra 8 point til 12 point.
The Commission takes the view that the French authorities’ conclusion that the Commission’s announcement had no effect on the financing terms is unfounded since, on the contrary, the spread deteriorated, moving from 8 to 12 basis points.
Selv om spreadet skulle være faldet, hvilket ikke er tilfældet, har Kommissionen sine tvivl om, hvilke konklusioner man kan drage med hensyn til Kommissionens meddelelses indflydelse på La Postes finansieringsomkostninger, idet investorerne også tager mange andre elementer i betragtning som f.eks. La Postes finansielle struktur, der har kunnet udvikle sig mellem 2004 og 2006.
In addition, even assuming that the spread had been reduced, which is not the case, the Commission had misgivings about the conclusions that could be drawn about the influence of the Commission’s announcement on La Poste’s financing costs, since many other factors are also taken into account by investors, for example La Poste’s financial structure, which changed between 2004 and 2006.
Selv om finansieringsbetingelserne havde været de samme før og efter Kommissionens meddelelse, eller hvis forskellen ikke havde været væsentlig, ville det i øvrigt heller ikke på nogen måde bevise, at garantien ikke påvirker finansieringsbetingelserne.
Moreover, even if the financing terms before and after the Commission’s announcement had been identical, or if the difference had not been significant, that would not prove that the guarantee does not influence borrowing terms.
På tidspunktet for den emission, de franske myndigheder nævner, blev garantien til La Poste nemlig kaldt for eksisterende støtte.
At the time of the bond issue referred to by the French authorities, the guarantee enjoyed by La Poste was classified as State aid.
Den forblev derfor gyldig og dækkede emissionerne.
It therefore remained valid and covered the bond issues.
Garantien bliver i givet fald først en ulovlig støtte, fra den dato, der i denne afgørelse fastsættes for dens ophævelse.
The guarantee becomes illegal aid, if that is the case, only from the date set by this decision for it to be withdrawn.
Eftersom Kommissionen har påvist, at garantien som følge af La Postes status kan give virksomheden en fordel på grund af den positive indflydelse på dens kreditvurdering, mener Kommissionen endelig ikke, at den behøver påvise de konkrete virkninger, garantien tidligere har haft.
Lastly, provided that the Commission has demonstrated that the guarantee deriving from La Poste’s legal status is likely to provide an advantage to La Poste because of the positive impact on its rating, the Commission takes the view that it does not have to demonstrate the specific effects that the guarantee has had in the past.
Det er nemlig et fast princip i reglerne om statsstøtte, at Kommissionen ikke skal bevise støttens faktiske virkninger, fordi medlemsstater, der ikke anmelder støtten, i så fald ville få en fordel i forhold til dem, der gør det.
It is an established principle of the State aid rules that the Commission does not have to prove the real effects of aid measures because in that case, the Member States which do not notify aid measures would be at an advantage compared to those that do.
En medlemsstat, der anmelder en ubegrænset garanti, ville få forbud mod ordningen alene på grund af dens potentielle virkninger, mens en stat, der ikke anmelder den, ville kunne forsvare sig ved at påvise, at garantien konkret ikke har givet garantimodtageren nogen fordel.
A Member State notifying an unlimited guarantee would have the measure prohibited because of its potential effects only, whereas a Member State which did not notify the aid would be able to defend itself by demonstrating that, in the specific case, the guarantee has not produced any advantages to the beneficiary.