natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As the Commission pointed out in recital 58 of the opening decision, neither in its present wording nor in the amended wording proposed by the French authorities does the legislation prevent an increase in resources from being made possible by a subsidy or injection of public funds.
Komisija vseeno poudarja, kakor je storila že v uvodni izjavi 58 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, da besedila niti v sedanji različici niti v različici, spremenjeni na podlagi predloga francoskih organov, ne izključujejo, da se sredstva lahko zagotovijo s povečanjem sredstev, ki je bilo predhodno omogočeno s subvencijo ali injekcijo javnih sredstev.
The Commission will now go on to examine the courses open to a creditor in the unlikely event that the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 does not result in payment.
Komisija bo zdaj preučila pravna sredstva, ki bi upniku ostala v malo verjetnem primeru, da mu postopek iz zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 ne bi omogočal poplačila terjatve.
The Commission will give particular consideration to the rules governing the liability of the State, in order to determine whether they have the characteristics of a guarantee mechanism.
Komisija bo preučila zlasti sistem odgovornosti države, da bi ugotovila, ali ima značilnosti mehanizma poroštva.
The rules governing the liability of the State in the procedure for the recovery of the debts of a publicly owned establishment have all the characteristics of a guarantee mechanism
Sistem odgovornosti države pri izvajanju postopka izterjave dolgov oseb javnega prava ima značilnosti mehanizma poroštva
According to the French authorities, the State has in principle no liability, whether for a fault on its part or in the absence of any such fault.
Po navedbah francoskih organov se odgovornost države načelno lahko uveljavlja samo kot krivdna ali nekrivdna.
The French authorities acknowledge that if there is a requirement of continuity of public service that is binding on the representative of the State in the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980, a court may order that the creditor be compensated.
Francoski organi vseeno priznavajo, da če bi obstajala zahteva po kontinuiteti javne službe in bi predstavnik države pri izvajanju postopka, določenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, moral upoštevati to zahtevo, bi se lahko zgodilo, da bi sodišče odredilo odškodovanje upnika.
But, they argue, this merely places the creditor in the position in which he would have been under the ordinary law, so that the creditor is not given any advantage.
Vendar bi bil v tem primeru učinek povrnitve škode samo ta, da bi bil upnik postavljen v položaj, v katerem bi bil na podlagi občega prava; upnik torej ne bi pridobil nikakršne prednosti.
The Commission would point out, however, that under the ordinary law creditors, or at any rate unsecured creditors, will not as a general rule recover the whole of their claims.
Komisija vseeno poudarja, da na podlagi občega prava upniki, vsekakor navadni upniki, načelno ne dobijo poplačanega celotnega dolga.
In addition, the enterprise being wound up will not have its debts paid by a third party, as happens here.
Poleg tega dolgov podjetja v likvidaciji ne plača tretja oseba, kot to velja v tem primeru.
The French authorities further argue that any possibility of compensation of creditors that may be opened up if the State is held liable cannot in any event be considered equivalent to a guarantee.
Francoski organi trdijo tudi, da možnosti povrnitve škode, ki so upnikom na voljo z uveljavljanjem odgovornosti, nikakor ni mogoče izenačiti z obliko poroštva.
The Commission takes the view, however, that in the procedure for the recovery of the debts of the public bodies referred to in the Law of 16 July 1980 the liability of the State, with or without fault, is indeed equivalent to a guarantee mechanism for purposes of Community law, as will be seen, because it ensures creditors that if La Poste should default the Member State will be required to meet their claims.
Komisija vseeno meni, da je, kot bo dokazala, uveljavljanje odgovornosti države (krivdne ali nekrivdne) pri izvajanju postopka izterjave dolgov javnih oseb iz zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 enako mehanizmu poroštva za namene prava Evropske unije, ker upnikom zagotavlja plačilo njihove terjatve, s tem ko državo obvezuje za poplačilo te terjatve v primeru neizpolnitve obveznosti podjetja La Poste.
In addition, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Campoloro case establishes something like an automatic guarantee.
Poleg tega je s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice (ESČP) v zadevi Campoloro uvedeno samodejno poroštvo.
Although they are free to do so, the French authorities have not limited these liability or guarantee mechanisms.
Francoski organi niso omejili teh mehanizmov odgovornosti ali poroštva, čeprav bi to lahko storili.
The earlier case law, illustrating the special character of the scheme introduced by Campoloro
Predhodna sodna praksa: izraz posebnosti sistema, vzpostavljenega z zadevo Campoloro
The Commission’s expert has observed that before the Campoloro case, which will be considered below, when a creditor of a public body subject to the Law of 16 July 1980 sought to render the State liable for its use of the prerogatives provided for in the Act, an administrative court would distinguish between two kinds of injury.
Kot poudarja izvedenka Komisije, če je upnik javne osebe, za katero je veljal zakon z dne 16. julija 1980, pred zadevo Campoloro (preučeno spodaj) uveljavljal odgovornost države zaradi uporabe posebnih pravic, določenih s tem besedilom, je upravno sodišče razlikovalo med dvema škodama.
The creditor suffered one kind of injury because his claim had not been settled: this was due only to the insolvency of the debtor.
Po eni strani je upnik utrpel škodo, ker njegova terjatev ni bila poravnana, to je škodo, ki je izvirala samo iz položaja plačilne nesposobnosti dolžnika.
The creditor might also suffer a separate injury due to shortcomings in the exercise of the State’s prerogatives — delays, reluctance to act, refusal to initiate proceedings, initiation of proceedings in respect of only part of the subject-matter, etc. This second kind of injury could not be evaluated by reference to the amount of the debt, but rather by estimating the cost of a delay or a refusal to exercise the prerogatives provided for by the law.
Po drugi strani je upnik lahko utrpel posebno škodo zaradi pomanjkljivosti pri izvajanju posebnih pravic države (zamuda, nepripravljenost, zavrnitev uvedbe postopkov, delna uvedba postopkov itd.). Ta druga škoda se ni ocenila na podlagi zneska dolga, ampak se je ocenila na podlagi ocene stroškov zamude ali zavrnitve uporabe posebnih pravic, določenih z zakonom.
That was the approach accepted by the Administrative Court of Appeal in the Campoloro case.
Tako se je odzvalo upravno pritožbeno sodišče v Lyonu v zadevi Campoloro.
The judgment given by the Council of State in the Campoloro case in 2005
Sodba, ki jo je leta 2005 izdalo sodišče Conseil d’Etat v zadevi Campoloro
In the view of the Commission’s expert, the judgment given by the Council of State in Campoloro marks a development, in that one of the possibilities it contemplates is no longer a case of liability as such but instead operates as a guarantee mechanism.
Po mnenju izvedenke Komisije je sodba, ki jo je sodišče Conseil d’Etat izdalo v zadevi Campoloro, pomenila prvi preobrat, kajti eden od primerov, ki so v njej predvideni, ni več primer odgovornosti v pravem pomenu besede, ampak deluje kot mehanizem poroštva.
The Council of State here establishes a dual mechanism.
Sodišče Conseil d’Etat tako vzpostavlja mehanizem z dvojnim sprožilcem.
First, there is a liability on the State for a failure in the exercise of the prerogatives conferred by the Law of 16 July 1980 and its implementing measures.
Prvič, uvaja sistem odgovornosti države, ki temelji samo na pomanjkljivi uporabi posebnih pravic, vzpostavljenih z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 in njegovimi izvedbenimi ukrepi.
This is a scheme of liability for serious fault.
To je sistem odgovornosti zaradi resne napake.
It has been made to depend on serious fault because of a desire to avoid an automatic transfer of debt from the debtor authority to the State.
Izbira resne napake se utemeljuje z željo, da se dolg skupnosti dolžnice samodejno ne prenese na državo.
A learned commentator observes, ‘if the prefect takes measures that seek to release additional resources, but these then prove to be insufficient in view of the scale of the debts of the municipality, the court will probably take the view that no fault has been committed’.
Kot navaja preudaren komentator, „če prefekt sprejme ukrepe, s katerimi poskuša zagotoviti dodatna sredstva, vendar se ti ukrepi ob upoštevanju višine dolga skupnosti izkažejo za nezadostne, bo sodišče verjetno menilo, da resna napaka ni bila storjena“.
The liability for serious fault described here is of a conventional kind, and does not operate as a guarantee mechanism in the event of an insolvency of the debtor, because the liability does not arise merely as a consequence of the insolvency.
Tu je odgovornost zaradi resne napake „klasična“ in ne deluje kot mehanizem poroštva v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti organa dolžnika, ker ne more ublažiti samega položaja plačilne nesposobnosti.
Second, the judgment provides for strict liability in two cases.
Drugič, v sodbi je predvideno uveljavljanje nekrivdne odgovornosti v dveh primerih.
The first case is one where ‘by reason of requirements of the public interest, the prefect legitimately refuses to take certain measures with a view to ensuring that the judgment is enforced in full’.
V prvem primeru je „zaradi nujnih razlogov v splošnem interesu prefekt lahko zakonito zavrnil sprejetje nekaterih ukrepov, s katerimi bi zagotovil izvršitev sodne odločbe v celoti“.
This is a classic case of inaction on the part of public administration motivated by the public interest, and in such a case the public administration may be liable for breach of equality before public burdens.
To je klasični primer opustitve dejanja uprave zaradi razloga v splošnem interesu, na podlagi katere se uveljavlja njena odgovornost zaradi kršitve enakosti pred javnimi bremeni.
The debtor is in theory not insolvent, but the State decides not to exhaust the debtor’s potential resources on grounds of the public interest.
Dolžnik teoretično ni plačilno nesposoben, vendar se država odloči, da zaradi razloga v splošnem interesu ne bo izčrpala njegovega potenciala sredstev.
There is no guarantee mechanism here, because the injury to the creditor is the result of a decision of the State, and not of the debtor’s financial situation.
Iz tega položaja ne izhaja mehanizem poroštva, ker škoda za upnika izhaja iz odločitve države, ne pa iz finančnega položaja plačilne sposobnosti dolžnika.
But the consequences are identical to those of a guarantee mechanism.
Vendar pa so posledice enake posledicam mehanizma poroštva.
The second case of strict liability resembles a guarantee mechanism more closely.
Nasprotno je drugi primer nekrivdne odgovornosti bližje mehanizmu poroštva.
The Council of State finds that ‘if, having regard to the situation of the local or regional authority, and in particular to an insufficiency in its assets […] the prefect legitimately refuses to take certain measures with a view to ensuring that the judgment is enforced in full, the State as holder of public authority may be liable for any injury caused to a creditor of the local or regional authority if the injury is of an abnormal and specific kind’.
Sodišče Conseil d’Etat je odločilo, da „če je glede na položaj skupnosti, zlasti glede na nezadostnost sredstev, […] prefekt lahko zakonito zavrnil sprejetje nekaterih ukrepov, s katerimi bi zagotovil izvršitev sodne odločbe v celoti, se lahko za škodo, ki za upnika izhaja iz ozemeljske skupnosti, uveljavlja odgovornost javne oblasti, če je ta škoda neobičajna in posebna“.
Here the liability arises only out of the financial situation of the debtor authority.
Opažamo, da je odločilno dejstvo za vzpostavitev odgovornosti sam finančni položaj skupnosti dolžnice.
Liability has not been made to depend on fault, and the burden of proof resting on the creditor is lighter, as the creditor has to show only the factual situation that gives rise to liability, the causal link, and the damage.
Izbira sistema nekrivdne odgovornosti upnika razbremeni bremena dokazovanja, ker mora ta dokazati samo odločilno dejstvo, vzročno zvezo in škodo.
In the view of the Commission’s expert there are two similarities between this scheme of liability and a guarantee system.
Izvedenka Komisije tudi meni, da sta si ta sistem odgovornosti in sistem poroštva podobna v dveh točkah.
First, the liability arises out of something that is not objectively imputable to the State, namely the situation of the debtor organisation: liability of this kind is triggered by the insolvency of the debtor, like a guarantee.
Prvič, odločilnega dejstva ni mogoče objektivno pripisati državi, ker gre za položaj organa dolžnika: ta sistem odgovornosti temelji na enakem dejstvu kot mehanizem poroštva, to je plačilni nesposobnosti dolžnika.
Second, the injury to which the Council of State refers appears, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, to be the failure to pay the debt itself, which is likewise the trigger for a guarantee.
Drugič, zdi se, da je škoda, na katero se sodišče Conseil d’Etat sklicuje, če drugi podatki ne obstajajo, neporavnava dolga, to je dejstvo, ki sproži tudi poroštvo.
It is true that the Council of State restricts the liability of the State to injury ‘of an abnormal and specific kind’.
Res je, da sodišče Conseil d’Etat uveljavljanje odgovornosti države omejuje na neobičajno in posebno škodo.
As regards the ‘abnormal’ character of the injury, the Commission’s expert takes the view that one can proceed by elimination.
Po mnenju izvedenke Komisije se lahko v zvezi z neobičajnostjo škode sklepa z izločanjem.
Either the debt is a small one, in which case it is fair to suppose that it will not leave a national publicly owned establishment, or La Poste in particular, in a position of insolvency; or the debt is a large one, in which case the injury will necessarily be abnormal.
Bodisi je dolg majhen in je mogoče utemeljeno domnevati, da ne bo povzročil plačilne nesposobnosti nacionalne osebe javnega prava (zlasti podjetja La Poste). Bodisi je dolg velik, posledica česar bo neobičajna narava škode.
As regards the ‘specific’ character of the injury, it may be supposed that creditors making large claims on publicly owned establishments will not be numerous.
Kar zadeva posebnost škode, je mogoče domnevati, da upnikov oseb javnega prava z velikim dolgom ni veliko.
Thus the restriction imposed by the Council of State is a restriction in appearance rather than in fact, because it is fair to suppose that the claims involved will always be large, so that the injury will always be abnormally serious.
Zato omejitev, ki je bila vzpostavljena s sodbo sodišča Conseil d’Etat, dejansko ni omejitev, ker je mogoče domnevati, da se bo resnično upoštevalo samo stanje velikih terjatev, to je položaj, v katerem bo vedno neobičajno velika škoda.
This is the interpretation accepted by the best academic opinion.
To je poleg tega tudi razlaga, ki so jo sprejeli najpreudarnejši pravni teoretiki.
According to the commentary by P. Bon already cited, ‘in that case, which very likely corresponds to the case under consideration, given the flagrant disproportion between the sum that the court has ordered the municipality to pay and the smallness of the municipality’s resources, the prefect is in an impossible situation, because he is not likely to be able to release sufficient resources to enable the municipality to pay the whole of the debt.
Tako (zgoraj navedeni) P. Bon navaja: „V tem primeru, ki se verjetno ujema z obravnavanim primerom glede na očitno nesorazmerje med zneskom kazni, ki ga je občini naložilo sodišče, in neznatnostjo sredstev te občine, je prefekt na neki način v slepi ulici, ker je vprašljivo, ali lahko zagotovi zadostna sredstva, ki bi občini omogočila, da v celoti poplača svoj dolg.
In their report on the judgment in Société fermière de Campoloro, C. Landais and F. Lenica, who were in charge of documentation at the Council of State at the time the judgment was delivered, stress the singularity of this second case, and refuse to interpret it as transferring to the State the burden of the debts of local and regional authorities’.
Landais in F. Lenica, vodji dokumentacijske službe sodišča Conseil d’Etat v času razprave o sodbi, v poročilu o sodbi Société fermière de Campoloro poudarjata posebnost tega drugega primera in zavračata njegovo razlago, v skladu s katero se na državo prenese breme dolgov ozemeljskih skupnosti.
The Commission’s expert points out that this interpretation is debated precisely because on a reading of the judgment it has to be envisaged.
Toda izvedenka Komisije poudarja, da če se razlagi oporeka, jo je treba upoštevati ob branju sodbe.
The end of the commentary is revealing: the commentators speak of a loan or an exceptional subsidy.
Poleg tega mnogo pove konec komentarja: komentatorja govorita o posojilu ali izredni subvenciji.
It will be observed that commentators who refuse to consider this scheme of liability to be equivalent to a guarantee mechanism ultimately invoke other components of a guarantee mechanism, such as subsidies.
Opažamo torej, da se tisti, ki zavračajo izenačitev uporabljenega sistema odgovornosti z mehanizmom poroštva, nazadnje sklicujejo na druge elemente mehanizma poroštva (subvencijo).
The Commission’s expert also rejects the assessment made by D. Labetoulle in an article on strict liability in administrative law which is cited by the French Government in its observations.
Izvedenka Komisije zavrača tudi presojo D. Labetoulla v njegovem članku o nekrivdni odgovornosti v upravnem pravu, ki ga francoska vlada navaja v pripombah.
Labetoulle observes that the Council of State held in Campoloro only that in the event of a decision taken legitimately by the prefect the State ‘may be liable’.
Ta avtor navaja odločitev sodišča Conseil d’Etat v zadevi Campoloro, da se „odgovornost države lahko uveljavlja“ samo na podlagi zakonite odločitve prefekta.
He deduces that liability is not automatic.
Iz tega sklepa, da ne obstaja nikakršna samodejnost.
According to the Commission’s expert, this interpretation is not convincing.
Po mnenju izvedenke Komisije se s to razlago ni mogoče strinjati.
The Council of State found that the prefect’s decision could render the State liable (est susceptible d’engager la responsabilité)‘if the injury is of an abnormal and specific kind’.
Sodišče Conseil d’Etat je namreč razsodilo, da se odgovornost države lahko uveljavlja na podlagi odločitve prefekta, „če je [škoda] neobičajna in posebna“.
What is uncertain is not the principle of the existence of liability, or the fact that liability is incurred if the conditions that give rise to it are met, but the existence of injury presenting certain features.
Negotovost ne obstaja pri načelu obstoja odgovornosti in njenega uveljavljanja, če so izpolnjeni njeni sestavni elementi, ampak obstaja pri obstoju škode, ki mora imeti določene lastnosti.
As has been explained, once the injury is specific and abnormal, nothing stands in the way of liability.
Vendar kot smo videli, če je škoda posebna in neobičajna, nič ne nasprotuje uveljavljanju odgovornosti.
Thus by its very nature the liability does indeed arise automatically, and has all the characteristics of a guarantee.
Zato dejansko obstaja samodejnost na ravni samega načela uveljavljanja odgovornosti, ki ima vse značilnosti poroštva.
Finally, the Commission’s expert observes that none of the commentators on the Campoloro judgment has envisaged the possibility that the claim might go unpaid.
Nazadnje izvedenka Komisije poudarja, da noben pojasnjevalec sodne prakse v zadevi Campoloro ni pomislil, da bi terjatev lahko ostala neplačana.
The Commission’s expert concludes that the Council of State’s judgment in Campoloro installed a scheme of liability which has the characteristics of a guarantee mechanism.
Izvedenka Komisije ugotavlja, da je bil z zgoraj navedeno sodbo sodišča Conseil d’Etat v zadevi Campoloro uveden sistem odgovornosti, ki ima vse značilnosti mehanizma poroštva.
Settlement of the Campoloro case by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Odločitev Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice o zadevi Campoloro
In a judgment of 6 December 2006 — Société de gestion du port de Campoloro and Société fermière de Campoloro v France, the ECHR settled the Campoloro case by making the State liable for all of the sums due to the applicant companies by Santa-Maria-Poggio Commune.
Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice je v sodbi z dne 6. decembra 2006 v zadevi Société de gestion du port de Campoloro in Société fermière de Campoloro proti Franciji odločilo o zadevi Campoloro, tako da je državi v breme naložilo vse dolgove, ki jih je tožečima družbama dolgovala Commune de Santa-Maria-Poggio.
The case demonstrates that, in this instance, the liability accepted by the French State operates as an implied guarantee of the public authorities’ liabilities and is not linked to any condition relating to loss.
Iz te zadeve je razvidno, da v tem primeru uveljavljanje odgovornosti francoske države deluje kot implicitno poroštvo za dolgove javnih organov in ni povezano z nobenim pogojem škode.
Before the Court, the French authorities attempted to base their case on the absence of, firstly, an operative event imputable to the State and, secondly, a guarantee on the part of the State to public authorities possessing legal personality.
Francoski organi so se pred Sodiščem poskušali opreti, po eni strani, na neobstoj odločilnega dejstva, ki bi ga bilo mogoče pripisati državi, in, po drugi strani, na neobstoj poroštva države za javne organe, ki so pravne osebe.
‘[The French Government]’, we read, ‘considers that only objective reasons concerned exclusively with its being materially impossible for the commune to release sufficient resources have delayed the complete enforcement of the judgments’; ‘The Government therefore maintains that the non-enforcement of the judgments given is not the result of a deliberate refusal to enforce them on the part of the national authorities, State or commune.
Beremo lahko, da „[francoska vlada] meni, da so popolno izvršitev sodb zadržali samo objektivni razlogi, povezani izključno z materialno nezmožnostjo občine, da zagotovi zadostna sredstva“; „vlada zato trdi, da neizvršitev izdanih sodb ne izhaja iz prostovoljne opustitve dejanja nacionalnih organov, države ali občine.
The absence of funds is not a pretext, but a reality due to the insolvency of the debtor legal entity’; ‘The non-payment of the debt is due entirely to the commune’s financial difficulties, and these circumstances do not appear to be such as either to release the authority from its obligations or to transfer the burden of its debt to the State (Council of State, commune of Batz-sur-Mer, 25 September 1970).
Neobstoj sredstev ni pretveza, ampak je resničnost zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti pravne osebe dolžnice“; „neplačilo dolga izhaja izključno iz finančnih težav občine, in te okoliščine se ne zdijo take, da bi se lahko skupnost izognila svojim obveznostim niti da bi breme svojega dolga prenesla na državo (Conseil d’Etat, Commune de Batz sur Mer, 25. september 1970).
There is no legal basis under national law for substituting the State for the commune where the payment of compensation is concerned.
V notranjem pravu ni nobene zakonske podlage za to, da država nadomesti občino pri poravnavi odškodnin.
To reinforce the point being made, the applicants’ arguments — which were, in contrast, accepted by the Court — need also to be reproduced.
Za dopolnitev dokaza je treba navesti tudi trditve tožečih strank, ki pa jih je Sodišče sprejelo: