natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Selv om stigningen i France Télécoms gæld siden 1996 og de beløb, der er aktuelle på nuværende tidspunkt, synes at udelukke den risiko for fallit, som Den Franske Republik nævnte, hvis ordningen ifølge 1990-loven var fortsat, forekommer støtteforanstaltningen at være nødvendig i fremtiden for at give France Télécom mulighed for en meritbaseret konkurrence på de pågældende markeder uden at være tynget af fortidens sociale bidrag, som selskabets konkurrenter ikke har.
Even if the increase in the financial debt assumed by France Télécom since 1996 and the amounts in question now seem to rule out the risk of bankruptcy of the undertaking referred to by the French Republic if the arrangements provided for by the 1990 Law had continued, the aid measure seems to be necessary in the future to allow France Télécom to be able to compete on the markets concerned on the basis of merit, without being handicapped by the burden of social security costs inherited from the past which its competitors do not have to bear.
Klagernes og telekommunikationsoperatørens bemærkninger til relevansen af en samlet status til vurdering af støttens nødvendighed i forhold til France Télécoms andre fordele som følge af den tidligere monopolstilling er ikke begrundede i det konkrete tilfælde.
The considerations of the complainants and the telecommunications operator on the relevance of an overall balance with a view to assessing the need for aid in the light of the other advantages derived by France Télécom from its past monopoly are unfounded in this case.
Det er korrekt, at France Télécom siden 1996 har haft en stærk stilling på en række tjenestemarkeder, hvor selskabet er aktivt i Frankrig, bl.a. som følge af de netværkseffekter, der præger telekommunikationsmarkederne.
It is true that, since 1996, France Télécom’s position on a number of the services markets in which it operates in France remains dominant, especially on account of network effects inherent in the communications markets.
France Télécom har ligeledes styrket sin tilstedeværelse på andre medlemsstaters markeder og opnået en betydelig vægt, bl.a. i Polen og Spanien.
Likewise, France Télécom has increased its presence on the markets of other Member States by acquiring significant positions there, especially in Poland and Spain.
Som telekommunikationsoperatøren indirekte gør opmærksom på i sine bemærkninger, forholder det sig ikke desto mindre sådan, at France Télécom som følge af sin dominerende stilling i medfør af artikel 102 i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde eller selskabets stærke markedsposition i medfør af rammebestemmelserne for elektroniske kommunikationsnet og -tjenester i EU [61] er omfattet af særlige asymmetriske forpligtelser, som konkurrerende virksomheder med mindre markedsstyrke ikke er omfattet af.
The fact remains that, as emphasised indirectly by the telecommunications operator in its comments, as a result of its dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 of the TFEU or its significant market power within the meaning of the regulations applicable to electronic communications in the Union [61], France Télécom is subject to specific asymmetric obligations which are not imposed on the competing undertakings with lesser market power.
Formålet med disse forpligtelser, f.eks. vedrørende netadgang, omkostningsbaserede takster og fravær af kommerciel adfærd, som en virksomhed uden dominerende stilling ville kunne tillade sig, er netop at sikre, at France Télécoms stilling som følge af selskabets tidligere monopol ikke længere skader konkurrencen.
These obligations, for example regarding access to its network, cost-orientation of prices or refraining from commercial behaviour which would be permitted to a non-dominant undertaking, have as their object precisely to ensure that the position of France Télécom inherited from its former monopoly is not more damaging to competition.
Disse lovgivningsmæssige ad hoc instrumenter, som de nationale konkurrencemyndigheder og Kommissionen regelmæssigt anvender [62], er mere målrettede og effektive, når det drejer sig om at afhjælpe virkningerne af France Télécoms vedvarende ulemper som følge af selskabets tidligere monopol, som klagerne nævner.
These ad hoc regulatory instruments, designed and applied consistently by the national regulatory and competition authorities and by the Commission [62], are a more targeted and effective remedy to the persisting effects of the advantages derived by France Télécom from its former monopoly, invoked by the complainants.
Den statsstøtte, der behandles i denne procedure, forekommer derfor i princippet nødvendig for at nå et mål af fælles interesse, idet den forbedrer konkurrencevilkårene med hensyn til pensionsbidrag og derved ydelsen af elektroniske kommunikationstjenester.
Consequently the State aid which is the subject of the present procedure appears, in principle, necessary to attain an objective of common interest by improving the conditions of competition relating to the retirement costs and, therefore, the provision of electronic communications services.
Støtteforanstaltningens proportionalitet
Proportionality of the aid measure
Det må konstateres, at den finansielle modydelse til fordel for staten, der blev indført ved 1990-loven for beregning og udbetaling af pensioner, er specifik for France Télécom og sui generis.
It must be concluded that the financial compensation in favour of the State introduced by the 1990 Law for the payment and servicing of the pensions is specific to France Télécom and sui generis.
Denne modydelse er siden 1997 blevet beregnet med henvisning til visse bidrag, som betales af konkurrerende virksomheder i sektoren.
This compensation has been calculated since 1997 by referring to certain costs borne by the competing undertakings in the sector.
Med henblik på at afgøre, om støtten står i et rimeligt forhold til det fastsatte mål, er det således nødvendigt at undersøge, om referencen til fastsættelse af modydelsen i medfør af 1996-loven er objektiv og begrundet.
For the purposes of determining whether the aid is proportionate for achieving the objective, it is therefore appropriate to examine the objective and justified nature of the reference to establish the amount of the compensation adopted in the 1996 Law.
Det skal straks bemærkes, at i procedurer vedrørende nedsættelse af bidrag i relation til pensioner til tjenestemandsansatte hos tidligere teleoperatører med monopolrettigheder, OTE i Grækenland og BT i Det Forenede Kongerige, har Kommissionen bl.a. undersøgt, om disse virksomheder betalte de samme sociale bidrag som konkurrenterne for at afgøre, hvorvidt statsstøtten til de omhandlede operatører var henholdsvis forenelig eller uforenlig med det indre marked i medfør af artikel 107, stk. 3, litra c), i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde [63].
It should be noted straight away that, in the procedures relating to reductions in retirement costs for civil servant staff of former monopoly operators in the telecommunications sector, OTE in Greece and BT Plc in the United Kingdom, the Commission checked in particular whether these undertakings were subject to equivalent social security costs to those of their competitors to decide the respective compatibility and incompatibility with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU of the State aid granted to the operators in question [63].
Kommissionen konstaterer imidlertid i det konkrete tilfælde, at de frigørende bidrag, som France Télécom hvert år betalte ifølge 1996-loven, ikke giver mulighed for at sikre, at selskabets sociale bidrag svarer til konkurrenternes.
The Commission finds that in the present case, the contributions in full discharge of liabilities paid each year by France Télécom and provided for by the 1996 Law do not enable it to be ensured that the social charges levied are equivalent to those of its competitors.
Satsen for lige konkurrencevilkår (»taux d'équité concurrentielle«, TEC) er ikke opnået.
The competitively fair rate (hereinafter: ‘TEC’) is not achieved.
Det ekstraordinære engangsbidrag kan deles op i to dele:
The exceptional flat-rate contribution is subdivided into two components:
dels et beløb på 3,6 mia. EUR, der svarer til France Télécoms henlæggelser indtil 1996 med henblik på bidragene til de forventede kommende tjenestemandspensioner
firstly, an amount of EUR 3,6 billion corresponding to the provisions set aside by France Télécom up to 1996 in order to defray the future retirement costs of the civil servants foreseen at the time;
dels et beløb på 2,1 mia. EUR (herefter kaldet »supplerende beløb«), der både i de offentlige myndigheders prognoser og i realiteten svarer til nettoudgifterne til de pensionsudbetalinger, som staten skulle varetage i en tiårig periode fra 1997 til 2006 på grund af overførslen af pensionsbetalingerne til tjenestemænd i telekommunikationssektoren.
secondly, an amount of EUR 2,1 billion (hereinafter: the ‘additional amount’), corresponding to both the forecasts of the public authorities and in fact to the net social security costs for paying the pensions which the State would have to defray over a period of 10 years, between 1997 and 2006, on account of the transfer of the cost of the pensions of the civil servants in telecommunications.
Da formålet med engangsbeløbet på 5,7 mia. EUR aldrig var at kompensere for manglende lige konkurrencevilkår mellem France Télécom og konkurrenterne, er det ikke begrundet at relatere dette beløb til de årlige frigørende bidrag, som France Télécom ikke betalte, men som havde været nødvendige for at sikre reelle lige konkurrencevilkår.
The flat-rate sum of EUR 5,7 billion was never intended to compensate for the absence of the competitively fair rate between France Télécom and its competitors, so it would not be justified to weigh this sum against the annual contributions in full discharge of liabilities which were not paid by France Télécom when they would have been necessary to attain a competitively fair rate.
Derimod fremgår det af undersøgelsen af de parlamentariske debatter, at det supplerende beløb på 2,1 mia. EUR skulle dække overførslen af pensionsudgifter fra 1997 til 2006 og i praksis fjerne støttens virkninger i en tiårig periode.
On the other hand, an examination of the parliamentary debates shows that the additional amount of EUR 2,1 billion was intended to cover this transfer of costs from 1997 to 2006 and, in fact, to eliminate the effects of aid for a 10-year period.
France Télécoms nettobelastning, der svarer til dette supplerende beløb, tjente således til i en tiårig periode at finansiere den franske stats meromkostninger ved reformen.
In this way, the net financial effort by France Télécom corresponding to this additional amount consisted in financing, for a 10-year period, the additional cost of the reform for the French State.
oven henviser imidlertid til et ekstraordinært engangsbidrag, uden at de gældende bestemmelser — både finansloven og efterfølgende bekendtgørelser — angiver, hvilket beløb som følge af henlæggelserne, der bør fratrækkes de omkostninger, der overføres til staten for denne periode.
However, the 1996 Law refers to a one-off exceptional contribution, without the applicable provisions, either of the Finance Law or of the subsequent Decrees, determining an amount arising from the provisions, which should have been deducted from the burden transferred to the State for the duration of this period.
Artikel 6 i 1996-loven præciserer, at det ekstraordinære engangsbidrag betales som en modydelse for statens varetagelse af pensioner til det tjenestemandsansatte personale.
Article 6 of the 1996 Law clearly specifies that the exceptional flat-rate contribution is paid in return for the funding by the State of the pensions granted to the civil service staff.
Der skal således tages højde for det samlede ekstraordinære bidrag ved analysen af reformen.
The amount of this exceptional contribution must therefore be included in its entirety in the analysis of the reform.
Da France Télécom ved betalingen af dette ekstraordinære engangsbeløb har dækket omkostningerne til tjenestemandspensioner og kompensationen mellem ordningerne for en periode på ca. femten år, er støttens virkninger neutraliseret.
As France Télécom, through the payment of this exceptional flat-rate contribution, covered the cost of the retirement pensions of the civil servants in telecommunications and the cost of the compensation between arrangements for a period of about 15 years, the effects of the aid were neutralised.
France Télécom har således ved betalingen af dette ekstraordinære bidrag neutraliseret støttens virkninger i denne periode.
France Télécom, by paying this exceptional contribution, therefore neutralised the effects of the aid during this period.
Det er derfor berettiget, at France Télécom i denne periode ikke forpligtes til at opfylde betingelserne for støtteforenelighed, og at selskabet ikke betaler det årlige bidrag, der er nødvendigt for at sikre lige konkurrencevilkår, som omfatter risici, der ikke er de samme som for overenskomstansatte.
Consequently, it is justified that, during this period, France Télécom is not obliged to fulfil the conditions of compatibility of this aid, and therefore that it does not pay the annual contribution necessary to ensure a competitively fair rate including the non-common risks in respect of the private-law employees.
Det er nødvendigt at se nærmere på denne argumentation.
It is appropriate to return in detail to the stages of this reasoning.
Satsen for lige konkurrencevilkår er ikke opnået
The competitively fair rate is not achieved
Det må konstateres, at France Télécoms årlige frigørende indbetalinger siden 1996-reformen ikke giver mulighed for at opnå en sats for lige konkurrencevilkår således som nævnt i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren.
The fact remains that the annual levies in full discharge of liabilities paid by France Télécom since the 1996 reform do not permit a competitively fair rate to be achieved, as emphasised in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Det skyldes, at den sats, der gælder for France Télécom, kun tager højde for bidrag, der svarer til de fælles risici for overenskomstansatte og tjenestemænd, og i den henseende blandt andet udelukker bidrag, der modsvarer ikkefælles risici, som f.eks. arbejdsløshed og risikoen for manglende lønudbetaling i tilfælde af selskabets konkurs eller likvidation.
This results from the fact that the rate applied to France Télécom includes only the contributions corresponding to the common risks of private-sector employees and civil servants and, as a result, excludes the contributions corresponding to the non-common risks, such as unemployment or non-payment of wages in the event of the firm going into receivership or compulsory liquidation.
Det følger således af tabel 4, at den manglende inddragelse af ikkefælles risici i beregningen af France Télécoms bidrag viser sig ved en betydelig forskel mellem den modydelse, France Télécom betaler til staten, og det beløb, selskabet skulle betale, hvis bidragssatsen var beregnet med henblik på at sikre fuldstændig lige konkurrencevilkår i forhold til beregningsgrundlaget for konkurrenterne.
It therefore results from Table 4 that not taking the non-common risks into account in the calculation of the contribution to be paid by France Télécom is reflected in a considerable difference between the compensation paid by France Télécom to the State and what it would pay if the contribution rate were calculated to ensure an entirely level playing field with the bases for the calculation of the costs paid by competitors.
I den henseende opfylder støtteforanstaltningen ifølge loven ikke proportionalitetsprincippet.
Consequently, the aid measure resulting from the Law does not comply with the principle of proportionality.
For at opfylde dette princip og for at nå det opstillede legitime mål om at forbedre konkurrencevilkårene ved at ensrette beregningsmåden for de bidrag, der skal betales af virksomheder, som er aktive på de omhandlede telekommunikationsmarkeder i Frankrig, skulle og skal støtten til France Télécom i medfør af 1996-loven faktisk sikre en fremtidig ensretning af de pågældende bidrag ved at tage højde for bidrag vedrørende ikkefælles risici for begge personalekategorier.
For it to comply with this principle and in order to attain the legitimate objective stated of improving the conditions of competition by equalising the calculation methods relating to the costs borne by the undertakings operating on the telecommunications markets concerned in France, the aid granted to France Télécom pursuant to the 1996 Law should have equalised, and should effectively in future equalise, these costs by including those relating to the risks not common to the two categories of staff.
I den henseende er det argument, som Frankrig fremfører, ifølge hvilket tjenestemænd ikke er udsat for visse risici, og at der af den grund ikke bør betales bidrag for disse risici, ikke relevant.
In this respect, France’s argument that the civil servants are not exposed to certain risks and, that as a result, it is not justified to pay a contribution for these risks, cannot be accepted.
For det første er det i medfør af statslige foranstaltninger, at de omtalte risici ikke opstår, og det er ikke godtgjort, at France Télécom ikke drager en økonomisk fordel deraf.
Firstly, it is pursuant to State measures that these risks would not arise, so there is no justification for France Télécom to draw a pecuniary advantage.
Det er f.eks. i medfør af den franske stats engagement over for de tjenestemandsansatte i France Télécom og det forhold, at den franske stat er selvforsikrende, at risikoen for manglende udbetaling af lønninger i tilfælde af selskabets konkurs ikke vil opstå.
For example, it is by virtue of the commitment by the French State to the civil servants still working at France Télécom and on account of the fact that the French State is its own insurer that the risk of non-payment of wages in the event of the firm going into receivership would not arise.
Men den mulighed, at France Télécom går konkurs, kan — som for konkurrenternes vedkommende — ikke udelukkes.
However, the possibility of France Télécom filing for bankruptcy, just like a competitor, cannot be ruled out.
I begge tilfælde er der ikke tale om, at der indrømmes en fordel til selskabet, men direkte til selskabets ansatte.
In both cases, it is not a matter of an advantage supplied to the undertaking, but directly to its employees.
Garantien for lønudbetaling indtræder, når selskabet er ophørt med at eksistere.
The guarantee of the payment of wages takes effect after the undertaking has ceased to exist.
En konkurrerende virksomhed vil imidlertid i modsætning til France Télécom skulle betale bidrag for at sikre lønudbetalinger efter dens ophør.
However, a competing undertaking will have to pay contributions to guarantee the risk of non-payment of wages after its disappearance, in contrast to France Télécom.
Det er derfor ikke berettiget at indrømme France Télécom en fordel i form af et mindre bidrag, eller i praksis at udelukke denne risiko i grundlaget for beregning af France Télécoms bidrag.
It is therefore not justified to give the latter an advantage, in the form of a lower contribution or, in fact, an exclusion of this risk from the method of calculating the contributions of France Télécom.
Dernæst — og mere grundlæggende — var formålet med 1996-reformen, som ikke ser ud til at være blevet helt gennemført, at udligne konkurrencevilkårene med hensyn til skattemæssige og sociale bidrag mellem alle konkurrenter i sektoren, uanset personalets status og uanset France Télécoms faktiske forpligtelse til at være tilsluttet og betale bidrag til de kompetente forvaltningsorganer.
Then, more fundamentally, the objective itself of the reform introduced in 1996, which does not seem to have been brought to its logical conclusion, is to equalise the conditions of competition with regard to tax and social security payments between all the competitors of the sector, irrespective of the status of their staff and the existence of an actual obligation for France Télécom to affiliate with and subscribe to the competent management bodies.
Det er netop denne stræben efter at udjævne konkurrencevilkårene, der kan betyde, at den undersøgte foranstaltning er forenelig med det indre marked.
It is precisely this logic of equalisation of the conditions of competition which would be liable to make the measure examined compatible with the internal market.
Hvorvidt France Télécoms personale er udsat for sådanne risici, er således ikke relevant i denne sammenhæng.
Whether or not the staff of France Télécom are exposed to such risks is not therefore relevant under this logic.
Det kan konkluderes, at nedsatte pensionsforpligtelser med en overførsel af nettobidrag til staten kun kan overholde proportionalitetsprincippet, hvis nedsættelsen gav mulighed for at udjævne konkurrencevilkårene.
In conclusion, a reduction in the funding of the pensions with a transfer of the net burden to the State would respect the principle of proportionality only if it allowed a level playing field.
France Télécom er imidlertid ikke blevet stillet i en situation, der helt svarer til situationen for virksomhederne i sektoren, hvad angår de lønrelaterede sociale bidrag, da de sociale og skattemæssige bidrag ikke indgår i grundlaget for beregningen af det årlige bidrag.
However, France Télécom has not been placed in a situation which is fully equivalent to that of the undertakings in the sector as regards wage-based social security contributions, since certain social security contributions and tax payments have not been integrated into the basis of assessment for calculating the annual contribution.
Det er ikke berettiget at sammenligne France Télécoms utilstrækkelige frigørende bidragssats siden 1997 med France Télécoms ekstraordinære engangsbidrag til staten
It is not justified to compare the insufficiency of the rate of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities applied to France Telecom since 1997 and the exceptional flat-rate contribution paid to the State by France Télécom
I modsætning til, hvad Den Franske Republik og France Télécom påstår, er det heller ikke berettiget at inddrage det ekstraordinære engangsbidrag på 5,7 mia. EUR, som France Télécom allerede betalte i 1997, og sammenligne det med France Télécoms utilstrækkelige frigørende bidragssats.
Likewise, contrary to the claims of the French Republic and France Télécom, it is not justified to take into consideration the amount of the exceptional flat-rate contribution of EUR 5,7 billion already paid by France Télécom in 1997 to compare it with the insufficiency of the rate of the contribution in full discharge of liabilities applied to France Télécom.
Kommissionen ønsker indledningsvis at minde om, at den i enhver situation skal fastslå, om betingelserne for at anvende undtagelsen i artikel 107, stk. 3, litra c), i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde er opfyldt, uden at den er bundet at tidligere beslutningspraksis, hvis en sådan eksisterer [64].
As a preliminary point, the Commission wishes to recall that, in each situation, it has to establish whether the conditions of application of the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU have been fulfilled, without being bound by its earlier decision-making practice, assuming that is established [64].
Under alle omstændigheder adskiller den her undersøgte reform sig klart i flere henseender fra den reform, der er behandlet i La Poste-beslutningen [65], som de franske myndigheder forsøger at henvise til.
In any event, the reform examined here displays clear differences, in several respects, from the reform referred to in the La Poste decision [65], which the French authorities attempt to rely on.