natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the reasons already set out in recitals 227, 228 (first to third indents) and 229 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission believes that the theory of appearance [104] provides confirmation that the creditors of IFP would be justified in believing, on the basis of a body of consistent evidence, that such a guarantee does indeed exist (even assuming, quod non, that the fact that IFP has the legal form of an EPIC is not of a nature to confer on it, in law, an unlimited guarantee given by the French State).
Komisija zaradi razlogov, že predstavljenih v uvodnih izjavah 227, 228 (prva do tretja alinea) in 229 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje, meni, da je mogoče s teorijo navideznosti [104] potrditi, da lahko upniki osebe javnega prava IFP na podlagi skupka ujemajočih se pokazateljev utemeljeno menijo, da tako poroštvo vsekakor obstaja (in to čeprav osebi javnega prava IFP na podlagi statusa EPIC quod non pravno ni mogoče dodeliti neomejenega poroštva francoske države).
The main relevant indices in relation to the theory of appearance derive firstly from the fact that a variety of legislative instruments (Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it) or official (budgetary) documents lead the creditor to believe that the State would take over EPICs’ debts in the event of their having a shortage of funds or that it would assume liability for those debts; secondly from the fact that the lack of clarification by the French authorities of the legal situation following the Campoloro case and of the initial proceedings undertaken by the Commission on the legal form of EPICs also increases creditors’ confidence that such a guarantee does in fact exist; and finally from the fact that the lack of any clear indication as to the effects of a situation in which an EPIC is in default also militates in favour of this view.
Glavni upoštevni pokazatelji glede na teorijo navideznosti po eni strani izhajajo iz tega, da lahko upniki na podlagi različnih aktov (zakona iz leta 1980 in njegovih izvedbenih ukrepov) ali uradnih dokumentov (proračunskih dokumentov) menijo, da bo država prevzela dolgove EPIC v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev ali da se bo uveljavljala njena odgovornost, po drugi strani pa iz tega, da zaupanje upnikov v obstoj takega poroštva temelji tudi na neobstoju pojasnila francoskih organov o stanju prava na tem področju po zadevi Campoloro in prvih postopkih, ki jih je Komisija sprožila glede statusa EPIC, in nazadnje iz tega, da je v prid tej teoriji tudi neobstoj jasne navedbe o posledicah položaja ustavitve plačil EPIC.
In the present case, the Commission wishes to add that prior to 7 July 2006, any creditors of the publicly owned establishment IFP were in a contractual relationship with a trade body within the meaning of Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests, a body which was a legal person governed by private law, and which they had no reason to think could be covered by a State guarantee of any kind.
Komisija želi v obravnavanem primeru dodati, da so bili morebitni upniki osebe javnega prava IFP pred 7. julijem 2006 v pogodbenem razmerju s strokovno ustanovo v smislu akta, imenovanega zakon št. 43-612 z dne 17. novembra 1943 o upravljanju poklicnih interesov, to je s pravno osebo zasebnega prava, pri kateri niso imeli nobenega razloga za prepričanje, da bi imela kakršno koli državno poroštvo.
Consequently, the theory of appearance can in any event be applied only with regard to claims arising after the change of status of the publicly owned establishment IFP.
Zato je lahko uporaba teorije navideznosti po potrebi upoštevna samo pri terjatvah, nastalih po spremembi statusa osebe javnega prava IFP.
Following the conclusions of its expert in the postal case, the Commission has arrived at the view that, as regards claims arising after 7 July 2006, even if, in the scenario championed by the French authorities, it was in error that a creditor came to consider that the State was required to guarantee the debts of publicly owned establishments and of IFP in particular, his error would be legitimate given the above-mentioned factors, and the law could impart effects to it.
Komisija na podlagi ugotovitev svoje izvedenke v poštni zadevi v zvezi s terjatvami, nastalimi po 7. juliju 2006, ugotavlja, da tudi če bi, tako kot trdijo francoski organi, upnik napačno menil, da mora država jamčiti za dolgove oseb javnega prava, natančneje osebe javnega prava IFP, bi bila njegova napaka glede na zgoraj navedene elemente upravičena in bi lahko imela pravne učinke.
Guarantee of the continued existence of IFP and/or of its obligations
Poroštvo v zvezi z ohranitvijo obstoja osebe javnega prava IFP in/ali njenih obveznosti
For the reasons already set out in recitals 230 to 250 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that even if, within a reasonable period and after the use of the procedures described in the previous section, the creditor of an EPIC does not succeed in obtaining the payment of his claim, he will be secure in the knowledge that the claim will not be cancelled, in contrast to the situation of a creditor of a company constituted under private law in liquidation, who has no guarantee that his claim will have to be met.
Komisija zaradi razlogov, že predstavljenih v uvodnih izjavah od 230 do 250 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje, meni, da tudi če upniku osebe javnega prava EPIC v razumnem roku in po uporabi postopkov, opisanih v prejšnjem delu, ni uspelo doseči poravnave njegove terjatve, mu je zagotovljeno, da terjatev ne bo izginila, in sicer v nasprotju s položajem upnika subjekta zasebnega prava v likvidaciji, ki nima nobenega zagotovila za poravnavo svoje terjatve.
The Commission stresses that there is no public authority-motivated winding up/closing down of publicly owned establishments in which the rights and obligations of the establishments are also cancelled: in the event of publicly owned establishments being closed down by decision of a public authority – and despite the fact that no legislation expressly provides for this – experience and certain basic principles of administrative law tend to show that the rights and obligations of publicly owned establishments that are closed down as such are always taken over by another body and, failing that, by the State.
Komisija poudarja, da likvidacija – prenehanje obstoja osebe javnega prava zaradi volje javnega organa s prenehanjem njenih pravic in obveznosti ne obstaja: čeprav to ni izrecno določeno v nobenem aktu, je iz prakse in nekaterih temeljnih načel upravnega prava namreč razvidno, da v primeru prenehanja obstoja na podlagi sklepa javnega organa pravice in obveznosti oseb javnega prava, ki kot take prenehajo obstajati, vedno prevzame neki drugi subjekt, če tega ni, pa država.
In other words, the debts of publicly owned establishments are always transferred to another legal person, which cannot refuse them, so that each creditor can therefore be certain that the right arising from his claim may be invoked against another body and that his claim will not, therefore, be cancelled.
Z drugimi besedami, dolgovi oseb javnega prava se vedno prenesejo na drugo pravno osebo, ki jih ne more zavrniti, tako da je vsak upnik prepričan, da bo lahko pravice, ki jih ima na podlagi terjatve, uveljavljal zoper drugi organ in da njegova terjatev torej ne bo izginila.
The Commission refers to the detail of the analysis presented in recitals 233 to 250 of decision C 56/2007, based on the study carried out by its expert in the postal case on organic developments affecting publicly owned establishments, which identifies three reasons why publicly owned establishments may be closed [105]: the case of publicly owned establishments which have reached the ends of their lives, the case of publicly owned establishments being closed because the tasks assigned to them no longer need to be carried out, and the case, most frequently encountered, that the tasks assigned to them have been transferred elsewhere, necessarily implying a transfer of the rights and obligations.
Komisija se sklicuje na podrobnosti analize v uvodnih izjavah od 233 do 250 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, ki temelji na študiji njene izvedenke v poštni zadevi o logičnem nadaljnjem razvoju, ki zadeva osebe javnega prava, in v kateri je navedeno razlikovanje med tremi vzroki za prenehanje obstoja oseb javnega prava [105]: primer oseb javnega prava, ki so prenehale delovati, primer prenehanja obstoja oseb javnega prava zaradi prenehanja obstoja njihovih nalog in najbolj razširjeni primer, prenos naloge, ki nujno vključuje prenos pravic in obveznosti.
On the basis of this expert report, it can be considered firstly that although there is no overall judicial scheme for organising the closing down of publicly owned establishments, experience shows that the legislation always provides for transferring the rights and obligations of the establishment that is to be closed either to the State or to the body that is to take over its task [106].
Prvič, na podlagi navedene študije je mogoče šteti, da čeprav ni splošne pravne ureditve za prenehanje obstoja oseb javnega prava, je iz prakse razvidno, da je s pravnim aktom vedno urejen prenos pravic in obveznosti osebe javnega prava, ki bo prenehala obstajati, bodisi na državo bodisi na subjekt, ki prevzame njeno nalogo [106]:
Secondly, there is generally a transfer of ‘rights and obligations’ (with the term ‘obligations’ undoubtedly referring to debts), sometimes a transfer of ‘assets’ [107] (a formulation that would also include debts).
Drugič, na splošno gre za prenos „pravic in obveznosti“ (pri čemer se izraz obveznosti zagotovo nanaša na dolgove), včasih pa za prenos „premoženja“ [107] (kar je opredelitev, ki vključuje tudi dolgove).
The only example found of the pure and simple closing down of a publicly owned establishment involved, in any case, the transfer of the ‘debts’ themselves to other entities governed by public law [108].
Edini najdeni primer preprostega prenehanja obstoja osebe javnega prava je vsekakor zajemal prenos samih „dolgov“ na druge subjekte javnega prava [108]:
Thirdly, even when the task disappears, the publicly owned establishment’s rights and obligations are, in practice, taken over by another body.
Tretjič, tudi kadar naloga preneha obstajati, v praksi pravice in obveznosti osebe javnega prava prevzame drugi organ.
Fourthly and finally, the practice described in the study is in accordance with codifying instruction No 02-060-M95 of 18 July 2002 and the guide to the financial organisation of the creation, conversion and abolition of national publicly owned establishments, cited above [109], namely that the rights and obligations of a wound-up EPIC go either to the State or to the legal entity that will take over the establishment’s task.
Četrtič in nazadnje, praksa, opisana v študiji, je v skladu z zakonodajnim navodilom št. 02-060-M95 z dne 18. julija 2002 in vodnikom za finančno organiziranje ustanovitev, preoblikovanj in ukinitev zgoraj navedenih nacionalnih oseb javnega prava [109], in sicer da pravice in obveznosti likvidirane EPIC preidejo bodisi na državo bodisi na pravno osebo, ki bo prevzela nalogo osebe javnega prava.
Guided by its expert in the postal case, the Commission concludes that the debts of publicly owned establishments are in practice always transferred to another legal entity governed by public law in the event of the closing down of the publicly owned establishment that carried out the task concerned.
Komisija nazadnje na podlagi mnenja svoje izvedenke v poštni zadevi sklepa, da se dolgovi oseb javnega prava v primeru prenehanja obstoja osebe javnega prava, ki je opravljala nalogo, v praksi vedno prenesejo na drugo pravno osebo javnega prava.
The creditors of these publicly owned establishments, such as IFP, therefore have a guarantee that their unpaid claims will not be cancelled.
Upnikom teh oseb javnega prava, med katerimi je oseba javnega prava IFP, je tako zagotovljeno, da njihove neporavnane terjatve ne bodo prenehale.
Conclusion regarding the existence of a State guarantee in favour of IFP
Sklepna ugotovitev o obstoju državnega poroštva za osebo javnega prava IFP
On the basis of the evidence of the existence of a guarantee ensuring the payment of individual claims and the continued existence of IFP’s obligations, the Commission concludes that, from the change in the legal form of the publicly owned establishment IFP which occurred on 7 July 2006:
Komisija na podlagi elementov, predloženih za dokaz obstoja poroštva za poplačilo individualnih terjatev in ohranitev obstoja obveznosti osebe javnega prava IFP, sklepa, da od spremembe statusa osebe javnega prava IFP, ki se je zgodila 7. julija 2006:
the creditors of IFP do not encounter the usual private and public law limitations on the payment of a claim in full;
upniki osebe javnega prava IFP nimajo običajnih omejitev zasebnega in javnega prava, ki bi lahko nasprotovale poravnavi terjatve v celoti,
in recovering the sums owed to them, the creditors of IFP may have recourse to specific procedures authorising the State to force the debtor body to settle the claim;
lahko upniki osebe javnega prava IFP za izterjavo svojih terjatev uporabijo posebne postopke, na podlagi katerih lahko država prisili dolžnika, da poravna terjatev,
nowhere does French law give the creditors of IFP to understand that IFP could face, for good, a situation in which it had a shortage of funds;
upniki osebe javnega prava IFP ne morejo na nobeni podlagi v francoskem pravu sklepati, da bi se ta lahko dokončno znašla v položaju nezadostnosti sredstev,
the budgetary documents give the impression that, if there is a shortage of funds, the State could give an exceptional grant to public sector bodies, of which IFP is one;
je mogoče iz proračunskih dokumentov razumeti, da bi država lahko v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev subjektom v javnem sektorju, med katere spada oseba javnega prava IFP, dodelila izredno subvencijo,
if the procedures described above do not enable the creditor to obtain satisfaction, he can hold the State liable in order to obtain the payment of his claim in full;
če upnik na podlagi zgoraj opisanih postopkov ne doseže poravnave svoje terjatve, lahko uveljavlja odgovornost države, da bi dosegel poravnavo terjatve v celoti,
if the actions envisaged above were to be spread out over time, the creditor can be certain that his claim will not be cancelled, even if IFP were to be subject to structural development.
če bi zgoraj opisani ukrepi trajali dlje, je upnik prepričan, da njegova terjatev ne bo izginila, tudi če bi oseba javnega prava IFP spremenila obliko.
These special factors are intrinsically linked to IFP’s legal form as a publicly owned establishment and imply that the State performs the role of guarantor of last resort.
Te posebnosti so tesno povezane s statusom osebe javnega prava IFP in kažejo, da ima država vlogo poroka v skrajni sili.
It may therefore be legitimately concluded that IFP benefits from an unlimited guarantee on the part of the French State by virtue of its legal form as an EPIC.
Zato je mogoče upravičeno sklepati, da je oseba javnega prava IFP zaradi svojega statusa EPIC upravičena do neomejenega poroštva francoske države.
The unlimited State guarantee to IFP results in a transfer of State resources within the meaning of point 2.1 of the Guarantees Notice.
Neomejeno državno poroštvo za osebo javnega prava IFP pomeni prenos državnih sredstev v smislu točke 2.1 zgoraj navedenega obvestila o poroštvih.
IFP pays no premium for this guarantee.
Oseba javnega prava IFP namreč ne plačuje nobene premije za to poroštvo.
There is thus both an advantage to the establishment and a drain on public resources, as the State waives the remuneration that normally accompanies guarantees.
Tako to pomeni ugodnost za podjetje in zmanjšanje javnih sredstev, ker se država odpoveduje plačilu, ki običajno spremlja poroštva.
In addition, the guarantee creates the risk of a potential and future claim on the resources of the State, which could find itself obliged to pay IFP’s debts [110].
Poroštvo poleg tega ustvarja tveganje morebitne in prihodnje zagotovitve sredstev države, ki bi lahko bila zavezana plačati dolgove osebe javnega prava IFP [110].
Finally, the State’s unlimited guarantee to IFP is imputable to the State, because it derives from the combination of IFP’s public-law legal form, principles of national law, and two legislative acts, namely the Law of 25 January 1985, now the Commercial Code, and Law No 80-539 of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it.
Nazadnje, neomejeno državno poroštvo za osebo javnega prava IFP je treba pripisati državi, ker izhaja iz kombinacije javnopravnega statusa osebe javnega prava IFP, načel nacionalnega prava in dveh zakonodajnih aktov, to je zakona z dne 25. januarja 1985, ki je postal trgovinski zakonik, in zakona št. 80-539 z dne 16. julija 1980 ter njegovih izvedbenih ukrepov.
The unlimited guarantee does not cover IFP’s private-law subsidiaries
Neobstoj kritja hčerinskih družb zasebnega prava skupine IFP z neomejenim poroštvom
As the Commission already indicated in its decision on case C 51/2005 [111], in the opening decision in the present case, and in section 2 above (‘The IFP group’), IFP and its subsidiaries Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat form an economic group for purposes of competition law: the economic integration of the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat is sufficiently strong to justify such a conclusion, because the publicly owned establishment IFP holds 100 % of Axens’s capital and 100 % of Beicip-Franlab’s capital directly, and 100 % of Prosernat’s capital indirectly; it exercises control of its subsidiaries through the presence of IFP managers in the subsidiaries’ decision-making bodies; it expresses its opinion in particular on the strategic planning and the key decisions for the future of the subsidiaries; and it is party to exclusive technology transfer agreements which are essential for the pursuit of its subsidiaries’ economic activities (agreements that include reciprocal rights of first refusal [112]) and to assignment contracts for the provision of premises and staff.
Kot je Komisija že navedla v odločbi, povezani z zgoraj navedenim primerom C 51/2005 [111], v odločitvi o začetku postopka v obravnavanem primeru in v delu 2 („Skupina IFP“), oseba javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe Axens, Beicip-Franlab in Prosernat sestavljajo gospodarsko skupino v smislu konkurenčnega prava: oseba javnega prava IFP ima namreč v neposredni lasti 100 % kapitala družb Axens in Beicip-Franlab, v posredni pa 100 % kapitala družbe Prosernat, hčerinske družbe nadzira z navzočnostjo svojega vodstvenega osebja v njihovih organih odločanja, odloča zlasti o strateških usmeritvah in temeljnih odločitvah za prihodnost hčerinskih družb ter je zavezana z izključnimi sporazumi o prenosu tehnologij, nujnih za izvajanje gospodarskih dejavnosti hčerinskih družb (sporazumi, ki vsebujejo vzajemne pravice do prve zavrnitve [112]), in s pogodbami o zagotavljanju prostorov in osebja, tako da je gospodarsko povezovanje osebe javnega prava IFP in njenih hčerinskih družb Axens, Beicip-Franlab in Prosernat dovolj močno, da dopušča tako ugotovitev.
The precise scope of the State guarantee has therefore to be examined in order to establish whether, in the event of default by an IFP subsidiary governed by private law, public resources could be mobilised to compensate its creditors (in other words, whether or not the unlimited State guarantee covers the economic activities of IFP’s subsidiaries).
Preučiti je treba tudi natančen obseg državnega poroštva, da se preveri, ali bi se lahko v primeru neizpolnjevanja obveznosti hčerinske družbe zasebnega prava, ki pripada osebi javnega prava IFP, zagotovila javna sredstva za povrnitev škode njenim upnikom (z drugimi besedami, ali so gospodarske dejavnosti hčerinskih družb, ki pripadajo osebi javnega prava IFP, krite ali ne z neomejenim državnim poroštvom).
UOP did not express an opinion on this point in its comments.
Družba UOP Limited se v pripombah ni izrekla o tem vprašanju.
Its arguments are based on market operators’ perception of ‘IFP/Axens’ which, in its opinion, is liable to confer an advantage on the IFP group in relation to suppliers, customers or capital providers.
Pri svojih trditvah se opira na to, kako udeleženci na trgu dojemajo subjekt „IFP/Axens“, pri čemer ima skupina IFP po njenem mnenju pri dobaviteljih ter strankah in ponudnikih kapitala zaradi tega dojemanja prednost.
This aspect will be examined in section 7.1.4 of this decision, which investigates the advantages which the IFP group derives from the measure.
Ta vidik bo preučen v delu 7.1.4 tega sklepa, namenjenem preučitvi prednosti, ki jih ima skupina IFP zaradi ukrepa.
On the other hand, as indicated in recital 47, the French authorities deny the existence of a State guarantee for IFP’s subsidiaries, in particular because they have the legal form of public limited companies governed by ordinary law.
Francoski organi pa, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 47, zanikajo obstoj državnega poroštva za hčerinske družbe, ki pripadajo osebi javnega prava IFP, zlasti zaradi njihovega statusa delniških družb občega prava.
In section 7.1.1.1, the Commission showed that the publicly owned establishment IFP enjoyed an unlimited guarantee; it will now consider whether the creditors of IFP’s private-law subsidiaries are covered by (A) a guarantee of payment of their individual claims or (B) a guarantee of the continued existence of their obligations in the event of insufficient assets.
Komisija bo v skladu z dokazom obstoja neomejenega poroštva za osebo javnega prava IFP, predstavljenim v delu 7.1.1.1, po vrsti preučila, ali imajo upniki hčerinskih družb zasebnega prava, ki pripadajo osebi javnega prava IFP, poroštvo za poplačilo svojih individualnih terjatev (A) ali poroštvo za ohranitev obveznosti navedenih hčerinskih družb (B) v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev.
Creditors of IFP’s subsidiaries have no guarantee of payment of their individual claims
Upniki hčerinskih družb osebe javnega prava IFP nimajo poroštva za poplačilo svojih individualnih terjatev
IFP’s subsidiaries have the legal form of public limited companies.
Hčerinske družbe osebe javnega prava IFP imajo status delniških družb.
As legal persons governed by private law (unlike their controlling shareholder, which is a publicly owned establishment), they are fully subject to the compulsory administration and winding-up procedures provided for under ordinary law in France [113].
Kot pravne osebe zasebnega prava (v nasprotju s svojim kontrolnim delničarjem, ki je oseba javnega prava) v celoti spadajo na področje uporabe občepravnih postopkov sanacije in sodne likvidacije [113] v Franciji.
Before examining whether the controlling shareholder, the publicly owned establishment IFP, might have a vicarious liability that could be invoked for its subsidiaries (b), an account must be given of the compulsory winding-up procedure under ordinary law to which these private-law subsidiaries would be subject in the event of cessation of payments (a).
Pred preučitvijo, ali se lahko odgovornost kontrolnega delničarja, tj. osebe javnega prava IFP, uveljavlja za njegove hčerinske družbe (b), je treba najprej predstaviti občepravni postopek sodne likvidacije, ki bi veljal za hčerinske družbe zasebnega prava v primeru ustavitve plačil (a).
Compulsory winding up under ordinary law
Občepravni postopek sodne likvidacije
Supposing that an IFP subsidiary, a public limited company, was in default (in other words that it was no longer able to meet current liabilities out of its available assets), and that a reorganisation seemed manifestly impossible [114], the procedure under ordinary law [115] would lead to it being wound up compulsorily.
Če bi bila katera hčerinska družba skupine IFP, ki je delniška družba, v položaju ustavitve plačil (z drugimi besedami, če z razpoložljivimi sredstvi ne bi več mogla poravnati zapadlih obveznosti) in je očitno ne bi bilo mogoče sanirati [114], bi se zanjo po postopku občega prava [115] začela sodna likvidacija.