natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The French authorities state in this connection that the subsequent declarations were to be assessed in the light of the first declaration and that it is wrong to assert that as of 12 July 2002 the State had ‘committed itself irrevocably to supporting France Télécom’ and had, on that occasion, entered into ‘an irrevocable commitment to participate in the strengthening of the capital base’.
Francuska nadležna tijela navode da su samo operativne mjere imale učinak na cijenu dionica društva FT.
The French authorities point out that the State shareholder announced its intention to participate in the strengthening of the Company's capital base for the first time in September 2002 and that ‘this would take the form of a transaction followed by the market (reference to a timetable to be defined in the light of market conditions)’.
Prema tome, cijena dionica društva porasla je 2. listopada 2002. (rast za više od 10,4 % u odnosu na tjedan 2. listopada) nakon najave imenovanja novog društva, a cijene dionica nastavile su rasti nakon objave plana TOP i najave novog izvršnog odbora 5. prosinca 2002., što je dovelo do povećanja za više od 25 % u dva dana.
Concerning the declaration of 2 October 2002, the French authorities argue that this confirmed that the presentation of a credible plan was a precondition for the State's participation.
Francuska nadležna tijela navode da izjave o načelima koje je država dala između srpnja i listopada 2002. nisu bile odlučujući čimbenik u tom povećanju i da se, sve dok nisu postojale operativne mjere, cijena dionica mijenjala, što je održavalo nesigurnost tržišta u pogledu situacije društva.
The indication by the State that it would play its role of prudent shareholder in no way constitutes a state guarantee.
Navode da izjave države u pogledu njezine namjere da u potpunosti izvrši ulogu dioničara u tom pogledu nisu zaustavile trend pada cijena društva FT.
If the declarations made by the State between July and October 2002 had really been legally equivalent to, or even simply perceived by the market and the rating agencies as being, a promise to provide France Télécom with an “unlimited guarantee”, then there would not have been any downgrading of France Télécom's rating in July and the company's spreads and rating during that period would have reflected the state risk (AAA rating and very low spread).
Primjedbe o izvješću NERA-e
Lastly, any factoring in by the rating agencies of the State's presence as majority shareholder irrespective of any implicit or explicit guarantee or of any specific measure and irrespective of the company's specific financial situation at any given moment cannot in itself be considered State aid.
U pogledu pravnog dijela izvješća NERA-e francuska nadležna tijela dostavila su sljedeće primjedbe:
Such an approach would be contrary to the principle of neutrality of Community law as recognised by Article 295 of the EC Treaty.’
„Pravno izvješće temelji se na pogrešnom (odnosno tendencioznom) tumačenju činjenica.
Movements in France Télécom's share price
Ovim se izvješćem osobito očigledno iskrivljuju inače jasni iskazi koje je ministar gospodarstva naveo u razgovoru s novinarom objavljenom u srpnju 2002.
The French authorities argue that only the operational measures had an impact on France Télécom's share price.
Francuska nadležna tijela oštro opovrgavaju da je moguće ponuditi neutemeljena tumačenja kao što su ova u svrhu donošenja pravnih zaključaka, a osobito kako bi se tvrdilo da je država dala jamstvo društvu France Télécom”.
Thus, the Company's share price rebounded on 2 October 2002 (up more than 10,4 % on the previous week) following the announcement of the appointment of the new CEO, and the share price's progress continued upwards with the announcement of the TOP plan and of the new executive board on 5 December 2002, which led to a rise of more than 25 % in two days.
„Ovdje se ne radi o službenom priopćenju vlade ili društva France Télécom, nego tek o medijskom članku u kojem se navodi tekst razgovora s ministrom gospodarstva u širem kontekstu koji se odnosi na prioritete vlade, zbog čega nema dokaznu moć”.
The declarations of principle made by the State between July and October 2002 were not the determining factor in this increase and as long as there were no operational measures the share price fluctuated, reflecting the market's uncertainty about the Company's situation.
„Država kao dioničar društva France Télécom nije samo uvijek namjeravala postupati kao razuman ulagač u pogledu društva France Télécom nego je također odlučila jasno i javno izjaviti da će to stajalište predstavljati polaznu točku za sva njezina moguća djelovanja u spisu…”.
This perception led to a fall in the share price, which reached its lowest point on 30 September 2002 following a period of relative stability during the summer in the absence of any specific announcements or rumours.
„Francuska nadležna tijela ukazala su i na brojne netočnosti u rasuđivanju navedenom u pravnom izvješću.
During that period, the State's declarations as to its intention to play fully its role of shareholder did not stop the downward trend in France Télécom's share price.
Prema tome, izvješće je očigledno nedovoljno objektivno i u njemu su navedene izrazito sporne pravne analize (među ostalim u pogledu kvalifikacije pisama podrške i dosega jednostrane obveze u građanskom i trgovačkom pravu) i neopravdano se primjenjuju na ispitane činjenice određenih nebitnih zakonskih kvalifikacija (na primjer, to je slučaj s primjenom teorije upravljanja poslovanjem ili pravila javnog međunarodnog prava u odnosima između društva i njegovog većinskog dioničara).”
Comments on the NERA report
„Zaključci pravnog izvješća kojima se želi dokazati postojanje ‚neograničenog jamstva’ koje je država dodijelila društvu France Télécom u potpunosti su neutemeljeni u pravu Zajednice”.
The French authorities have presented the following comments on the legal part of the NERA report:
U skladu sa sudskom praksom u predmetu Compagnie nationale Air France predmetni iskazi ne mogu dovesti do čvrste i bezuvjetne obveze države.
‘the legal report is based on an erroneous (not to say tendentious) interpretation of the facts. In particular, … the report manifestly twists — albeit clear — remarks made by the Minister for Economic Affairs in the course of an interview with a journalist published in July 2002.
„Odgovor ministra… samo potvrđuje da do tog trenutka država ulagač nije donijela nikakvu odluku – osim da djeluje kao ‚razuman ulagač’ – i da, unatoč povjerenju u operativnu kvalitetu društva, u tom trenutku nije mogla dati dostatno preciznu dijagnozu ili donijeti bilo kakvu odluku”.
The French authorities strongly contest that it is possible to propose interpretations as unfounded as these in order to draw legal conclusions and in particular to assert that there exists any guarantee granted by the State to France Télécom’.
„Sudskom praksom… nije utvrđeno da se bilo koja osoba koja može imati interes može osloniti na obvezu jamstva bez određenog korisnika.
‘What is involved here is not even an official communiqué from the Government or from France Télécom, but merely a press article reproducing the text of an interview with the Minister for Economic Affairs in the wider context of the Government's priorities and therefore lacking any probative force’.
Osim toga, to nije iznenađujuće jer je narav jamstva ili pisma namjere takva da su upućeni jednom ili više korisnika.
‘The State as shareholder in France Télécom has not only always intended to behave like a prudent investor with regard to France Télécom but has also chosen to express clearly and publicly that this position would be the point of departure for all of its potential actions in this area …’.
Drugo, s obzirom na to da nije upućena određenom korisniku, nije iznenađujuće da navodna obveza nije prihvaćena”.
The Minister's July 2002 interview makes no mention of any decision being taken.‘… [W]hile remaining confident in the company's viability, the State was merely taking note of the market's doubts about France Télécom's situation and, in its capacity as majority shareholder, was trying to refine its analysis without being able, at that stage, to make an accurate diagnosis or take any decision’.
U pogledu pretpostavke o upravljanju poslovanjem ovo načelo ne može se primijeniti u ovom slučaju.
‘Moreover, there was no reason to suppose a priori that the phrase “appropriate steps” referred specifically to financial measures’.
U pogledu upravnog prava „[s] jedne strane, jednostavni iskazi dani novinaru – kao što su oni koje je dao ministar gospodarstva 12. srpnja 2002. – ne predstavljaju ‚akt koji će biti na štetu’ koji može dovesti do nastanka prava i obveza, a kamoli jamstva koje država dodjeljuje društvu France Télécom.”.
‘The French authorities have also noted numerous inaccuracies in the reasoning set out in the legal report.
U pogledu gospodarskog dijela izvješća francuska nadležna tijela ističu da je u izvješću navedeno da FT nije bio poduzetnik u poteškoćama u vrijeme kada su nastali predmetni događaji (jer je imao pristup tržištu kapitala i nije imao poteškoće u pogledu dugoročne održivosti) i da je sudjelovanje države dioničara u planu uravnoteženja bilance društva bilo u skladu s načelom privatnog ulagača.
The report is thus manifestly short on objectivity, adopting highly contestable legal analyses (for example regarding the characterisation of letters of intent and the scope of a unilateral commitment in civil and commercial law) and making an unjustified application to the facts at issue of certain irrelevant legal precepts (this is the case, for example, with the application of the theory of business management or of the rules of public international law in relations between a company and its majority shareholder)’.
OCJENA MJERE U SKLADU S ČLANKOM 107.
‘The legal report's finding of the existence of an “unlimited guarantee”, granted by the State to France Télécom, is in any event totally baseless in Community law’.
STAVKOM 1.
In accordance with the Compagnie nationale Air France judgment, the remarks in question cannot give rise to any firm and unconditional commitment on the part of the State.
UGOVORA
With regard to the comparison between the Minister's July declarations and a letter of intent, the French authorities stress that ‘(i) firstly, it is of the essence of the letter of intent that it is addressed to a beneficiary; (ii) secondly, and as an extension of the preceding observation, the effectiveness of the method is dependent on acceptance by the said beneficiary; and (iii), lastly, the scope of the commitment given (both as regards its object and as regards the force which its author wishes to give to it) depends exclusively on the terms employed’.
U članku 107. stavku 1.
‘Thus … the general — to say the least — character of the Minister's remarks … rules out without doubt any commitment in favour of France Télécom or its creditors, and a fortiori any obligation as to the result to be achieved (and hence any idea of guarantee) as well as any obligation as to the means’.
UFEU-a svaka potpora koju dodijeli država članica ili koja se dodjeljuje putem državnih sredstava u bilo kojem obliku, koja narušava ili prijeti da će narušiti tržišno natjecanje stavljanjem određenih poduzetnika ili proizvodnje određene robe u povoljniji položaj, proglašena je nespojivom s unutarnjim tržištem u mjeri u kojoj utječe na trgovinu među državama članicama.
‘The Minister's reply … only confirms that no decision — other than to act like a “prudent investor” — had as yet been taken by the State shareholder, which, while trusting in the operational quality of the company, was not at that time able to make a sufficiently accurate diagnosis or to take any decision’.
Prema stalnoj sudskoj praksi, pojam potpore ne obuhvaća samo subvencije kao takve nego i mjere kojima se u raznim oblicima smanjuju opterećenja koja bi poduzetnik morao snositi i koje time ne predstavljaju subvencije u strogom smislu te riječi, ali su izjednačene s njima po prirodi i učinku.
‘The courts have … never held that a guarantee commitment without a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries may thus be relied upon by any person who might have an interest therein.
Iz prethodno navedenoga proizlazi da se pojam potpore temelji na gospodarskom načelu prednosti, koji je isključivo povezan s učincima prednosti, pri čemu formalni kriterij nije bitan.
This is not surprising as it is in the nature of a guarantee or of a letter of intent that it is addressed to one or more beneficiaries.
Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, da bi se mjera kvalificirala kao državna potpora u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
As for the business management hypothesis, this concept is entirely inapplicable to the present case.
Prema tome, kako bi se nacionalna mjera mogla okarakterizirati kao državna potpora u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
As far as administrative law is concerned, ‘[f]irst of all, mere remarks made to a journalist — such as those made by the Minister for Economic Affairs on 12 July 2002 — do not constitute a “tortious act” capable of giving rise to rights and obligations, and even less a guarantee granted to France Télécom by the State’.
UFEU-a mora se, kao prvo, raditi o intervenciji države ili intervenciji putem državnih sredstava, kao drugo, ta intervencija mora biti takva da može utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama, treće, mora davati selektivnu prednost svom korisniku i, četvrto, treba narušavati ili prijetiti da će narušiti tržišno natjecanje.
As regards the economic report, the French authorities argue that France Télécom was not a firm in difficulty at the time of the events in question (as it had access to the capital markets and no long-term viability problem) and that the participation by the State shareholder in the plan to rebalance the company's balance sheet was in keeping with the private investor criterion.
U pogledu uvjeta prema kojem se predmetna mjera mora analizirati kao dodjela prednosti korisniku u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 1.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 107(1) OF THE TREATY
UFEU-a, državnim potporama smatraju se intervencije koje su bez obzira na oblik takve da mogu staviti poduzetnike izravno ili neizravno u povoljniji položaj ili koje se treba smatrati gospodarskom prednošću koju poduzetnik korisnik ne bi ostvario u normalnim tržišnim uvjetima.
Article 107(1) TFEU defines as being incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
U ovom se slučaju čini prikladnim da se prvo ispita postojanje prednosti za FT koje je financirano državnim sredstvima.
According to well established case law, the concept of aid embraces not only subsidies themselves, but also interventions which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, without therefore being subsidies in the strict meaning of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect.
Ako Komisija ne zaključi da je takva prednost prisutna ili da nije financirana državnim sredstvima, treba zaključiti da ispitana mjera ne predstavlja državnu potporu jer su uvjeti za postojanje državne potpore kumulativni.
It follows from the above that the concept of aid is based on the economic concept of advantage, the formal criterion being therefore immaterial.
Ponajprije valja podsjetiti na načela koja se primjenjuju na ovu analizu, kao što su načela utvrđena presudom u predmetu Bouygues.
It is settled case law that classification as State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU requires that all the conditions set out are fulfilled.
Sud je zaključio sljedeće:
Thus, for a national measure to be classified as ‘State aid’ for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, first, there must be an intervention by the State or through State resources; second, that intervention must be liable to affect trade between Member States; third, it must confer a selective advantage on the recipient; and fourth, it must distort or threaten to distort competition.
ne može isključiti […] da nekoliko uzastopnih državnih intervencija, za potrebe primjene članka 107. stavka 1.
It is also settled case law that investment by the public authorities in the capital of undertakings, in whatever form, may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU where the conditions set out in that Article are fulfilled.
UFEU-a treba smatrati jednom intervencijom.
As regards the condition according to which the measure in question must be analysed as conferring an advantage on the recipient within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, measures which, whatever their form, are likely directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings or are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions are regarded as State aid.
104 To može osobito biti slučaj kad među tim uzastopnim intervencijama, u pogledu njihove kronologije, svrhe i položaja poduzetnika u trenutku tih intervencija, postoje toliko uske veze da ih je nemoguće razdvojiti […].
In the present case, it seems appropriate to examine, first, whether France Télécom obtained an advantage financed using state resources.
105 Sud je iz toga zaključio da je Opći sud, time što je smatrao da treba utvrditi smanjenje državnog proračuna ili dovoljno konkretan gospodarski rizik od opterećenja tog proračuna, koji je usko povezan i usklađen s posebnom prednošću koja proizlazi iz obavijesti od 4. prosinca 2002. ili iz ponude dioničarskog zajma, ili je tom prednošću nadoknađen, počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava jer je primijenio kriterij koji od samog početka isključuje da se te državne intervencije mogu smatrati jednom intervencijom, s obzirom na povezanost između njih i na njihove učinke
If the Commission cannot conclude that such an advantage exists, or if it was not financed by state resources, it must conclude that the measure scrutinised does not constitute State aid, the conditions for the existence of State aid being cumulative.
106 Nadalje, valja napomenuti da iz sudske prakse proizlazi da se posebnom državnom intervencijom kojom je moguće poduzetnike na koje se ona primijeni staviti u povoljniji položaj od drugih i istodobno u budućnosti stvoriti dovoljno stvaran rizik dodatnog troška za državu mogu opteretiti državna sredstva […].
First, it is worth recalling the principles that apply to this analysis, as laid down in the Bouygues judgment.
107 Sud je osobito imao priliku navesti da prednosti dodijeljene u obliku državnog jamstva mogu podrazumijevati dodatno opterećenje za državu […].
The Court considered that:
108 Osim toga, iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da kada, ekonomski gledano, izmjena tržišnih uvjeta koja dovodi do neizravno dodijeljene prednosti određenim poduzetnicima za posljedicu ima gubitak sredstava javnih vlasti, čak ni činjenica da su ulagači neovisno donijeli odluku ne može ukloniti vezu koja postoji između navedenoga gubitka sredstava i prednosti koju uživaju dotični poduzetnici […].
it cannot be excluded … that several consecutive measures of State intervention must, for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, be regarded as a single intervention.
109 Posljedično, u svrhu dokazivanja postojanja državne potpore Komisija mora dokazati dovoljno izravnu vezu između, s jedne strane, prednosti dodijeljene korisniku i, s druge strane, smanjenja državnog proračuna, odnosno dovoljno konkretnog gospodarskog rizika za opterećenje tog proračuna […]
That could be the case in particular where consecutive interventions, especially having regard to their chronology, their purpose and the circumstances of the undertaking at the time of those interventions, are so closely linked to each other that they are inseparable from one another …
110 Međutim, […] nije potrebno da takvo smanjenje odnosno takav rizik odgovara ili bude jednakovrijedno navedenoj prednosti, ni da ovo posljednje ima za protučinidbu takvo smanjenje ili takav rizik ni da bude iste naravi kao korištenje državnih sredstava iz kojih proizlazi.”
It follows that, having found that it was necessary to identify a reduction of the State budget or a sufficiently concrete economic risk of burdens on that budget, closely linked and corresponding to, or having as a counterpart, a specific advantage deriving either from the announcement of 4 December 2002 or from the shareholder loan offer, the General Court erred in law by applying a test that immediately excludes those State interventions, depending on their links with one another and their effects, from being regarded as a single intervention.
U pogledu tumačenja i dosega odluke o pokretanju službenog istražnog postupka koji se odnosi na predmetnu mjeru, presudom Bouygues utvrđeno je da se ta odluka o pokretanju postupka odnosi isključivo na notificirane mjere i ne obuhvaća „pitanje predstavljaju li izjave iz srpnja 2002. same po sebi državnu potporu”.
Next, according to the case law of the Court, State intervention capable of both placing the undertakings which it applies to in a more favourable position than others and creating a sufficiently concrete risk of imposing an additional burden on the State in the future, may place a burden on the resources of the State …
Ova konačna odluka, koja zbog odluke o pokretanju postupka ima određeni predmet, ne obuhvaća to pitanje.
In particular, the Court of Justice has had occasion to state that advantages given in the form of a State guarantee can entail an additional burden on the State …
Nadalje, Komisija podsjeća da ocjene činjenica i prava koje je Opći sud naveo u presudi od 2. srpnja 2015., tumačene u svjetlu presude o žalbi Suda od 30. studenoga 2016., ako predstavljaju potrebnu potporu za program, imaju svojstvo pravomoćne presude.
Furthermore, the Court has already held that, where, in economic terms, the alteration of the market conditions which gives rise to an advantage given indirectly to certain undertakings is the consequence of the public authorities' loss of revenue, even the fact that investors then take independent decisions does not mean that the connection between the loss of revenue and the advantage given to the undertakings in question has been eliminated …
Mjere koje je Francuska poduzela između srpnja i listopada 2002. imale su znatan učinak na tržište
Consequently, for the purposes of establishing the existence of State aid, the Commission must establish a sufficiently direct link between, on the one hand, the advantage given to the beneficiary and, on the other, a reduction of the State budget or a sufficiently concrete economic risk of burdens on that budget …
Izjave nakon srpnja 2002. omogućile su zadržavanje kreditnog rejtinga FT-a u investicijskom razredu i ponovno stjecanje povjerenja financijskih tržišta.
As regards the interpretation and scope of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure relating to the measure at issue, the Bouygues judgment notes that this opening decision solely concerns the measures notified and not ‘whether the declarations from July 2002 constituted, in themselves, State aid’.
To snižavanje kredita prouzročilo je znatnu zabrinutost na financijskim tržištima u pogledu financijske situacije društva FT (među ostalim u pogledu njegove sposobnosti za refinancira svoj dug od 15 milijardi eura koji je dospijevao na plaćanje krajem 2003.), i tržišta su očekivala reakciju države kojom želi vratiti povjerenje tržišta.
This final decision, whose subject matter is defined by the opening decision, does not therefore extend to that question.
Prema mišljenju Komisije, ove okolnosti pokazuju da je država morala hitno djelovati kako bi umirila tržište i kako bi spriječila daljnje snižavanje kreditnog rejtinga društva FT na razinu „junk bond”, što bi imalo izrazito negativan učinak na financijsku situaciju društva.