natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 risici, der ikke er fælles, 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 risks common to ordinary employees and civil servants and, in this regard, it excludes the contributions corresponding to the risks that are not common, such as unemployment and non-payment of wages in the event of a firm going into receivership or compulsory liquidation;
for det andet rådede Kommissionen ikke over tilstrækkelige oplysninger om, hvordan lempelsen af pensionsforpligtelserne påvirker konkurrencen, således at den kan vurdere, om der eventuelt er flere positive end negative virkninger.
secondly, the Commission did not have sufficient information concerning the effects on competition of reducing the cost of retirement pensions, in order to assess whether any positive effects exceeded the negative effects.
I den henseende skal Kommissionen i øvrigt tage højde for det forhold, at France Télécom endnu ikke fuldt ud har tilbagebetalt den ulovlige og uforenelige støtte i medfør af Kommissionens beslutning af 2. august 2004 om den statsstøtte, som Frankrig har ydet France Télécom (herefter kaldet »beslutningen om den erhvervsskatteordning, der gælder for France Télécom«) [34], en beslutning, som Frankrig ikke efterlevede inden for den fastsatte frist, jf. Domstolens dom [35].
To this end, the Commission also had to take into account the fact that France Télécom had not yet repaid in full the unlawful and incompatible aid pursuant to the Commission Decision of 2 August 2004 concerning State aid implemented in France for France Télécom (hereinafter: ‘Decision on the application of business tax to France Télécom’) [34], a decision with which France failed to conform within the time limit given, as established by the Court of Justice [35].
Bemærkninger fra interesserede parter resumeres nedenfor i punkt 4.1 til 4.3.
The comments presented by interested parties are summarised in Sections 4.1 to 4.3.
I France Télécoms bemærkninger, som selskabet betragter som supplerende i forhold til de bemærkninger, Den Franske Republik har fremsat, anfører France Télécom, at selskabet konstant befinder sig i en situation med for mange ansatte på grund af sin tidligere status som et generaldirektorat, og at selskabet ikke for det pågældende personales vedkommende har de samme muligheder for fleksibilitet som sine konkurrenter.
In its comments, which it considers to be supplementary to those submitted by the French Republic, France Télécom considers that it suffering from chronic overstaffing linked to its former status as a public administration and that, for the population concerned, it does not have the same potential for fluidity of employment as its competitors.
France Télécom skal således gøre en meget betydelig uddannelsesindsats, der beløber sig til 180 mio. EUR svarende til 4,5 % af lønsummen sammenlignet med 2,9 % for gennemsnittet af de franske virksomheder.
France Télécom has to bear very heavy training costs amounting to EUR 180 million, equivalent to 4,5 % of the total wage bill, compared to 2,9 % on average for French companies.
France Télécom påberåber sig lønomkostninger, der er […] % højere, uden at der tages højde for tillæg og bonusser.
France Télécom also alleges that its wage bill is about […] % higher, excluding surcharges and bonuses.
Da France Télécom endvidere ikke kan iværksætte sociale ordninger, har selskabet finansieret ledsageforanstaltninger i forbindelse med tjenestemænds fratrædelse, f.eks. gradvis indstilling og ophør af arbejdsaktiviteterne mellem 1996 og 2006 til et beløb af 8 mia. EUR.
In addition, since it cannot implement social plans, France Télécom financed the cost of measures associated with the departures of civil servants, such as end-of-career leave, to an amount exceeding EUR 8 billion between 1996 and 2006.
For det andet mener France Télécom, at pensionsomkostningerne mellem 1990 og 1996 var anormale og gav selskabet en strukturel ulempe i forhold til de private konkurrenter, jf. Combus-dommen [36], idet referencerammen til vurdering af, om de pågældende omkostninger var normale eller anormale er de almindelige retsregler, der gælder for konkurrenterne.
Secondly, France Télécom considers that the retirement pension costs borne between 1990 and 1996 were abnormal and placed it at a structural disadvantage in relation to its private-sector competitors, as referred to in the Combus judgment [36], the reference framework for assessing whether these charges were normal or abnormal being the ordinary law arrangements applicable to competitors.
Principperne i Combus-dommen skulle senere blive bekræftet af Rettens dom i Hotel Cipriani-sagen [37].
The principles laid down in the Combus judgment would appear to have been confirmed since by the Court in its Hotel Cipriani judgment [37].
France Télécom bestrider, at situationen for en operatør, i dette tilfælde selskabet selv, før og efter reformen som følge af 1996-loven er et egnet sammenligningsgrundlag med hensyn til at vurdere, om der er tale om en økonomisk fordel i medfør af retspraksis.
France Télécom disputes that the situation of a single operator, in this case itself, before and after the reform introduced by the 1996 Law, constitutes an appropriate comparison for assessing whether there is an economic advantage within the meaning of the case-law.
Under alle omstændigheder gælder det, at hvis referencerammen skulle anvendes på France Télécom før og efter 1996-reformen, ville foranstaltningen ikke kunne beskrives som selektiv, da den blev anvendt ensartet inden for den pågældende ramme.
In any event, if the reference framework were to be reduced to France Télécom before and after the 1996 reform, the measure could not be classified as selective since it would be applied homogeneously within that framework.
Det følger deraf, at de omhandlede foranstaltninger enten ikke udgør statsstøtte i medfør af traktaten, da de fratager France Télécom en anormal strukturel ulempe, eller ikke kan betegnes som en selektiv fordel, der udgør statsstøtte.
As a result, the measures in question would either not constitute State aid within the meaning of the Treaty in that they release France Télécom from an abnormal structural disadvantage or cannot be classified as a selective advantage constituting State aid.
Subsidiært mener France Télécom, at statsstøtten, hvis en sådan foreligger, ville være forenelig med det indre marked ifølge de kriterier, Kommissionen har opstillet i sin beslutning om pensionsordningen for La Poste (herefter kaldet »La Poste-beslutningen«) [38].
Alternatively, France Télécom considers that State aid, if it were confirmed, would be compatible with the internal market in accordance with the criteria established by the Commission in its decision on the retirement pension arrangements of La Poste (hereinafter: ‘La Poste decision’) [38].
Det særlige ved selskabets ordning, der består i, at det betaler et bidrag, der udelukkende er beregnet på basis af fælles risici, betyder i den henseende ikke, at France Télécom har været i en gunstig situation i forhold til sine konkurrenter siden 1996: Ud over de strukturelle ulemper, der følger af de tjenestemandsansattes status, blev France Télécom pålagt at betale et betydeligt bidrag i forbindelse med 1996-reformen, hvis forenelighed med det indre marked skal analyseres, og hvis beløb på 5,7 mia. EUR langt overstiger det beløb, France Télécom skulle have betalt, hvis selskabets bidrag også omfattede ikkefælles risici.
In this regard, the specific nature of its arrangements, in that it pays a contribution calculated on the basis solely of the common risks, does not mean that France Télécom has been placed in a favourable situation in relation to its competitors since 1996: apart from the structural disadvantages associated with the status of the civil servants it employs, France Télécom has had to pay a considerable amount associated with the 1996 reform, the compatibility of which with the internal market needs to be analysed and, of EUR 5,7 billion, which far exceeds that which France Télécom would have had to pay if its contribution had been subject to the risks that are not common.
France Télécom mener, at Kommissionen i La Poste-beslutningen [39] erkendte, at det ekstraordinære engangsbidrag (2 mia. EUR) inden for rammerne af en reform, der trådte i kraft efter anmeldelsen, men før Kommissionens beslutning, kompenserer for bidrag, der svarer til risici, som ikke er fælles, indtil det ekstraordinære engangsbidrag er opbrugt.
France Télécom considers that, in its La Poste decision [39], the Commission accepted that the amount of an exceptional one-off contribution (EUR 2 billion), in the context of a reform which came into effect after the notification but before the Commission decision, offsets the contributions corresponding to the non-common risks, until the amount of the one-off contribution has been exhausted.
Ifølge France Télécom er der intet, der begrunder, at Kommissionen fraviger dette princip, når de politiske erklæringer ved debatten om forslaget til 1996-loven ikke giver belæg for, at størrelsen af France Télécoms engangsbidrag skulle være blevet fastsat af lovgiveren for at bevare status quo i ti år.
According to France Télécom, there is nothing to justify the Commission departing from this principle, since it cannot be assumed from the policy declarations at the time of the debate on the draft 1996 Law that the amount of the flat-rate contribution of France Télécom was set by the French legislature so as to maintain the status quo for 10 years.
Endvidere modsiger tallene for 1996 påstanden om, at beløbet på 5,7 mia. EUR på daværende tidspunkt blev fastsat, så det svarede præcist til statens meromkostninger i medfør af 1996-loven i ti år ved år efter år at kompensere for selskabets lavere årlige bidrag, selv om der tages højde for kompensationsomkostninger mellem pensionsordninger, som France Télécom blev fritaget for i 1996 [40].
Furthermore, the figures available in 1996 would seem to contradict the argument that the amount of EUR 5,7 billion was estimated at the time to correspond precisely with the additional cost to the State of the applying the 1996 Law by compensating, year after year, the lower annual costs paid by the public body, even taking into account the charges to compensate between retirement pension schemes from which France Télécom was discharged in 1996 [40].
Formålet med det ekstraordinære bidrag var helt at kompensere den franske stat som følge af reformen.
The amount of the exceptional contribution was intended as overall compensation for the French State on account of the reform.
Der skal derfor nødvendigvis tages højde for det ved analysen af, om det har skabt »lige konkurrencevilkår« siden ikrafttrædelsen i 1997.
It therefore needs to be taken into account when analysing the level playing field since its entry into force in 1997.
Endelig mener France Télécom, at da selskabet uden 1996-reformen ville have fået en betydelig konkurrencemæssig ulempe på de markeder, som EU ønskede liberaliseret, og at de franske myndigheder efterfølgende fuldt ud efterlevede beslutningen om den erhvervsskatteordning, der gælder for France Télécom [41], har foranstaltningen ikke negative følger for konkurrencen.
Finally, France Télécom considers that, since without the 1996 reform, it would have suffered a significant competitive handicap on the markets which the Union aimed to liberalise and that the French authorities have now complied in full with the decision on the application of business tax to France Télécom [41], the measure does not have a negative impact on competition.
Klagerne
The complainants
Klagerne mener, at det er følgerne af foranstaltningen, dvs. en lempelse af de sociale bidrag, det normalt pålægges virksomheden at betale, og ikke dens genstand, dvs. kompensation for en påstået ulempe, der er afgørende for, at støtten kan karakteriseres som statsstøtte.
The complainants consider that it is the effects of the measure, i.e. the reduction in the social security contributions normally assumed in the undertaking’s budget, and not its object, i.e. the compensation of an alleged disadvantage, that mean it is State aid.
France Télécom har i øvrigt ingen ulemper ved at beskæftige tjenestemænd, da selskabets arbejdsløshedsbidrag og lønbaserede bidrag ligger 13 % under konkurrenternes, og da selskabet disponerer over et stabilt og fleksibelt personale, der giver mulighed for at nedbringe lønsummen ved hjælp af førtidspensionering og overgang til den offentlige sektor.
For that matter, there is no disadvantage in the employment of civil servants by France Télécom, since the undertaking pays unemployment contributions and wage costs which are 13 % lower than those paid by its competitors and has at its disposal a stable and flexible staff, with regard to reducing the total wage bill through early retirement and reorientation to the civil service.
Ifølge klagerne er en sådan statsstøtte uforenelig med det indre marked.
According to the complainants, State aid thus defined would be incompatible with the internal market.
Den betydelige konkurrencemæssige fordel, der tillægges France Télécom, er så meget mere skadelig, som lempelsen af bidragene ikke var nødvendig for at undgå at bringe den finansielle struktur i fare: Ved at slippe for en pensionsgæld til en nettonutidsværdi på mindst 9,9 mia. EUR i 1996 og ikke længere skulle opføre denne omkostning i sit regnskab eller i bilaget dertil kunne France Télécom derefter forgælde sig til betydelig højere beløb og havde mellem 1997 og 2007 en gennemsnitlig nettogæld på 44 mia. EUR. Støtten, som endvidere fritog France Télécom for de pensionsbidrag, der var arvet fra monopolet, gav selskabet mulighed for at ekspandere internationalt og samtidig styrke sin stilling i Frankrig, hvor det havde betydelige monopollignende fordele, for hvilke bidragene kun var en rimelig modvægt.
In fact, the considerable competitive advantage procured by France Télécom was all the more detrimental as the reduction in costs was unnecessary to avoid jeopardising its financial structure: relieved of a pension debt with a net value of EUR 9,9 billion at least in 1996 and no longer having to enter this cost in its balance sheet or the notes to the accounts, France Télécom then increased its debt considerably, with a net financial debt of EUR 44 billion on average between 1997 and 2007. Then, the aid releasing France Télécom from retirement pension costs inherited from the monopoly enabled the international expansion of the undertaking to be financed, whilst strengthening its position in France, where it benefited from substantial advantages as a monopoly, of which the costs were merely fair compensation..
De ulovlige og uforenelige støtteforanstaltninger, som ikke er tilbagebetalt, gjorde det i øvrigt umuligt at erklære den omhandlede driftsstøtte forenelig i betragtning af dens kumulerede virkning.
Moreover, the unlawful and incompatible aid not repaid in the past would preclude the operating aid at issue from being declared compatible, in view of their cumulative effect.
eformen medførte ikke lige konkurrencevilkår, da selskabet ikke betalte bidrag, der modsvarede risikoen for arbejdsløshed og risikoen for manglende lønudbetaling i tilfælde af selskabets konkurs eller likvidation, og reformen kan derfor ikke erklæres forenelig med traktatens bestemmelser.
Finally, the absence of a level playing field from the 1996 reform on account of the non-payment of contributions corresponding to the risks of unemployment and non-payment of wages in the event of the firm going into receivership makes it impossible for the reform to be compatible with the rules of the Treaty.
France Télécoms pensionsgæld bør beregnes af en uafhængig ekspert, og Frankrig bør forpligte sig til at sikre en finansielt neutral ordning, bl.a. ved at indføre justeringsmekanismer for arbejdsgiverbidraget og udligningsbeløbet på 5,7 mia. EUR, hvis bidragene ændrer sig.
The pension liability of France Télécom should be calculated by an independent expert and France should undertake to ensure the financial neutrality of the arrangements, in particular by providing mechanisms for adjusting the employer’s contribution and the compensation balance of EUR 5,7 billion in the event of variation in the costs.
Telekommunikationsoperatøren
The telecommunications operator
Telekommunikationsoperatøren er enig i og støtter Kommissionens indledende analyse i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren, der bruger betegnelsen ny og ulovlig statsstøtte for at beskrive de ændringer, der blev indført med 1996-loven, som skulle erstatte France Télécoms årlige frigørende bidrag med pensionsbetalinger varetaget af staten med fradrag af de bidrag, der blev indbetalt af ansatte med tjenestemandsstatus.
The telecommunications operator endorses and supports the preliminary analysis set out in the Commission’s decision initiating the procedure, regarding as new, unlawful State aid the amendments introduced by the 1996 Law with a view to substituting the annual contributions in full discharge of liabilities by France Télécom for the payments of pensions actually made by the State, with the deduction of the contributions paid by the employees still working with the status of civil servant.
Det samme gælder ifølge denne telekommunikationsoperatør for de sociale bidrag, der modsvarede de risici, som de overenskomstansatte ikke er omfattet af, som France Télécoms konkurrenter betaler, men som France Télécom i hvert fald siden 1996 ikke har betalt for de tjenestemandsansatte og de overenskomstansatte.
The same would also apply, according to this operator, to the social security contributions corresponding to the risks not common with the ordinary employees paid by France Télécom’s competitors but which France Télécom has not paid at least since 1996 for its civil service staff and for its staff governed by ordinary law.
I modsætning til sagen, der er omhandlet i La Poste-beslutningen [43], indgik disse bidrag ikke i beregningen af France Télécoms arbejdsgiverbidrag, hvilket stadig er tilfældet og ifølge operatøren udelukker dette, at støtten erklæres for forenelig.
Moreover, contrary to the case which was the subject of the La Poste decision [43], the calculation of the employer’s contribution from France Télécom did not, and still does not, include these contributions, which would make it impossible to declare the aid compatible.
Hvad angår den støtte, der følger af, at refusionen til staten for udbetalte persioner blev afskaffet, mener operatøren, at Kommissionens konkurrencemæssige vurdering i La Poste-beslutningen burde føre til en beslutning om uforenelighed.
As regards the aid resulting from the disappearance of the repayment to the State of the pensions granted, the operator considers that the analysis of the competitive balance carried out by the Commission in its La Poste decision should lead it to conclude, on the contrary, that it is incompatible.
Denne analyse burde baseres på forholdene siden 1996 og ikke — som i La Poste-beslutningen — på hypoteser om fremtiden.
This analysis should be based on the facts that have occurred since 1996 and not, as in the La Poste decision, hypothetically for the future.
Ifølge telekommunikationsoperatøren hár France Télécom imidlertid på mange af sine markeder en stilling, der kan sidestilles med en dominerende stilling.
According to this operator, on several of the markets on which it operates, France Télécom holds market power which can be assimilated to a dominant position.
Selskabet er derfor pålagt ex ante reguleringsforpligtelser på markederne for bredbånd og højhastighedsbredbånd, indledning og terminering af fastnetopkald.
As a result, it is subject to ex-ante regulatory obligations on the wholesale markets for high and very high speed broadband and for the origin and termination of calls on fixed lines.
I sin beslutning af 16. juli 2003 om en procedure om anvendelse af EF-traktatens artikel 82 i sag COMP-38.233 fastslog og sanktionerede Kommissionen en overtrædelse af artikel 102 i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde hos France Télécom via datterselskabet Wanadoo [44].
In its decision of 16 July 2003 relating to proceedings under Article 82 of the EC Treaty in the case COMP-38.233, the Commission established and imposed a penalty for an infringement of Article 102 of the TFEU on the part of France Télécom via its subsidiary Wanadoo [44].
Da selskabet var i en sund økonomisk situation, gav den modtagne støtte mulighed for at finansiere den internationale ekspansion og bl.a. erhverve Orange, Retevisión og AMENA.
Since the undertaking is financially sound in particular through the acquisition of Orange, Retevisión and AMENA.
Endelig beder telekommunikationsoperatøren Kommissionen om at sætte præcise tal på de omhandlede støttebeløb og i medfør af retspraksis fra Deggendorf-sagen [45] afvise at erklære de omhandlede foranstaltninger forenelige med det indre marked, så længe den hidtidige ulovlige støtte ikke er blevet tilbagebetalt.
Finally, the operator asks the Commission to quantify precisely the amount of aid at issue and, pursuant to the Deggendorf case-law [45], to refuse to accept the compatibility of the measures in question with the internal market until the unlawful aid from the past has been repaid.
Den franske republik mener ikke, at de ændringer, der blev indført i 1996 for finansieringen af pensioner til tjenestemandsansatte i France Télécom, indeholder statsstøtteelementer.
The French Republic considers that the changes made in 1996 to the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants of the French State working for France Télécom do not contain any elements of State aid.
Under alle omstændigheder er 1996-reformen forenelig med det indre marked, bl.a. i medfør af den begrundelse, Kommissionen anvendte i La Poste-beslutningen [46].
In any event, the 1996 reform is compatible with the internal market, in particular, through the transposition to this case of the reasoning followed by the Commission in its La Poste decision [46].
Spørgsmålet om statsstøtte
Concerning the existence of State aid
Ifølge Den Franske Republik bragte 1990-loven France Télécom i en anormal situation i relation til de almindeligt gældende regler, som foreskriver, at virksomhederne skal betale et frigørende arbejdsgiverbidrag i forhold til lønsummen, som ikke er knyttet til størrelsen af de udbetalte pensioner.
According to the French Republic, the 1990 Law placed France Télécom in an abnormal situation departing from the ordinary arrangements according to which undertakings pay an employer’s contribution in full discharge of liabilities, proportional to the total wage bill and not linked to the level of pensions granted.
France Télécoms bidrag var således anormale, da finansieringsgabet for delordningen for den omhandlede gruppe var åbenbart og med sikkerhed ville blive uholdbart i betragtning af det uundgåelige fald i antallet af tjenestemandsansatte og den deraf følgende stigning i antallet af pensionerede.
The cost assumed by France Télécom is in this way abnormal, since the financial deficit from the arrangements for the population concerned was certain and set to become intolerable, given the inevitable reduction in the number of civil servants still working and the associated increase in the number of pensioners.