natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘They reiterate … that 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 …’.
„Oblasti ponavljajo, … da ne le, da so državo, delničarja podjetja France Télécom, v primeru France Télécoma vedno primerjali z dobro poučenim delničarjem, ampak da je to stališče predstavljalo predpogoj za vsa mogoča posredovanja v tem primeru …“.
The Minister's July 2002 interview makes no mention of any decision being taken.
Pogovor z ministrom iz julija 2002 ne razkriva sprejema nobene odločitve.
‘… [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’.
„[O]b ohranjanju zaupanja v učinkovitost podjetja je država naredila samo to, da je podvomila v položaj, povezan s podjetjem France Télécom in da se je v zvezi s kakovostjo večinskega delničarja prizadevala popraviti svojo analizo, pri čemer pa v tem stanju ni bila zmožna določiti natančne diagnoze niti sprejeti kakršne koli odločitve“.
‘Moreover, there was no reason to suppose a priori that the phrase “appropriate steps” referred specifically to financial measures’.
„Poleg tega ni nobenega razloga, da bi vnaprej predvidevali, da so cilji pogojev ‚zadostnih določb‘ predvsem finančni ukrepi“.
‘The French authorities have also noted numerous inaccuracies in the reasoning set out in the legal report.
„Francoske oblasti so razkrile tudi številne netočnosti ugotovitev, ki so bile oblikovane v pravnem poročilu.
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’.
To poročilo dokazuje tudi očitno pomanjkanje objektivnosti, tako pri sprejemu izjemno spornih pravnih analiz (predvsem v zvezi z označevanjem pisem o nameri in obsegom enostranske obveze v civilnem in gospodarskem pravu) kot tudi pri neutemeljenem začetku uporabljanja dejstev, ki so bila preučena z določenimi izrednimi pravnimi kvalifikacijami (tako je to na primer pri izvajanju teorije o poslovanju ali o pravilih mednarodnega javnega prava pri odnosih med družbo in njenim večinskim delničarjem)“.
‘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’.
„Zaključki pravnega poročila, ki stremijo k oblikovanju obstoja ‚neomejenega jamstva‘, ki ga je država podelila podjetju France Télécom v skladu s pravom Skupnosti ostajajo popolnoma neutemeljen i“.
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.
V skladu s sodno prakso podjetja Compagnie nationale Air France zadevne izjave ne morejo pomeniti trdne in brezpogojne državne obveze.
Similarly, ‘the solution adopted in the Crédit foncier de France case — assuming it is in keeping with Community law, which is not certain as the decision has not been the subject of an appeal — relates to radically different circumstances’.
Poleg tega „se nanaša rešitev, ki se je ohranila v primeru družbe Crédit foncier de France – če predpostavljamo, da je rešitev v skladu s skupno sodno prakso, kar ni nujno, saj odločitev ni bila del nobene pritožbe – na povsem drugačne okoliščine“.
‘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’.
„Prav tako ne gre za uradno sporočilo, povezano z vlado ali s podjetjem France Télécom, ampak za preprost časopisni članek, ki povzema besedilo iz intervjuja z ministrom za gospodarstvo v širšem kontekstu, povezanem s prednostmi vlade in ki nima nobene dokazilne moči“.
‘Attempts to place the Minister's remarks of 12 July 2002 in some domestic-law legal categories (especially company law and administrative law) likewise do not succeed in proving the existence of any guarantee in favour of France Télécom’.
„Poskusi označevanja ministrskih izjav z dne 12. julija 2002 v zvezi s pravnimi kategorijami notranjega prava (predvsem prava družb in upravnega prava) ne omogočajo dokazovanja obstoja kakršnega koli jamstva v korist podjetju France Télécom“.
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’.
V zvezi s primerjavo ministrovih julijskih izjav in pisma o nameri francoske oblasti poudarjajo, da „(i) je bistvo pisma o nameri to, da je naslovljeno na nekega upravičenca, (ii) da je pri podaljšanju opazovanja, ki temu sledi, učinkovitost dodeljevanja odvisna od sprejema omenjenega upravičenca, (iii) in da je obseg dane obveznosti (tako, kadar gre za njen cilj, kot tudi, kar se tiče pomena, ki ga avtor želi obveznosti pripisati) odvisen izključno od uporabljenih pogojev“.
‘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’.
„Tako … najmanj splošen značaj ministrskih izjav … nedvomno izključuje obvezo v korist podjetja France Télécom ali njegovih upnikov, še bolj pa izključuje vse posledične obveze (torej vse zamisli o jamstvu), na primer obvezo v zvezi s sredstvi“.
‘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’.
„Odgovor ministra … potrjuje samo to, da država v vlogi delničarja ob zaupanju v operativno kakovost podjetja ni sprejela nobene odločitve – razen tega, da bo ravnala tako kot vsak ‚dobro poučen delničar‘ – in da do tega trenutka ne bi mogla oblikovati dovolj natančne diagnoze, niti sprejeti kakršne koli odločitve“.
‘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.
„Sodna praksa ni … nikoli domnevala, da bi obvezo o jamstvu brez določenega upravičenca (določenih upravičencev) lahko uveljavila vsaka oseba, ki bi v tem našla svoj interes.
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.
Poleg tega to ni prav nič osupljivo, saj je za jamstvo in za pismo o nameri značilno, da sta naslovljena na več upravičencev.
Nor is it surprising, since it was not intended for any specific beneficiary, that the alleged commitment was not accepted’.
Ker domnevna obveza ni bila namenjena nobenemu določenemu upravičencu, ni nič čudnega, da ni bila sprejeta“.
As for the business management hypothesis, this concept is entirely inapplicable to the present case.
V zvezi s hipotezo o vodenju je ta koncept v tem primeru povsem neučinkovit.
‘Regarding Article L.465-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code, the French authorities have stressed that supposing it to be transposable to the State, it would condemn, not the mere changing by the State of its intentions, but only the declaring of an intention that was false or misleading from the outset, which was manifestly not the case here inasmuch as the remarks only reflected the lack of any decision whatsoever in the then state of the shareholder's knowledge’.
„V skladu s členom L.465-1 Denarnega in finančnega kodeksa so francoske oblasti poudarile, da ‚predvidevanje, povezano z državo, ne obsoja preprostega dejstva, da bi država razvila svoje namene, ampak preprosto dejstvo o napovedovanju namena, ki je bilo napačno in zmotno že od samega začetka, kar se očitno ni zgodilo, izjave pa so odražale samo neobstoj kakršne koli odločitve v zvezi s podatki, ki so bili na voljo delničarju“.
As far as administrative law is concerned, the French authorities maintain that ‘[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.
V zvezi z upravnim pravom francoske oblasti poudarjajo, da „[p]o eni strani pri preprostih izjavah v pogovoru z novinarjem – tako kot izjave ministra za gospodarstvo z dne 12. julija 2002 – ne gre za ‚škodljivo dejanje‘, ki bi povzročilo oblikovanje pravic in obvez, še manj pa oblikovanje jamstva, ki ga je država dodelila podjetju France Télécom.
Secondly, the liability of the State can in no way be incurred by reason of the highly general remarks made by the Minister, whether because of their alleged lack of implementation — the broken promise hypothesis — or, conversely, because of their implementation — the unlawful promise hypothesis’.
Po drugi strani pa odgovornost države v nobenem primeru ne more biti oblikovana na osnovi izjemno splošnih izjav ministra, pa če to izhaja iz domnevnega neizvajanja – predpostavka o neizrečeni obljubi – ali pa nasprotno iz izvajanja – predpostavka o nezakoniti obljubi“.
‘The legal consultant's conclusions clearly fly in the face of the Commission's decision-making practice and of Community case law in the field of state aid, which make the existence of aid conditional on proof of a firm, precise and unconditional commitment on the part of the State concerned — something which the Minister's remarks of 12 July 2002 could in no way be construed as being.’‘A state measure, in whatever form, must be sufficiently precise and concrete for the Commission to be able to determine the very existence of an advantage’.
„Zaključki pravnega svetovalca so povsem v nasprotju s prakso odločanja Komisije in s skupno sodno prakso, ki velja v zvezi z državnimi pomočmi, ki pogojujejo obstoj pomoči ob izkazovanju trdne, natančne in brezpogojne obveze zadevne države, kar v nobenem primeru ne morejo biti ministrske izjave z dne 12. julija 2002“. „Državni ukrep ne glede na obliko mora biti dejansko dovolj natančen in konkreten, da lahko Komisija določi obstoj prednosti“.
‘To be able to apply the prudent investor test, the Commission must have at its disposal all the necessary information concerning the specific modalities of the measure that is being scrutinised’.
„Če želimo uporabiti merilo dobro poučenega delničarja, mora Komisija imeti na voljo vse potrebne podatke v zvezi s konkretnimi pogoji preučevanega ukrepa“.
‘The adoption by the Commission of the legal consultant's arguments would have discriminatory effects which would run counter to the principle of legal certainty.
„Če bi Komisija upoštevala trditve pravnega svetovalca, bi to imelo diskriminacijske učinke, ki so v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti.
In particular, the reasoning followed by the consultant would have absurd procedural consequences in that each Member State would be obliged to notify to the Commission the slightest plan to give an interview or make a public declaration about a company of which it was the reference shareholder’.
Predvsem pa bi razmišljanje svetovalca imelo nesmiselne pravne posledice, saj bi to povzročilo, da bi morala vsaka država članica obvestiti Komisijo tudi o najmanjših intervjujih ali javnih izjavah v zvezi s podjetji, v katerih je država referenčni delničar“.
Moreover, this argument would result in unjustified discrimination between the Community institutions and the Member States.
Poleg tega pa bi ta trditev povzročila neupravičeno diskriminacijo med ustanovami v Skupnosti in državami članicami.
‘It is a principle of Community law that no person may rely even on promises made by a Community institution in the absence of “specific, unconditional and concordant assurances, emanating from authorised, reliable sources, given to him by the administration”’.‘More fundamentally, the approach adopted by the legal consultant is likely to undermine the principle of neutrality enshrined in Article 295 of the EC Treaty and would make it impossible to apply the prudent investor test.
„V skladu s pravom Skupnosti načeloma nič ne more predstavljati obljub neke ustanove v Skupnosti, če pri tem ni ‚natančnih, brezpogojnih in skladnih zagotovil, povezanih s pooblaščenimi in zanesljivimi viri, ki bi jih zagotovila uprava‘“.„V tem pogledu in bolj temeljno je pristop, ki ga zagovarja pravni svetovalec takšen, da škoduje načelu nevtralnosti, predstavljenem v členu 295 Pogodbe ES in da onemogoča uporabo merila dobro poučenega delničarja.
If the consultant's reasoning were taken to its logical conclusion, any public intervention by a State in relation to a public undertaking would thus constitute aid and a State would therefore always be presumed to act as a public authority and not in the capacity of a shareholder in the undertaking’.
Če bi bilo razmišljanje pravnega svetovalca opravljeno do konca, bi vsako posredovanje države v zvezi z javnimi podjetji predstavljalo pomoč, za državo pa bi od takrat naprej veljalo, da ravna kot javna oblast in ne v vlogi delničarja v podjetju“.
The French authorities have presented the following comments on the economic report:
Kar se tiče gospodarskega poročila, so francoske oblasti predstavile naslednje pripombe:
‘The economic consultant's conclusions have no intrinsic validity inasmuch as they are based exclusively on the mistaken premiss (contained in the legal report) that France Télécom received an “unlimited guarantee” from the State’.
„Zaključki gospodarskega svetovalca nimajo nobene prave veljave, če temeljijo izključno na zmotni domnevi (oblikovani v pravnem poročilu), v skladu s katero je France Télécom od države prejel ‚neomejeno jamstvo‘“.
‘Moreover … the economic report in no way shows that the company enjoyed any advantage over its competitors’.
„Poleg tega … gospodarsko poročilo na noben način ne dokazuje, da bi podjetje imelo koristi od katere koli prednosti v primerjavi s svojimi konkurenti“.
‘The microeconomic method of the event study used by the economic consultant raises a number of fundamental issues, including the use of the very short-term trend in the share price as the sole measure of changes in the value of the company contrary to recognised usage (including by the Community courts regarding valuation, and this despite the fact that the manifest errors committed recently by the markets in assessing the value of telecommunications operators call for, to say the least, serious caution.
„Mikroekonomska metodologija študij dogodkov, ki jo je uporabil gospodarski svetovalec, povzroča več bistvenih težav, ki vključujejo predvsem uporabo izjemno kratkoročnega razvoja borzne cene kot edinega ukrepa za razvoj vrednosti podjetja, kar je v nasprotju z znano prakso (vključno s skupnim sodnikom v zvezi z valorizacijo, medtem ko bi napake, ki so bile nedavno narejene na trgih v zvezi z ocenjevanjem vrednosti telekomunikacijskih operaterjev, povzročile vsaj veliko previdnost.
What is more, the economic consultant is completely ignorant of the specificities of the situation with regard to the France Télécom share at the material time, such as its historically high level of volatility, which clearly rule out the use of this method in the present case’.
Poleg tega gospodarski svetovalec v celoti namerno prezre značilnosti položaja podjetja France Télécom v zadevnem obdobju, na primer njegovo preteklo povečano stopnjo nestabilnosti, ki jasno izključuje uporabo te metodologije v tem primeru“.
‘The event study method is all the more inappropriate in the present case as the share price did not move in only one direction during the relevant period, but underwent a rapid succession of strong rises and falls in response to the multitude of contradictory factors influencing the share price at that time, with the result that the consultant is wrong to carry out his analyses in the light of a single factor (the ministerial interview on 12 July 2002) to the exclusion of all others (despite the fact that there are no grounds for asserting that market operators considered the ministerial interview to be an important factor for investors in July 2002)’.
„Metoda študij dogodkov se v tem primeru izkaže za še bolj neprimerno, saj cena ni doživela enosmernega razvoja v zadevnem obdobju, ampak hitro zaporedje velike rasti in velikega padanja, kar dokazuje številne nasprotne si dejavnike, ki lahko vplivajo na razvoj cene v opazovanem obdobju, saj se svetovalec pri izvajanju analiz ni oprl na en sam dejavnik (intervju z ministrom z dne 12. julija 2002), poleg tega pa je prezrl veliko drugih dejavnikov (tako ne moremo potrditi, da so izvajalci na trgu smatrali, da je intervju z ministrom pomemben element pri naložbah v juliju 2002)“.
‘The markets thus received at that time information about the situation of the company itself (for example, on the risk associated with MobilCom)’.
„Tako so na trge v tem obdobju prišli podatki v zvezi s položajem podjetja (na primer tveganje, povezano s podjetjem MobilCom)“.
‘Moreover, the consultant's calculations are in reality essentially determined by the choice of methodological hypotheses (such as the observation window and assessment period), established as they are without any solid justification and in a largely arbitrary manner, which deprives his findings of any probative value’.
„Poleg tega izračune strokovnjaka v resnici določa izbira metodoloških hipotez (predvsem obseg opazovanja in obdobje ocenjevanja), ki so oblikovane brez vsake ustrezne utemeljitve in v veliki meri na samovoljen način, zaradi česar rezultati svetovalca nimajo nobene dokazilne vrednosti“.
‘The amount calculated by the economic consultant is essentially linked to the utilisation of a reference trend in France Télécom's share price which bears no relationship to the event examined in the study (the Minister's comments of 12 July 2002)’.
„Znesek, ki ga je izračunal gospodarski svetovalec, je močno povezan z uporabo gibanja referenčne cene podjetja France Télécom, ki ni imela nobene zveze z dogodkom, ki je bil preučevan v študiji (izjave ministra z dne 12. julija 2002)“.
‘Furthermore, the consultant's deductions are contradicted by simple, unavoidable tests such as the observation that, over the relevant period, France Télécom's shares and bonds moved in quite a similar way to the securities of its closest comparable competitor, Deutsche Telekom’.
„Poleg tega so sklepanja svetovalca v nasprotju s preprostimi in neizpodbitnimi testi kot je na primer zaznavanje, da so se v zadevnem obdobju delnice in obveznice podjetja France Télécom razvijale na podoben način kot vrednostni papirji najbližjega primerljivega podjetja Deutsche Telekom“.
The consultant's report can also be criticised for ‘the unjustified heterogeneousness of the method of reconstituting the “normal” movement’ in shares and bonds, or the lack of care taken by the consultant in giving prominence to a ‘normal’ trend in market indebtedness on the basis of certain highly illiquid bond lines or in extrapolating the market value of a few bonds from the totality of the debt.
Poročilo svetovalca bi lahko kritizirali tudi zaradi ‚neupravičene raznoterosti metod ponovne vzpostavitve ’normalnega’“ razvoja delnic in obveznic, ali pa tudi zaradi nezadostne previdnosti svetovalca pri dokazovanju „normalnega“ gibanja dolga na trgu zaradi določenih slabo likvidnih obvezniških linij in zaradi oblikovanja zaključkov o celotnem dolgu na podlagi tržne vrednosti nekaj obveznic.
Likewise, the extremely fragile basis of the theoretical calculation carried out by the consultant to estimate, on the basis of credit default swaps (‘CDSs’), the cost of the alleged guarantee granted by the State to France Télécom should be emphasised.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti izjemno šibkost teoretičnega izračuna, ki ga je svetovalec na osnovi kreditnih zamenjav (Credit Default Swaps –„CDS“) uporabil pri svoji oceni predvidene cene jamstva, ki ga je država dodelila podjetju France Télécom.
The calculation takes no account of the specific rarity of CDSs during the period studied, which explains the excessive reactivity of that instrument (compared, for instance, with bond spreads) and rules it out as a suitable measuring stick over that period.
Pri tem pa ni upoštevana redkost zamenjav CDS v času preučevanega obdobja, kar razlaga preveliko odzivnost tega instrumenta (predvsem v zvezi z razmiki obveznic), zaradi česar se to izkaže kot neuporabno orodje pri ukrepanju v tem obdobju.
‘The economic consultant's conclusions as to the existence of supposed aid granted to France Télécom are based, moreover, on errors of reasoning and stem from a confusion between the alleged increase in the theoretical market value of the company, the profit derived from that increase by shareholders and debtors, and the conferment of a supposed advantage on the company’.
„Zaključki gospodarskega svetovalca v zvezi z obstojem domnevne državne pomoči, dodeljene podjetju France Télécom med drugim temeljijo na razmišljanju in izhajajo iz zmede med domnevno rastjo teoretične tržne vrednosti podjetja, med koristjo, ki jo imajo delničarji in upniki od te rasti in med dodeljevanjem domnevne prednosti podjetju“.
‘The consultant proceeds on the assumption that state aid increases the value of the company receiving it … [whereas] it should not be overlooked that market operators are nowadays fully aware of the risks which the grant of incompatible aid poses for a company … Consequently, … if it were to be perceived by the markets as unlawful, the grant of aid might lead to … a fall in the company's share price and hence in its market value’.
„Svetovalec izhaja iz domneve, da je državna pomoč dvignila vrednost podjetja, zaradi česar je slednje imelo koristi, … [medtem ko] ni bilo moč spregledati, da se udeleženci na trgu danes zavedajo tveganj, ki jih dodeljevanje neodvisne pomoči lahko povzroči v podjetju … Posledično je … dodelitev pomoči, če bi jo trgi dojeli kot nezakonito, lahko povzročila … zmanjšanje cene obveznic podjetja in posledično tudi vrednost podjetja na trgu“.
‘Such conclusions, which are based exclusively on an ex post analysis of the alleged “guarantee” granted by the State to France Télécom, are, moreover, incompatible with the assessment of the investor criterion, which calls for an ex ante evaluation’.
„Taki zaključki, ki temeljijo izključno na poznejši analizi domnevnega ‚jamstva‘, ki ga je država dodelila podjetju France Télécom, so med drugim nezdružljivi z upoštevanjem merila vlagatelja, ki uvaja poznejše ocenjevanje“.