natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
det er »rettigheder og forpligtelser«, der overføres, og ordet forpligtelser sigter helt sikkert til gælden.
it is the ‘rights and obligations’ that are transferred, with the term ‘obligations’ undoubtedly referring to debts.
I visse tekster bruges det mere vage udtryk »formue«.
Some legislation uses the vaguer term, ‘assets’ [patrimoine].
Ifølge Cornu's juridiske opslagsbog er formue »én persons samlede formuegoder og forpligtelser (dvs. den pågældendes rettigheder og byrder, som kan måles i penge)«, en formulering, der ligeledes må omfatte gæld.
According to Cornu’s Vocabulaire juridique, by ‘assets’ is meant a ‘collection of the property and obligations of one and the same person (that is to say of his duties and charges assessable in monetary terms)’ — a formulation that would also include debts.
Det eneste eksempel, der er fundet på, at en offentlig virksomhed slet og ret lukkes, omhandler under alle omstændigheder overførsel af selve »gælden«
The only example found of the pure and simple closing down of a publicly owned establishment involves, in any case, the transfer of the ‘debts’ themselves,
selv når opgaven bortfalder, overtages virksomhedens rettigheder og forpligtelser i praksis af et andet organ
even when the task disappears, the establishment’s rights and obligations are, in practice, taken over by another body,
den beskrevne praksis er i overensstemmelse med instruction codificatrice nr. 02-060-M95 af 18. juli 2002 og vejledningen om den finansielle opbygning i forbindelse med oprettelse, omdannelse og nedlæggelse af nationale offentlige virksomheder.
the practice described is in accordance with codifying instruction No 02-060-M95 of 18 July 2002 and the Guide sur l’organisation financière des créations, transformations et suppressions des établissements publics nationaux [Guide to the financial organisation of the creation, conversion and abolition of national publicly owned establishments].
Selv om disse tekster kun vedrører virksomheder med en offentlig regnskabsfører, hvilket ikke er tilfældet for La Poste, bekræfter de ikke desto mindre det, man kan se af praksis, dvs. at en likvideret offentlig virksomheds rettigheder og forpligtelser enten tilfalder staten eller den juridiske person, som overtager virksomhedens opgaver.
Even though such legislation concerns only establishments with a public accountant — such as La Poste does not have — it nonetheless confirms the lessons drawn from actual practice, namely that the rights and obligations of a wound-up EPIC go either to the State or to the legal entity that will take over the establishment’s task.
Kommissionen konkluderer, at denne analyse viser, at en sådan offentlig virksomheds kreditor kan føle sig sikker på, at hans fordring ikke vil bortfalde med lukningen af virksomheden.
The Commission concludes that this analysis shows that the creditor of such a publicly owned establishment can be certain that his claim will not be cancelled with the closing down of the establishment.
Bevisførelsen ville ikke være fuldstændig uden en undersøgelse af, om arvingen — som i privatretlige arveforhold — kan fragå arven, bl.a. hvis gælden er for stor.
The demonstration would not be complete without examining the issue of whether, on the model of successions under private law, the heir may refuse the succession, particularly if the debts are too great.
Det ser ud til, at muligheden for at fragå en arv er meget begrænset i forvaltningsretlige forhold.
It appears that there is only very limited scope for refusing a succession under administrative law.
Ifølge S. Carpi-Petit: »i modsætning til civilretten, der giver alle arveberettigede mulighed for at vælge, er den mulighed ikke et generelt princip i forvaltningsretlige arveforhold.
According to S. Carpi-Petit: ‘unlike in civil law, which makes the option available to all beneficiaries, the ability to exercise an option is not a general principle of administrative law governing successions.
Med hensyn til overdragelser på grund af udskiftninger afhænger spørgsmålet om valgfrihed af, om arvelader eksisterede på forhånd.
As for transfers brought about by replacements, whether or not they are optional depends on the pre-existence of the testator’.
For så vidt angår rene nedlæggelser, udleder S. Carpi-Petit af sin omfattende undersøgelse, at »den manglende valgmulighed for staten gælder ligeledes i forvaltningsretten.
Where abolitions pure and simple are concerned, S. Carpi-Petit deduces from his exhaustive study that ‘there being no option available for the benefit of the State is a situation that also obtains in administrative law.
Det indebærer, at den enkleste hypotese om, hvorvidt man har retten til at vælge eller ej, afgjort er den om nedlæggelse af en national offentlig virksomhed uden overdragelse af opgaven.
This implies that, where the existence or otherwise of the right to exercise an option is concerned, the simplest scenario is doubtless that in which a national publicly owned establishment is abolished, without its task being taken over.
I så fald er erhververen nemlig altid staten.
In that case, the successor in title is always the State.
Såfremt den afviser de formuegoder, den nedlagte offentlige virksomhed har efterladt, vil disse nødvendigvis være uden ejer, hvilket er udelukket.
If the State were to refuse the assets left by the abolished publicly owned establishment, the assets would then necessarily have no one in charge of them — a state of affairs that is not permitted.
Endvidere er det ikke muligt at pålægge en anden formue omkostningerne ved arven.
Moreover, it is not possible to impute the burden of the succession to another property.
Der er således ingen valgmulighed i tilfælde af ren nedlæggelse af en national offentlig virksomhed«.«
Thus, there is no ability to exercise an option in the case of the abolition pure and simple of a national publicly owned establishment’.
Når det drejer sig om hypoteser for udskiftning i opgaven »findes der to typer udskiftning i forvaltningsretlige arveforhold.
With regard to possible ways of finding a replacement body to carry out an establishment’s task, ‘there are two types of replacement in administrative law in relation to successions.
Ifølge den første hypotese oprettes den juridiske person, der træder i stedet for den fysiske arvelader, med henblik på den funktion.
In the first scenario, a legal entity to replace the natural person/testator is created for this function.
Den erhverver således hele arven.
This legal entity then constitutes the universal successor in title.
Det forekommer derfor naturligt at nægte den retten til at vælge«.
It therefore seems only right to refuse it the right to exercise an option’.
Kommissionens ekspert anfører, at man mod dette ræsonnement i forbindelse med rene nedlæggelser af offentlige virksomheder gennem fjernelse af opgaven kunne indvende, at statens manglende mulighed for at afvise formuegoderne ikke nødvendigvis indebærer manglende mulighed for at afvise gælden.
The Commission’s expert points out that, when it comes to the abolition pure and simple of publicly owned establishments through the abolition of their tasks, the objection could be made to this reasoning that the fact that the State is in no position to refuse the assets does not necessarily imply that it is also unable to refuse the debts.
Det ser dog ud til, at offentligretlige juridiske personers manglende mulighed for at afslå en arv primært skyldes offentlige virksomheders offentligretlige status og ikke den manglende mulighed for at efterlade formuegoder uden ejer.
It nonetheless seems that, where publicly owned entities are concerned, inability to refuse a succession is based mainly on the public law status of publicly owned establishments rather than on its not being possible to leave assets with no one in charge of them.
På grundlag af sin ekspert konkluderer Kommissionen, at offentlige virksomheder i praksis altid overføres til en anden offentligretlig juridisk person i tilfælde af lukning af den offentlige virksomhed, der varetog opgaven.
Guided by its expert, the Commission concludes that the debts of publicly owned establishments are in practice always transferred to another legal entity governed by public law in the event of the closing down of the publicly owned establishment that carried out the task concerned.
Fordringshavere mod disse offentlige virksomheder, som La Poste er en af, er således sikre på, at deres ubetalte fordringer ikke bortfalder.
The creditors of these publicly owned establishments, such as La Poste, therefore have a guarantee that their unpaid claims will not be cancelled.
Konklusion om, hvorvidt der foreligger en statsgaranti til fordel for La Poste
Conclusion regarding the existence of a state guarantee in favour of La Poste
På grundlag af de fremlagte oplysninger til påvisning af, at der foreligger en garanti for betaling af individuelle fordringer og for opretholdelse af La Postes forpligtelser, konkluderer Kommissionen, at:
On the basis of the evidence of the existence of a guarantee ensuring the payment of individual claims and the continued existence of La Poste’s obligations, the Commission concludes that:
La Postes kreditorer møder ikke de sædvanlige privatretlige og offentligretlige hindringer for betaling af en fordring
the creditors of La Poste do not encounter the usual private and public law obstacles to the payment of a claim,
La Postes kreditorer kan med henblik på inddrivelse af deres fordringer benytte særlige procedurer, hvorved staten får lov til at tvinge skyldnervirksomheden til at betale fordringen og evt. får mulighed for at øge La Postes ressourcer til betaling af fordringen
in recovering the amounts owed to them, the creditors of La Poste may use specific procedures authorising the State to force the debtor body to settle the claim and, if need be, enabling the State to increase La Poste’s resources for settling it,
på intet tidspunkt får La Postes kreditorer i henhold til fransk ret opfattelsen af, at virksomheden kunne stå i en situation med definitivt utilstrækkelig likviditet
nowhere does French law give the creditors of La Poste to understand that La Poste could face, for good, a situation in which it had a shortage of funds,
i tilfælde af utilstrækkelig likviditet lader budgetdokumenterne forstå, at staten ville kunne bevilge en særlig støtte til virksomhederne i den offentlige sektor, som La Poste er en del af
the budgetary documents indicate that, if there is a shortage funds, the State could give an exceptional grant to public sector bodies, of which La Poste is one,
såfremt de tidligere beskrevne procedurer ikke gør det muligt for kreditor at blive fyldestgjort, kan han drage staten til ansvar for at opnå fuld betaling af sin fordring
if the procedures described above do not enable the creditor to obtain satisfaction, he can hold the State liable in order to obtain the payment of his claim in full,
selv om de tidligere behandlede søgsmål skulle strække sig over en vis tid, er fordringshaver sikker på, at hans fordring ikke vil bortfalde, selv om La Poste skulle undergå en organisk udvikling, således som praksis viser.
if the actions envisaged above were to be spread out over time, the creditor can be certain that his claim will not be cancelled, even if La Poste were to be subject to organic development of the kind that, as experience shows, in fact takes place.
Disse særlige forhold er uløseligt forbundet med La Postes status af offentligretlig virksomhed.
These special factors are intrinsically linked to La Poste’s legal form as a publicly owned establishment.
De ovenfor beskrevne procedurer indebærer, at staten har en rolle som garant i sidste instans.
The procedures described above imply that the State performs the role of guarantor of last resort.
Det kan derfor med rette konkluderes, at La Poste er omfattet af en ubegrænset garanti fra den franske stat i kraft af sin status som offentlig virksomhed.
It may therefore be legitimately concluded that La Poste benefits from an unlimited guarantee on the part of the French State because of its legal form as a publicly owned establishment.
Statens ubegrænsede garanti til fordel for La Poste indebærer en overførsel af statsmidler, jf. pkt. 2.1 i meddelelsen fra 2008 om garantier.
The unlimited state guarantee to La Poste results in a transfer of state resources within the meaning of point 2.1 of the 2008 Communication on guarantees.
La Poste betaler nemlig ingen præmie for denne garanti, og staten giver dermed afkald på det vederlag, der normalt skal betales for garantier.
Indeed, La Poste pays no premium for this guarantee, and the State therefore waives the remuneration that normally accompanies guarantees.
På den anden side skaber garantien en risiko for et potentielt træk på statens ressourcer i fremtiden, idet staten kan se sig nødsaget til at betale La Postes gæld.
Moreover, the guarantee creates the risk of a potential and future claim on the resources of the State, which could find itself obliged to pay La Poste’s debts.
Endelig falder statens ubegrænsede garanti til fordel for La Poste tilbage på staten, fordi den følger af kombinationen af La Postes offentligretlige status, nationalretlige principper og to lovtekster, nemlig loven af 25. januar 1985, som blev til handelsloven, og loven af 16. juli 1980 samt gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil.
Finally, the State’s unlimited guarantee to La Poste is imputable to the State because it derives from the combination of La Poste’s public-law legal form, principles of national law and two legislative acts, namely the Law of 25 January 1985, now the Commercial Code, and the Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it.
TILSTEDEVÆRELSEN AF EN SELEKTIV FORDEL
EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE
Garantien er et væsentligt element i statens støtte, som gør, at La Poste får mere gunstige finansieringsbetingelser, end virksomheden ville have opnået, hvis den kun var blevet vurderet efter sine fortjenester (jf. litra a) nedenfor).
The guarantee is an essential component of state support, thanks to which La Poste enjoys more favourable borrowing terms that it would have obtained had it been judged solely on its own merits (a).
På baggrund af garantiens ubegrænsede karakter er det ikke muligt at beregne beløbet på den markedspræmie, La Poste burde betale til staten, hvilket gør den tilbageførelsesmekanisme, de franske myndigheder foreslår, uanvendelig (jf. litra b) nedenfor).
Given the unlimited nature of the guarantee, it is not possible to calculate the amount of the market premium that La Poste should pay to the State, which renders the transfer mechanism proposed by the French authorities inapplicable (b).
De gunstigere finansieringsbetingelser, La Poste opnår takket være statens implicitte garanti, udgør en selektiv fordel (jf. litra c) nedenfor).
The more favourable borrowing terms obtained by La Poste thanks to the implicit state guarantee constitute a selective advantage (c).
Garantien er et væsentligt element i statens støtte, som gør, at La Poste får mere gunstige finansieringsbetingelser, end virksomheden ville have opnået, hvis den kun var blevet vurderet efter sine fortjenester
The guarantee is an essential component of state support, thanks to which La Poste enjoys more favourable borrowing terms that it would have obtained had it been judged solely on its own merits.
Finansieringsbetingelserne fastsættes bl.a. på grundlag af kreditvurderingen
Borrowing terms are set on the basis of the financial rating in particular
Finansieringsbetingelserne fastsættes bl.a. på grundlag af kreditvurderingen: jo lavere en virksomheds kreditvurdering er på grund af en øget risiko for insolvens, jo højere bliver den forrentning, investoren kræver.
Borrowing terms are set on the basis of the financial rating in particular: the more an undertaking’s rating deteriorates because of an increased risk of insolvency, the higher the remuneration required by the investor.
Omvendt vil en virksomhed med en meget lav insolvensrisiko kunne låne på meget gunstige betingelser.
A contrario, an undertaking with a very low risk of insolvency will be able to borrow on very favourable terms.
I modsætning til de franske myndigheders påstand mener kreditvurderingsbureauerne, at garantien er et afgørende element i statens støtte til La Poste, takket være hvilken virksomheden får en højere vurdering, end den ville have opnået, hvis den kun var blevet vurderet efter sine fortjenester
Contrary to what the French authorities maintain, the rating agencies take the view that the guarantee is a determining factor of state support for La Poste, thanks to which the latter enjoys a higher rating than it would have obtained had it been judged solely on its own merits
Som et væsentligt element i statens støtte påvirker garantien La Postes kreditvurdering
The guarantee, as an essential component of state support for La Poste, influences La Poste’s financial rating
Kreditvurderingsbureauernes Analyser af, om der foreligger en statsstøtte til fordel for La Poste
Rating-agency analyses concerning the existence of a state guarantee in favour of La Poste
I en undersøgelse af statens støttes indflydelse på postvirksomhedernes vurderinger af 22. november 2004 anfører Standard and Poor's, at La Postes juridiske status, som giver virksomheden en statslig garanti i sidste instans, sikrer La Postes forpligtelser en lovbestemt garanti fra Den Franske Republik i sidste instans.
In a study on the influence of government support on the ratings of postal operators dated 22 November 2004, Standard & Poor’s point out that ‘La Poste’s legal status, which ensures a last-recourse sovereign guarantee, confers the ultimate statutory guarantee of the Republic of France on its obligations’.
Den 3. april 2007 bekræftede Standard and Poor's sin konklusion om, at statussen som offentlig virksomhed giver La Poste en garanti fra den franske stat i sidste instans, selv om denne garanti ikke er umiddelbar og eksplicit, hvilket afspejles i, at der er forskel på La Postes og Den Franske Republiks kreditvurdering.
On 3 April 2007, Standard & Poor’s confirmed its conclusion that the status of publicly owned establishment confers on La Poste an ultimate state guarantee, even though the guarantee is not timely and express, as reflected by the rating differentiation between La Poste and the Republic of France.
Fitch, som er et andet førende kreditvurderingsbureau, anførte den 31. marts 2006 ved bekræftelse af vurderingen AAA, som blev tildelt La Poste, at La Poste er en offentlig koncern, der er omfattet af en garanti fra den franske stat.
As for Fitch, another leading rating agency, it pointed out on 31 March 2006, when confirming the AAA rating given to La Poste,that La Poste was a public group that enjoyed a guarantee from the French State.
Fitch nedsatte dog den 17. april 2008 La Postes vurdering til AA og byggede sin beslutning på, at »La Postes status af offentlig operatør ikke længere berettiger, at dens vurderinger automatisk rettes ind efter statens.« Selv om Fitch anfører, at man »ikke forudsætter, at der foreligger en implicit garanti fra staten«, hævder bureauet ikke desto mindre, at »statens lovbestemte forpligtelse til at påtage sig La Postes forpligtelser, består«.
However, on 17 April 2008, Fitch downgraded La Poste’s rating to AA, basing its decision on the fact that ‘La Poste’s status as a public operator no longer justifies its ratings being automatically aligned on the State.’ Although Fitch pointed out that it ‘did not presuppose the existence of an implied state guarantee’, it nonetheless confirmed that ‘the statutory obligation on the State to assume La Poste’s commitments remains’.
I den forbindelse minder Kommissionen om, at det i henhold til EU-retten ikke er vigtigt, om statens pligt til at opfylde La Postes forpligtelser følger af det, man kalder en garanti i henhold til national ret eller blot en lovbestemt garanti.
In this respect the Commission would point out that, from the perspective of EU law, it does not matter whether the obligation on the State to assume liability for La Poste’s commitments derives from what is termed a guarantee under national law or from a simple statutory obligation.
I begge tilfælde foreligger der nemlig en statsgaranti i henhold til EU-retten (jf. meddelelsen fra 2008 om garantier, hvori det forklares, at statsgarantier kan være knyttet til selve virksomhedens retlige form og indebære, at staten dækker tab).
Under both scenarios, there is a state guarantee from the perspective of EU law (see the 2008 Guarantees Notice, which explains that public guarantees may be linked to the status of the undertaking itself and imply coverage of losses by the State.
Den 4. september 2009 anfører Fitch: »Som bureauet anførte ved nedskrivningen af LP's kreditvurdering fra »AAA« til »AA« i 2008, anerkender det imidlertid ikke, at der foreligger en implicit statsgaranti til LP med hensyn til likviditet.
On 4 September 2009 Fitch pointed out: ‘However, as the agency had pointed out in 2008 when downgrading La Poste’s rating from AAA to AA, it does not recognise the existence of an implied state liquidity guarantee in favour of La Poste.
Siden 2006 har statsstøttemekanismerne nemlig kun kunnet aktiveres, hvis likviditetsbehovet er i overensstemmelse med EU's konkurrenceregler. Derfor berettiger LP's status som offentlig operatør ikke længere, at virksomhedens vurderinger automatisk rettes ind efter statens.
Since 2006 it has been possible to activate State aid schemes only if the liquidity requirements are consistent with European competition rules; accordingly, La Poste’s status as a public operator no longer justifies automatically aligning its ratings on those of the State.
Således er adgangen til tilskud fra statskassen i tilfælde af likviditetskrise ikke længere sikret, hvilket kan forsinke statens støtte mærkbart, hvis behovet opstår.« Fitch mener derfor, at likviditetsgarantien siden 2006 ikke længere har kunnet aktiveres, da den ikke er i overensstemmelse med EU's konkurrenceregler.
Therefore, access to advances from the Treasury in the event of a liquidity crisis is no longer guaranteed, which may substantially delay state support when needed’. Fitch therefore takes the view that it has not been possible to activate the liquidity guarantee since 2006 because it no longer complies with European competition rules.
Det bekræfter, at dette bureau mener, at der før denne dato forelå en sådan garanti, der kunne aktiveres.
This confirms that the agency took the view that, before 2006, there was such a guarantee that could be activated.
Fitch tillægger brevet fra Kommissionen af 26. februar 2006, hvori den informerede Frankrig om sine foreløbige konklusioner om eksistensen af en ubegrænset statsgaranti, afgørende betydning.
Fitch attaches decisive importance to the Commission letter dated 26 February 2006 which informed France of its preliminary findings concerning the existence of an unlimited state guarantee.
Imidlertid tager Fitch ikke hensyn til, at Kommissionen i dette brev kaldte garantien for eksisterende støtte, og at brevet af 26. februar 2006 kun indeholder en foreløbig og ikke bindende vurdering af, om denne garanti foreligger, hvilket på ingen måde forhindrer, at den i givet fald bliver bragt i anvendelse.
However, Fitch does not take account of the fact that the Commission, in that letter, classified the guarantee as existing aid and that the letter dated 26 February 2006 contained only a preliminary, non-binding assessment as to the existence of the guarantee, which did not prevent it being called upon if necessary.
Selv om Fitch tager fejl med hensyn til, at Kommissionens brev medfører bortfald af garantien, anerkender Fitch alt i alt dog fortsat »det exceptionelle støtteniveau, LP kan få fra sin fuldmagtsgiver, samt den stærke sandsynlighed for, at den om nødvendigt bliver ydet«.
In conclusion, even though Fitch mistakenly believes that the Commission letter invalidates the guarantee, Fitch nonetheless continues to recognise the ‘exceptional level of support that La Poste can receive from its principal, and the high probability that it would be provided if necessary’.