natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Udbyttet af likvidationen bliver dernæst fordelt mellem kreditorerne efter deres rækkefølge i konkursordenen (udlodning til de privilegerede kreditorer og pantekreditorer, kreditorer med en særlig sikkerhed i løsøre og sidst simple kreditorer, dvs. ikkeprivilegerede, i forhold til deres fordring).
The proceeds of the liquidation are shared among the creditors according to their ranking (preferential and mortgage creditors, creditors secured by a special security over movable property, unsecured creditors, i.e. without preference, pro rata to their claims).
Når der ikke længere findes forfalden gæld, og når kurator råder over tilstrækkelige midler til at fyldestgøre kreditorerne, eller når konkursboets behandling hindres af utilstrækkelige aktiver, afsiger retten en afgørelse om slutning af konkursboet [121].
Where there are no longer any current liabilities and the liquidator has sufficient sums at his disposal to satisfy the creditors, or where continuing the winding up has become impossible due to lack of assets, the court closes the winding up [121].
Efter boets slutning beskyttes skyldneren af princippet om, at kreditorerne ikke længere kan genoptage retsforfølgningen.
After closure of the proceedings, similar proceedings cannot be resumed against the debtor.
Med andre ord giver en afgørelse om at slutte konkursboet på grund af utilstrækkelige aktiver ikke kreditorerne mulighed for at retsforfølge skyldner, medmindre [122] fordringen er opstået af en strafferetlig afgørelse eller af rettigheder, der knytter sig til kreditor som person.
In other words, a judgment terminating the winding-up proceedings owing to lack of assets prevents the creditors from bringing further proceedings against the debtor unless the claim results from a criminal conviction or rights attached to the person of the creditor [122].
Fravær af en garantiordning til fordel for det offentlige foretagende IFP's privatretlige datterselskaber
No guarantee mechanism for IFP’s private-law subsidiaries
Som Kommissionens ekspert forklarede det i postsagen, hæfter selskabsdeltagerne i visse kommercielle selskaber, især aktieselskaber og anpartsselskaber, normalt ikke for gælden i det selskab, som de deltager i, med mere end deres indskud.
As the Commission expert explained in the postal case, in some commercial forms of enterprise, and in particular public limited companies (SAs) or private limited companies (SARLs), the members are not normally speaking obliged to pay the debts of the organisation in which they take part to an amount beyond their initial contribution.
Som aktieselskab falder det offentlige foretagende IFP's datterselskab netop ind under denne kategori.
IFP’s subsidiaries are public limited companies and fall squarely into this category.
I IFP-koncernen lige som i enhver anden koncern er moderselskabets ansvar derfor i tilfælde af insolvens i et datterselskab, som er stiftet i form af et selskab med begrænset hæftelse (i det foreliggende tilfælde et aktieselskab), i mangel af kaution, aval, garanti, forhåndstilsagn eller støtteerklæring [123], hvorved det udtrykkeligt pådrager sig et ansvar, begrænset til tabet af dets indskud (som for enhver anden almindelig aktionær).
Therefore, in the IFP group, as in any other group of companies, in the event of default by a subsidiary with limited liability (in this case a public limited company), the liability of the parent (as for any other ordinary shareholder) is confined to the loss of its contributions, always assuming there are no suretyships, endorsements, guarantees, letters of intent or letters of comfort [123] explicitly committing it.
I betragtning af at det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskaber tilhører en koncern i konkurrenceretlig forstand, bør det kontrolleres, hvorvidt det økonomiske afhængighedsforhold, som datterselskaberne står i til moderselskabet, efter fransk selskabsret automatisk er ansvarspådragende for det offentlige foretagende IFP, hvis disse privatretlige datterselskaber bliver insolvente, og dermed udløser mobilisering af statslige midler, idet staten leverer hovedparten af det offentlige foretagendes finansiering og har givet det en ubegrænset implicit garanti.
In view of the fact that IFP and its subsidiaries belong to the same economic group for purposes of competition law, it has to be considered whether or not, in the event of default on the part of one of these private-law subsidiaries, the relationship of economic dependency of the subsidiaries on their parent may in French company law automatically trigger the liability of the publicly owned establishment IFP, and consequently mobilise public resources, since the State is responsible for the bulk of IFP’s financing and has implicitly guaranteed it as a publicly owned establishment.
Efter afslutningen af denne grundige undersøgelse kan Kommissionen konkludere, at der i princippet ikke kan gøres et ansvar gældende over for den kontrollerende aktionær ifølge fransk civilret og handelsloven på grund af insolvens i et af dets datterselskaber, medmindre det sker for at påvise, at den kontrollerende aktionær har begået en fejl i ledelsen af sit datterselskab (i).
At the end of the present detailed examination, the Commission concludes that in French civil and commercial law, in the event of default by one of the subsidiaries, (i) its controlling shareholder will not in principle be liable, except where the controlling shareholder can be shown to have committed a fault in the management of its subsidiary.
De nyligt planlagte, men forkastede forslag til reform af civillovbogen, som netop skulle udvide princippet om erstatningsansvar for andres handlinger til også at gælde forholdet mellem moderselskab og datterselskaber i en koncern, bekræfter, at et sådant princip tværtimod ikke findes for indeværende i fransk ret (ii).
The plans to reform the Civil Code, recently contemplated then abandoned, which aimed precisely to extend the principle of vicarious liability to the relationship between parent and subsidiaries of a group, confirm a contrario (ii) that such a principle does not exist at present in French law.
Fravær af aktionærens generelle ansvar for sit datterselskab
No general vicarious liability of a shareholder for its subsidiary
Ifølge doktrinen [124] er en koncern aldrig som organisation i sig selv kilde til et ansvarsgennembrud.
According to legal theory [124], the organisation of a group never by itself gives rise to a chain of liability.
I fransk ret henholder man sig til princippet om personligt ansvar som beskrevet i artikel 1382 i civillovbogen [125].
French law keeps to the principle of personal liability set out in Article 1382 of the Civil Code [125].
Kun en ulovlig handling, der kan tilskrives moderselskabets opførsel, vil derfor kunne åbne adgang til dettes formue i form af et hæftelsesgennembrud.
Only an unlawful act which can be imputed to the conduct of the parent could open access to its assets.
Idet moderselskabet i IFP-koncernen i det foreliggende tilfælde er en offentligretlig juridisk person (det offentlige foretagende IFP), afføder dette spørgsmål indledningsvis endnu en vanskelig opgave, idet man faktisk på forhånd bør undersøge det retsplejeområde (forvaltningsdomstole eller øvrige domstole), som i det franske system i givet fald har domstolskompetence, for at placere et eventuelt ansvar hos en offentligretlig juridisk person, som kontrollerer en privatretlig juridisk person under retslig konkursbehandling.
As a preliminary point, the parent of the IFP group is a legal person governed by public law, namely the publicly owned establishment IFP, which raises an additional difficulty: the question has first to be asked which court, an administrative court or an ordinary civil or criminal court, would have jurisdiction under the French system to establish whether when a legal person governed by private law is to be wound up compulsorily, and is controlled by a legal person governed by public law, there is any liability that rests on the controlling entity.
Kommissionen bemærker, at den franske domstol, der afgør kompetencespørgsmål, Tribunal des conflits, for så vidt angår erstatningssøgsmål på grund af utilstrækkelige aktiver [126], længe har ment, at det øvrige domstolsområde var kompetent, når en offentligretlig juridisk person varetog den juridiske ledelse [127], mens forvaltningsdomstolene var kompetente, når den offentligretlige juridiske person varetog den faktiske ledelse [128].
As regards proceedings for liability because of insufficient assets [126], the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction (Tribunal des conflits) for long considered that the ordinary courts had jurisdiction where the legal person governed by public law was manager de jure [127], and that the administrative courts had jurisdiction where the legal person governed by public law was manager de facto [128].
Imidlertid ser det ud til på retspraksis, at kompetencefordelingen mellem forvaltningsdomstolene og de øvrige domstole fremover bygger på arten af de leverede ydelser, nemlig offentlige serviceydelser eller virksomhed af industriel eller kommerciel karakter.
However, it seems that the jurisdiction of the administrative and the ordinary courts is now distinguished by reference to the nature of the service provided: whether it is an administrative public service, or an industrial or commercial activity.
Når det drejer sig om offentlige serviceydelser, synes Tribunal des conflits [129] at have forladt sin tidligere retspraksis, der var baseret på fordelingen mellem juridisk og faktisk ledelse, efter sin afgørelse i sagen om Département de la Dordogne [130], hvor den højeste instans havde afgjort, at det var forvaltningsdomstolen, der havde kompetencen, fordi det omhandlede en offentlig serviceydelse, og det uanset om den offentligretlige juridiske person havde den juridiske eller den faktiske ledelse af den privatretlige juridiske person, der varetog leveringen af denne offentlige ydelse.
Where an administrative public service is involved, the old rule, based on de jure or de facto management, seems to have been abandoned by the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction [129] in its Département de la Dordogne decision [130], where the Court decided that the administrative courts had jurisdiction because the service involved was an administrative public service, regardless of whether the legal person governed by public law was the de jure or de facto manager of the person governed by private law that actually performed the public service task.
Efter at Tribunal des conflits i Blanco-dommen [131] havde mindet om, at »ansvaret, der påhviler staten eller andre offentligretlige juridiske personer som følge af skader, der kan tilskrives deres offentlige serviceydelser, er omfattet af en offentligretlig ordning« (understregning tilføjet), og at det kun forholder sig anderledes, hvis det udtrykkeligt er bestemt i loven, afgjorde den, at det ikke følger af loven af 25. januar 1985 om rekonstruktion og retslig likvidation af kriseramte virksomheder (i dag kodificeret i artikel L. 624-3 ff. i handelsloven), »at lovgiveren ved at gøre en undtagelse fra principperne for offentligretlige juridiske personers ansvar har villet lade placeringen af statens eller andre offentligretlige juridiske personers erstatningsansvar i kraft af, at der leveres en offentlig serviceydelse, falde ind under de øvrige domstoles kompetence.« (Understregning tilføjet).
The Court recalled that in line with its judgment in Blanco [131]‘the liability which may lie with the State or with other legal persons governed by public law by reason of damage attributed to their administrative public services is governed by public law’ (emphasis added), and that the situation was otherwise only where the law expressly so provided; the Court went on to find that in Law of 25 January 1985 on compulsory administration and winding-up procedures, (now codified in Articles L. 624-3 et seq. of the Commercial Code) the legislature had not, ‘by way of exception to the principles governing the liability of public-law persons, intended to confer jurisdiction on the ordinary courts for determining the civil liability of the State or other legal persons governed by public law in the performance of a duty to provide an administrative public service’ (emphasis added).
Hvis det omvendt drejer sig om virksomhed af industriel eller kommerciel karakter, falder det klart ind under de øvrige domstoles kompetence at pådømme erstatningsansvarets placering for en offentligretlig juridisk person, der kontrollerer en privatretlig juridisk person under konkursbehandling.
Conversely, where an industrial or commercial activity is concerned, jurisdiction to determine the civil liability of a legal person governed by public law controlling a private person in liquidation clearly rests with the ordinary courts.
I afgørelsen i sagen om Société d'Économie Mixte Olympique d'Alès en Cévennes [132] mente Tribunal des conflits bl.a., at »hvis placeringen af statens eller andre offentligretlige juridiske personers erstatningsansvar i kraft af, at der leveres en offentlig serviceydelse, henhører under forvaltningsdomstolenes ansvar, falder et sådant søgsmål ind under de øvrige domstoles kompetence, når statens eller andre offentligretlige juridiske personers erstatningsansvar placeres i kraft af, at der udøves virksomhed af industriel eller kommerciel karakter, uden at der er grund til at skelne mellem, om den pågældende offentlige myndighed har handlet som faktisk eller juridisk leder af denne virksomhed.« (Understregning tilføjet).
In its judgment in Société d’Économie Mixte Olympique d’Alès en Cévennes [132], the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction held in particular that ‘although jurisdiction to determine the civil liability of the State or of other legal persons governed by public law in respect of the performance of a duty to provide an administrative public service rests with the administrative courts, such proceedings come under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts where it is shown that the State or the legal person governed by public law is liable in respect of an industrial or commercial activity; there is no necessity to determine whether the public authority acted as manager de jure or de facto’ (emphasis added).
For at komme til denne konklusion i den pågældende sag tilbageviste Tribunal des conflits den karakter af offentlig serviceydelse, som kendetegnede den aktivitet, som et aktieselskab med direktion og tilsynsråd (SEM Olympique d'Alès en Cévennes) udførte, på baggrund af to overvejelser, nemlig på den ene side forretningsformålet [133] og på den anden side finansieringsmåden [134].
In the case before it the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction ruled that the activities conducted by a public limited company with a board of directors and supervisory board (SEM Olympique d’Alès en Cévennes) were not of an administrative public service nature, on the basis of two considerations: the company’s object [133] and its financing [134].
Med hensyn til aktieselskaberne Axens, Beicip-Franlab og Prosernat, som er privatretlige datterselskaber af det offentlige foretagende IFP, fremgår det af oplysningerne i sagen, bl.a. dem, der nævnes i betragtning 159, at deres forretningsformål har økonomisk karakter [135] og ikke karakter af offentlig serviceydelse.
As regards more specifically the public limited companies Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat, which are subsidiaries governed by private law controlled by the publicly owned establishment IFP, it emerges from the information contained in the file, especially that recalled in recital 159, that their object is economic and not administrative [135].
Desuden kommer hovedparten af disse virksomheders midler fra driftsindtægter, som deres økonomiske aktivitet genererer, og ikke fra offentlig finansiering.
In addition, the bulk of the resources of these companies comes from operating proceeds generated by their economic activities and not from public funding.
Endelig skal det bemærkes, at datterselskaberne af det offentlige foretagende IFP blev stiftet som kommercielle selskaber på initiativ af en privatretlig [136] juridisk person (og ikke af en offentligretlig juridisk person, idet det offentlige foretagende IFP's statusændring til EPIC først indtraf den 7. juli 2006).
Finally, it should be noted that these subsidiaries of a publicly owned establishment were set up as commercial companies on the initiative of a legal person governed by private law [136] (and not of a legal person governed by public law, because IFP was converted into an EPIC only on 7 July 2006).
Derfor forekommer den industrielle og kommercielle karakter af den virksomhed, som Axens, Beicip-Franlab et Prosernat udøver, ubestridelig, og i tilfælde af retslig konkursbehandling vil det uden tvivl være de øvrige domstole, der har kompetence til at pådømme et eventuelt erstatningssøgsmål anlagt over for det offentlige foretagende IFP.
Therefore the industrial and commercial nature of the activities of Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat seems undeniable and, in the event of compulsory winding up by the court, jurisdiction to hear any case concerning liability against the publicly owned establishment IFP would undoubtedly lie with the ordinary courts.
På denne baggrund bør det kontrolleres, på hvilke betingelser den kontrollerende aktionærs ansvar kan gøres gældende i henhold til Cour de cassations retspraksis.
It must therefore be considered in what circumstances the controlling shareholder may be held liable in the light of the case-law of the Court of Cassation.
Men betingelserne for ansvarsgennembrud ved at udvide en retslig konkursbehandling, der er indledt over for en bestemt juridisk person (datterselskabet), til også at omfatte en anden juridisk person (moderselskabet), er meget strenge.
In order to extend compulsory winding-up proceedings initiated in respect of a specific person (the subsidiary) so as to include another legal person (the parent), the conditions laid down are very strict.
Stillet over for et insolvent datterselskab er ofrene for dette selskabs dispositioner tvunget til at bevise moderselskabets culpøse adfærd for at opnå erstatning, især moderselskabets benægtelse af dets datterselskabs status af juridisk person (α) og fejl i det kontrollerede selskabs ledelse (β).
Confronted by a defaulting subsidiary, the victims of its actions have to prove misconduct on the part of the parent in order to obtain redress; this may in particular take the form of (α) denial by the parent of the legal personality of its subsidiary, or (β) mismanagement of the controlled company.
Moderselskabets benægtelse af datterselskabets status af juridisk person
Denial by the parent of the legal personality of the subsidiary
Cour de cassations retspraksis giver mulighed for et gennembrud mellem moderselskabet og dets datterselskaber for dettes dispositioner i to usædvanlige tilfælde [137], nemlig når datterselskabernes formue blandes sammen med moderselskabets (tilfældet med »formuesammenblanding«), og når datterselskaberne er skuffeselskaber (tilfældet kaldet »skuffeselskab«).
In its judgments the Court of Cassation has established that the liability of a parent company may extend to the actions of its subsidiaries in two exceptional cases: firstly, where the assets of the subsidiaries are inseparable from those of the parent (confusion du patrimoine), and secondly, where the subsidiaries are fictitious legal persons [137].
For så vidt angår »formuesammenblanding« [138], betegner dette begreb generelt den situation, hvor de to adskilte juridiske enheders regnskaber er udarbejdet således, at det er umuligt at fastslå, til hvem et givet aktiv eller passiv hører.
The concept of inseparable assets [138] generally applies to a situation where the accounts of the two separate legal entities are such that it is impossible to determine to which of them a specific asset or liability belongs.
For at påvise eksistensen af en sådan formuesammenblanding er det imidlertid ikke tilstrækkeligt, at der findes endog snævre bånd mellem selskaberne i koncernen.
However, to show that assets are inseparable it is not enough that there should be links, even close links, between the companies of the group.
Ligeledes gør selskabsdeltagernes eller ledelsens, endog hovedsædets [139], identitet det ikke muligt i sig selv at fastslå formuesammenblanding.
Likewise, the fact that partners or managers or even the registered office [139] are identical does not by itself mean that the assets are inseparable.
Formaliseringen af de koncerninterne forbindelser i aftaler underskrevet af moderselskabet og datterselskaberne er som oftest tilstrækkelig til at tilbagevise enhver mulighed for formuesammenblanding [140].
The fact that relations within the group are formally defined in agreements between the parent company and its subsidiaries usually suffices to rule out any possibility of inseparability of assets [140].
I to nylige sager, Metaleurop [141] og AOL Liberté [142], synes Cour de cassation endda at have skærpet sin kontrol med betingelserne for hæftelsesgennembrud for et moderselskab i en koncern.
In two recent cases, Metaleurop [141] and AOL Liberté [142], the Court of Cassation seems actually to have tightened its approach to the conditions for the extension of proceedings to include the parent company of a group.
Integrationen mellem koncernens selskaber medfører ikke nødvendigvis formuesammenblanding, ikke engang hvis den er meget fremskreden.
Even very intensive integration of the group companies does not necessarily entail inseparability of assets.
Ifølge doktrinen [143]»har hverken aftaler om likviditet og valuta mellem de to enheder eller personaleudvekslinger eller lån fra moderselskabet eller moderselskabets overtagelse af datterselskabets ledelsesbeføjelser karakter af en generel uorden i regnskaberne, der kan berettige en formuesammenblanding«.
According to the legal literature, ‘Neither the liquidity and exchange agreements between the two entities, nor the exchanges of staff, nor the advances of funds by the parent company, nor the parent company’s control of the management of the subsidiary imply a general disorder in the accounts that would justify the unification of the assets’ [143].
Det forekommer derfor særlig vanskeligt at gøre et moderselskabs ansvar for et af dets datterselskabers dispositioner på grundlag af sammenblanding af deres formuer [144] gældende, idet Cour de cassation kræver et ekstremt højt bevisniveau hertil.
It therefore seems to be particularly difficult to hold a parent company liable for the actions of one of its subsidiaries on the basis of the inseparability of their assets [144], with the level of proof required by the Court of Cassation being extremely high.
I den foreliggende sag må det konstateres, at Kommissionen allerede har påpeget, at »[…] eftersom IFP og dets datterselskaber er særskilte juridiske enheder, har de også separate regnskaber« [145].
In the present case, it has to be pointed out that the Commission has already found that ‘IFP and the subsidiaries concerned are distinct legal entities and their accounts are separate’ [145].
Endvidere har de aftaler, der er indgået mellem det offentlige foretagende IFP og dets datterselskaber, bl.a. eneretsaftaler om teknologioverførsel eller tilrådighedsstillelse af personale [146], ikke karakter af en generel uorden i regnskaberne, som kan berettige en formuesammenblanding i henhold til Cour de cassations retspraksis, idet hver ydelse er specifikt bogført i regnskaberne hos den enkelte enhed i IFP-koncernen, som det bl.a. fastslås i afsnit 7.1.4 og 7.3.
In addition, the agreements signed between IFP and its subsidiaries, especially the agreements for exclusive technology transfer or the assignment of staff [146], do not produce general disorder in the accounts such as to justify unification of the assets within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Cassation, since each service is specifically entered in the respective balance sheets of each entity of the IFP group, as will be established in particular in sections 7.1.4 and 7.3.