natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the French authorities, nothing in point 2.1.3 of the Commission’s 2000 Guarantees Notice indicates that the Commission considers that the fact that the legal form of an enterprise excludes the possibility of bankruptcy proceedings necessarily leads to the enterprise enjoying more favourable funding terms.
Po mnenju francoskih organov v točki 2.1.3 obvestila Komisije o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000 ni iz ničesar razvidno mnenje Komisije, da dejstvo, da pravni status podjetja izključuje možnost stečajnega postopka, nujno pomeni, da je to podjetje upravičeno do ugodnejših pogojev financiranja.
Moreover, the French authorities take the view that La Poste falls outside the scope of point 2.1.3 of the Commission’s 2000 Guarantees Notice because the notice addresses the case where the legal form excludes all bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, not a specific procedure.
Poleg tega francoski organi menijo, da se točka 2.1.3 obvestila Komisije o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000 ne uporablja za podjetje La Poste, ker se nanaša na primer, v katerem pravni status podjetja izključuje vsak stečajni postopek ali postopek plačilne nesposobnosti, ne pa prav določenega postopka.
But, according to the French authorities, the Commission has not established that La Poste cannot go bankrupt, nor that all insolvency proceedings were inapplicable.
Po mnenju francoskih organov Komisija ni dokazala, da podjetje La Poste ne bi moglo iti v stečaj, niti da postopka plačilne nesposobnosti ni bilo mogoče uporabiti.
Absence of imputability and of state resources
Nezmožnost pripisa odgovornosti in neobstoj državnih sredstev
In recital 79 of the opening decision, the Commission points out the influence of the rating agencies on the funding terms obtained by undertakings.
Komisija v uvodni izjavi 79 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka opozarja na vpliv bonitetnih agencij na pogoje financiranja, ki jih pridobijo podjetja.
After highlighting the weaknesses of the rating agencies, the French authorities confirm that the position taken by a rating agency, where it is not underpinned by a precise analysis of the legal framework in force, cannot be used to create an advantage imputable to the State that may constitute State aid.
Francoski organi najprej opozarjajo na slabosti bonitetnih agencij in nato trdijo, da prednost, za katero bi bila odgovorna država in ki bi lahko pomenila državno pomoč, ne more temeljiti na stališču, ki ga zagovarja bonitetna agencija, kadar to ne temelji na natančni analizi veljavnega zakonskega okvira.
In addition, even though this assessment would in practice provide an EPIC with advantageous access to funding, in law and in practice it would provide no access to state resources, which would be necessary to establish the existence of State aid.
Poleg tega, tudi če bi EPIC na podlagi te ocene v praksi pridobila prednostni dostop do posojila, pa v pravu in v praksi ne bi pridobila dostopa do državnih sredstev, kar naj bi bilo nujno za opredelitev državne pomoči.
The French authorities add that the analyses by the rating agencies are based, not on an objective legal basis, but on a subjective assessment of state support in the event of the undertaking in question running into difficulty.
Francoski organi dodajajo, da analize agencij niso na objektivni pravni ravni, ampak temeljijo na subjektivni presoji tega, kar naj bi bilo državna podpora v primeru težav obravnavanega podjetja.
Circular argument
Krožnost sklepanja
According to the French authorities, the Commission’s argument is circular:
Po mnenju francoskih organov je sklepanje Komisije krožno:
the Commission has based its argument on the statements by the rating agencies to highlight an economic advantage,
Komisija naj bi se pri dokazovanju gospodarske prednosti oprla predvsem na izjave bonitetnih agencij,
the market and the rating agencies have accepted the absence of a state guarantee for La Poste but continue to harbour a doubt that is generated only by the position expressed by the Commission.
trg in bonitetni agenciji naj bi potrdili neobstoj državnega poroštva za podjetje La Poste, vendar naj bi še naprej izražali pomisleke, ki naj bi izhajali samo iz stališča Komisije.
Absence of effect on La Poste’s rating
Neobstoj vpliva na bonitetno oceno podjetja La Poste
In any event, according to the French authorities, the opening decision does not establish that La Poste’s rating would be higher because of an alleged unlimited state guarantee.
Francoski organi vsekakor menijo, da v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka nikakor ni dokazano, da naj bi bila bonitetna ocena podjetja La Poste višja zaradi domnevnega neomejenega državnega poroštva.
The doctrine of the rating agencies is not sufficient to identify any effect
Doktrina bonitetnih agencij ne zadostuje za dokaz kakršnega koli vpliva
The French authorities make a number of comments on the study by Standard and Poor’s entitled ‘Influence of Government Support on Ratings’, cited by the Commission in recital 80 of the opening decision.
Francoski organi imajo več pripomb k študiji bonitetne agencije Standard and Poor’s z naslovom „Influence of Government Support on Ratings“, ki jo Komisija navaja v uvodni izjavi 80 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
In the study, Standard and Poor’s identifies a number of categories of government-supported postal companies; the classification determines the methodology applied by Standard and Poor’s to set the rating of the company in question.
Agencija Standard and Poor’s v tej študiji razlikuje med več kategorijami „government supported postal companies“; na podlagi razvrstitve se določi metodologija, ki jo agencija Standard and Poor’s uporabi za določitev bonitetne ocene navedenega subjekta.
The French authorities point out that inclusion in Category 1 depends on broad criteria, such as the nature of the activity and the economic and social environment, but does not refer to the legal form of the rated operator.
Francoski organi poudarjajo, da se pri razvrstitvi v kategorijo 1 upoštevajo obširna merila, kot sta narava dejavnosti ali gospodarsko in družbeno okolje, ne pa tudi status ocenjenega operaterja.
The French authorities note that on 22 November 2004 the French and Italian Post Offices were classified in Category 2.
Francoski organi navajajo, da sta bili 22. novembra 2004 francoska in italijanska pošta uvrščeni v kategorijo 2.
The French authorities conclude from the Standard and Poor’s document that the financial performance of Poste Italiane did not justify its rating.
Francoski organi iz dokumenta agencije Standard and Poor’s sklepajo, da bonitetna ocena italijanske pošte ni temeljila na finančni uspešnosti podjetja Poste Italiane.
According to the French authorities, the Italian Post Office therefore benefited from a rating that was influenced by its owner’s rating, even though the Italian Post Office is an SpA under ordinary law.
Po njihovem mnenju je torej italijanska pošta dobila bonitetno oceno, na katero je vplivala ocena njenega lastnika, in to kljub statusu SpA, ki ga ima Poste Italiane po občem pravu.
The French authorities point out that Standard and Poor’s eventually classified La Poste in Category 3.
Francoski organi poudarjajo, da je agencija Standard and Poor’s podjetje La Poste nazadnje uvrstila v kategorijo 3.
According to the French authorities, the major reforms implemented since the end of 2004 gradually led Standard and Poor’s to classify La Poste in the third category.
Po mnenju francoskih organov ga je postopoma uvrstila v to tretjo kategorijo na podlagi pomembnih reform, ki so bile izvedene od konca leta 2004.
The French authorities conclude that it cannot be established that La Poste’s rating is imputable solely to its legal form or to any state guarantee mechanism, nor that the rating may constitute State aid.
Francoski organi iz tega sklepajo, da ni mogoče dokazati, da je treba bonitetno oceno podjetja La Poste pripisati samemu statusu ali kakršnemu koli mehanizmu državnega poroštva in da bi ta bonitetna ocena lahko pomenila državno pomoč.
Nonetheless, the French authorities admit that the Standard and Poor’s 2004 study raised the question of La Poste’s legal form.
Francoski organi kljub temu priznavajo, da je bilo v študiji agencije Standard and Poor’s iz leta 2004 omenjeno vprašanje statusa podjetja La Poste.
However, they confirm that the discussions they have had since with Standard and Poor’s have clarified the question.
Vendar pa zagotavljajo, da naj bi bilo vprašanje mogoče pojasniti s korespondenco, ki je od takrat potekala z agencijo Standard and Poor’s.
The French authorities also informed Fitch about the absence of any state guarantee for La Poste, following which the agency undertook to reconsider the question.
Francoski organi naj bi tudi agencijo Fitch opozorili na neobstoj kakršnega koli državnega poroštva za podjetje La Poste, in po tem naj bi se agencija lotila ponovne preučitve vprašanja.
There are many cases in the private sector where the rating of a subsidiary is linked to the parent company’s rating
Na zasebnem področju so številni primeri, v katerih je bonitetna ocena hčerinskega podjetja povezana z oceno matičnega podjetja
According to the French authorities, the influence of the presence of a stable majority shareholder, which was identified by the rating agencies in the case of the Italian Post Office independently of any specific features relating to legal form, is also found in the case of private groups.
Po mnenju francoskih organov je mogoče vpliv prisotnosti večinskega in stabilnega delničarja, ki so jo bonitetne agencije poudarile v primeru Poste Italiane neodvisno od kakršne koli statutarne posebnosti, videti pri zasebnih skupinah.
The French authorities cite as examples a Standard and Poor’s press release on AGF dated 3 December 2003, a press release on Volkswagen Bank GmbH and a press release on VWFS .
Francoski organi kot primere navajajo sporočilo agencije Standard and Poor’s z dne 3. decembra 2003 o AGF, sporočilo o Volkswagen Bank GmbH in sporočilo o VWFS .
According to the French authorities, this type of approach is therefore in no way specific to the public sector.
Po mnenju francoskih organov tovrstni pristop torej nikakor ni posebnost javnega sektorja.
La Poste’s rating would not be adjusted if its legal form were changed
Bonitetna ocena podjetja La Poste se ob spremembi statusa ne bi spremenila
Using the analysis for Standard and Poor’s rating of La Poste, the French authorities seek to demonstrate that the rating does not depend on La Poste’s legal form.
Francoski organi si na podlagi analize bonitetne ocene agencije Standard and Poor’s za podjetje La Poste prizadevajo dokazati, da ta ocena ni odvisna od statusa podjetja La Poste.
First, the French authorities point out that when they made their observations, Standard and Poor’s rated La Poste AA– with a stable outlook.
Prvič, francoski organi poudarjajo, da je agencija Standard and Poor’s ob oblikovanju svojih pripomb podjetju La Poste dodelila oceno AA– s stabilnimi obeti.
The rating downgrade was justified by Standard and Poor’s by the forthcoming deterioration in the group’s financial structure linked to the payment by La Poste of EUR 2 billion to reform the financing of civil servants’ pensions and by ‘La Poste’s greater autonomy in relation to its shareholder’.
Znižanje ocene je utemeljila s prihodnjim poslabšanjem finančne strukture skupine, povezanim z izplačilom dveh milijard EUR podjetja La Poste za reformo financiranja pokojnin uradnikov, in z „večjo avtonomijo podjetja La Poste glede na njegovega delničarja“.
The French authorities take the view that the downgrade, which did not occur after a change in La Poste’s legal form, cannot be explained if La Poste’s rating were simply a consequence of its legal form.
Po mnenju francoskih organov tega znižanja, ki ni bilo posledica spremembe statusa podjetja La Poste, ne bi bilo mogoče pojasniti, če bi bila bonitetna ocena podjetja La Poste samo posledica njegovega statusa.
Second, despite the detail provided by Standard and Poor’s in its note dated 3 April 2007, which was cited in recital 84 of the opening decision, the French authorities find it difficult to see how La Poste, if it enjoyed a state guarantee, could be rated 3 notches below the State.
Drugič, kljub pojasnilu, ki ga je agencija Standard and Poor’s zagotovila v obvestilu z dne 3. aprila 2007 in je bilo navedeno v uvodni izjavi 84 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, francoski organi težko razumejo, kako bi bilo podjetje La Poste, če bi bilo upravičeno do državnega poroštva, lahko ocenjeno s tri notches pod bonitetno oceno države.
Likewise, if the Law of 16 July 1980 were interpreted by the rating agencies as establishing, for the benefit of the creditors of the legal persons concerned, a mechanism comparable to a state guarantee, the French authorities do not understand how regional and local authorities could be rated BBB+ while the sovereign rating is rated AAA.
Podobno, če bi agencije določbe zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 razlagale tako, da v korist upnikov zadevnih pravnih oseb vzpostavljajo mehanizem, ki ga je mogoče enačiti z državnim poroštvom, francoski organi ne razumejo, kako bi bile lahko ozemeljske skupnosti ocenjene BBB+, medtem ko je bonitetna ocena gospodarja AAA.
Third, the French authorities stress that the Standard and Poor’s note dated 3 April 2007 is based on a list of the strengths and weaknesses of the company that does not mention its legal form.
Tretjič, francoski organi poudarjajo, da obvestilo agencije Standard and Poor’s z dne 3. aprila 2007 temelji na naštevanju dobrih in slabih strani podjetja, pri čemer status ni omenjen.
The two factors mentioned by Standard and Poor’s in support of the rating, i.e. the economic importance of La Poste’s public service tasks and strong shareholder backing, are factors distinct from La Poste’s legal form.
Elementa, ki ju je agencija Standard and Poor’s navedla v podporo bonitetni oceni, to je gospodarski pomen nalog javne službe podjetja La Poste in strong shareholder backing, naj ne bi bila povezana s statusom podjetja La Poste.
The French authorities maintain that strong shareholder backing does not mean financial support in breach of EU law but the interest shown in La Poste’s development by the State at arm’s length.
Po mnenju francoskih organov se namreč z izrazom strong shareholder backing ne sme razumeti finančne podpore v nasprotju s pravom Unije, ampak je treba razumeti interes države za razvoj podjetja La Poste pod pogoji at arm’s length.
The French authorities conclude that La Poste’s legal form is not an essential factor behind the rating.
Francoski organi na podlagi tega ugotavljajo, da status ne pomeni bistvenega elementa bonitetne ocene.
Fourth, the French authorities point out that in the same note dated 3 April 2007 the rating agency makes clear that it is continuing to use a top-down methodology, which allows an entity to be rated up to two categories below the sovereign State.
Četrtič, francoski organi opozarjajo, da bonitetna agencija v tem istem obvestilu z dne 3. aprila 2007 pojasnjuje, da še naprej uporablja metodologijo top-down, na podlagi katere je subjekt mogoče oceniti do dve kategoriji pod gospodarjem.
According to the agency, this methodology is justified by the fact that the State will have to remain the 100 % shareholder in La Poste in the medium term.
Po mnenju agencije je ta metodologija upravičena zaradi dejstva, da bi morala država srednjeročno ostati 100-odstotni delničar podjetja La Poste.
The French authorities conclude that this approach is in no way justified by La Poste’s legal form.
Francoski organi iz tega sklepajo, da ta pristop nikakor ne temelji na podlagi statusa podjetja La Poste.
Lastly, relying on a quotation from Standard and Poor’s, the French authorities argue that it is not the change in legal form but an opening-up of the capital that would lead Standard and Poor’s to adopt a bottom-up methodology for La Poste.
Nazadnje, francoski organi na podlagi navedbe agencije Standard and Poor’s trdijo, da ta metodologije bottom-up za podjetje La Poste ne bi sprejela zaradi spremembe statusa, ampak bi jo sprejela zaradi odprtja kapitala.
They add that, given the expected improvement in La Poste’s fundamentals, such a change in methodology would not necessarily be reflected in a change in rating.
Dodajajo, da taka sprememba metodologije ob upoštevanju pričakovanega izboljšanja temeljev podjetja La Poste ne bi nujno pripeljala do spremembe ocene.
Fifth, the French authorities point out that the outlook set by the rating agency is stable, despite the proceedings opened by the Commission against the unlimited state guarantee that La Poste is alleged to enjoy by virtue of its legal form.
Petič, francoski organi opozarjajo, da so obeti, ki jih je določila bonitetna agencija, stabilni, kljub postopku, ki ga je Komisija sprožila zoper neomejeno državno poroštvo, ki naj bi ga podjetje La Poste imelo zaradi svojega statusa.
Now, if the legal form had an influence on the undertaking’s solvency, the prospect of changing it should be reflected in a negative and unstable outlook.
Če bi status vplival na plačilno sposobnost podjetja, bi morali biti obeti glede na napovedi njegovih sprememb negativni, ne pa stabilni.
Moreover, Standard and Poor’s justifies the stable outlook by the fact that the State is expected to remain 100 % shareholder in the undertaking for the next two years, despite a possible change to its legal form.
Poleg tega agencija Standard and Poor’s stabilne obete utemeljuje z dejstvom, da bi država v prihodnjih dveh letih morala ostati 100-odstotni delničar podjetja, in to kljub mogoči spremembi statusa.
Referring to another statement by Standard and Poor’s, the French authorities conclude that it is the undertaking’s own performance, and the possibility of a change of ownership, that are taken into account by Standard and Poor’s to determine movements in the rating and not a possible change in the legal form.
Francoski organi na podlagi še ene navedbe agencije Standard and Poor’s ugotavljajo, da ta za določitev razvoja ocene upošteva samo uspešnost podjetja in možnost spremembe delničarskih deležev, mogoče spremembe statusa pa ne.
Sixth, the French authorities, citing another extract from the Standard and Poor’s 2007 rating, stress that the rating agency does not reflect the Commission’s statement that the consequence of the legal form is to improve the financing conditions granted to La Poste.
Šestič, francoski organi, ki navajajo še en izvleček iz obvestila agencije Standard and Poor’s iz leta 2007, poudarjajo, da se bonitetna agencija ne strinja s trditvijo Komisije, da naj se zaradi statusa izboljšali finančni pogoji, odobreni podjetju La Poste.
Based on the citation from Standard and Poor’s that: ‘The ratings on La Poste were unaffected by this recommendation since we consider that a change in La Poste’s status would not necessarily reflect a decrease in the strong state support that underpins LP’s ratings and that has been reaffirmed by recent government decisions’, the French authorities conclude that La Poste’s legal form has no influence on its rating.
Francoski organi na podlagi navedbe agencije Standard and Poor’s, da „to priporočilo ni vplivalo na bonitetne ocene podjetja La Poste, kajti menimo, da sprememba statusa tega podjetja ne bi nujno izražala zmanjšanja močne državne podpore, na kateri temeljijo ocene podjetja La Poste in ki je bila znova potrjena z nedavnimi vladnimi odločitvami“, ugotavljajo, da status podjetja La Poste ne vpliva na njegovo bonitetno oceno.
Absence of effect on La Poste’s financing conditions
Neobstoj vpliva na pogoje financiranja podjetja La Poste
Lastly, the French authorities examine La Poste’s actual financing conditions to determine whether they are affected by an alleged state guarantee.
Nazadnje, francoski organi preučujejo dejanske pogoje financiranja podjetja La Poste, da bi ugotovili, ali domnevno državno poroštvo vpliva nanje.
According to the French authorities, neither the announcement by the Commission of the existence of the alleged guarantee, its alleged incompatibility with EU law and, consequently, its impending removal, nor the denials by the French authorities concerning the existence of the guarantee made to rating agencies and to the press, have had any influence on La Poste’s financing conditions.
Po mnenju francoskih organov napoved Komisije o obstoju domnevnega poroštva, njegovi domnevni nezdružljivosti s pravom Unije in njegovi posledični prihodnji ukinitvi ter zanikanje francoskih organov glede obstoja poroštva pri bonitetnih agencijah in tisku nikakor ne vplivata na pogoje financiranja podjetja La Poste.
Accordingly, in October 2006 La Poste issued bonds to the value of EUR 1,8 billion with two maturities, 7 and 15 years, just after the Commission announced that it had recommended measures be taken.
Podjetje La Poste je tako oktobra 2006 izdalo obveznice v višini 1,8 milijarde EUR z dvema ročnostma, to je 7 in 15 let, takoj ko je Komisija napovedala priporočilo koristnih ukrepov.
La Poste referred to the recommendation in the prospectus and made clear, during the meetings with investors, that it did not enjoy a state guarantee.
Podjetje La Poste je to priporočilo navedlo v prospektu, na konferencah z vlagatelji pa pojasnilo, da ni upravičeno do državnega poroštva.
Now, after the bond issue, La Poste’s cost of finance had not changed significantly.
Po izdaji se stroški financiranja podjetja La Poste niso bistveno spremenili.
The two issues were widely subscribed by European investors with the usual investor profile for La Poste, i.e. investors who hold their bonds until maturity.
Obveznice obeh izdaj so večinoma kupili evropski vlagatelji z običajnim profilom za podjetje La Poste, to je vlagatelji, ki obveznice hranijo do zapadlosti.
The French authorities conclude that the Commission’s request to withdraw the alleged guarantee and the publicity surrounding the State’s position on this issue did not have any influence on La Poste’s financing conditions on the bond market.
Francoski organi ugotavljajo, da napoved Komisije, s katero je zahtevala ukinitev domnevnega poroštva, in objava v zvezi s stališčem države do tega vprašanja nista vplivali na pogoje financiranja podjetja La Poste na trgu obveznic.
The markets took the view that La Poste’s financing conditions were not based on the de jure or de facto existence of any guarantee.
Na trgih naj bi namreč prevladovalo mnenje, da pogoji financiranja podjetja La Poste ne temeljijo na pravnem ali dejanskem obstoju kakršnega koli poroštva.
The French authorities conclude that:
Francoski organi ugotavljajo, da:
the analysis set out by the Commission in its opening decision is flawed: La Poste does not, in fact, enjoy any state guarantee,
je analiza, ki jo je Komisija opravila v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, napačna: podjetje La Poste namreč ni upravičeno do nikakršnega državnega poroštva,
the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of an advantage for La Poste deriving from its legal form,
Komisija ni dokazala obstoja prednosti za podjetje La Poste, ki naj bi izhajal iz njegovega statusa,
the Commission has not, therefore, demonstrated the existence of State aid to La Poste.
Komisija zato ni dokazala obstoja pomoči v korist podjetja La Poste.
PROPOSALS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
PREDLOGI FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV
Nonetheless, in order to dispel any doubts on the part of the Commission, the French authorities have indicated that they were willing to implement the following measures if the Commission agreed to close the procedure by a decision that no aid is involved, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Procedural Regulation:
Da bi francoski organi odpravili vse pomisleke Komisije, so vseeno navedli, da so pripravljeni izvesti naslednje ukrepe, če bi Komisija privolila v končanje postopka s sklepom o neobstoju pomoči v skladu s členom 7(2) postopkovne uredbe:
clarification of the Decree implementing the Law of 16 July 1980,
pojasnilo odloka o izvajanju zakona z dne 16. julija 1980,
incorporation of a reference spelling out the absence of a guarantee in La Poste’s contracts involving a claim,
vključitev navedbe o neobstoju poroštva v pogodbe podjetja La Poste, ki vključujejo terjatve,