natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘The applicants note that, in its judgment of 18 November 2005, the Council of State held that the legislature intended to give the representative of the State, in the event of a local or regional authority’s not being able to implement a judicial decision, the power to take the place of that authority’s decision-making bodies in order to release or create the resources enabling the judicial decision concerned to be fully implemented.
Tožeči stranki zato kritizirata nezmožnost države, da sprejme pozitivne ukrepe, na podlagi katerih bi občina lahko izvršila prispevno obveznost.“„Tožeči stranki ugotavljata, da je sodišče Conseil d’Etat v sodbi z dne 18. novembra 2005 razsodilo, da je zakonodajalec nameraval predstavnika države pooblastiti, naj nadomesti organe ozemeljske skupnosti, če ta ne bi zagotovila izvršitve sodne odločbe, da bi zagotovil ali ustvaril sredstva, ki bi omogočala izvršitev te sodne odločbe v celoti.
It is on the basis of these omissions on the part of the French State that the applicants demand both acknowledgement of Article 6-1’s having been breached and the resulting compensation — an initiative that no more contradicts the concept of legal personality than it does the concepts of independence and of a distinct set of assets’.
Tožeči stranki na podlagi teh neizpolnitev obveznosti francoske države predlagata, naj se ugotovi kršitev člena 6(1), in posledično nadomestilo, ker to ne vključuje nobenega protislovja s samim pojmom pravne osebe in tudi ne s pojmoma neodvisnosti in ločenega premoženja.“
The Court finally noted that a breach of Article 6-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights had taken place and added that: ‘These judgments need, therefore, to be implemented, and the Court would point out that a State authority cannot use lack of resources as a pretext for not honouring a debt based on a judicial decision (Bourdov, cited above, Section 30)’.
Sodišče je nazadnje ugotovilo kršitev člena 6(1) Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah, zlasti ker: „Te sodbe je torej treba izvršiti, pri čemer Sodišče opozarja, da se državni organ ne more izgovarjati na pomanjkanje sredstev, da ne bi poplačal dolga, ki temelji na sodni odločbi (zgoraj navedena sodba Bourdov, točka 30).“
‘In sum, the Court considers that the applicant companies have been, and are still, subject to a huge and special burden due to the non-payment of the sums from which they should have benefited in implementation of the aforesaid judgments dated 10 July 1992. There has therefore been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1’.
Vlada ni predložila nobene utemeljitve za ta poseg, zato Sodišče meni, da pomanjkanje sredstev ne more biti veljaven razlog za tako opustitev (ibid).“„Sodišče na splošno meni, da sta tožeči stranki utrpeli ter še vedno nosita posebno in pretirano breme zaradi neizplačila zneskov, ki bi jih morali prejeti na podlagi izvršitve zgoraj navedenih sodb z dne 10. julija 1992.
The Court ended by charging the whole of the debtor communes’ debt to the State: ‘In view of the above, the Court holds that it is for the defendant state to pay the applicants or, if appropriate, their legal successors the sums (including interest) due to them as from the delivery, on 10 July 1992, of the judgments of the Bastia administrative tribunal (ibidem) until the day on which this judgment has been given’.
S tem je bil kršen člen 1 Protokola št. 1.“ Nazadnje je Sodišče državi v breme naložilo celotni dolg občin dolžnic: „Glede na zgoraj navedeno Sodišče meni, da mora tožena država tožečima strankama, ali kjer je to ustrezno, njunim upravičencem zagotoviti plačilo terjatev, do katerih sta upravičeni od sodb upravnega sodišča v Bastii z dne 10. julija 1992 (ibidem), vključno z obrestmi do dneva izreka te sodbe“.
The Commission’s expert deduces from this case law that the State must cover the debts of the public authorities.
Izvedenka Komisije iz te sodne prakse sklepa, da mora država kriti dolgove javnih organov.
The Commission considers this to have three important implications:
Po mnenju Komisije iz tega izhajajo trije pomembni elementi:
liability functions as an implied guarantee.
odgovornost deluje kot implicitno poroštvo.
Firstly, the French State is required to pay the whole of the debt, and no distinction has been made between debt conceivably due to the public authority’s insolvency and possible defaults imputable to the State.
Po eni strani je francoska država prisiljena plačati celotni dolg, pri čemer ni bila opravljena nikakršna razdelitev med tem, kar bi lahko spadalo v položaj plačilne nesposobnosti javne skupnosti dolžnice, in morebitnimi neizpolnitvami obveznosti, za katere je odgovorna država.
The terms used are worth emphasising, since the Court does not refer to a possible liability on the part of the State but holds that it is the responsibility of the State to ‘ensure’ that payment is made.
Treba je poudariti uporabljeno besedišče, kajti Sodišče ne navaja morebitne odgovornosti države, ampak meni, da mora država „zagotoviti“ plačilo.
Such terms relate more to the concept of a guarantee than to that of liability.
To besedišče izhaja bolj iz poroštva kot iz odgovornosti.
What is more, the Court does not at any time seek an operable event imputable to the State and looks no further than the debtor’s insolvent status.
Še pomembneje je, da si Sodišče nikjer ne prizadeva poiskati odločilnega dejstva, za katerega bi bila odgovorna država, ampak se nanaša samo na položaj plačilne nesposobnosti dolžnika.
Finally, the Court transfers the whole of the offending communes’ debt to the State.
Nazadnje, Sodišče celotni dolg obsojenih občin prenese na državo.
These various factors tend to show that this system of liability operates in reality as a guarantee mechanism.
Ti različni elementi dokazujejo, da ta sistem odgovornosti v resnici deluje kot mehanizem poroštva.
It will be noted, however, that the applicants must first obtain a judicial decision recognising their claim.
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da morajo tožeče stranke najprej dobiti sodno odločbo, s katero se njihova terjatev prizna.
Moreover, this guarantee is implied because it is not set out in any legislation.
Poleg tega je to poroštvo implicitno, ker ni zapisano v nobenem besedilu.
This demonstrates that a judicial mechanism under national law can be interpreted as an implied guarantee,
To dokazuje, da je mogoče pravni mehanizem notranjega prava razlagati kot implicitno poroštvo,
this liability covers the debts of public authorities possessed, however, of legal personality.
ta odgovornost obsega dolgove javnih organov, ki so kljub temu pravne osebe.
The existence of legal personality and of assets specific to the authority was expressly invoked by the French Government in its opposition to holding the French State liable.
Obstoj pravne osebe in lastnega premoženja je izrecno navedla francoska vlada, ko je nasprotovala uveljavljanju odgovornosti francoske države.
This argument was rejected by the Court,
Sodišče je to trditev zavrnilo,
the scope of the state guarantee extends to include public authorities dependent on the State.
področje uporabe državnega poroštva zajema javne organe države.
The guarantee is therefore intimately connected with the debtor’s public law legal form.
Poroštvo je torej tesno povezano z javnopravnim statusom dolžnika.
It must be pointed out that the solution adopted by the ECHR in the Campoloro case is not an isolated one and stems from a well established tradition of case law.
Opozoriti je treba, da rešitev, ki jo je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice uporabilo v zadevi Campoloro, ni osamljena, ampak izhaja iz zelo uveljavljene usmeritve sodne prakse.
Thus, in its judgment of 13 May 1980 in Artico v Italy, the ECHR decided that, where a failure to act is imputable to an entity other than the State, it is for the State, as giver of the guarantee provided for in Article 6-1, to act in such a way that the applicant in practice enjoys the right conferred on him by that Article.
Tako je Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice v sodbi z dne 13. maja 1980 v zadevi Artico proti Italiji odločilo, da kadar je za neizpolnitev obveznosti odgovorna druga oseba, in ne država, mora ta država, ki je zavezana zagotoviti jamstvo iz člena 6(1), ravnati tako, da tožeči stranki zagotovi dejansko uživanje pravice, ki ji je priznana s tem členom.
In Case No 59498/00 of 19 March 1997, Bourdov v Russia, the Court also held that an authority of the State cannot use lack of resources as a pretext for not honouring its debt.
Sodišče je v sodbi z dne 19. marca 1997 v zadevi Bourdov proti Rusiji št. 59498/00 tudi razsodilo, da „se državni organ ne more izgovarjati na neobstoj sredstev, da ne bi poplačal svojega dolga“.
Examination of the observations of the French authorities
Preučitev pripomb francoskih organov
Observation relating to the difference between regional or local authorities and publicly owned establishments
Pripomba v zvezi z razliko med ozemeljskimi skupnostmi in osebami javnega prava
According to the French authorities, the case made out by the Commission’s expert is by no means conclusive and is limited to comparing various interpretations of the Campoloro judgment; above all, it draws no distinction between publicly owned establishments and local authorities, although this difference is central to the issue of whether a claim can remain unpaid.
Po mnenju francoskih organov dokaz izvedenke Komisije nikakor ne vodi do dokončne ugotovitve, ampak je omejen samo na navajanje različnih razlag sodbe Campoloro, pri čemer ni nobeni razlagi dana prednost; predvsem ne razlikuje med osebami javnega prava in lokalnimi skupnostmi, čeprav je ta razlika osrednjega pomena pri vprašanju, ali lahko terjatev ostane neplačana.
On this matter, the French authorities adopt the opinion of their expert.
Francoski organi tu povzemajo mnenje svojega izvedenca.
The latter questions the premise underlying the Commission’s arguments based on the Campoloro case law: the Commission’s argument rests on likening local and regional authorities to publicly owned establishments, which are all legal entities separate from the State and governed by public law.
Ta izpodbija trditev, ki podpira sklepanje Komisije na podlagi sodne prakse v zadevi Campoloro: sklepanje Komisije temelji na dejstvu, da se ozemeljske skupnosti in osebe javnega prava štejejo za enakovredne, skupno pa jim je to, da so pravne osebe javnega prava, ločene od države.
In fact, these two types of body do not have the same constitutional status.
Ti vrsti subjektov pa nimata enakega ustavnega statusa.
Thus, the existence of local authorities is a constitutional requirement, and the State has an obligation to guarantee the survival of such bodies.
Tako je obstoj lokalnih skupnosti ustavna zahteva, obveznost države pa je, da zagotovi njihovo preživetje.
EPICs do not have anything like the same constitutional status and do not have to survive.
EPIC nimajo v ničemer enakega ustavnega statusa in lahko izginejo.
The Campoloro case law, which relates to cases of default on the part of local authorities, cannot therefore be used in relation to publicly owned establishments.
Zato sodne prakse v zadevi Campoloro, ki se nanaša na primere neizpolnitve obveznosti lokalnih skupnosti, ni mogoče uporabiti za osebe javnega prava.
The Commission will now examine whether the difference in constitutional status between local or regional authorities and publicly owned establishments is likely to place a question mark over the conclusions drawn by its expert on the basis of the decisions taken in the Campoloro case by the ECHR and the Council of State.
Komisija bo zdaj preučila, ali lahko razlika v ustavnem statusu med ozemeljskimi skupnostmi in osebami javnega prava vzbuja pomisleke o ugotovitvah, ki jih je njena izvedenka izpeljala iz odločitev, ki sta jih v zadevi Campoloro sprejeli Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice in sodišče Conseil d’Etat.
The Commission notes that the ECHR’s decision is based on the need to preserve, not the existence of the local or regional authority concerned, but the rights of the creditor, that is to say his right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and the protection of his property (Article 1 of Protocol No 1): whether the debtor is a publicly owned establishment or a local or regional authority, the creditor’s rights are infringed in the same way.
Komisija ugotavlja, da odločitev Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice ne temelji na potrebi, da se zagotovi nadaljnji obstoj zadevne ozemeljske skupnosti, ampak da se ohranita pravici upnika, to je njegova pravica do poštenega sojenja (člen 6(1) Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah) in varstvo njegove lastnine (člen 1 Protokola št. 1): pri čemer so, ne glede na to ali je dolžnik oseba javnega prava ali ozemeljska skupnost, pravice upnika enako kršene.
As for the decision of the Council of State, a distinction needs to be made between the various liability schemes:
Kar zadeva odločitev sodišča Conseil d’Etat, je treba razlikovati med različnima sistemoma odgovornosti:
the liability due to gross negligence scheme is based on the State’s deficient use of the prerogatives introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980; it is therefore independent of the nature of the debtor: local or regional authority, or publicly owned establishment,
sistem odgovornosti zaradi resne napake temelji na tem, da država ni uporabila posebnih pravic, vzpostavljenih z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980: je torej neodvisen od narave dolžnika: ozemeljska skupnost ali oseba javnega prava,
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the difference in constitutional status between local or regional authorities and publicly owned establishments does not invalidate the conclusions drawn from the Campoloro case law by the Commission’s expert.
Skratka, Komisija meni, da se z razliko v ustavnem statusu med ozemeljskimi skupnostmi in osebami javnega prava ne morejo ovreči ugotovitve, ki jih je iz sodne prakse Campoloro izpeljala izvedenka Komisije.
Moreover, the Commission would observe that the set of arguments put forward by the French authorities is designed to question the relevance of the Campoloro judgment in this particular case, which does not relate to a local or regional authority; yet the Campoloro judgment was first invoked by the French authorities themselves in support of their position.
Poleg tega Komisija opozarja, da je namen trditev francoskih organov izpodbijati upoštevnost zadeve Campoloro v obravnavanem primeru, ki se ne nanaša na ozemeljsko skupnost, čeprav so se francoski organi najprej sami sklicevali na zadevo Campoloro, da bi podprli svoje stališče.
Observation relating to the lack of any basis for holding the State liable
Pripomba v zvezi z neobstojem podlage za uveljavljanje odgovornosti države
Moreover, the French authorities fail to see on what basis the State might incur strict liability in the event of a publicly owned establishment defaulting, since the State can be held liable in such a context only if the act (or omission) imputed to it has been the direct cause of the injury, which is not the case here.
Poleg tega francoski organi ne razumejo, na kakšni podlagi bi se lahko uveljavljala nekrivdna odgovornost države v primeru napake osebe javnega prava, saj se lahko odgovornost države v tem okviru uveljavlja samo, če je bilo pripisano ji dejanje (vključno z opustitvijo dejanja) neposredni vzrok za škodo, kar pa naj v tem primeru ne bi držalo.
The Commission nonetheless notes that the decisions of the Council of State and the ECHR clearly establish that the State can be held strictly liable.
Vendar pa Komisija ugotavlja, da je iz odločitve sodišča Conseil d’Etat in Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice jasno razvidno, da se nekrivdna odgovornost države lahko uveljavlja.
Observation relating to the lack of abnormal and specific injury
Pripomba v zvezi z neobstojem neobičajne in posebne škode
Finally, the French authorities fail to see why the judge would consider the injury to be ‘specific’ when it apparently concerns all the creditors of the establishment, or as ‘abnormal’ if creditors agreed to supply funds to a body in an uncertain financial situation.
Nazadnje, francoski organi ne razumejo, zakaj bi sodišče škodo štelo za „posebno“, ker naj bi se nanašala na vse upnike osebe javnega prava, ali „neobičajno“, če so upniki privolili v posojilo subjektu v negotovem finančnem položaju.
The Commission would observe that, according to the case law of the Council of State, the existence of an abnormal and specific injury does in practice limit the liability of the State.
Komisija ugotavlja, da obstoj neobičajne in posebne škode glede na sodno prakso sodišča Conseil d’Etat dejansko pomeni omejitev za uveljavljanje odgovornosti države.
The French authorities doubt that the injury is abnormal in a situation in which creditors agreed to supply funds to a body in an uncertain financial situation.
Francoski organi imajo pomisleke, da bi obstajala neobičajna škoda, če so upniki privolili v posojilo subjektu v negotovem finančnem položaju.
The Commission would point out, in this connection, that this argument presupposes that there is no guarantee (and that the creditors think that there is no guarantee), whereas the analysis given above shows the opposite to be true.
Komisija v zvezi s tem poudarja, da se s to trditvijo predpostavlja, da poroštvo ne obstaja (in da upniki mislijo, da ne obstaja), medtem ko zgornja analiza kaže nasprotno.
Indeed, if the creditors believe in the existence of the guarantee, any creditor will view the establishment’s financial situation as being much less of a crucial factor both when he decides to grant funds to the establishment and when he negotiates the conditions under which such funds are to be granted.
Če so upniki prepričani o obstoju poroštva, bo namreč finančni položaj osebe javnega prava veliko manj odločilen za vsakega upnika, ko se bo odločal za odobritev posojila osebi javnega prava in tudi ko se bo pogajal o pogojih tega posojila.
Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that the debt may have been incurred either when the publicly owned establishment was not in danger or when the creditor could not reasonably have been aware of the establishment’s financial difficulties.
Poleg tega je treba upoštevati, da je dolg lahko nastal, medtem ko oseba javnega prava ni bila v nevarnosti ali upnik ni mogel razumno vedeti za finančne težave.
In any case, the concept of abnormal injury has to be understood as going beyond the issues of whether or not the establishment was aware of the financial difficulties and even of whether the injury was sustained by all the creditors or by only one.
Pojma neobičajne škode vsekakor ni treba obravnavati v okviru vprašanja, ali je imela oseba javnega prava finančne težave ali ne, ter vprašanja, ali so škodo utrpeli vsi upniki ali en sam.
According to the case law relating to strict administrative liability, the existence or otherwise of abnormal and specific injury is assessed with reference to the public interest.
V skladu s sodno prakso v zvezi z nekrivdno upravno odgovornostjo se neobičajna in posebna škoda presoja s sklicevanjem na splošni interes.
To be categorised as abnormal and specific, the injury to the person concerned must be out of proportion to the public interest intended to be served.
Da bi bila škoda opredeljena kot neobičajna in posebna, mora biti za osebo, ki jo utrpi, tako velika, da je nesorazmerna z zastavljenim splošnim interesom.
The Commission deduces from this that the abnormal and specific character of the injury undoubtedly constitutes a filter that may prevent a number of claims from being met, but that the higher the debt the less likely it is that this filter will come into play.
Komisija iz tega sklepa, da je neobičajna in posebna narava škode nedvomno filter, ki lahko prepreči povrnitev škode za določeno število terjatev, toda da je ta filter toliko manj upošteven, kolikor večji je dolg.
Finally, the Commission would point out that the existence of an abnormal and specific injury is not a condition imposed by the ECHR’s case law.
Nazadnje, Komisija opozarja, da obstoj neobičajne in posebne škode ni pogoj, določen s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice.
Any creditor may, therefore, in principle obtain compensation from the State, covering his debt, at the conclusion of judicial proceedings.
Zato lahko vsak upnik po koncu sodnega postopka načelno dobi odškodnino države, ki krije njen dolg.
Absence of limitation of liability and/or of a guarantee by the State
Neobstoj omejitve odgovornosti in/ali poroštva države
The Commission would emphasise that, as has been seen above, there is nothing to prevent the legislature — as it does in the case of a number of companies — from providing that the State will pay the EPICs’ debts only up to the limit of its initial contribution (or endowment).
Komisija poudarja, da, kot smo videli zgoraj, zakonodajalcu nič ne preprečuje, da določi, kot je to storil za nekatere družbe, da država za dolgove EPIC odgovarja samo v višini svojega prvotnega vložka (ali dotacije).
In particular, there is nothing to prevent the legislature from providing for a limitation of liability or from quite simply specifying that the State as shareholder can be liable for an EPIC’s debt only in the event of a fault or situation distinct from the EPIC’s mere insolvency — a state of affairs directly imputable to the EPIC and the cause of a particular injury.
Zakonodajalcu zlasti nič ne preprečuje, da bi določil omejitev odgovornosti ali povsem preprosto pojasnil, da je lahko država delničarka za dolg EPIC odgovorna samo v primeru krivde ali dejanja, ločenega od preproste plačilne nesposobnosti EPIC, to je dejanja, za katero bi bila osebno odgovorna in bi bilo vzrok za posebno škodo.
It is therefore possible for the legislature to preclude the State’s guarantee in respect of EPICs and to limit the State’s liability in relation to the injuries sustained by creditors.
Zakonodajalec torej lahko omeji poroštvo države za EPIC in tudi uveljavljanje odgovornosti države, kar zadevo škodo, ki so jo utrpeli upniki.
However, these clarifications have not been supplied by the French authorities.
Vendar pa francoski organi tega niso pojasnili.
Commission’s conclusion
Sklepna ugotovitev Komisije
The Commission concludes from points (i) to (v) that, as French law currently stands, a creditor who has not obtained the payment of his claim through the use of the procedures set out in the Law of 16 July 1980 may receive all of the sums corresponding to the unmet claim by invoking the State’s last-resort liability. This is the opposite of what happens within the framework of winding-up proceedings under ordinary law where the reimbursement of the creditor is limited by the value of the available assets.
Komisija na podlagi točk (i) do (v) ugotavlja, da lahko v sedanjem stanju francoskega prava upnik, ki ni dosegel poravnave svoje terjatve s postopki iz zakona z dne 16. julija 1980, prejme vse zneske, ki ustrezajo neplačani terjatvi, tako da se v skrajnem primeru sklicuje na odgovornost države, kar je v nasprotju s tem, kar se zgodi v likvidacijskem postopku na podlagi občega prava, v katerem je poplačilo upnika omejeno z vrednostjo razpoložljivih sredstev.
The State’s liability is treated as a guarantee.
Odgovornost države se obravnava kot poroštvo.
It is not the subject of any limitation by French legislation.
Zanjo z besedilom francoskega prava ni določena nobena omejitev.
It is intrinsically connected with the public-law legal form possessed by the debtor body.
Tesno je povezana z javnopravnim statusom organa dolžnika.
Analysis of the French proposal relating to the clause in the contracts
Analiza francoskega predloga v zvezi z določbo v pogodbah
If the Commission were to adopt a decision finding that there was no aid, the French authorities would be prepared to extend their proposal for recording the absence of a guarantee so that it includes all contracts involving claims.
Če bi Komisija sprejela odločitev o neobstoju pomoči, bi bili francoski organi pripravljeni razširiti svoj predlog o vključitvi neobstoja poroštva na vse pogodbe, ki vključujejo terjatev.