natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De franske myndigheder præciserer i øvrigt, at ophævelsesklausulen udelukkende blev indført i aftaleprotokollen af 21. juli 2005 på anmodning af Financière Sernam for at beskytte selskabet mod risikoen for, at Kommissionen skulle træffe en negativ beslutning.
Moreover, the French authorities specify that the cancellation clause was included in the memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005 at the request of Financière Sernam and solely to protect it against the risk of a negative decision by the Commission.
De franske myndigheder anslår, at en overdragelse ikke ville have været mulig uden en klausul af denne type og hævder, at Kommissionen ikke havde sat spørgsmålstegn ved denne klausul i en tidligere sag [24].
The French authorities consider that no disposal would have been possible without this type of clause and claim that the Commission did not call this clause into question in a previous case [24].
REDEGØRELSE FOR BEGRUNDELSEN I ARTIKEL 3 I SERNAM 2-BESLUTNINGEN
REMINDER OF REASONING BEHIND ARTICLE 3 OF THE SERNAM 2 DECISION
Indledningsvis anfører Kommissionen, at denne procedure blev indledt i medfør af artikel 16 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 [25], fordi Kommissionen havde oplysninger om, at Frankrig misbrugte den støtte, der var godkendt på visse betingelser i Sernam 2-beslutningen, efter misbruget af den støtte, som ligeledes på visse betingelser var godkendt i Sernam 1-beslutningen.
Firstly, the Commission recalls that the present procedure was initiated under Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [25], as the Commission had received indications that France has misused the aid authorised, subject to conditions, by the Sernam 2 Decision, following the misuse of aid authorised, also subject to conditions, by the Sernam 1 decision.
Kommissionen mener, at det er på sin plads at anføre årsagerne til, at den fastsatte betingelserne i artikel 3 i Sernam 2-beslutningen [26]:
The Commission considers it appropriate to recall the reasons which led to it imposing the conditions provided for by Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision [26]:
»[…] Kommissionen er i betragtning af den misbrug af støtte, der konstateres ovenfor, og forlængelsen af omstruktureringsplanen, desuden af den opfattelse, at Sernam skal levere en særlig modydelse ved på varig vis at trække sig ud af markedssegmenterne med overkapacitet, således at det er berettiget at godkende en del af støtten.
‘[…] taking account of the misuse of aid established above and the extension of the period of the restructuring plan, the Commission takes the view that Sernam should take a specific compensatory measure by permanently withdrawing from market segments with overcapacity so as to warrant approval of part of the aid at issue.
Hvis Sernam derimod skulle sælge sine aktiver »en bloc«, understreger Kommissionen, at ovennævnte to betingelser vedrørende virksomhedens omstrukturering ikke vil finde anvendelse, eftersom Sernam ikke længere vil have samme retlige status og vil have frigjort sine markedsandele til fordel for den uafhængige køber (der de facto kan fortsætte sine aktiviteter med Sernams aktiver).«
On the other hand, should Sernam sell its assets en bloc, the Commission recalls that the above two conditions concerning the company’s restructuring will not apply as Sernam will no longer operate in its current legal form and will cede its market shares to the independent acquiring party (which will de facto continue its activities with Sernam’s assets).’
I Sernam 2-beslutningen opstilles der således to forskellige salgsscenarier for Sernam SA: et fuldstændigt salg af Sernam SA (aktiver og passiver) og et salg udelukkende af aktiverne.
The Sernam 2 Decision therefore considers two different sale scenarios for Sernam SA: sale of the whole of Sernam SA (assets and liabilities), and sale of the assets only.
Efter den første hypotese er det selskab, der erhverver aktiver og passiver, underlagt betingelserne i artikel 3, stk. 1, i Sernam 2-beslutningen. Efter den anden gælder disse betingelser ikke.
Under the first hypothesis, the company acquiring the assets and liabilities is subject to the conditions set out in Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision; under the second, these conditions do not apply.
Det var nødvendigt at høre op med at holde et selskab kunstigt i live, der uberettiget havde markedsandele, selv om det ikke var konkurrencedygtigt.
It was necessary to put an end to the artificial survival of a company which was unduly occupying market shares when it was not competitive.
Deraf følger på den ene side, at statens regelmæssige redning af selskabet Sernam blev bragt til ophør, og på den anden side, at konkurrencefordrejningerne som følge af disse redningsaktioner enten skulle forsvinde eller give anledning til kompensationsforanstaltninger.
This resulted, on the one hand, in the process of regular replenishment of the company Sernam by the State being brought to an end, and, on the other hand in the distortions of competition created by this replenishment having to either disappear or give rise to compensatory measures.
Således skulle man tilbagesøge de 41 mio. EUR i ulovlig uforenelig støtte, som var bevilget til selskabet Sernam mellem 2001 og 2004, og vedtage kompensationsforanstaltninger til at frigøre markedsandele til gengæld for de 503 mio. EUR i omstruktureringsstøtte.
In this way, the EUR 41 million of unlawful, incompatible aid granted to the company Sernam between 2001 and 2004 was to be recovered and compensatory measures were to be adopted releasing market shares in exchange for the EUR 503 million in restructuring aid.
Kommissionen konstaterer imidlertid omgående, at den måde, hvorpå Frankrig havde til hensigt at gennemføre beslutningen fra 2004, går stik imod de fastsatte mål.
However, the Commission observes straight away that the way in which France intended to implement the 2004 decision is directly counter to the objectives thus pursued.
De franske myndigheder videreførte nemlig bevillingen af driftsstøtte under gennemførelsen af denne beslutning og bestræbte sig på at bevare virksomhedens økonomiske forbindelse uden at frigøre markedsandele, men forsøgte tværtimod at styrke virksomhedens konkurrenceposition.
In fact, the French authorities continued to grant operating aid, under cover of implementing this decision, and endeavoured to preserve the economic continuity of the undertaking without releasing market share and on the contrary trying to strengthen its competitive position.
Der bør på dette tidspunkt foretages en metodisk analyse af de midler, de franske myndigheder har anvendt til at nå deres mål.
At this stage, it is appropriate to carry out a methodical examination of the means implemented by the French authorities to achieve their objectives.
MISBRUG AF DEN I SERNAM 2-BESLUTNINGEN GODKENDTE STØTTE
MISUSE OF THE AID AUTHORISED BY THE SERNAM 2 DECISION
De franske myndigheder bekræfter, at betingelserne i artikel 3, stk. 1, i Sernam 2-beslutningen ikke er blevet overholdt.
The French authorities confirm non-compliance with the conditions set out in Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Derfor kan Kommissionen nøjes med at kontrollere, om Frankrig har opfyldt betingelserne i artikel 3, stk. 2, i Sernam 2-beslutningen.
Consequently, the Commission can confine itself to verifying whether France complied with the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Det skal erindres, at dette styk har følgende ordlyd:
As a reminder, this paragraph is worded as follows:
»Hvis Sernam sælger sine aktiver »en bloc« inden den 30. juni 2005 til markedsprisen til en virksomhed, der ikke har nogen juridisk forbindelse med SNCF, efter en åben, gennemskuelig og ikke-diskriminerende procedure, finder betingelserne i stk. 1 ikke anvendelse.«
‘In the event that Sernam sells its assets en bloc by 30 June 2005, at market price through a transparent and open procedure to a company that has no legal link with SNCF, the conditions of paragraph 1 shall not be applicable.’
Som det vil blive påvist i det følgende, overholdt Frankrig ikke disse betingelser.
As will be shown below, France failed to comply with these conditions.
Overdragelsen af aktiviteterne skete ikke den 30. juni 2005
The transfer of the activities was not completed by 30 June 2005
Det fremgår af bemærkningerne fra de franske myndigheder og den første klager, at SNCFs ledelse kun i princippet havde accepteret det faste tilbud fra Financière Sernam den 30. juni 2005.
The observations of the French authorities and the first complainant show that, on 30 June 2005, the SNCF management only accepted the firm offer of Financière Sernam in principle.
Aftaleprotokollen, der binder alle parter i transaktionen, blev dog først undertegnet den 21. juli 2005, og de forskellige overdragelsesoperationer blev først gennemført den 17. oktober 2005.
However, the memorandum of understanding which is binding on all the parties to the transaction was not signed until 21 July 2005 and the various transfer operations were carried out only on 17 October 2005.
Kommissionen konkluderer på det grundlag, at overdragelsen af Sernam SAs aktiviteter til Financière Sernam ikke fandt sted senest den 30. juni 2005, som det ellers var fastsat i betingelsen i Sernam 2-beslutningen.
The Commission concludes from this that the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financière Sernam did not take place by 30 June 2005 at the latest, even though this was a requirement under the Sernam 2 Decision.
Alene den grund er allerede tilstrækkelig til at konkludere, at Frankrig har misbrugt den støtte, der på visse betingelser var godkendt i Sernam 2-beslutningen.
This reason alone would already suffice to conclude that France misused the aid authorised conditionally by the Sernam 2 Decision.
Overdragelse af aktiviteter er ikke et salg [27]
The transfer of activities does not constitute a sale [27]
Købekontrakten i EU-medlemsstaternes retssystemer bygger på principper, der er udviklet gennem romerretten (emptio venditio).
A contract of sale under the legal systems of the Member States of the Union is based on principles developed in Roman law (emptio venditio).
Salg består af overdragelse af ejendomsretten til et gode mod betaling af en pris.
The sale consists in the transfer of ownership of a good against the payment of a price.
Denne pris skal, som den franske regering understreger i forbindelse med fransk ret, være en positiv pris.
This price, as the French Government emphasises in respect of French law, must be a positive price.
En transaktion, hvorved den person, som vil overdrage ejendomsretten til et eller flere goder, tilbyder den person, der overtager dem, penge, er ikke et salg, men en anden type kontrakt.
A transaction by which the person wishing to transfer ownership of one or more goods offers money to the person who acquires them is not a sale, but a different type of contract.
I den foreliggende sag betalte SNCF 59 mio. EUR, idet selskabet foretog en rekapitalisering af henholdsvis Sernam SA på 57 mio. EUR og Sernam Xpress på 2 mio. EUR og bevilgede Financière Sernam forskellige garantier.
In the present case, SNCF paid EUR 59 million, by undertaking the recapitalisation of Sernam SA for EUR 57 million and of Sernam Xpress for EUR 2 million respectively, and granted various guarantees to Financière Sernam.
Financière Sernams betaling af 2 mio. EUR til SNCF og Sernam SA opvejer rekapitaliseringen af Sernam Xpress, men ikke de øvrige elementer i transaktionen.
The payment of EUR 2 million by Financière Sernam in favour of SNCF and Sernam SA neutralises the recapitalisation of Sernam Xpress, but not the other components of the transaction.
Derfor kan den kontrakt, som blev indgået mellem SNCF og Financière Sernam, ikke kaldes en købekontrakt.
Consequently, the contract concluded between SNCF and Financière Sernam cannot be termed a sales contract.
Det anfægter de franske myndigheder i øvrigt ikke, idet de forklarer, at de forskellige aktiviteter i forbindelse med overdragelsen fra Sernam SA til Financière Sernam ikke udgør et salg, eftersom fransk ret ikke ville have givet mulighed for at foretage et salg med det resultat.
For that matter, this is not disputed by the French authorities, which explain that the various operations for the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financière Sernam do not constitute a sale as French law does not permit them to carry out a sale which would have led to this result.
Kommissionen konkluderer, at kontrakten mellem SNCF og Financière Sernam ikke udgør et salg.
The Commission concludes that the contract concluded between SNCF and Financière Sernam is not a sale.
Også af den grund overholdes artikel 3, stk. 2, i Sernam 2-beslutningen ikke, for der var ikke tale om salg.
For this reason too, Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision has not been observed as there was no sale.
Derfor har Frankrig misbrugt den støtte, der var godkendt på visse betingelser i Sernam 2-beslutningen.
Consequently, France has misused the aid authorised conditionally by the Sernam 2 Decision.
Overdragelsen af aktiviteter udgør ikke et salg af aktiver, men en fuldstændig overdragelse af Sernam SA (aktiver og passiver)
The transfer of the activities is not a sale of assts but a transfer of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities)
Selv om man antager, at overdragelsen af Sernam SAs aktiviteter til Financière Sernam udgør et salg, forudsætter overholdelsen af artikel 3, stk. 2, i Sernam 2-beslutningen, at dette salg udelukkende vedrører aktiverne og ikke hele Sernam SA (aktiver og passiver).
Even if the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financière Sernam did constitute a sale, compliance with Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision presupposes that this sale relates solely to the assets, and not to Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities).
Det følger af pkt. 217 i Sernam 2-beslutningen, der er citeret i nr. 89 i denne beslutning.
This results from recital 217 of the Sernam 2 Decision, cited at recital 89 of the present decision.
Som anført i afsnit 2.4 bygger SNCFs overdragelse af Sernam SAs aktiviteter til Financière Sernam på, at Sernam SA benytter sit helejede datterselskab, Sernam Xpress, som Sernam SA har overført sine aktiver til, samt dette selskabs passiver med undtagelse af visse gældsposter over for moderselskabet SNCF.
As stated in section 2.4, the transfer of Sernam SA’s activities by SNCF to Financière Sernam is based on the use by Sernam SA of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sernam Xpress, to which Sernam SA’s assets were transferred together with its liabilities, with the exception of some of its debts to its parent company, SNCF.
Inden denne overdragelse var Sernam SA blevet rekapitaliseret af SNCF med 57 mio. EUR, og disse friske penge var inkluderet i de aktiver, der blev overdraget.
Before this transfer, Sernam SA had been recapitalised by SNCF to the amount of EUR 57 million and this new capital was included in the assets transferred.
De gør gældende, at operationens samlede resultat er identisk med resultatet af et salg af aktiver.
They point out that the overall result of the operation is identical to that of the sale of the assets.
Den bør derfor sidestilles med et salg af aktiver en bloc i Sernam SA, jf. artikel 3, stk. 2, i Sernam 2-beslutningen.
It should therefore be assimilated to a sale of Sernam SA’s assets en bloc within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Der er to årsager til, at Kommissionen kommer frem til en anden konklusion.
The Commission comes to a different conclusion, for two reasons.
Overdragelsen består af en overførsel en bloc af aktiver og passiver inden for en koncern efterfulgt af et salg af aktier (share deal) i det datterselskab, der har modtaget dem
The transfer consists in an intra-group transfer en bloc of the assets and liabilities, followed by a sale of shares (share deal) of the subsidiary which received them
SNCFs operation gjorde det muligt for Financière Sernam at erhverve aktier i Sernam Xpress, dvs. at foretage et salg af aktier (»share deal«).
The operation carried out by SNCF enabled Financière Sernam to acquire the shares of Sernam Xpress and therefore to undertake a sale of shares (‘share deal’).
Den fandt sted til en negativ pris på 57 mio. EUR og udgør derfor ikke et salg (jf. afsnit 3.2.2.).
It took place for a negative price of EUR 57 million and does not therefore constitute a sale (see section 3.2.2).
Endvidere vedrører den ikke kun aktiverne, men også alle passiverne med undtagelse af visse af Sernam SAs gældsposter over for moderselskabet SNCF.
In addition, it relates not only to the assets, but also to the entire liabilities, with the exception of certain debts of Sernam SA to its parent company, SNCF.
Der var derfor tale om overdragelse af hele (aktiver og passiver) Sernam SA og ikke om et salg udelukkende af aktiver (jf. ligeledes afsnit 3.2.3.2.).
It was therefore a transfer of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities) and not a sale of the assets only (also see section 3.2.3.2).
Endelig fandt overdragelsen sted til et helejet datterselskab, nemlig Sernam Xpress, en ad hoc-virksomhed, som var beregnet til at modtage Sernam SAs aktiver og passiver med det ene formål selv at blive videresolgt til Financière Sernam.
Finally, this transfer was made to a wholly-owned subsidiary, i.e. Sernam Xpress, an ad hoc entity intended to receive Sernam SA’s assets and liabilities for the sole purposes of itself being sold to Financière Sernam.
Tilførslen skete derfor ikke til en tredje virksomhed, som var uafhængig af SNCF.
Therefore this contribution was not made to a third-party undertaking independent of SNCF.
I anden omgang blev aktierne i Sernam Xpress solgt til Financière Sernam, hvilket heller ikke udgør et salg af aktiver til tredjemand, men en overdragelse af aktier eller »share deal« (og dermed en overdragelse af hele virksomheden).
Secondly, the Sernam Xpress shares were sold to Financière Sernam, which does not constitute a sale of assets to a third party either, but a transfer of shares or share deal (and therefore a transfer of the undertaking in its entirety).
Herefter udgør ingen af SNCFs operationer salg af Sernam SAs aktiver en bloc til et selskab uden juridisk forbindelse med SNCF, og betingelserne i artikel 3, stk. 2, i Sernam 2-beslutningen er ikke blevet overholdt.
Consequently, none of the operations carried out by SNCF constitutes a sale of Sernam SA’s assets en bloc to a company that has no legal link with SNCF and the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision were not observed.
Overdragelsen er ikke begrænset til aktiverne, men omfatter hele (aktiver og passiver) Sernam SA
The transfer is not limited to the assets, but comprises Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities)
Resultatet af de forskellige overdragelsesoperationer er, at Financière Sernam ved at erhverve Sernam Xpress erhverver alle aktiver og passiver i Sernam SA på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af Sernam 2-beslutningen med følgende undtagelser: På den ene side steg aktiverne med indskuddet på 57 mio. EUR til Sernam SA og 2 mio. EUR til Sernam Xpress (jf. også afsnit 3.2.4. i denne beslutning), og på den anden side blev passiverne reduceret med den lånekapital, selskabet Sernam SA optog hos SNCF-koncernen, passiver vedrørende ophævelsen af »IBM-GPS-kontrakten«, og det beløb, som skulle tilbagebetales for den uforenelige støtte på 41 mio. EUR.
The result of the various transfer operations is that Financière Sernam, through its acquisition of Sernam Xpress, acquires Sernam SA’s assets and liabilities in their entirety at the time of the adoption of the Sernam 2 Decision, apart from the following exceptions: on the one hand, the assets were boosted by the injections of EUR 57 million in favour of Sernam SA and EUR 2 million in favour of Sernam Xpress (also see section 3.2.4 of the present decision) and, on the other hand, the liabilities were reduced by the amount of the equity loan contracted by the company Sernam SA with the SNCF group, a liability relating to the cancellation of the ‘IBM-GPS’ contract, and the amount of the obligation to repay the incompatible aid amounting to EUR 41 million.
Men disse marginale tilpasninger kan ikke skjule den kendsgerning, at hovedparten af Sernam SAs aktiver og passiver kort og godt først blev overdraget til Sernam Xpress og siden til Financière Sernam.
However, these marginal adjustments cannot hide the fact that the bulk of Sernam SA’s assets and liabilities were indeed transferred first to Sernam Xpress and then to Financière Sernam.
Overdragelsen er ikke begrænset til de aktiver, Sernam SA ejede på tidspunktet for Sernam 2-beslutningen, men blev forhøjet med 59 mio. EUR
The transfer is not limited to the assets owned by Sernam SA at the time of the Sernam 2 Decision, but were increased by EUR 59 million
Med hensyn til aktiverne bemærker Kommissionen også, at beløbet på 59 mio. EUR blev tilføjet gennem rekapitaliseringen af Sernam SA og Sernam Xpress, og at denne tilføjelse økonomisk set og under hensyntagen til Financière Sernams betaling på 2 mio. EUR er på 57 mio. EUR. En sådan tilføjelse til aktiverne er ikke tilladt i henhold til artikel 3, stk. 2, i Sernam 2-beslutningen.
On the assets side, the Commission also notes that the sum of EUR 59 million was added by the recapitalisations of Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress and that, at economic level, taking account of the payment of EUR 2 million by Financière Sernam, this addition comes to EUR 57 million. Such an addition to the assets is not authorised by Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Overdragelsen af aktiviteterne fandt ikke sted efter en gennemskuelig og åben procedure
The transfer of the business did not take place through a transparent and open procedure
De franske myndigheder afholdt i første omgang en gennemskuelig og åben procedure.
The French authorities at first organised a transparent and open procedure.
Ved udgangen af denne procedure havde SNCF imidlertid ikke modtaget et bindende tilbud.
However, at the end of this procedure, SNCF had not received any binding offer.
Efter at den gennemskuelige og åbne procedure var mislykkedes, blev aftalen om de forskellige overdragelsesoperationer i forbindelse med Sernam SAs aktiviteter indgået med Financière Sernam.
Following the failure of the transparent and open procedure, the contract concerning the various operations for the transfer of Sernam SA’s business was concluded with Financière Sernam.
Da sidstnævnte ikke som sådan havde deltaget selvstændigt i den gennemskuelige og åbne procedure, skete overdragelsen af aktiviteterne i sidste instans ikke efter en gennemskuelig og åben procedure.
Since the latter did not participate as such and in an autonomous manner in the transparent and open procedure, the transfer of the business finally did not take place through a transparent and open procedure.
Også af denne grund er betingelserne i artikel 3, stk. 2, i Sernam 2-beslutningen ikke er overholdt.
For this reason too, the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision were not observed.
Formålet med et salg af aktiver er ikke opfyldt
The ultimate purpose of a sale of assets was not observed
I nr. 217 i Sernam 2-beslutningen forklares formålet med et salg af aktiver på følgende måde:
Recital 217 of the Sernam 2 Decision explains the ultimate purpose of a sale of assets as follows:
»Sernam […] vil have frigjort sine markedsandele til fordel for den uafhængige køber (der de facto kan fortsætte sine aktiviteter med Sernams aktiver).«
‘Sernam […] will cede its market shares to the independent acquiring party (which will de facto continue its activities with Sernam’s assets).’
Formålet med at sælge aktiverne var således at frigøre Sernam SAs markedsandele og aktiver samt at give tredjemand mulighed for at udnytte disse aktiver.
The ultimate purpose of a sale of assets was therefore to cede market shares and Sernam SA’s assets, and to allow a third party to use these assets.
Salget af aktiver sigtede derfor mod at afbryde Sernam SAs økonomiske aktivitet.
The sale of the assets therefore aimed to break off Sernam SA’s economic activity.