natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionens ekspert supplerede ræsonnementet ved at undersøge, om der findes et almindeligt (implicit) princip for garanti for gæld, når selskabsdeltagerne eller medlemmerne i en struktur ikke indgår i en ramme, lovgiverne har opstillet, og fandt svaret i artikel 1871 ff. i civillovbogen.
The Commission’s expert has sought to complete the picture by considering whether there is an implicit principle of ordinary law governing the guaranteeing of debts in cases where the partners or members in an organisation have not chosen to join together in one of the legal forms offered by the legislature; the Commission’s expert finds an answer in Articles 1871 et seq. of the Civil Code.
Disse artikler behandler selskabsdeltagere, som ikke har registreret deres selskab.
These articles deal with partners who have not registered their partnership.
I artikel 1871-1 i civillovbogen fastsættes følgende mekanisme: »medmindre der er fastsat en anden ordning, reguleres forholdet mellem selskabsdeltagerne, så vidt det er fornuftigt, enten af bestemmelser for civilretlige selskaber, hvis selskabet er af civilretlig karakter, eller af bestemmelserne for interessentskaber, hvis det er af kommerciel karakter«.
Article 1871-1 provides as follows: ‘Unless another form of organisation has been provided for, the relations between partners are governed, to the extent reasonable, either by the rules applying to sociétés civiles, if the partnership is of a civil character, or, if the partnership is of a commercial character, by the rules applicable to sociétés en nom collectif’.
Men det blev præciseret ovenfor, at civilretlige selskaber og interessentskaber var nogle af de juridiske personer, hvis medlemmer hæfter ubegrænset for gælden.
It has been explained above that both of these forms of partnership are legal persons whose members have unlimited liability for their debts.
Eksperten konkluderer heraf, at, hvis der skal udledes et almindeligt princip, ville det være et princip om garanti for gælden i de juridiske personer, man opretter.
The expert concludes that in so far as there is a principle of ordinary law, it would be a principle whereby those who set up a legal person guarantee its debts.
I deres skrivelse fremsendt den 27. oktober 2009 anfægter de franske myndigheder denne konklusion.
In their memorandum of 27 October 2009, the French authorities dispute this view.
Denne siges ikke at bygge på nogen retsakt, idet henvisningen til artikel 1871-1 i civillovbogen vedrører »forholdet mellem selskabsdeltagere« og ikke til tredjemand.
The conclusion, they argue, is not based on any legislation, since the reference in Article 1871-1 of the Civil Code is concerned with ‘relations between partners’ and not relations with third parties.
Der hævdes således ikke at være nogen udtrykkelige bestemmelser, hvoraf man kan udlede et garantiprincip, medmindre man krænker retten til et forsvar, der gælder både i fransk ret og i EU-ret.
The legislation is silent on the matter, and its silence cannot be made to imply a principle of guarantee without infringing the rights of the defence that apply in French law and in the law of the Union.
Kommissionen anfører alligevel, at det i artikel 1872-1 i civillovbogen hedder, at hver deltager i et ikke-registreret selskab indgår aftaler i eget navn og alene er forpligtet over for tredjemand.
The Commission would observe, however, that Article 1871-1 of the Civil Code provides that every partner in an unregistered partnership contracts in his own name and is liable personally to third parties.
Hver selskabsdeltager er derfor ubegrænset ansvarlig for den gæld, han har stiftet.
Thus every partner has unlimited liability for the debts he has contracted.
Kommissionen ønsker naturligvis ikke af denne ene betragtning at udlede, at staten er ansvarlig for La Postes gæld, men mener ikke, at de franske myndigheders argument rokker ved dens eksperts argument om, at, hvis der skulle udledes et almindeligt princip, ville det være garantiprincippet.
The Commission does not seek to deduce from this one consideration that the State is liable for the debts of La Poste; but it does believe that the French authorities’ argument does not invalidate the Commission’s expert’s argument that in so far as there is a principle of ordinary law it would be a principle of guarantee.
Endvidere anfører Kommissionen, at de franske myndigheder i den forklarende notits, der var vedlagt notatet fra økonomi-, finans- og erhvervsministeren af 22. juli 2003, selv anfører parallellen mellem aktionærens ansvar for interessentskabet og statens ansvar for den offentligretlige erhvervsvirksomhed.
In addition, the Commission would point out that in the explanatory note attached to the memorandum of 22 July 2003 from the Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry, the French authorities themselves draw a parallel between the liability of a shareholder for a société en nom collectif and the liability of the State for a publicly owned establishment.
I modsætning til kreditorer i virksomheder, der er omfattet af handelsretten, risikerer La Postes kreditorer (eftersom selskabet ikke er omfattet af de almindelige regler for rekonstruktion og retslig likvidation af kriseramte virksomheder) ikke, at deres fordring bortfalder helt eller delvis efter en konkursbehandling
unlike the creditors of undertakings governed by commercial law, creditors of La Poste (which is not subject to the ordinary law rules governing the compulsory administration and winding up of firms in difficulty) are not in danger of seeing their claim cancelled in whole or in part following court liquidation proceedings;
La Postes status som juridisk person er ikke til hinder for en statsgaranti til fordel for La Poste
the fact that La Poste has legal personality is no bar to a state guarantee to La Poste; and
Da der ikke er nogen eksplicit begrænsning af statens ansvar for La Poste, kan La Postes kreditorer med rette påberåbe sig princippet om, at staten påtager sig La Postes gæld, selv om La Poste har status af juridisk person.
in the absence of any express limitation on the State’s liability in respect of La Poste, La Poste’s creditors may legitimately act on the principle that the State will bear the debts of La Poste, even though La Poste possesses legal personality.
Proceduren for inddrivelse af gæld i offentligretlige erhvervsvirksomheder, der er dømt ved en retsafgørelse som fastsat ved lov af 16. juli 1980, fører under ingen omstændigheder til bortfald af gælden
The procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 for the recovery of the debts of a publicly owned establishment that has been found by a court to be in default does not in any way lead to the cancellation of the debt
Kommissionen ønsker nu at undersøge proceduren for inddrivelse af gæld i offentligretlige erhvervsvirksomheder, der er dømt ved en retsafgørelse, med henblik på at fastslå, om den procedure kan føre til bortfald af fordringen mod La Poste med det samme resultat for kreditor som ved de retlige procedurer, således som de franske myndigheder hævder.
The Commission will now consider the procedure for the recovery of the debts of publicly owned establishments that have been found by a court to be in default, in order to determine whether the procedure can result in the extinction of a claim on La Poste, which would make the outcome for the creditor similar to that of insolvency proceedings in the courts, as the French authorities assert.
Denne procedure blev fastsat ved lov af 16. juli 1980 og forskellige gennemførelsesbestemmelser, der er anført i afsnittet om beskrivelse af foranstaltningen i nærværende afgørelse.
The procedure is laid down in the Law of 16 July 1980 and in implementing provisions which are cited in the section of this Decision describing the measure.
Lov af 16. juli 1980 giver staten betydelige beføjelser: anvisning på eget initiativ og tilvejebringelse af tilstrækkelige ressourcer
The Law of 16 July 1980 confers important prerogatives on the State: the mandatory payment order and the creation of sufficient resources
Som anført i beskrivelsen af foranstaltningen fastsættes det i lov af 16. juli 1980, at: »såfremt det besluttende organ hos myndigheden eller virksomheden ikke har frigjort eller tilvejebragt disse ressourcer, (…), sørger tilsynsmyndigheden herfor og skrider evt. til anvisning på eget initiativ«.
As has been explained in the description of the measure, the Law of 16 July 1980 provides that ‘if the decision-making body of the authority or establishment has not released or created the resources […] the supervisory authority shall do so, and if necessary shall issue a mandatory payment order’.
Endvidere præciseres det i dekret af 12. maj 1981, som på dette punkt ikke er ændret af dekretet fra 2008, at statens repræsentant eller tilsynsmyndigheden »frigør evt. de nødvendige ressourcer ved at sænke de bevillinger, der er afsat til andre udgifter og endnu ikke er brugt, eller ved at hæve ressourcerne«.
The Decree of 12 May 1981, which on this point remains unchanged by the amending Decree of 2008, states that the representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision ‘shall, as appropriate, release the necessary resources, either by reducing the appropriations allocated to other expenditures and still available, or by increasing resources’.
I henhold til lov af 16. juli 1980 og gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil udpeges staten således som kompetent myndighed til at inddrive offentlige erhvervsvirksomheders gæld.
Thus the Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it designate the State as the authority responsible for covering the debts of publicly owned establishments.
Endvidere giver den staten betydelige beføjelser: anvisning på eget initiativ og tilvejebringelse af tilstrækkelige ressourcer.
They also confer important prerogatives on the State: the mandatory payment order and the creation of sufficient resources.
De franske myndigheder gendriver, at de omhandlede ressourcer kunne være statsmidler.
The French authorities deny that the resources referred to here can ever be state resources.
Kommissionen erkender, at retsakterne ikke eksplicit fastsætter en forpligtelse for staten til at udbetale et særtilskud til en offentligretlig erhvervsvirksomhed i tilfælde af økonomiske vanskeligheder.
The Commission accepts that the legislation does not expressly require the State to subsidise a publicly owned establishment on an exceptional basis if it is in financial difficulty.
Det rokker på ingen måde ved påvisningen af, at der foreligger en implicit garanti.
This does not in any way invalidate the demonstration of the existence of an implied guarantee.
Kommissionen erkender ligeledes, at de ressourcer, der skal frigøres, først og fremmest er virksomhedens egne ressourcer.
The Commission also accepts that the resources to be released in the first place are the resources of the establishment itself.
Det er ikke til hinder for, at man kan konstatere, at den offentligretlige debitorvirksomheds gæld kun kan betales med statsmidler, når de egne ressourcer er opbrugt.
But this does not prevent a finding that once a publicly owned establishment’s own resources are exhausted its debts can be honoured only out of state funds.
Denne konstatering er i overensstemmelse med den kendsgerning, at en garantimekanisme er subsidiær i den forstand, at debitors ressourcer mobiliseres før hans garants.
Such a finding is consistent with the fact that a guarantee mechanism is a subsidiary mechanism, in that the debtor’s own resources are called upon before those of the guarantor.
I loven af 16. juli 1980 og gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil fastsættes der ingen likvidations-bortfaldsprocedure, hvor forpligtelserne bortfalder. Den utilstrækkelige likviditetssituation dækkes eller er kun midlertidig
The Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it do not lay down a procedure for liquidation with cancellation of obligations: a shortage of funds will be covered, or will be only temporary
Kommissionen vil nu undersøge de franske myndigheders fortolkning om, at visse kreditorer ved udløbet af den ved lov af 16. juli 1980 fastsatte procedure vil kunne opleve, at deres fordring bortfalder uden klageadgang, og at deres situation vil være den samme som kreditorer i virksomheder, der er omfattet af retlige procedurer.
The Commission will now consider the interpretation of the French authorities which maintains that at the end of the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 some creditors may see their claim irrevocably cancelled, and that their situation is equivalent to that of creditors of undertakings subject to court proceedings.
Kommissionens ekspert anfører, at loven af 16. juli 1980 og gennemførelsesdekretet hertil bidrager til at påvise, at kun to hypoteser er tænkelige i tilfælde af utilstrækkelige bevillinger: enten frigør tilsynsmyndigheden de nødvendige ressourcer, eller også udsættes betalingen.
The Commission’s expert observes that the Law of 16 July 1980 and the Decree implementing it support the view that in the event that funds are insufficient there are only two possibilities open: either the supervising authority releases the necessary resources, or the payment is deferred.
På intet tidspunkt tyder proceduren på, at den skulle indstilles i tilfælde af varig utilstrækkelig likviditet.
At no stage does the procedure indicate that in the event of a continuing insufficiency of funds the debt will come to an end.
For selv om situationen med utilstrækkelige bevillinger er medtaget i loven af 16. juli 1980 og gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil, formodes denne situation kun at være midlertidig, mens man afventer, at der tilvejebringes supplerende ressourcer, som er den eneste udgang, der tages højde for i teksterne.
The Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it do provide for a situation where funds are insufficient, but they treat this situation as a temporary one, pending the creation of additional resources, which is the only outcome they envisage.
Det tages ikke på noget tidspunkt i betragtning, at denne tilvejebringelse af supplerende ressourcer kan være umulig eller utilstrækkelig.
At no stage do they contemplate a situation where the creation of additional resources is impossible or the resources thereby created are in turn insufficient.
Efter denne etape, hvor der tilvejebringes ressourcer, fremgår det af retsakterne, at den kompetente myndighed foretager anvisningen på eget initiativ.
After the creation of resources, the legislation indicates that the responsible authority is to issue a mandatory payment order.
Ovennævnte cirkulære fra 1989 er endnu mere præcist angående de utilstrækkelige bevillinger, idet det understreges, at de nødvendigvis er af midlertidig karakter, eftersom det i så fald er nødvendigt at meddele kreditor den saldo, der senere vil blive anvist.
The 1989 circular referred to above is more precise with regard to a shortage of funds, stressing that it is necessarily of a temporary character, since the creditor must be informed of the balance that will be paid later.
Kommissionens ekspert siger, at »ved gennemlæsning af teksterne kan kreditorerne få sikkerhed for, at deres fordring vil blive indfriet senere, hvis den ikke honoreres med det samme«.
According to the Commission’s expert, ‘from a reading of this legislation, creditors can conclude that if their claim is not met immediately it will be met at a later date’.
Desuden bemærker Kommissionens ekspert med rette, at proceduren i henhold til fransk ret udelukkende er en procedure til inddrivelse af fordringer og ikke en konkursbehandling.
The Commission’s expert also rightly observes that the procedure laid down by French law is a procedure only for the recovery of claims, and not for winding up.
Når det drejer sig om privatpersoner, er betalingsstandsning ifølge retsakterne knyttet til likvidation.
In the case of private persons the legislation links cessation of payments to winding up.
Således kan risikoen for en betalingsstandsning udløse en beskyttelsesprocedure, og retslig likvidation præsenteres udtrykkeligt som følgen af en betalingsstandsning.
The prospect of a cessation of payments may be grounds for a suspension of payments, and a cessation of payments is expressly stated to be grounds for winding up under the supervision of the court.
Ved at skjule betalingsstandsningssituationen og ikke på nogen måde knytte den til likvidationssituationen, når det drejer sig om offentligretlige personer i almindelighed og offentligretlige erhvervsvirksomheder i særdeleshed, lader lovgiverne og forvaltningen derimod kreditorerne forstå, at deres fordringer vil blive indfriet ubegrænset, i givet fald af en tredjemand som staten.
But in the case of public bodies in general, and publicly owned establishments in particular, the legislature and the regulatory authorities have passed over the situation of cessation of payments, without linking it to any form of winding up, and have thus given creditors to understand that their claims will be honoured without limitation, if necessary by a third party such as the State.
Endelig bemærker Kommissionens ekspert, at reformen fra 2008, der kom efter vedtagelsen af indledningsbeslutningen, ikke har fået de franske myndigheder til at præcisere, at de ressourcer, som skal frigives, skal være den offentligretlige erhvervsvirksomheds egne ressourcer og ikke kan være statsmidler.
Lastly, the Commission’s expert observes that in the course of the reform of 2008, which took place after the opening decision in these proceedings, the French authorities did not take the opportunity to make it clear that the resources to be released had to be the establishment’s own, and that state resources would not be drawn upon.
En sådan præcisering kunne ellers have været et stærkt signal til kreditorerne på et tidspunkt, hvor Kommissionen gennem sine procedurer udtrykkeligt knyttede en statsgaranti til den mangelfulde formulering i retsakterne.
Such a clarification would have sent a strong signal to creditors at a time when in proceedings initiated by the Commission an express link was being made between a state guarantee and the vague wordings in the legislation.
Når den franske stat ikke har givet den nødvendige præcisering, støtter det påstanden om, at den ikke ønsker at dementere, at den kan tænkes selv at stille de nødvendige ressourcer til rådighed.
The fact that the necessary clarification was not supplied supports the affirmation that the French State does not wish to deny that it may supply the necessary resources itself.
I deres skrivelse fremsendt den 27. oktober 2009 fastholder de franske myndigheder, at påstanden fra Kommissionens ekspert om, at »ved gennemlæsning af retsakterne kan kreditorerne få sikkerhed for, at deres fordring vil blive indfriet senere, hvis den ikke honoreres med det samme«, bygger på en fordrejet læsning af teksterne, som — ud over, at der er tale om akter under lovniveau (cirkulærer) — på ingen måde gør det muligt at fastslå, at statsmidler evt. kan træde i stedet for virksomhedens egne.
In the memorandum they sent on 27 October 2009, the French authorities argue that the statement of the Commission’s expert that ‘from a reading of this legislation, creditors can conclude that if their claim is not met immediately it will be met at a later date’ rests on a biased reading of the relevant wordings: apart from the fact that these are merely circulars, rather than statutes or regulations, there is nothing in them to show that state resources are to be substituted for those of the publicly owned establishment.
Intet forbyder offentligretlige erhvervsvirksomheder i midlertidigt at lukke, så kreditorerne ikke kan få dem til at betale deres gæld.
There is no reason why publicly owned establishments should not become dormant, leaving their creditors unable to force them to pay their debts.
De franske myndigheder mener i øvrigt, at offentligretlige erhvervsvirksomheder kan undlade at indfri deres fordring uden af den grund automatisk at gå i betalingsstandsning.
In addition, the French authorities take the view that publicly owned establishments could fail to meet a claim without automatically being in a state of cessation of payments.
Kommissionen vil nu undersøge, om det er lovligt muligt, at en offentligretlig erhvervsvirksomhed, der er dømt ved en retskraftig domstolsafgørelse til at betale et beløb, midlertidigt lukkes, og at fordringen aldrig indfries, således som de franske myndigheder hævder.
The Commission will now consider whether, once a court has ordered a publicly owned establishment to pay a sum of money, and the order is no longer open to appeal, it is legally possible for the establishment to be allowed to fall into dormancy, with the result that the claim will never be honoured, as the French authorities contend.
Bestemmelserne i loven af 16. juli 1980 og gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil forpligter staten.
The Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it are binding on the State.
I det mindst gunstige scenario for kreditor skal staten i henhold til disse retsakter oplyse kreditor om, hvilket beløb der vil blive anvist senere.
In the case least favourable to the creditor, they require the State to inform the creditor of the balance that will be paid later.
Hvis der ikke sker nogen betaling efterfølgende, har kreditor altid den mulighed at drage staten til ansvar (dette punkt vil blive uddybet i afsnit 3 i nærværende afgørelse).
If no payment follows, the creditor can always claim that the State is liable (this point will be developed in Section 3 below).
På disse betingelser vil den teoretiske hypotese om midlertidig lukning under alle omstændigheder ikke føre til bortfald af gælden.
On the theoretical hypothesis that the debtor were to become dormant, therefore, the debt would not in any event be extinguished.
I øvrigt har de franske myndigheder ikke fremlagt noget konkret eksempel på, at denne situation er opstået.
In addition, the French authorities have not provided any specific example where this situation has actually arisen.
På grundlag af disse oplysninger konkluderer Kommissionen, at:
The Commission concludes as follows:
På grundlag af loven af 16. juli 1980 og gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil må kreditorerne formode, at de nødvendige ressourcer findes og altid vil findes til at betale deres fordring mod den offentligretlige juridiske enhed, idet den indeholder regler om udsættelse af anvisningen, men ingen regler om betalingsstandsning
The Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it provide for the deferral of a payment order, and nowhere envisage a cessation of payments, and thereby give creditors to understand that there are or that there will be the resources necessary to settle a claim they hold on a legal person governed by public law.
Det særlige tilskud fra staten til, at den offentligretlige erhvervsvirksomhed kan opfylde sine forpligtelser, er mulig og forekommer rent faktisk i visse retsakter
An exceptional subsidy can be envisaged that would be granted by the State to enable a publicly owned establishment to meet its obligations, and such a subsidy is in fact envisaged by certain legislation
I den forbindelse anførte Kommissionens ekspert, at:
The Commission’s expert observes that:
[…] [41] Dele af denne tekst er udeladt for at sikre, at der ikke meddeles nogen fortrolige oplysninger.
[…] [41] parts of this text have been omitted to ensure that confidential information is not disclosed.
Disse dele er anført med tre prikker i kantet parentes efterfulgt af en asterisk.
Those parts are indicated by three full stops enclosed in square brackets and marked with two asterisks.
Uden at denne påvisning er nødvendig for at fastslå, at garantien i kraft af La Postes status kan kvalificeres som statsstøtte, konstaterer Kommissionen, at virksomhedens egne ressourcer, der kan mobiliseres i tilfælde af utilstrækkelig likviditet, er begrænsede.
In order to establish that the guarantee arising out of La Poste’s legal form constitutes State aid, it is not necessary to show that the resources of its own that La Poste would be able to mobilise in the event of a shortage of funds are limited; but the Commission would nevertheless point out that this is in fact so.