natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I den foreliggende sag vil Kommissionen gerne tilføje, at det offentlige foretagende IFP's eventuelle kreditorer fra før 7. juli 2006 var kontraktligt bundet til et erhvervsrettet foretagende i henhold til lov nr. 43-612 af 17. november 1943 om forvaltning af erhvervsinteresser (en privatretlig juridisk person), hvorom de ikke havde nogen grund til at tro, at det kunne være dækket af nogen som helst statsgaranti.
In the present case, the Commission wishes to add that prior to 7 July 2006, any creditors of the publicly owned establishment IFP were in a contractual relationship with a trade body within the meaning of Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests, a body which was a legal person governed by private law, and which they had no reason to think could be covered by a State guarantee of any kind.
Derfor kan anvendelsen af teorien om ydre fremtræden i givet fald kun være relevant, for så vidt angår de fordringer, der er opstået efter det offentlige foretagende IFP's statusændring.
Consequently, the theory of appearance can in any event be applied only with regard to claims arising after the change of status of the publicly owned establishment IFP.
I lighed med sin ekspert i postsagen konkluderer Kommissionen, for så vidt angår de fordringer, der er opstået efter den 7. juli 2006, at selv om det efter den hypotese, de franske myndigheder forsvarer, var fejlagtigt, når en kreditor mente, at staten er forpligtet til at garantere for offentlige foretagenders, og især det offentlige foretagende IFP's, gæld, ville den pågældendes fejltagelse være legitim på baggrund af de ovennævnte elementer og ville retligt kunne tillægges retsvirkninger.
Following the conclusions of its expert in the postal case, the Commission has arrived at the view that, as regards claims arising after 7 July 2006, even if, in the scenario championed by the French authorities, it was in error that a creditor came to consider that the State was required to guarantee the debts of publicly owned establishments and of IFP in particular, his error would be legitimate given the above-mentioned factors, and the law could impart effects to it.
Garanti for opretholdelsen af det offentlige foretagende IFP's eller dets forpligtelsers eksistens
Guarantee of the continued existence of IFP and/or of its obligations
Af de grunde, der allerede er forklaret i betragtning 230-250 i beslutning C 56/2007, som Kommissionen henviser til, mener den, at såfremt kreditor ikke inden for en rimelig frist og efter anvendelse af de i foregående afsnit beskrevne procedurer skulle opnå betaling af sin fordring, vil han være sikker på, at denne fordring ikke bortfalder – i modsætning til en kreditor hos en privatretlig enhed under konkursbehandling, som ikke har nogen garanti for at få sin fordring betalt.
For the reasons already set out in recitals 230 to 250 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that even if, within a reasonable period and after the use of the procedures described in the previous section, the creditor of an EPIC does not succeed in obtaining the payment of his claim, he will be secure in the knowledge that the claim will not be cancelled, in contrast to the situation of a creditor of a company constituted under private law in liquidation, who has no guarantee that his claim will have to be met.
Kommissionen understreger, at der ikke findes nogen konkurslukning af et offentligt foretagende efter beslutning af en offentlig myndighed, hvor foretagendets rettigheder og forpligtelser bortfalder. I tilfælde af at en offentlig myndighed beslutter en lukning, beviser praksis og visse grundlæggende forvaltningsretlige principper – selv om det ikke udtrykkeligt står i nogen lov – at de lukkede offentlige foretagenders rettigheder og forpligtelser som sådan altid overtages af en anden enhed og i mangel heraf af staten.
The Commission stresses that there is no public authority-motivated winding up/closing down of publicly owned establishments in which the rights and obligations of the establishments are also cancelled: in the event of publicly owned establishments being closed down by decision of a public authority – and despite the fact that no legislation expressly provides for this – experience and certain basic principles of administrative law tend to show that the rights and obligations of publicly owned establishments that are closed down as such are always taken over by another body and, failing that, by the State.
Med andre ord overtages offentlige foretagenders gæld altid af en anden juridisk person, som ikke kan nægte dette, med det resultat, at hver fordringshaver er sikker på, at den rettighed, han har i henhold til sin fordring, vil kunne gøres gældende over for en anden institution, og at hans fordring derfor ikke vil bortfalde.
In other words, the debts of publicly owned establishments are always transferred to another legal person, which cannot refuse them, so that each creditor can therefore be certain that the right arising from his claim may be invoked against another body and that his claim will not, therefore, be cancelled.
Kommissionen henviser til de nærmere detaljer i analysen i betragtning 233-250 i beslutning C 56/2007, som bygger på den undersøgelse, som eksperten i postsagen udførte af de organiske udviklingstendenser, der berører de offentlige foretagender, og som har afdækket tre forskellige grunde til offentlige foretagenders lukning [105], nemlig tilfælde, hvor offentlige foretagender ophører, tilfælde, hvor offentlige foretagender lukker, fordi deres opgave forsvinder, og mere udbredte tilfælde, hvor opgaven flyttes, hvilket nødvendigvis indebærer en overførsel af rettigheder og pligter.
The Commission refers to the detail of the analysis presented in recitals 233 to 250 of decision C 56/2007, based on the study carried out by its expert in the postal case on organic developments affecting publicly owned establishments, which identifies three reasons why publicly owned establishments may be closed [105]: the case of publicly owned establishments which have reached the ends of their lives, the case of publicly owned establishments being closed because the tasks assigned to them no longer need to be carried out, and the case, most frequently encountered, that the tasks assigned to them have been transferred elsewhere, necessarily implying a transfer of the rights and obligations.
På baggrund af denne vurdering er det muligt for det første at mene, at selv om der ikke findes nogen generelle retsregler for lukning af offentlige foretagender, viser praksis, at det juridiske dokument altid rummer bestemmelser om, at rettigheder og forpligtelser for det foretagende, der skal lukke, overføres til enten staten eller den enhed, som overtager dens opgaver [106].
On the basis of this expert report, it can be considered firstly that although there is no overall judicial scheme for organising the closing down of publicly owned establishments, experience shows that the legislation always provides for transferring the rights and obligations of the establishment that is to be closed either to the State or to the body that is to take over its task [106].
For det tredje, selv når opgaven bortfalder, overtages det offentlige foretagendes rettigheder og forpligtelser i praksis af et andet organ.
Thirdly, even when the task disappears, the publicly owned establishment’s rights and obligations are, in practice, taken over by another body.
Endelig og for det fjerde er den i undersøgelsen beskrevne praksis 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 [109], nemlig at et EPIC's rettigheder og forpligtelser enten overgår til staten eller til den juridiske person, der overtager foretagendets opgave.
Fourthly and finally, the practice described in the study is in accordance with codifying instruction No 02-060-M95 of 18 July 2002 and the guide to the financial organisation of the creation, conversion and abolition of national publicly owned establishments, cited above [109], 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.
På grundlag af sin ekspert i postsagen konkluderer Kommissionen sluttelig, at offentlige foretagenders gæld i praksis altid overføres til en anden offentligretlig juridisk person i tilfælde af lukning af det offentlige foretagende, der varetog opgaven.
Guided by its expert in the postal case, 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 foretagender, heriblandt det offentlige foretagende IFP, er således sikre på, at deres ubetalte fordringer ikke bortfalder.
The creditors of these publicly owned establishments, such as IFP, therefore have a guarantee that their unpaid claims will not be cancelled.
Konklusion angående eksistensen af en statsgaranti til fordel for det offentlige foretagende IFP
Conclusion regarding the existence of a State guarantee in favour of IFP
På grundlag af de fremlagte oplysninger til påvisning af, at der foreligger en garanti for betaling af individuelle fordringer og for opretholdelse af det offentlige foretagende IFP's forpligtelser, konkluderer Kommissionen, at følgende er gældende fra det offentlige foretagende IFP's statusændring den 7. juli 2006:
On the basis of the evidence of the existence of a guarantee ensuring the payment of individual claims and the continued existence of IFP’s obligations, the Commission concludes that, from the change in the legal form of the publicly owned establishment IFP which occurred on 7 July 2006:
det offentlige foretagende IFP's kreditorer møder ikke de sædvanlige privatretlige og offentligretlige hindringer for fuld betaling af en fordring
the creditors of IFP do not encounter the usual private and public law limitations on the payment of a claim in full;
det offentlige foretagende IFP's kreditorer kan med henblik på inddrivelse af deres fordringer benytte særlige procedurer, hvorved staten får lov til at tvinge skyldnervirksomheden til at betale fordringen
in recovering the sums owed to them, the creditors of IFP may have recourse to specific procedures authorising the State to force the debtor body to settle the claim;
på intet tidspunkt får det offentlige foretagende IFP's kreditorer i henhold til fransk ret opfattelsen af, at foretagendet kunne stå i en situation med definitivt utilstrækkelig likviditet
nowhere does French law give the creditors of IFP to understand that IFP could face, for good, a situation in which it had a shortage of funds;
i tilfælde af utilstrækkelig likviditet lader budgetdokumenterne formode, at staten ville kunne bevilge en særlig støtte til foretagender i den offentlige sektor, heriblandt det offentlige foretagende IFP
the budgetary documents give the impression that, if there is a shortage of funds, the State could give an exceptional grant to public sector bodies, of which IFP 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 det offentlige foretagende IFP 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 IFP were to be subject to structural development.
Disse særlige forhold er uløseligt forbundet med det offentlige foretagende IFP's status af EPIC og indebærer, at staten spiller en rolle som garant i sidste instans.
These special factors are intrinsically linked to IFP’s legal form as a publicly owned establishment and imply that the State performs the role of guarantor of last resort.
Det kan derfor med rette konkluderes, at det offentlige foretagende IFP er omfattet af en ubegrænset garanti fra den franske stat i kraft af sin status af EPIC.
It may therefore be legitimately concluded that IFP benefits from an unlimited guarantee on the part of the French State by virtue of its legal form as an EPIC.
Statens ubegrænsede garanti til fordel for det offentlige foretagende IFP indebærer en overførsel af statsmidler jf. punkt 2.1 i meddelelsen om garantier.
The unlimited State guarantee to IFP results in a transfer of State resources within the meaning of point 2.1 of the Guarantees Notice.
Det offentlige foretagende IFP betaler da heller ingen præmie for denne garanti.
IFP pays no premium for this guarantee.
Således er der på samme tid tale om en fordel for virksomheden og et træk på statskassen, eftersom staten giver afkald på den betaling, som normalt erlægges for garantierne.
There is thus both an advantage to the establishment and a drain on public resources, as the State waives the remuneration that normally accompanies guarantees.
I øvrigt skaber garantien en risiko for et potentielt træk på statens ressourcer i fremtiden, idet staten kan se sig nødsaget til at betale det offentlige foretagende IFP's gæld [110].
In addition, the guarantee creates the risk of a potential and future claim on the resources of the State, which could find itself obliged to pay IFP’s debts [110].
Endelig tilskrives statens ubegrænsede garanti til fordel for det offentlige foretagende IFP staten, fordi den følger af kombinationen af det offentlige foretagende IFP's offentligretlige status, nationalretlige principper og to retsakter, nemlig loven af 25. januar 1985, som blev til handelsloven, og lov nr. 80-539 af 16. juli 1980 samt gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil.
Finally, the State’s unlimited guarantee to IFP is imputable to the State, because it derives from the combination of IFP’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 Law No 80-539 of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it.
Fravær af dækning af de privatretlige datterselskaber i IFP-koncernen gennem den ubegrænsede garanti
The unlimited guarantee does not cover IFP’s private-law subsidiaries
Som Kommissionen allerede har anført i sin beslutning i sag C 51/2005 [111], i indledningsbeslutningen om den foreliggende sag og i afsnit 2 (»IFP-koncernen«) i nærværende afgørelse, danner det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskaber Axens, Beicip-Franlab og Prosernat i konkurrenceretlig forstand en koncern.
As the Commission already indicated in its decision on case C 51/2005 [111], in the opening decision in the present case, and in section 2 above (‘The IFP group’), IFP and its subsidiaries Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat form an economic group for purposes of competition law: the economic integration of the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat is sufficiently strong to justify such a conclusion, because the publicly owned establishment IFP holds 100 % of Axens’s capital and 100 % of Beicip-Franlab’s capital directly, and 100 % of Prosernat’s capital indirectly; it exercises control of its subsidiaries through the presence of IFP managers in the subsidiaries’ decision-making bodies; it expresses its opinion in particular on the strategic planning and the key decisions for the future of the subsidiaries; and it is party to exclusive technology transfer agreements which are essential for the pursuit of its subsidiaries’ economic activities (agreements that include reciprocal rights of first refusal [112]) and to assignment contracts for the provision of premises and staff.
Det offentlige foretagende IFP ejer nemlig 100 % af selskabskapitalen i Axens direkte, 100 % af selskabskapitalen i Beicip-Franlab direkte og 100 % af selskabskapitalen i Prosernat indirekte. Det offentlige foretagende IFP udøver kontrol over sine datterselskaber, ved at dets egne ledende medarbejdere er placeret i de besluttende organer i datterselskaberne. Det udtaler sig i særdeleshed om de strategiske retningslinjer og basale beslutninger vedrørende datterselskabernes fremtid og er bundet gennem eneretsaftaler om overførsel af uundværlig teknologi til datterselskabernes økonomiske aktiviteter (aftaler, der indebærer gensidig forhåndsret [112] og gennem kontrakter om tilrådighedsstillelse af lokaler og personale. Det offentlige foretagende IFP's økonomiske integration med sine datterselskaber Axens, Beicip-Franlab og Prosernat er således tilstrækkelig stærk til at føre til en sådan konklusion. Derfor bør det undersøges, hvad det nøjagtige omfang af statsgarantien er, så det kan kontrolleres, om der i tilfælde af, at et privatretligt datterselskab af det offentlige foretagende IFP bliver insolvent, vil kunne mobiliseres statslige midler til betaling af kreditorerne (med andre ord om det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskabers økonomiske aktiviteter er dækket af den ubegrænsede statsgaranti eller ikke).
The precise scope of the State guarantee has therefore to be examined in order to establish whether, in the event of default by an IFP subsidiary governed by private law, public resources could be mobilised to compensate its creditors (in other words, whether or not the unlimited State guarantee covers the economic activities of IFP’s subsidiaries).
I sine bemærkninger udtaler selskabet UOP Limited sig ikke om dette spørgsmål.
UOP did not express an opinion on this point in its comments.
Dets argumentation bygger på markedets aktørers opfattelse af enheden »IFP/Axens«, som ifølge selskabet vil kunne give IFP-koncernen en fordel såvel i henseende til leverandørerne som til kunderne eller kapitalmarkedet.
Its arguments are based on market operators’ perception of ‘IFP/Axens’ which, in its opinion, is liable to confer an advantage on the IFP group in relation to suppliers, customers or capital providers.
Dette aspekt bliver undersøgt i afsnit 7.1.4 i denne afgørelse om de fordele, som IFP-koncernen har af foranstaltningen.
This aspect will be examined in section 7.1.4 of this decision, which investigates the advantages which the IFP group derives from the measure.
Til gengæld bestrider de franske myndigheder som angivet i betragtning 47 eksistensen af en statsgaranti til fordel for det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskaber, bl.a. på baggrund af deres status af almindelige aktieselskaber.
On the other hand, as indicated in recital 47, the French authorities deny the existence of a State guarantee for IFP’s subsidiaries, in particular because they have the legal form of public limited companies governed by ordinary law.
I lighed med påvisningen af eksistensen af en ubegrænset garanti til fordel for det offentlige foretagende IFP, som fremlægges i afsnit 7.1.1.1, vil Kommissionen undersøge, om kreditorerne hos de privatretlige datterselskaber af det offentlige foretagende IFP er omfattet af en garanti for betaling af deres individuelle fordringer (A), eller om de er omfattet af en garanti for opretholdelse af disse datterselskabers forpligtelser (B) i tilfælde af utilstrækkelige aktiver.
In section 7.1.1.1, the Commission showed that the publicly owned establishment IFP enjoyed an unlimited guarantee; it will now consider whether the creditors of IFP’s private-law subsidiaries are covered by (A) a guarantee of payment of their individual claims or (B) a guarantee of the continued existence of their obligations in the event of insufficient assets.
Kreditorerne hos det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskaber har ingen garanti for betaling af deres individuelle fordringer
Creditors of IFP’s subsidiaries have no guarantee of payment of their individual claims
Det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskaber har status af aktieselskab.
IFP’s subsidiaries have the legal form of public limited companies.
Som privatretlige juridiske personer (i modsætning til deres kontrollerende aktionær, som er et offentligt foretagende) falder de fuldt ud ind under anvendelsesområdet for de almindelige procedurer for retslig rekonstruktion og likvidation [113] i Frankrig.
As legal persons governed by private law (unlike their controlling shareholder, which is a publicly owned establishment), they are fully subject to the compulsory administration and winding-up procedures provided for under ordinary law in France [113].
Før undersøgelsen af, om det er muligt at gøre et ansvar for det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskaber gældende over for den kontrollerende aktionær (b), er det på sin plads at præsentere den almindelige retslige konkursbehandling, som disse privatretlige datterselskaber er omfattet af i tilfælde af en betalingsstandsning (a).
Before examining whether the controlling shareholder, the publicly owned establishment IFP, might have a vicarious liability that could be invoked for its subsidiaries (b), an account must be given of the compulsory winding-up procedure under ordinary law to which these private-law subsidiaries would be subject in the event of cessation of payments (a).
Almindelig retslig konkursbehandling
Compulsory winding up under ordinary law
Hvis det antages, at et af datterselskaberne i IFP-koncernen, et aktieselskab, er i betalingsstandsning (med andre ord at det ikke længere er i stand til at honorere sin forfaldne gæld ved hjælp af sine disponible aktiver), og at en rekonstruktion er åbenbart umulig [114], medfører den almindelige procedure [115], at selskabet kommer under retslig konkursbehandling.
Supposing that an IFP subsidiary, a public limited company, was in default (in other words that it was no longer able to meet current liabilities out of its available assets), and that a reorganisation seemed manifestly impossible [114], the procedure under ordinary law [115] would lead to it being wound up compulsorily.
Det vil i givet fald være skyldneren, der senest 45 dage efter betalingsstandsningen kræver, at proceduren [116] indledes (medmindre skyldneren allerede har krævet en forligsprocedure indledt).
The commencement of such proceedings [116] would be requested, where appropriate, by a debtor within forty-five days at the latest following the cessation of payments (unless the debtor had already requested the commencement of conciliation proceedings).
En sådan retslig konkursbehandling vil have til formål at afslutte virksomhedens aktiviteter eller realisere dens formue gennem en samlet eller separat afhændelse af dens rettigheder og formuegoder [117].
The purpose of such a compulsory winding up procedure would be to end the business activity of the undertaking or to sell its assets through a general or separate sale of its interests and property [117].
I konkursdekretet, der indleder den retslige konkursbehandling [118], udpeger retten en dommer til opgaven og udnævner en repræsentant for retten eller en person, der vælges for sine kompetencer på området, til kurator.
In the order commencing the winding up proceedings [118], the court appoints a supervisory judge (juge-commissaire) and, as liquidator, a court-registered administrator (mandataire judiciaire) or another person chosen for competence in this field.
Kurator udarbejder inden en måned efter sin udnævnelse en rapport om virksomhedens situation og går dernæst videre til likvidationsopgaverne og verificeringen [119] af fordringerne [120].
Within a month of his appointment, the liquidator draws up a report on the situation of the undertaking and then carries out the liquidation operations and the verification [119] of claims [120].