natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I modsætning til den privatretlige procedure, hvor fordringerne massebehandles, og kreditorerne bliver fyldestgjort i faldende rækkefølge efter privilegeret krav og i forhold til det disponible beløb, skiller proceduren i henhold til lov af 16. juli 1980 sig ud ved, at kun kreditors anmeldelse af fordringen giver ham mulighed for at sikre sine rettigheder.
The absence of a single procedure for all creditors: unlike the procedure under private law, whereby claims are processed en masse and creditors are satisfied in decreasing order of priority and pro rata from the amounts available, the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 requires creditors to take action to protect their rights.
Loven af 16. juli 1980 bygger på princippet om »først til mølle«.
The approach of the Law of 16 July 1980 is ‘first come, first served’.
at det er statens repræsentant, der under forvaltningsdomstolens kontrol (kontrol af grov forsømmelighed, som Conseil d'Etat fastslog i Campoloro-dommen) påtager sig en funktion, der svarer til kuratoren i et konkursbo eller bestyreren af aktiver ved insolvensbehandling.
It is the representative of the State who, under the supervision of the administrative court (monitoring for gross negligence as established by the Council of State in the Campoloro judgment cited above), takes on the role equivalent to that of the liquidator and court-appointed administrator.
I tilfælde, hvor kontinuiteten i den offentlige service skal sikres, indrømmer de franske myndigheder, at statens repræsentant under udøvelse af sine beføjelser i henhold til lov af 16. juli 1980 vil kunne beslutte ikke at afhænde visse aktiver, der er nødvendige for varetagelsen af en public service-opgave.
In the event that the continuity of the public service has to be guaranteed, the French authorities admit that the representative of the State, when exercising the powers conferred by the Law of 16 July 1980, could decide not to sell certain assets needed to perform a public service task.
Denne undladelse af at afhænde visse aktiver udmønter sig således – hvis den ikke udløser en erstatning fra staten – i en indskrænkning af realiseringen af aktiver og dermed i et tilsvarende mindre beløb, som kreditorerne kan få tilbage.
This failure to sell certain assets would then be reflected, if the State did not pay compensation, in lower proceeds from the assets and a corresponding reduction in the amounts recoverable by creditors.
Proceduren vil ifølge de franske myndigheder ikke give det offentlige foretagende IFP's kreditorer bedre rettigheder end dem, de ville have i medfør af handelsretten.
According to the French authorities, such a procedure would not confer on IFP’s creditors rights greater than those they would have had under commercial law.
Dog medgiver de franske myndigheder, at statens objektive ansvar i så fald vil kunne gøres gældende og udmøntes i en erstatning til kreditorerne for det tab, de har lidt (dog højst et beløb svarende til salgsværdien af de aktiver, som staten besidder for at sikre kontinuiteten i den offentlige service).
However, the French authorities admit that, in such an event, the State might incur strict liability, and would have to compensate creditors for the loss they had suffered (not exceeding the market value of the assets retained by the State for the continuity of the public service).
Kreditorerne er således potentielt i den samme situation som den, der ville følge af de almindelige regler.
The creditors would therefore potentially be reinstated in the same situation as that which would have resulted from the application of ordinary law.
De franske myndigheder konkluderer, at proceduren, der blev indført ved lov af 16. juli 1980, ikke giver nogen fordel i forhold til den almindelige procedure, og at det dermed ikke er berettiget at lade det offentlige foretagende IFP være direkte omfattet af en sådan procedure.
The French authorities conclude that the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 does not confer any advantage over the procedure under ordinary law and that there is therefore no justification for subjecting IFP directly to a procedure such as that which applies under ordinary law.
Som forklaret i betragtning 68 i beslutning C 56/2007, som Kommissionen henviser til, understreger de franske myndigheder, at de retsakter, som Kommissionen nævner i sin indledningsbeslutning, især i betragtning 82, bl.a. den kodificerende instruks nr. 02-060-M95 af 18. juli 2002 om finansielle og regnskabsmæssige bestemmelser for nationale offentlige foretagender af industriel eller kommerciel karakter og vejledningen om den finansielle opbygning i forbindelse med oprettelse, omdannelse og nedlæggelse af nationale offentlige virksomheder og offentlige interessegrupper af 14. november 2006, hverken kan finde anvendelse på eller overføres på det offentlige foretagende IFP.
In the opening decision, in particular in recital 82, the Commission referred specifically to the French consolidating instruction No 02-060-M95 of 18 July 2002, on the financial and accounting regulation of national publicly owned industrial and commercial establishments, and to the guide to the financial organisation of the creation, conversion and abolition of national publicly owned establishments and of public interest groups (Guide sur l’organisation financière des créations, transformations et suppressions des établissements publics nationaux et des groupements d’intérêt) of 14 November 2006; as explained in recital 68 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities contend that the instruments in question are neither applicable nor transferable to IFP.
Hvad angår tilførslen af ny kapital til det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskaber, mener de franske myndigheder for det første, at spørgsmålet, der rejses i betragtning 80 i indledningsbeslutningen, ikke bør behandles med det formål at påvise eksistensen af en eventuel statsgaranti, men snarere for at måle de potentielle virkninger af en sådan garanti, som i givet fald sætter det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskaber i en gunstig situation på grund af de mere lempelige vilkår for tilførsel af ny kapital.
Concerning the recapitalisation of IFP’s subsidiaries, the French authorities take the view firstly that the question raised in recital 80 of the opening decision should be considered not in order to establish the existence of any State guarantee, but rather in order to measure the potential effects of such a guarantee, which could place IFP and its subsidiaries in a preferential situation on account of the easier terms for recapitalisation.
De mener dernæst, at Kommissionens argumentation bygger på to fejlagtige antagelser, nemlig:
They argue that the Commission’s argument is based on two incorrect ideas:
Kommissionen foretager på sin side et fejlræsonnement med hensyn til den eventuelle støtte, som det offentlige foretagende IFP vil kunne give sine datterselskaber gennem en koncernintern overførsel, idet de betingelser, på hvilke et moderselskab i koncernen, uanset om det er en offentligretlig juridisk person, kan støtte et af sine datterselskaber, der er i vanskeligheder, er nøje underlagt selskabsretten [43] og på ingen måde knyttet til begrebet virksomhed i konkurrenceretlig forstand.
On the one hand, the Commission commits an error in its reasoning regarding any support that IFP could provide to its subsidiaries through an intra-group transfer, since the conditions on which the parent of a group can support one of its subsidiaries in difficulty are strictly regulated by company law, even if it is a legal person governed by public law [43], and are totally unrelated to the concept of undertaking within the meaning of competition law.
De franske myndigheder bestrider på deres side, at det offentlige foretagende IFP's status af EPIC og statsgarantien, som en sådan status i givet fald medfører, giver det mulighed for at tilføre sine datterselskaber ny kapital på en lettere måde end moderselskaberne i koncerner, som har privatretlig status.
On the other hand, the French authorities deny that the EPIC status of IFP, with any possible State guarantee that such a status might imply, enables it to recapitalise its subsidiaries more easily than group parent companies with a legal form governed by private law.
Ifølge de franske myndigheder er det forhold, at et selskab midlertidigt har tab på et af sine datterselskaber, en normal foreteelse i driften af en koncern, hvilket Den Europæiske Unions dommer [44] i øvrigt også vil anerkende, og en offentlig investor, som handler efter den samme adfærdskodeks som en privat investor, vil ikke få sin investering fortolket som statsstøtte efter artikel 107, stk. 1, i EUF-traktaten [45].
According to the French authorities, the fact that a company temporarily bears the losses of one of its subsidiaries is part of the normal operation of a group, as the European Union court has already recognised [44], and the intervention of a public investor acting according to the same rules of conduct as a private investor is not considered to contain State aid elements within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU [45].
FRAVÆR AF ENHVER FORDEL FOR DET OFFENTLIGE FORETAGENDE IFP OG DETS DATTERSELSKABER
NO ADVANTAGE IS CONFERRED ON IFP OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES
For det første mener de franske myndigheder ikke, at meddelelsen om garantier gør det muligt at konkludere, at der er tale om en fordel i det foreliggende tilfælde. De mener heller ikke, at det er i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens beslutningspraksis også at lade eventuelle fordele, som det offentlige foretagende IFP måtte have i kraft af sin status af EPIC, omfatte IFP's datterselskaber, som er almindelig aktieselskaber, og ej heller at det i det foreliggende tilfælde er påvist, at der er tale om en reel økonomisk fordel for det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskaber.
The French authorities consider, first, that it cannot be concluded from the Guarantees Notice cited above that an advantage exists in the present case; second, that an extension to IFP’s subsidiaries, which are public limited companies under ordinary law, of any advantages from which IFP might benefit on account of its EPIC status would be in contradiction with the Commission’s decision-making practice; and third, that no proof has been given of an actual economic advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries in the present case.
Det påhviler Kommissionen under anvendelse af punkt 1.2 i meddelelsen om garantier på forhånd at påvise eksistensen af mere gunstige finansieringsvilkår for at kunne vurdere, at en virksomhed, hvis juridiske status udelukker muligheden for en konkurs- eller insolvensprocedure, får støtte i form af en garanti.
In order to conclude that an enterprise is receiving aid in the form of a guarantee, the Commission must first, in application of point 1.2 of the Guarantees Notice cited above, demonstrate that it dos indeed receive more favourable funding terms.
I øvrigt mener de, at Kommissionen i sin indledningsbeslutning har ignoreret sin beslutningspraksis i forbindelse med undersøgelsen af de potentielle fordele for IFP's datterselskaber ved, at der findes en ubegrænset garanti for et EPIC.
The French authorities contend that in the opening decision, when examining potential advantages to IFP’s subsidiaries arising out of the existence of an unlimited guarantee for their parent EPIC, the Commission disregarded its own decision-making practice.
Kommissionen har ifølge dem valgt en ræsonnement, der strider mod det, den anvendte i forbindelse med oprettelsen af Banque Postale [46], for mens Banque Postale i lighed med det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskaber var et aktieselskab, som var 100 % ejet af en EPIC-lignende enhed, mente Kommissionen (og her sås der endda bort fra Frankrigs forpligtelser i sagen), at det almindelige aktieselskabs juridiske status i sig selv gjorde det muligt at udelukke eksistensen af enhver ubegrænset garanti for det enkelte datterselskab.
They say the Commission’s line of reasoning contradicts the approach it took at the time of the creation of La Banque Postale [46]. Like IFP’s subsidiaries, La Banque Postale was a public limited company wholly owned by an entity similar to an EPIC.
Det samme ræsonnement skulle ifølge de franske myndigheder føre til den konklusion, at det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskaber, der også har status af almindelige aktieselskaber, heller ikke var omfattet af den ubegrænsede garanti, som en EPIC-status måtte udløse.
Leaving aside the commitments given by France in that case, the Commission took the view that the legal status of public limited company under ordinary law was by itself sufficient to rule out the possibility of an unlimited guarantee to the subsidiary. Following the same reasoning, according to the French authorities, it must be held that IFP’s subsidiaries, which likewise have the legal form of public limited company under ordinary law, do not benefit from any unlimited guarantee conferred by the status of EPIC.
Endelig skal ifølge de franske myndigheder Kommissionen ikke have påvist eksistensen af en reel økonomisk fordel for det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskaber, idet den nøjedes med i sin indledningsbeslutning at henvise til »angiveligt« mere gunstige finansieringsvilkår uden at fremlægge et faktisk bevis herfor.
Finally, the French authorities contend that the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of an actual economic advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries, and in the opening decision merely refers to funding terms ‘considered’ more favourable, without providing actual proof.
Den Europæiske Unions retspraksis ville kræve, at Kommissionen i den foreliggende sag påviser, at det offentlige foretagende IFP's status af EPIC faktisk gav det mulighed for at opnå mere gunstige finansieringsvilkår [47].
European Union case-law requires the Commission to show that IFP’s EPIC status has in fact enabled it to obtain more favourable funding terms [47].
Men de franske myndigheder har fremsendt en række oplysninger i løbet af proceduren som dokumentation for, at det offentlige foretagende IFP's status af EPIC ikke havde og heller ikke ville kunne skaffe det og dets datterselskaber nogen finansiel fordel, idet omdannelsen af det offentlige foretagende IFP navnlig var foregået under overholdelse af et generelt princip om kontinuitet, især med hensyn til dets aktiviteter, organisation, regnskabs- og finansordning (midler og regler for regnskaber og finansiering) samt skatteordning.
The French authorities say that in the course of the procedure they provided evidence to show that IFP’s EPIC status had not procured and would not procure any financial advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries; in particular, the conversion of IFP was carried out with due regard for a general principle of continuity, especially in terms of its activity, organisation, accounting and financial regime (resources and accounting and financial rules) and tax treatment.
De franske myndigheder mener, at førnævnte oplysninger viser:
The French authorities consider that the factors above demonstrate that:
at det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskabers finansielle situation er god, hvilket overflødiggør spørgsmålet om en eventuel konkurs og dermed en statslig indgriben i sidste instans,
the financial situation of IFP and its subsidiaries is sound, which makes the question of possible bankruptcy and consequently last-resort State intervention irrelevant;
at de kortsigtede finansieringsvilkår for det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskaber er forskellige for de enkelte enheder og hidrører fra individuelle og personlige forhandlinger mellem dem og deres respektive banker,
the terms for the short-term funding of IFP and its subsidiaries are different for each of these entities, and result from specific negotiations conducted on a one-to-one basis with their respective banks;
at det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskabers forhold til deres leverandører og kunder heller ikke giver anledning til privilegerede betingelser som følge af, at disse leverandører og kunder forventer en statsgaranti.
the relations that IFP and its subsidiaries maintain with their suppliers and customers do not give rise to preferential conditions resulting from an expectation on the part of these suppliers and customers of a State guarantee.
De franske myndigheder konkluderer:
The French authorities conclude from this that:
at Kommissionens analyse i dens beslutning om at indlede proceduren er diskutabel, idet det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets filialer ikke er omfattet af nogen statsgaranti,
the analysis set out by the Commission in its opening decision is questionable: IFP and its subsidiaries do not enjoy any State guarantee;
at Kommissionen ikke har påvist, at IFP's status af EPIC i sig selv giver det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskaber nogen fordel,
the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of an advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries deriving from IFP’s EPIC status;
at Kommissionen derfor ikke har påvist eksistensen af en statsstøtte til fordel for det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskaber.
the Commission has not, therefore, demonstrated the existence of State aid to IFP and its subsidiaries.
For at fjerne enhver tvivl hos Kommissionen anførte de franske myndigheder ikke desto mindre, at de, såfremt Kommissionen ville acceptere at afslutte proceduren med en beslutning om, at der ikke er tale om statsstøtte ifølge artikel 7, stk. 2, i procedureforordningen, var rede til at iværksætte følgende foranstaltninger:
Nonetheless, in order to dispel any doubts on the part of the Commission, the French authorities have indicated that they are willing to implement the following measures if the Commission agrees to close the procedure by a decision finding that no aid is involved, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Procedural Regulation cited above:
en præcisering af gennemførelsesdekretet til loven af 16. juli 1980
clarification of the Decree implementing the Law of 16 July 1980;
indføjelse i det offentlige foretagende IFP's kontrakter, hvis disse indebærer en fordring, af en bemærkning om, at der ikke er nogen garanti
incorporation of a reference spelling out the absence of a guarantee in IFP’s contracts involving a claim;
indføjelse i det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskabers finansieringskontrakter af en bemærkning om, at der ikke er nogen garanti.
incorporation of a reference spelling out the absence of a guarantee in the financing contracts of IFP’s subsidiaries.
Som præciseret i betragtning 94-96 i beslutning C 56/2007, som Kommissionen henviser til, foreslår de franske myndigheder at præcisere fortolkningen af loven af 16. juli 1980 ved at omformulere fjerde afsnit i artikel 3-1 i gennemførelsesdekretet til denne lov [48].
As specified in recitals 94 to 96 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities propose clarifying the interpretation of the Law of 16 July 1980 by amending the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Decree implementing the Law [48].
Den foreslåede ændring skulle ifølge dem fjerne enhver tvivl om afgrænsningen af udtrykket »sørger for det« i opbygningen af den tilsynsbeføjelse, der er tillagt præfekten eller tilsynsmyndigheden, idet disse fremover skal frigøre midlerne af den lokale myndigheds eller offentlige virksomheds budget [49].
The proposed amendment is intended, they say, to dispel any misgivings concerning the scope of the expression ‘shall do so’ (y pourvoit) in the organisation of the supervisory power conferred on the prefect or on the supervising authority; the prefect or supervising authority would now have to release resources from the budget of the regional or local authority or the establishment concerned [49].
Ifølge de franske myndigheder vil dette forslag udelukke, at statens repræsentant i udøvelsen af sine tilsynsbeføjelser kan forøge den pågældende lokale myndigheds eller offentlige virksomheds ressourcer med statsstøtte eller ved tilførsel af offentlige midler.
According to the French authorities, this proposal would prevent the representative of the State, when exercising his supervisory power, from increasing the resources of the authority or establishment concerned by means of a subsidy from the State or an injection of public resources.
INDFØJELSE I DET OFFENTLIGE FORETAGENDE IFP'S KONTRAKTER, HVIS DISSE INDEBÆRER EN FORDRING, AF EN BEMÆRKNING OM, AT DER IKKE ER NOGEN GARANTI
INCORPORATION OF A REFERENCE SPELLING OUT THE ABSENCE OF A GUARANTEE IN IFP’S CONTRACTS INVOLVING A CLAIM
Som præciseret i betragtning 97-100 i beslutning C 56/2007, som Kommissionen henviser til, anfægter de franske myndigheder Kommissionens holdning [50], ifølge hvilken staten kan ifalde ansvar alene på grundlag af det offentlige foretagende IFP's insolvens.
As explained in recitals 97 to 100 of decision C 56/2007 cited above, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities challenge the Commission’s view [50] that the State can be held liable solely on the grounds of the insolvency of IFP.
»Emissionen/programmet/lånet er ikke omfattet af nogen form for direkte eller indirekte statsgaranti.
The French authorities therefore undertake, jointly with IFP, to include the following statement in the financing contract for each transaction (for all instruments covered by a contract):
»Emissionen/programmet/lånet er ikke omfattet af nogen form for direkte eller indirekte statsgaranti. Ved insolvens er staten ikke forpligtet til at indtræde finansielt på det offentlige foretagende IFP's vegne og overtage gældsforpligtelsen.«
‘The issue/programme/loan does not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee. In the event of insolvency, the State would not be obliged to act as financial substitute for IFP for payment of the claim.’
Som præciseret i betragtning 101 i beslutning C 56/2007, som Kommissionen henviser til, har de franske myndigheder også taget hensyn til den tvivl, som Kommissionen udtrykte i betragtning 71 i indledningsbeslutningen, hvor den anførte, dels at undtagelsen om accepteret risiko var en regel i henhold til retspraksis, som jo kan forandre sig, dels at en sådan regel byggede på instrumenter i henhold til sekundær ret, som kan ophæves i tilfælde af konflikt, og endelig at de franske myndigheders forslag ikke dækkede alle tilfælde, idet fordringerne kunne være af både finansiel, kommerciel og anden art.
As explained in recital 101 of decision C 56/2007 cited above, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities have also noted the misgivings set out by the Commission in recital 71 of the opening decision, which indicated that the plea of accepted risk was a rule established by case-law that could develop; that it was based on secondary law instruments which could be annulled in the event of conflict; and, finally, that the proposal of the French authorities did not cover all possible scenarios, since debts could be not only financial but also commercial or other forms of debt again.
Som præciseret i betragtning 102-104 i beslutning C 56/2007, som Kommissionen henviser til, sendte de franske myndigheder – efter at have mindet om deres principielle modstand mod Kommissionens holdning om, at staten ifalder sit objektive ansvar alene på grund af det offentlige foretagende IFP's utilstrækkelige aktiver – følgende supplerende udtalelser som svar på disse tvivlsspørgsmål:
As specified in recitals 102 to 104 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, after reiterating their opposition in principle to the Commission’s position that the State may incur strict liability solely on the grounds of IFP’s the lack of assets, the French authorities have provided additional information to address these misgivings: