natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
»På baggrund af ovenstående mener domstolen, at det påhviler den sagsøgte stat at sørge for betaling til de sagsøgende selskaber eller i givet fald til deres rettighedshavere af de fordringer, de har haft, siden dommene blev afsagt af forvaltningsdomstolen i Bastia den 10. juli 1992 (ibidem), inklusive renter, indtil dagen for afsigelse af nærværende dom«.
The Court ended by charging the whole of the debtor communes’ debt to the State: ‘In view of the above, the Court holds that it is for the defendant state to pay the applicants or, if appropriate, their legal successors the sums (including interest) due to them as from the delivery, on 10 July 1992, of the judgments of the Bastia administrative tribunal (ibidem) until the day on which this judgment has been given’.
Kommissionens ekspert har af denne retspraksis udledt, at staten skal dække offentlige myndigheders gæld.
The Commission’s expert deduces from this case law that the State must cover the debts of the public authorities.
Heraf kan der ifølge Kommissionen udledes tre vigtige forhold:
The Commission considers this to have three important implications:
Ansvaret fungerer som en implicit garanti.
liability functions as an implied guarantee.
Dels dømmes den franske stat til at betale hele gælden, og der er ikke foretaget nogen fordeling mellem det, der kunne skyldes den offentlige skyldnermyndigheds insolvenssituation og eventuelle misligholdelser, som kan tilskrives staten.
Firstly, the French State is required to pay the whole of the debt, and no distinction has been made between debt conceivably due to the public authority’s insolvency and possible defaults imputable to the State.
Den anvendte ordlyd fortjener at blive fremhævet, eftersom domstolen ikke nævner statens eventuelle ansvar, men finder, at det påhviler staten at »sørge for« betaling.
The terms used are worth emphasising, since the Court does not refer to a possible liability on the part of the State but holds that it is the responsibility of the State to ‘ensure’ that payment is made.
Denne ordlyd har mere grund i garanti end i ansvar.
Such terms relate more to the concept of a guarantee than to that of liability.
Endvidere søger domstolen på intet tidspunkt en udløsende faktor, der kan tilskrives staten, og holder sig udelukkende til skyldnerens insolvens.
What is more, the Court does not at any time seek an operable event imputable to the State and looks no further than the debtor’s insolvent status.
Endelig foretager domstolen en fuldstændig overførsel af de dømte kommuners gæld til staten.
Finally, the Court transfers the whole of the offending communes’ debt to the State.
Disse forskellige elementer viser, at denne ansvarsordning i realiteten fungerer som en garantiordning.
These various factors tend to show that this system of liability operates in reality as a guarantee mechanism.
Det skal imidlertid bemærkes, at sagsøgerne først skal have en domstolsafgørelse om anerkendelse af deres fordring.
It will be noted, however, that the applicants must first obtain a judicial decision recognising their claim.
Endvidere er denne garanti implicit, for den er ikke indskrevet i nogen retsakt.
Moreover, this guarantee is implied because it is not set out in any legislation.
Det viser, at en national retlig mekanisme kan fortolkes som en implicit garanti
This demonstrates that a judicial mechanism under national law can be interpreted as an implied guarantee,
Dette ansvar dækker gæld hos offentlige myndigheder, som dog har status af juridiske personer.
this liability covers the debts of public authorities possessed, however, of legal personality.
Den franske regering påberåbte sig udtrykkeligt eksistensen af en juridisk person og egne midler som argument mod, at den franske stats ansvar kunne gøres gældende.
The existence of legal personality and of assets specific to the authority was expressly invoked by the French Government in its opposition to holding the French State liable.
Dette argument blev tilsidesat af domstolen
This argument was rejected by the Court,
Anvendelsesområdet for statsgarantien dækker de dertil knyttede offentlige myndigheder.
the scope of the state guarantee extends to include public authorities dependent on the State.
Garantien er derfor tæt knyttet til skyldnerens offentligretlige status.
The guarantee is therefore intimately connected with the debtor’s public law legal form.
Det skal anføres, at den løsning, ECHR har lagt til grund i Campoloro-sagen, ikke er isoleret og hænger sammen med en meget fast retspraksis.
It must be pointed out that the solution adopted by the ECHR in the Campoloro case is not an isolated one and stems from a well established tradition of case law.
Således har ECHR i sin dom af 13. maj 1980, Artico mod Italien, afgjort, at når en misligholdelse skyldes en anden person end staten, påhviler det den pågældende stat som garantiforpligtet i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 1, at handle således, at sagsøger faktisk får den ret, der tilkommer ham i henhold til artiklen.
Thus, in its judgment of 13 May 1980 in Artico v Italy, the ECHR decided that, where a failure to act is imputable to an entity other than the State, it is for the State, as giver of the guarantee provided for in Article 6-1, to act in such a way that the applicant in practice enjoys the right conferred on him by that Article.
I sagen af 19. marts 1997, Bourdov mod Rusland, nr. 59498/00, fastslår domstolen ligeledes, at »en statslig myndighed ikke kan bruge manglende bevillinger som undskyldning for ikke at betale sin gæld«.
In Case No 59498/00 of 19 March 1997, Bourdov v Russia, the Court also held that an authority of the State cannot use lack of resources as a pretext for not honouring its debt.
Gennemgang af de franske myndigheders bemærkninger
Examination of the observations of the French authorities
Bemærkning vedrørende forskellen mellem lokale myndigheder og offentlige erhvervsvirksomheder
Observation relating to the difference between regional or local authorities and publicly owned establishments
Ifølge de franske myndigheder er Kommissionens eksperts bevisførelse på ingen måde afgørende, men begrænser sig til at henvise til forskellige fortolkninger af Campoloro-dommen. Navnlig skelner hun ikke mellem offentlige virksomheder og lokale myndigheder, selv om denne forskel er central i spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en fordring kan forblive ubetalt.
According to the French authorities, the case made out by the Commission’s expert is by no means conclusive and is limited to comparing various interpretations of the Campoloro judgment; above all, it draws no distinction between publicly owned establishments and local authorities, although this difference is central to the issue of whether a claim can remain unpaid.
De franske myndigheder gentager her udtalelsen fra deres ekspert.
On this matter, the French authorities adopt the opinion of their expert.
Denne sætter spørgsmålstegn ved forudsætningen for de slutninger, Kommissionen drager på grundlag af Campoloro-dommen: Kommissionens slutning bygger på sidestillingen af lokale myndigheder og offentlige virksomheder, som har det til fælles, at de er juridiske offentligretlige personer, der er adskilt fra staten.
The latter questions the premise underlying the Commission’s arguments based on the Campoloro case law: the Commission’s argument rests on likening local and regional authorities to publicly owned establishments, which are all legal entities separate from the State and governed by public law.
Men disse to typer enheder har ikke den samme forfatningsmæssige status.
In fact, these two types of body do not have the same constitutional status.
Således er det et forfatningsmæssigt krav, at der findes lokale myndigheder, og staten har en forpligtelse til at sikre deres overlevelse.
Thus, the existence of local authorities is a constitutional requirement, and the State has an obligation to guarantee the survival of such bodies.
De offentlige erhvervsvirksomheder har på ingen måde den samme forfatningsmæssige status og kan forsvinde.
EPICs do not have anything like the same constitutional status and do not have to survive.
Derfor kan retspraksis fra Campoloro-sagen, som vedrører tilfælde af lokale myndigheders misligholdelse, ikke bruges, når det drejer sig om offentlige virksomheder.
The Campoloro case law, which relates to cases of default on the part of local authorities, cannot therefore be used in relation to publicly owned establishments.
Kommissionen skal nu undersøge, om forskellen i forfatningsmæssig status mellem lokale myndigheder og offentlige virksomheder kan sætte spørgsmålstegn ved de konklusioner, dens ekspert har draget på grundlag af ECHR's og Conseil d'Etats afgørelser i Campoloro-sagen.
The Commission will now examine whether the difference in constitutional status between local or regional authorities and publicly owned establishments is likely to place a question mark over the conclusions drawn by its expert on the basis of the decisions taken in the Campoloro case by the ECHR and the Council of State.
Kommissionen fastslår, at det, der ligger til grund for ECHR's afgørelse, ikke er nødvendigheden af at bevare den berørte lokale myndigheds eksistens, men at bevare kreditors rettigheder, dvs. den pågældendes ret til en retfærdig rettergang (artikel 6, stk. 1, i den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention) og beskyttelse af den pågældendes ejendom (artikel 1 i protokol nr. 1). Kreditors rettigheder bliver lige krænket, uanset om debitor er en offentlig virksomhed eller en lokal myndighed.
The Commission notes that the ECHR’s decision is based on the need to preserve, not the existence of the local or regional authority concerned, but the rights of the creditor, that is to say his right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and the protection of his property (Article 1 of Protocol No 1): whether the debtor is a publicly owned establishment or a local or regional authority, the creditor’s rights are infringed in the same way.
Med hensyn til Conseil d'Etats afgørelse bør der skelnes mellem de forskellige ansvarsordninger:
As for the decision of the Council of State, a distinction needs to be made between the various liability schemes:
Ansvar for grov pligtforsømmelse bygger på statens manglende udnyttelse af beføjelserne i henhold til loven af 16. juli 1980. Det er således uafhængigt af, om debitor er en lokal myndighed eller en offentlig virksomhed
the liability due to gross negligence scheme is based on the State’s deficient use of the prerogatives introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980; it is therefore independent of the nature of the debtor: local or regional authority, or publicly owned establishment,
Som konklusion finder Kommissionen, at forskellen mellem lokale myndigheders og offentlige virksomheders forfatningsmæssige status ikke rokker ved de konklusioner, Kommissionens ekspert har draget af retspraksis fra Campoloro-sagen.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the difference in constitutional status between local or regional authorities and publicly owned establishments does not invalidate the conclusions drawn from the Campoloro case law by the Commission’s expert.
Desuden bemærker Kommissionen, at de franske myndigheders argumentation sigter mod at anfægte Campoloro-sagens relevans for den foreliggende sag, som ikke vedrører en lokal myndighed, selv om det var de franske myndigheder selv, der i første omgang påberåbte sig Campoloro-sagen til støtte for deres holdning.
Moreover, the Commission would observe that the set of arguments put forward by the French authorities is designed to question the relevance of the Campoloro judgment in this particular case, which does not relate to a local or regional authority; yet the Campoloro judgment was first invoked by the French authorities themselves in support of their position.
Bemærkning vedrørende det manglende grundlag for at drage staten til ansvar
Observation relating to the lack of any basis for holding the State liable
Endvidere har de franske myndigheder svært ved at se, på hvilket grundlag staten kan pådrage sig objektivt ansvar i tilfælde af en offentlig virksomheds misligholdelse, idet statens ansvar i den forbindelse kun kan gøres gældende, hvis det forhold (herunder undladelsen), den tilskrives, har været den direkte årsag til tabet, hvilket ikke var tilfældet i den foreliggende sag.
Moreover, the French authorities fail to see on what basis the State might incur strict liability in the event of a publicly owned establishment defaulting, since the State can be held liable in such a context only if the act (or omission) imputed to it has been the direct cause of the injury, which is not the case here.
Kommissionen konstaterer imidlertid, at Conseil d'Etat og ECHR i deres afgørelser klart fastslår, at statens objektive ansvar kan gøres gældende.
The Commission nonetheless notes that the decisions of the Council of State and the ECHR clearly establish that the State can be held strictly liable.
Bemærkning vedrørende manglen på usædvanligt og særligt tab
Observation relating to the lack of abnormal and specific injury
Endelig har de franske myndigheder svært ved at se, hvorfor dommeren skulle betragte tabet som »særligt«, fordi det vedrører alle virksomhedens kreditorer, eller som »usædvanligt«, hvis kreditorerne har accepteret at yde en virksomhed kredit i en usikker finansiel situation.
Finally, the French authorities fail to see why the judge would consider the injury to be ‘specific’ when it apparently concerns all the creditors of the establishment, or as ‘abnormal’ if creditors agreed to supply funds to a body in an uncertain financial situation.
Kommissionen bemærker, at eksistensen af et usædvanligt og særligt tab faktisk udgør en grænse for statens ansvarspådragelse ifølge Conseil d'Etats retspraksis.
The Commission would observe that, according to the case law of the Council of State, the existence of an abnormal and specific injury does in practice limit the liability of the State.
De franske myndigheder tvivler på, at der foreligger usædvanligt tab, når kreditorerne har accepteret at yde en virksomhed kredit i en usikker finansiel situation.
The French authorities doubt that the injury is abnormal in a situation in which creditors agreed to supply funds to a body in an uncertain financial situation.
Kommissionen anfører i den forbindelse, at dette argument forudsætter, at garantien ikke findes (og at kreditorerne mener, at den ikke findes), mens ovenstående analyse viser det modsatte.
The Commission would point out, in this connection, that this argument presupposes that there is no guarantee (and that the creditors think that there is no guarantee), whereas the analysis given above shows the opposite to be true.
For hvis kreditorerne har tillid til, at garantien findes, vil virksomhedens finansielle situation være langt mindre afgørende for enhver kreditor, når han skal beslutte at yde virksomheden kredit, og når han skal forhandle betingelserne for denne kredit.
Indeed, if the creditors believe in the existence of the guarantee, any creditor will view the establishment’s financial situation as being much less of a crucial factor both when he decides to grant funds to the establishment and when he negotiates the conditions under which such funds are to be granted.
Endvidere skal man tage i betragtning, at gælden kan have været indgået, mens den offentlige virksomhed ikke var i fare, eller at de finansielle vanskeligheder ikke med rimelighed kunne være kendt af kreditor.
Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that the debt may have been incurred either when the publicly owned establishment was not in danger or when the creditor could not reasonably have been aware of the establishment’s financial difficulties.
For at blive betegnet som et usædvanligt og særligt tab skal tabet for den, der lider det, være af en betydning, som står i et misforhold til det almennyttige formål, der forfølges.
To be categorised as abnormal and specific, the injury to the person concerned must be out of proportion to the public interest intended to be served.
Kommissionen udleder heraf, at tabets usædvanlige og særlige karakter uden nogen tvivl udgør et filter, der kan forhindre godtgørelse for et vist antal fordringer, men at sandsynligheden for, at dette filter spiller en rolle bliver mindre, jo større gælden bliver.
The Commission deduces from this that the abnormal and specific character of the injury undoubtedly constitutes a filter that may prevent a number of claims from being met, but that the higher the debt the less likely it is that this filter will come into play.
Manglende begrænsning af statens ansvar og/eller garanti
Absence of limitation of liability and/or of a guarantee by the State
Kommissionen understreger, at der, som vi har set ovenfor, ikke er noget til hinder for, at lovgiver fastsætter, at staten kun svarer for offentlige erhvervsvirksomheders gæld i forhold til sit oprindelige indskud (eller bevilling), som det sker for visse selskaber.
The Commission would emphasise that, as has been seen above, there is nothing to prevent the legislature — as it does in the case of a number of companies — from providing that the State will pay the EPICs’ debts only up to the limit of its initial contribution (or endowment).
Disse nærmere oplysninger har de franske myndigheder imidlertid ikke givet.
However, these clarifications have not been supplied by the French authorities.
Kommissionens konklusion
Commission’s conclusion
Kommissionen konkluderer på grundlag af pkt. (i) til (v), at en kreditor, som ikke har opnået betaling af sin fordring gennem procedurerne i lov af 16. juli 1980, i henhold til gældende fransk ret kan få hele beløbet svarende til den ikke fyldestgjorte fordring ved som sidste udvej at påberåbe sig statens ansvar i modsætning til det, der sker i forbindelse med en almindelig likvidationsprocedure, hvor tilbagebetalingen til kreditor er begrænset til værdien af de disponible aktiver.
The Commission concludes from points (i) to (v) that, as French law currently stands, a creditor who has not obtained the payment of his claim through the use of the procedures set out in the Law of 16 July 1980 may receive all of the sums corresponding to the unmet claim by invoking the State’s last-resort liability. This is the opposite of what happens within the framework of winding-up proceedings under ordinary law where the reimbursement of the creditor is limited by the value of the available assets.
Statens ansvar behandles som en garanti.
The State’s liability is treated as a guarantee.
Det er ikke begrænset i henhold til nogen fransk retsakt.
It is not the subject of any limitation by French legislation.
Det er uløseligt forbundet med skyldnerinstitutionens offentligretlige status.
It is intrinsically connected with the public-law legal form possessed by the debtor body.
Analyse af det franske forslag vedrørende bestemmelsen i kontrakterne
Analysis of the French proposal relating to the clause in the contracts
Såfremt Kommissionen vedtog en beslutning om, at der ikke foreligger støtte, ville de franske myndigheder være parat til at udvide deres forslag om at anføre, at der ikke foreligger nogen garanti, til samtlige kontrakter, der indebærer en fordring.
If the Commission were to adopt a decision finding that there was no aid, the French authorities would be prepared to extend their proposal for recording the absence of a guarantee so that it includes all contracts involving claims.
Ifølge de franske myndigheder ville denne udvidelse gøre det muligt at fjerne enhver risiko for, at statens ansvar gøres gældende alene med henvisning til La Postes insolvens.
The French authorities consider that such an extension would make it possible to prevent any risk of triggering the State’s strict liability based on La Poste’s insolvency alone.
Indledningsvis ønsker Kommissionen at minde om, at bemærkningen i betragtning 181 naturligvis gælder for dette afsnit af nærværende afgørelse.
Firstly, the Commission wishes to point out that the remark made in recital 181 is obviously applicable to this section of the present Decision.
Som anført i indledningsbeslutningen erkender Kommissionen i øvrigt, at der er tale om en foranstaltning, som kan begrænse mulighederne for, at en kreditor, der har underskrevet en sådan kontrakt, kan opnå betaling af sin fordring gennem en retssag.
Moreover, as indicated in the opening decision, the Commission acknowledges that this is a measure likely to restrict the opportunities for a creditor who has signed such a contract to obtain payment of his claim through legal proceedings.
Den er imidlertid stadig i tvivl om denne løsnings varighed, idet undtagelsen på grund af accepteret risiko er en regel i henhold til retspraksis, som altid kan udvikle sig (der er endnu mere grund til ikke at udelukke en ændring af retspraksis, eftersom retspraksis udvikler sig i retning af en udvidelse af statens objektive ansvar).
The Commission nonetheless has doubts about the durability of this solution, the exception for accepted risk being a rule established by case law, which could always evolve (the overturning of existing case law is all the more likely as the trend in case law is towards extending the scheme of strict liability on the part of the State).
Som svar på de franske myndigheders bemærkninger understreger Kommissionen, at de foregående bemærkninger ikke får Kommissionen til at nægte, at de franske myndigheders forslag kan have en virkning, men til at understrege, hvor skrøbelige de juridiske rammer er, der kommer ud af det.
In response to the observations of the French authorities, the Commission would emphasise that the preceding remarks do not lead the Commission entirely to reject the French authorities’ proposal but to emphasise how fragile the resultant legal framework would be.
I øvrigt finder Kommissionen de franske myndigheders forslag utilstrækkeligt, for statsgarantien vil kunne bringes i anvendelse for alle typer ansvar, herunder bl.a. ansvar uden for kontraktforhold og strafansvar, der ud fra denne synsvinkel udviser de samme kendetegn. Det er således kontraktligt umuligt på forhånd at fastslå over for skyldnerne, at staten ikke hæfter for La Postes gæld.
Moreover, the Commission considers the French authorities’ proposal to be inadequate as the State’s guarantee could come into play for any type of liability including, for example, non-contractual liability and criminal liability, which present the same characteristics from this point of view: it is impossible to make it contractually clear in advance to debtors that the State is not liable for La Poste’s debts.
Generelt kan La Poste være skyldner over for tredjemand via forskellige juridiske mekanismer, hvilket ville involvere statens garanti i tilfælde af misligholdelse.
In general, La Poste may find itself indebted towards a third party through a variety of judicial mechanisms — a state of affairs that would imply a guarantee on the part of the State in the event of insolvency.
Hvis La Poste f.eks. skulle overtage en anden struktur (en anden offentlig virksomhed), ville den ved samme lejlighed skulle have overført den pågældende strukturs rettigheder og forpligtelser.
For example, if La Poste were to absorb another structure (another publicly owned establishment), the rights and obligations of that structure would be transferred to it at the same time.
Hvis den herefter skulle betale denne strukturs gæld til tredjemand, ville det ikke gennem nogen kontrakt eller noget juridisk dokument kunne forudses, at staten ikke hæfter for tilbagebetaling af La Postes gæld til den overtagne strukturs kreditorer, eftersom ingen kunne forudse det.
If it were subsequently to meet that structure’s debts towards a third party, no contract or other legal document would have laid down that the State was not required to pay La Poste’s debts towards creditors of the absorbed structure, since no one would have been able to foresee the situation.