natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When initiating procedure C 32/03, the Commission emphasised that it was necessary to ascertain that the elements which in the decision to initiate the procedure had been found to be compliant with the Sernam 1 decision would be finalised correctly (in particular to ensure efficient competition on the relevant markets on 31 January 2003 [24] – this concerns the contracts concluded between SNCF and SCS Sernam for the transport of customer baggage, the transport of newspapers and the transport of SNCF supplies). The Commission also stressed that these doubts made it necessary to carry out a new analysis of the dossier on the basis of an updated comprehensive restructuring plan that took account of the new circumstances.
Komisija je z začetkom postopka št. C 32/03 opozorila, da bi bilo potrebno preveriti, da so elementi, katerih razvoj je veljal za skladnega z odločbo Sernam 1 v odločbi o začetku postopka, pravilno zaključeni (zlasti za učinkovito zbiranje ponudb za zadevna naročila z dne 31. januarja 2003 [24] – gre za pogodbe, sklenjene med SNCF in SCS Sernamom o prevozu prtljage strank, prevozu tiska in o prevozu dobav SNCF) in prav tako opozorila, da je zaradi teh dvomov potrebna nova analiza zadeve na osnovi celotnega uresničenega načrta prestrukturiranja, ki odraža nove razmere.
Subsequent developments
Nadaljnji potek dogodkov
Following the Commission's initiation of the procedure and in accordance with the clauses on the lapsing of validity laid down in the agreement between SNCF and Geodis on the one hand and COGIP on the other in the event that the Commission initiates the procedure or that the case is brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, [25] SNCF has had to take back the 15% of Sernam's shares acquired by Geodis and COGIP respectively.
Zaradi začetka postopka s strani Komisije in skladno s klavzulami o zapadlosti, ki jih vsebuje sporazum med SNCF in Geodisom na eni strani ter COGIP na drugi strani v primeru začetka postopka in pritožbe pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti [25], je moral SNCF zopet prevzeti 15 % delež Sernama, ki sta ga ustrezno pridobila Geodis in COGIP.
According to the latest information supplied by France, the amount of aid provided by the French Republic to Sernam from the time of its conversion into subsidiaries was €489.1 million. This amount is composed of €6.7 million initial capital, €419.6 million capital transaction, €33.5 million equity loan and €29.3 million corresponding to additional costs for railwaymen.
Glede na zadnje podatke, ki jih je priskrbela Francija, znaša znesek pomoči, ki ga je Francoska republika namenila Sernamu od vzpostavitve podružnice dalje, 489,1 mio EUR. Ta znesek se deli na 6,7 mio EUR začetnega kapitala, 419,6 mio EUR kapitalskih transakcij, 33,5 mio EUR delničarskega posojila in 29,3 mio EUR, ki ustreza dodatnim stroškom železničarjev [26].
This total sum corresponds to the €448 million restructuring aid of the plan approved by the Commission in May 2001, increased by €41 million to take account of the new circumstances that have occurred since the Commission's decision (in return for additional efforts, in particular in terms of site closures).
Ta celota ustreza znesku v vrednosti 448 mio EUR za pomoč prestrukturiranja načrta, ki ga je odobrila Komisija maja 2001, povečanega za 41 mio EUR zaradi upoštevanja novih okoliščin, ki so nastopile po odločbi Komisije (v zameno za dodatna prizadevanja zlasti v okviru zapiranja lokacij).
The other developments announced by France, mainly when it submitted its comments on the initiation of the procedure, such as the updating of Sernam's restructuring plan, are summed up below in the section on the comments from France.
Drugi poteki dogodkov, ki jih je napovedala Francija v glavnem med predstavitvijo svojih pripomb v zvezi z začetkom postopka, kot je uresničitev načrta prestrukturiranja Sernama, so povzeta v nadaljevanju v oddelku, ki zadeva pripombe Francije.
Moreover, […] the French authorities served […] notice of their decision to put Sernam up for sale.
Poleg tega so francoski organi […] […]sporočili svojo odločitev o prodaji Sernama.
The conditions of this sale are as follows:
Pogoji tovrstne prodaje so:
a transparent and non-discriminatory process
pregleden in nediskriminacijski postopek,
search for a European buyer
iskanje evropskega kupca in
sale at market price.
prodaja po tržni ceni.
To this end, the French authorities instructed a bank to look for potential buyers at European level.
V ta namen so se sklicevali na banko, ki je zadolžena za določitev možnih kupcev na evropski ravni.
According to the indications of the French authorities, the deadline for this sale is […].
Po podatkih francoskih organov bi moral biti zadnji datum te prodaje […].
Accordingly, the Commission takes cognizance of the intention of the French authorities to sell the Sernam company in its entirety (including assets and liabilities).
Komisija se je tako seznanila z namero francoskih organov, da prodajo celotno družbo Sernam (vključno s sredstvi in obveznostmi).
OBSERVATIONS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANK
The joint observations from various third parties, which wish to remain anonymous, are summed up below.
Skupne pripombe več tretjih strank, ki želijo ostati anonimne, so povzete v nadaljevanju.
In light of the circumstances of the case and in particular the conclusions outlined by the Commission when it initiated the procedure, these third parties have submitted the following observations.
Na podlagi okoliščin te zadeve in predvsem sklepov, ki jih je navedla Komisija ob začetku postopka, te tretje stranke predložijo naslednje pripombe:
Authorisation for the restructuring plan depended on the sale of most of the shares which SNCF held in Sernam’s capital to a private investor who would make a commitment to make his ‘own’ 20% contribution to Sernam’s restructuring costs.
Odobritev načrta prestrukturiranja je bila odvisna od prodaje večine deležev, ki jih ima SNCF v kapitalu Sernama, zasebnemu vlagatelju, ki se je zavezal k stroškom prestrukturiranja doprinesti „lasten“ prispevek v znesku 20 % vrednosti;
Sernam should have provided a sufficient quid pro quo for this restructuring aid in the form of a reduction of its turnover (by at least 18%) and market shares to preclude all unwarranted distortion of competition.
Sernam bi za to pomoč pri prestrukturiranju moral priskrbeti zadostno odškodnino v obliki znižanja svojega prometa (vsaj za 18 %) in svojih tržnih deležev, da bi se izognil vsakršnemu neupravičenemu izkrivljanju konkurence.
In this regard, the complainants note that the Commission has stated in the fourth paragraph of point 75 of its summary that ‘While France has proposed the closure of […] [27] additional sites of Sernam, it is not clear, on the one hand, if this countermeasure would be sufficient and, on the other hand, if it would be acceptable, given the new context of the dossier as described above’.
Tožniki v tem pogledu opažajo, da Komisija v četrti alinei točke 75 svojega povzetka navaja, da: „Čeprav je Francija predlagala zapiranje […] [27] dodatnih lokacij Sernama, na eni strani ni jasno, ali naj bi bilo to nadomestilo zadostno in na drugi, ali naj bi bilo sprejemljivo ob upoštevanju novih okoliščin zadeve, kakor je opisano zgoraj“.
The complainants take the view that the closure of additional sites is in no way a sufficient countermeasure, given the significant increase (by at least €108 million (€67 + 41 million)) of the amount of restructuring aid sought for Sernam and the extension of the restructuring period by at least one year.
Tožniki ocenjujejo, da zapiranje dodatnih lokacij v nobenem primeru ne predstavlja zadostnega nadomestila zaradi znatnega povečanja (najmanj 108 milijonov eurov (67 + 41 mio EUR)) zneska pomoči za prestrukturiranje, zaprošene za Sernam in vsaj enoletnega podaljšanja obdobja prestrukturiranja;
The amount of aid authorised in 2001 should not have exceeded the minimum necessary to restore Sernam to viability.
Znesek pomoči, odobren leta 2001, ne bi smel presegati minimuma, potrebnega za vzpostavitev sposobnosti preživetja Sernama.
In particular, the Commission should ensure that henceforth Sernam will not have at its disposal liquid assets enabling it to continue, as is currently the case, to charge prices below market level and ‘poaching’ experienced personnel from its competitors (see paragraph 96 of the Commission’s summary).
Komisija bi morala še posebej ukrepati tako, da odtlej Sernam ne bi razpolagal s sredstvi, ki bi mu, kot velja sedaj, še naprej dopuščala izvajati cene, nižje od tržne ravni in „odpuščati“ osebje, do česar je prišlo pri njegovih tekmecih (glej odstavek 96 povzetka Komisije);
The complainants are of the opinion that Sernam should not be authorised to restart its restructuring and continue to have access to aid and distort competition solely because it (and SNCF) does not comply with the conditions laid down in the decision of 23 May 2001.
Tožniki ocenjujejo, da Sernam ne bi smel ponovno začeti prestrukturiranja, še naprej imeti dostopa do pomoči ter izkrivljati konkurence samo zaradi neupoštevanja (prav tako kot SNCF) pogojev, določenih v odločbi z dne 23. maja 2001.
The Commission ought to reject any new investment and development plan submitted by Sernam/SNCF and France as Sernam/SNCF and Geodis deliberately contravene the provisions of the restructuring plan authorised by the Commission's decision and because they have agreed not to participate in any Commission investigation of this initial restructuring plan in the light of the suspensory clauses of the memorandum of understanding signed by SNCF and Geodis.
Komisija bi morala zavrniti vsak nov načrt investiranja in razvoja, ki ga predložijo Sernam/SNCF in Francija, ob upoštevanju, da Sernam/SNCF in Geodis namenoma kršijo predpise načrta prestrukturiranja, ki ga je odobrila Komisija, ter da so ti subjekti soglašali, da ne bodo sodelovali pri nobeni preiskavi Komisije o tem začetnem načrtu prestrukturiranja na podlagi odložnih klavzul memoranduma o soglasju, ki sta ga podpisala SNCF in Geodis.
On the basis of the ‘one time, last time’ principle for the grant of aid, the Commission should ensure that Sernam is not authorised to receive additional aid.
Komisija mora na osnovi načela skupne pomoči paziti na to, da Sernam ni pooblaščen za prejem dodatne pomoči.
Given that the measures taken by SNCF to privatise Sernam and implement the approved restructuring plan have proved insufficient to restore Sernam to viability within the prescribed period, the Commission should take the measures necessary to ensure that Sernam is put into liquidation and no longer has access to new State aid.
Ob upoštevanju, da ukrepi, ki jih je sprejel SNCF za privatizacijo Sernama in uporabo odobrenega načrta prestrukturiranja, niso zadostovali za vzpostavitev sposobnosti preživetja Sernama v predpisanih rokih, bi morala Komisija sprejeti nujne ukrepe, da bi bil Sernam likvidiran in ne bi več imel dostopa do novih državnih pomoči.
By letter of 19 May 2004, registered on 24 May 2004, these third parties submitted additional information showing that the number of shutdowns in the transport sector in France rose by 21.37% in the twelve months preceding March 2004 (source: INSEE).
V pismu z dne 19. maja 2004, registriranim dne 24. maja 2004, so omenjene tretje stranke poslale dodatne informacije, po katerih se je v zadnjih dvanajstih mesecih pred marcem 2004 zapiranje podjetij v sektorju prevozov v Franciji povečalo za 21,37 % (vir Insee).
According to the third parties, the serious financial difficulties in the French road transport sector are due ‘to the economic slump but also to structural causes.
Po mnenju tretjih strank so resne finančne težave v Franciji posledica „slabih razmer, toda prav tako strukturnih vzrokov.
Transport companies have no room for manoeuvre for lack of capital resources and company cash.
Prevozna podjetja so zaradi pomanjkanja lastnih denarnih sredstev in likvidnega kapitala ostala brez manevrirnega prostora.
Consequently, they are unable to cope when they lose a contract or when one of their customers goes bankrupt.
Tako takoj, ko izgubijo pogodbo ali ko ena izmed njihovih strank preide v stečaj, ne morejo več resnično konkurirati.
As they often have insufficient guarantees, transport companies have more difficulty gaining confidence among bankers, shippers and also their suppliers’.
Ker so njihova jamstva pogosto nezadostna, prevozniki težje zaupajo bankirjem, špediterjem ali tudi njihovih dobaviteljev.“
Moreover, the third parties give various examples of customers of company ‘X’ [28] to whom Sernam reportedly still only recently offered prices 10% to 30 % below those offered by company ‘X’:
Poleg tega tretje stranke navajajo več primerov strank podjetja „X“ [28], ki jim je Sernam še nedavno predložil ponudbe cen, od 10 % do 30 % nižje od cen, ki jih nudi podjetje „X“:
Customers of ‘X’
Stranke podjetja „X“
Reduction of price proposed by Sernam compared with that of ‘X’
Znižanje cene, ki jo je ponudil Sernam, v primerjavi s ceno podjetja „X“
Customer 1
Stranka 1
Customer 2
Stranka 2
Customer 3
Stranka 3
Customer 4
Stranka 4
Customer 5
Stranka 5
Customer 6
Stranka 6
Moreover, these third parties indicate that Sernam has systematically attracted personnel from company ‘X’, [29] offering 30% bonuses on the wages paid by company ‘X’.
Poleg tega omenjene tretje stranke navajajo, da je Sernam sistematično privabljal osebje iz podjetja „X“ [29] s ponudbo 30 % dodatka na plače, ki jih je izplačalo podjetje „X“.
The third parties conclude that Sernam is trying to use the aid it receives in order to gain a competitive advantage on the market at the expense of its competitors.
Tretje stranke iz tega sklepajo, da Sernam skuša uporabiti pomoči, ki jih prejema, da bi v škodo svojih tekmecev dosegel konkurenčno prednost na trgu.
They ask for a negative decision and immediate recovery of the aid already granted to Sernam.
Zahtevajo negativno odločitev in takojšnjo vračilo pomoči, ki je že bila dodeljena Sernamu.
They also ask that the possible sale of Sernam should take place under the same conditions as those imposed on Geodis in 2001 and that it should take the form of an appropriate call for tenders.
Poleg tega zahtevajo, da se morebitna prodaja Sernama izvaja pod enakimi pogoji kot tisti, ki so bili leta 2001 predpisani za Geodis, ter da se odvija z uporabo primernega razpisa.
By letters of 19 June 2003, 26 November 2003 and 14 April 2004, France submitted comments in response to the Commission’s initiation of the procedure and to the comments made by the third parties and following working meetings that had taken place.
V poštah z dne 19. junija 2003, 26. novembra 2003 in 14. aprila 2004 je Francija kot odgovor na začetek postopka s strani Komisije, na pripombe tretjih oseb in po izvršenih delovnih sestankih predložila svoje pripombe.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM FRANCE
POVZETEK PRIPOMB FRANCIJE
The French authorities consider that they have provided all the information required in response to the doubts expressed by the Commission:
Francoski organi,menijo, da so podali vse elemente odgovora na dvome, ki jih je izrazila Komisija:
Sernam’s turnover has been significantly reduced;
znatno zniževanje prometa Sernama se je lepo in dobro izvršilo,
SNCF will not act in lieu of Geodis to cover Sernam’s working capital requirement.
SNCF ne bo zamenjal Geodisa pri kritju potrebe po obratovalnih sredstvih Sernama.
This capital need, estimated as €67 million in 2001, is now only €7.8 million and will be financed from current bank credit lines;
Ta potreba po financiranju, ki je bila leta 2001 ocenjena na 67 mio EUR, danes ne znaša več kot 7,8 mio EUR in se bo financirala preko tekočih bančnih kreditnih linij,
the sales prices of mail services, groupage and express services have effectively increased between 2000, 2001 and 2002;
prodajne cene tako za pošto kot tudi za zbirno pošiljanje so se med leti 2000, 2001 in 2002 v resnici povečale,
the newspaper, baggage and supplies markets, whose value has not changed, have been opened to competition;
naročila za tisk, prtljago in dostave, katerih zneski so ostali nespremenjeni, so v resnici ostali odprti za konkurenco,
Sernam has obtained its quality certificate, namely the CLIQ label;
SERNAM je v resnici pridobil svoje potrdilo o kakovosti; v tem primeru gre za oznako CLIQ,
Sernam has changed over to express mail; in fact, this has been one of the key elements for the success of Sernam’s recovery plan;
preoblikovanje Sernama v smeri hitre pošte se je v resnici izvršilo. Poleg tega je to eden izmed ključnih elementov za uspeh načrta obnove Sernama,
the development of TBE has likewise been one of the main elements of Sernam’s development.
razvoj TBE je prav tako eden izmed poglavitnih elementov razvoja Sernama.
Moreover, as the Commission recognised in its decision to initiate the procedure, the other elements of the plan have been complied with:
Poleg tega, kot priznava Komisija v svoji odločbi za začetek postopka, so bili upoštevani tudi drugi elementi načrta:
the closure of sites has been started and continues beyond the Sernam 1 decision;
zapiranje lokacij se je začelo in se nadaljuje po odločbi Sernam 1,
4/5 of the personnel have been renewed within a period of two years, following the return of railwaymen to SNCF, which has made it possible to establish a new internal communication system on the ground and to underpin local initiatives to develop a new result-oriented culture;
4/5 osebja se je nadoknadilo v dveh letih zaradi vračanja železničarjev k SNCF, kar je omogočilo vzpostavitev novega sistema notranje komunikacije, ki je usmerjena na samo področje in povečuje vrednost lokalnih pobud za razvoj nove kulture, usmerjene k rezultatom,
production sites are being reorganised;
preureditev proizvodnih lokacij je v teku,
employee training has been set up;
vzpostavitev izobraževanja za zaposlene se je izvedla,
the new transport plan has been established;
vzpostavitev novega načrta za prevoz je bila dosežena,
the changeover of computer systems to those of Geodis has also been carried out.
hiter prehod informacijskih sistemov v sisteme Geodisa je bil prav tako izvršen.
Only the association of Sernam with the Geodis group has not been possible within the conditions and the deadline laid down in the memorandum of understanding signed between SNCF and Geodis on 21 April 2000.
V razmerah in glede na rok, predviden v memorandumu o soglasju, ki sta ga 21. aprila 2000 podpisala SNCF in Geodis, ni bilo mogoče izvršiti le podpore skupine Geodis Sernamu.
COMMENTS FROM FRANCE IN MORE DETAIL
PODROBNEJŠE PRIPOMBE FRANCIJE
The lapsing of SNCF’s agreements with Geodis and COGIP
Zapadlost sporazumov med SNCF ter Geodisom in COGIP
The French authorities indicate that the memoranda of understanding between Geodis and COGIP have lapsed with the Commission’s initiation of the procedure for which it was a resolutive condition.
Francoski organi navajajo, da so memorandumi, sklenjeni med Geodisom in COGIP, postali neveljavni zaradi začetka postopka s strani Komisije, ki je pri tem predstavljal razveljavitveni pogoj.
Consequently, SNCF has taken over 15% of the shares in Sernam acquired by Geodis and COGIP respectively.
Zato je SNCF zopet prevzel 15 % delež Sernama, ki sta ga ustrezno pridobila Geodis in COGIP.
With regard to the resolutive clauses of the memoranda signed between SNCF and Geodis and between SNCF and COGIP, the French authorities believe that these were neither exorbitant nor contrary to Community law, account being taken of the risks assumed by the investor.
Kar zadeva razveljavitvene klavzule, podpisane med SNCF in Geodisom ter SNCF in COGIP, francoski organi menijo, da le-te ob upoštevanju tveganja vlagatelja niso bile niti pretirane niti v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
As no Commission decision had been taken by 31 December 2000 (the date linked to the resolutive clauses), Geodis had accepted to extend the memorandum of understanding of 21 April 2000 until 30 June 2001 (this memorandum included a suspensive clause linked to the adoption by the Commission before 31 December 2000 of a final decision on compatibility).
Ker odločitev Komisije ni nastopila 31. decembra 2000 (datum, vezan na razveljavitvene klavzule), je Geodis privolil v podaljšanje memoranduma o soglasju z dne 21. aprila 2000 do 30. junija 2001 (ta memorandum je vključeval odložno klavzulo, vezano na sprejetje dokončne odločbe o združljivosti pred 31. decembrom 2000 s strani Komisije).
In the meantime, the Sernam 1 decision was taken on 23 May 2001.
Medtem je dne 23. maja 2001 prišlo do odločbe Sernam 1.
According to the French authorities, however, this decision took effect only on 14 September 2001, two months after it was published.
Vendar bi po mnenju francoskih organov postala dokončna šele 14. septembra 2001, dva meseca po njeni objavi.
At that point in time, the memorandum had lapsed and SNCF was obliged to renegotiate a new memorandum with Geodis.
V tem trenutku je protokol postal neveljaven, SNCF pa je bila prisiljena v ponovno pogajanje o novem memorandumu z Geodisom.
It is recalled that even though SNCF is the leading shareholder in Geodis, holding 45% of its capital, it does not control it and, moreover, cannot take part in voting on decisions by Geodis concerning Sernam.
Omenjeno je, da čeprav je SNCF prvi delničar Geodisa s 45 % njegovega družbenega kapitala, v njem nima nadzora in se poleg tega ne more udeležiti glasovanja o odločitvah Geodisa v zvezi s Sernamom.
SNCF therefore had no power enabling it to oblige Geodis to apply a memorandum that had lapsed, even if the decision was applicable from the moment it was notified to the Member State.
SNCF torej ni imel nikakršne moči, ki bi ji dopuščala, da Geodis prisili k uporabi zapadlega memoranduma, kljub temu, da se je odločba začela uporabljati z uradnim obvestilom državi članici.
On the other hand, SNCF has done everything in its power to apply the restructuring plan.
Po drugi strani je SNCF za uporabo načrta prestrukturiranja naredil vse, kar je bilo v njegovi moči.
The French authorities conclude that neither Sernam or SNCF nor the French authorities can be blamed for the lapsing of the first memorandum (on account of the absence of a final decision regarding Geodis before 30 June 2001), the length of negotiations for the second memorandum and the changes imposed by Geodis compared with the first memorandum (because of its financial difficulties).
Francoski organi iz tega sklepajo, da se zapadlosti prvega memoranduma (zaradi odsotnosti dokončne odločbe v zvezi z Geodisom pred 30. junijem 2001), trajanja pogajanj o drugem memorandumu in sprememb, ki jih je uveljavil Geodis v zvezi s prvim memorandumom (zaradi svojih finančnih težav), ne sme pripisovati niti Sernamu niti SNCF niti francoskim organom.
Nevertheless, according to the French authorities the lapsing of these agreements has not prevented the further strengthening of synergies between Geodis, COGIP and Sernam.
Vendar po mnenju francoskih organov zapadlost teh sporazumov ni ovirala nadaljnjega razvoja sinergij med Geodisom, COGIP in Sernamom.
Period of implementation of the plan
Roki za izvajanje načrta
The French authorities indicate that although reorganisation measures had been taken right from 2000, the application of the restructuring plan could not be started until 1 January 2003 with the arrival of Mr Charles Henri Brousseaud as the president and chief executive officer and Mr Jean Michel Tremelet as financial director of Sernam, i.e. after six months’ delay.
Francoski organi navajajo, da čeprav so se sanacijski ukrepi izvajali od leta 2000, je lahko začel načrta za prestrukturiranje zares uporabljati šele 1. januarja ob prihodu g. Charles Henri Brousseauda na položaj generalnega direktorja in g. Jean Michel Tremeleta na položaj finančnega direktorja Sernama, to je s šestmesečno zamudo.
€41 million increase in aid
Povečanje pomoči za 41 mio EUR
France indicates that this financing requirement basically corresponds to financing the losses recorded during the period needed for negotiation and to adapt the plan to the new circumstances.
Francija navaja, da ta potreba po financiranju ustreza predvsem financiranju izgub, registriranih v obdobju, potrebnem za pogajanje, in zaradi prilagoditve načrta novim okoliščinam.