natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
First of all, in the field of fault — gross negligence at that — the failure by the Prefect or the supervisory authority to exercise their powers where no measure can enable the claim to be repaid by the regional or local authority or the publicly owned establishment cannot in itself constitute a fault.
Kar zadeva krivdo – ki je poleg tega še resna –, dejstvo, da prefekt ali nadzorni organ ni izvedel svojih pristojnosti, kadar noben ukrep ne more omogočiti poplačila terjatve s strani skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava, samo po sebi ne more pomeniti krivdnega ravnanja.
With regard to strict liability, at least two aspects suggest the idea be dismissed:
Kar zadeva nekrivdno odgovornost, za njeno zavrnitev obstajata najmanj dva elementa:
first, the liability of the person from whom compensation is sought can be incurred only if the fact (including an omission) of which he is accused was the direct cause of the injury.
prvič, odgovornost osebe, od katere se zahteva vračilo, se lahko uveljavlja samo, če je bilo pripisano ji dejanje (vključno z opustitvijo) neposredni vzrok škode.
Now, in the case of lack of assets, the action or omission by the administrative authority would not be the cause of the injury suffered by the creditor, rather the insolvency of the regional or local authority or the publicly owned establishment,
V primeru nezadostnosti sredstev pa naj bi škoda, ki jo je utrpel upnik, ne izhajala iz ukrepanja ali neukrepanja upravnega organa, ampak iz plačilne nesposobnosti skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava,
second, strict liability stems from the principle of equality before public burdens.
drugič, nekrivdna odgovornost izhaja iz načela enakosti pred javnimi bremeni.
Now, according to the French authorities, in the case in point it is hard to see how the injury suffered by the creditor could lead to a breach of the principle of equality before public burdens.
Po mnenju francoskih organov pa je v obravnavanem primeru težko razumeti, kako bi lahko škoda, ki jo je utrpel upnik, pomenila kršitev enakosti pred javnimi bremeni.
Unlike the case that gave rise to the Couitéas case law, in the present case, no state authority decided not to execute the judgment for imperative reasons of public interest.
V nasprotju z zadevo, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba Couitéas, naj bi se namreč v tem primeru noben državni organ ne odločil, da sodbe ne bo izvršil iz razlogov v javnem interesu.
The case in question is one where the public authority is faced with the practical impossibility of taking measures that would enable the court judgment to be executed and the creditors to be reimbursed, and not an impossibility determined on the grounds of requirements of the public interest.
V zadevnem primeru naj bi se javni organ znašel pred praktično nezmožnostjo, da sprejme ukrepe, s katerimi bi omogočil izvršitev sodne odločbe in poplačilo upnikov, in ne pred nezmožnostjo zaradi nujnih razlogov v splošnem interesu.
According to the French authorities, liability for a breach of equality before public burdens cannot, therefore, be incurred simply because of insolvency.
Po mnenju francoskih organov sklicevanje na odgovornost zaradi kršitve enakosti pred javnimi bremeni torej ne more izhajati samo iz ugotovitve plačilne nesposobnosti.
With regard to the Commission’s argument, set out in recital 59 of its opening decision, that ‘if the representative of the State gave preference to maintaining the continuity of the public service over the right of the creditor to have his debt repaid, it cannot be excluded that the strict liability of the State could be incurred’, the French authorities recognise that the requirement of continuity of the public service is imposed on the representative of the State when implementing the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980.
Kar zadeva trditev Komisije v uvodni izjavi 59 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, da „če bi se predstavnik države raje odločil za ohranitev kontinuitete javne službe kot za pravico upnika, da se mu dolg povrne, ne bi bilo izključeno, da se lahko uveljavlja nekrivdna odgovornost države“, francoski organi priznavajo, da mora predstavnik države pri izvajanju postopka, uvedenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, upoštevati zahtevo po kontinuiteti javne službe.
Nonetheless, according to the French authorities, even if the judge were to order the creditor to be compensated, such compensation would have the effect of reinstating the creditor to the situation in which he would have been under ordinary law because, in this latter case, the good in question would have been sold and the body of creditors would have received the corresponding amount.
Vendar francoski organi menijo, da tudi če bi sodišče odredilo povrnitev škode upniku, bi bil upnik posledično postavljen v položaj, v katerem bi bil na podlagi občega prava, kajti v tem primeru bi bilo zadevno premoženje prodano, masa upnikov pa bi prejela ustrezni znesek.
There would therefore be no advantage to the creditor.
Iz tega naj ne bi izhajala nobena prednost za upnika.
The inapplicability to legal entities governed by public law of administration and winding-up procedures under ordinary law does not exclude the possibility of the bankruptcy of an EPIC or of bankruptcy proceedings against it
Neuporaba občepravnih postopkov sanacije in likvidacije za javne osebe ne izključuje možnosti stečaja EPIC ali stečajnega postopka zoper njo
According to the French authorities, the Commission’s analysis is based on its 2000 Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees (‘the 2000 Guarantees Notice’), and in particular point 2.1.3 thereof, which provides that ‘The Commission also regards as aid in the form of a guarantee, the more favourable funding terms obtained by enterprises whose legal form rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures or provides an explicit State guarantee or coverage of losses by the State’.
Po mnenju francoskih organov analiza Komisije temelji na njenem obvestilu iz leta 2000 o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev in zlasti točki 2.1.3 tega obvestila, ki določa, da „Komisija kot pomoč v obliki poroštva obravnava tudi ugodnejše pogoje financiranja, ki jih pridobijo podjetja, katerih pravna narava izključuje stečaj ali druge postopke plačilne nesposobnosti, ali zagotavlja izrecno državno poroštvo ali državni prevzem izgube“.
While noting that the rules of the Treaty take precedence over the 2000 Guarantees Notice, the French authorities identify two factors which, in their view, remove the case in question from the scope of Notice:
Francoski organi ob pripombi, da pravila Pogodbe prevladajo nad obvestilom o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000, navajajo dva elementa, zaradi katerih po njihovem mnenju navedenega obvestila ni mogoče uporabiti v obravnavanem primeru:
the 2000 Guarantees Notice stresses the fact that any aid would arise from ‘more favourable funding terms’ that would be imputed to the exclusion of the possibility of bankruptcy proceedings; but the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of ‘more favourable funding terms’,
v obvestilu o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000 je poudarjeno dejstvo, da naj bi morebitna pomoč izhajala iz „ugodnejših pogojev financiranja“, ki naj bi jih bilo treba pripisati izključitvi možnosti stečajnega postopka; Komisija pa naj ne bi dokazala obstoja takih „ugodnejših pogojev financiranja“,
the 2000 Guarantees Notice examines the case where the legal form excludes all bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings and not specific proceedings; but the Commission has not established that La Poste cannot go bankrupt, nor that insolvency proceedings are impossible.
obvestilo o državni pomoč v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000 se nanaša na primer, ko pravni status izključuje vsak stečajni postopek ali postopek plačilne nesposobnosti, ne pa enega postopka posebej; Komisija pa naj ne bi dokazala, da podjetje La Poste ne more iti v stečaj niti da ni mogoč postopek plačilne nesposobnosti.
According to the French authorities, the Law of 25 January 1985 is merely a procedural law.
Po mnenju francoskih organov je zakon z dne 25. januarja 1985 samo postopkovni zakon.
The fact that EPICs lie outside its scope does not mean that an EPIC cannot be in default, nor that the law prohibits administration, winding-up or ad hoc bankruptcy proceedings being taken against it.
Dejstvo, da EPIC ne spadajo na njegovo področje uporabe, ne pomeni, da se EPIC ne more znajti v položaju, ko se ustavijo plačila, niti ne prepoveduje, da se zoper njo uvede postopek sanacije, likvidacije ali stečaja ad hoc.
The application of the ‘procedure’ introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980, rather than the collective procedure under ordinary law, does not confer any advantage on the creditor
Uporaba „postopka“, uvedenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, namesto kolektivnega postopka občega prava upniku ne daje nobene prednosti
The French authorities, having analysed recital 68 of the opening decision, conclude that the Commission uses two criteria to assess whether the application of a specific procedure in the event of insolvency confers an advantage on the entity subject to the procedure in relation to undertakings subject to commercial law:
Francoski organi po analizi uvodne izjave 68 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka ugotavljajo, da Komisija uporablja dve merili za oceno, ali z uporabo posebnega postopka v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti subjekt, za katerega se ta postopek uporabi, pridobi prednost v primerjavi s podjetji, za katere velja trgovinsko pravo:
a criterion relating to publicity: the procedure to be followed in the event of La Poste’s insolvency should be defined and made public,
merilo objave: postopek, uporabljen v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti podjetja La Poste, bi moral biti opredeljen in objavljen,
a criterion relating to equivalence: this procedure should be either the private-law procedure or a procedure that gives the creditors of La Poste rights that are no better than those they would have under commercial law.
merilo enakovrednosti: ta postopek bi moral biti bodisi postopek zasebnega prava bodisi postopek, s katerim upniki podjetja La Poste pridobijo pravice, ki niso večje od pravic, ki bi jih imeli na podlagi trgovinskega prava.
Although the French authorities challenge the need to fulfil these two criteria, in so far as they are regarded as necessary and sufficient by the Commission, they have been used by the French authorities to analyse whether the application of the provisions of the Law of 16 July 1980 confers an advantage on the creditors of legal entities governed by public law compared with the creditors of undertakings subject to collective procedures under ordinary law.
Čeprav francoski organi izpodbijajo potrebo po upoštevanju teh meril, ker ju Komisija šteje za potrebni in zadostni, ju uporabljajo za preučitev, ali imajo z uporabo določb zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 upniki pravnih subjektov javnega prava prednost v primerjavi z upniki podjetij, za katere veljajo kolektivni postopki občega prava.
With regard to the criterion relating to publicity, the French authorities take the view that the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 is correctly identified by the rating agencies as applicable in the event of the insolvency of an EPIC, as reported by the rating agencies referred to by the Commission in relation to ERAP.
Glede merila objave francoski organi menijo, da bonitetne agencije postopek, uveden z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, pravilno opredeljujejo tako, da se uporablja v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti EPIC, kot dokazujejo ocene agencij, ki jih je Komisija navedla v zvezi s podjetjem ERAP.
With regard to the criterion relating to equivalence, the French authorities draw a distinction between the case where a requirement for continuity of the public service would apply and where such a requirement would not apply.
Kar zadeva merilo enakovrednosti, francoski organi razlikujejo med primerom, v katerem naj bi se uporabljala zahteva po kontinuiteti javne službe, in primerom, v katerem naj se taka zahteva ne bi uporabljala.
the ‘procedure’ introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 analysed from the perspective of an equivalence test — leaving aside the requirement for continuity of the public service
„Postopek“, uveden z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, analiziran z vidika preskusa enakovrednosti – zunaj zahteve po kontinuiteti javne službe
According to the French authorities, if La Poste were unable to repay its debts and if there were no requirement for continuity of the public service, the following procedure would apply: in the unlikely event of genuine financial difficulty and before reaching the stage of lack of assets, the undertaking would initially be required to open negotiations with its creditors in order to establish a plan for rescheduling liabilities.
Če podjetje La Poste ne bi bilo sposobno vrniti svojih dolgov in če ne bi veljala nobena zahteva po kontinuiteti javne službe, bi bil po mnenju francoskih organov izveden naslednji postopek: v neverjetnem primeru izkazanih finančnih težav in preden bi se ugotovilo, da v podjetju ni zadostnih sredstev, bi se moralo podjetje najprej vključiti v pogajanja z upniki, da bi pripravilo načrt sanacije obveznosti.
Next, if the plan was judged unsatisfactory or if it did not bring an end to the financial difficulties, and in the absence of a new agreement with creditors, they — or some of them — could refer the case to the competent court to obtain a judgment against the debtor and therefore have their claim recognised.
Če načrt ne bi bil zadovoljiv ali ne bi omogočal odprave finančnih težav in če ne bi bilo novega dogovora z upniki, bi lahko nato ti – ali nekateri od njih – zadevo predložili pristojnemu sodišču, da bi dosegli obsodbo dolžnika in priznanje svojih terjatev.
If the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 were to come up against La Poste’s lack of assets, and if the supervisory authority were therefore faced with financial impossibility, not having any more assets to sell in order to generate the resources needed to pay the amount due, the procedure provided for by the Law of 16 July 1980 would be terminated.
Če bi se s postopkom, uvedenim z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, ugotovilo, da podjetje La Poste nima zadostnih sredstev, in če torej nadzorni organ dejansko ne bi mogel ustvariti potrebnih sredstev za plačilo dolgovanega zneska, ker ne bi imel več nobenega sredstva za prodajo, bi bil postopek, določen z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, končan.
Therefore, according to the French authorities, assuming that there is no requirement for continuity of the public service, the application of the ‘procedure’ introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 could result in all La Poste’s assets being sold but, in the event of lack of assets, the procedure would not enable all La Poste’s creditors to be repaid.
Če se ne uporablja nobena zahteva po javni službi, bi po mnenju francoskih organov uporaba „postopka“, uvedenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, lahko povzročila unovčenje celotnih sredstev podjetja La Poste, vendar pa ta postopek v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev ne bi omogočal poplačila vseh upnikov podjetja La Poste.
At the end of the procedure, the creditors of an entity subject to the Law of 16 July 1980, taken together, would have recovered the same amount as the creditors of an entity subject to commercial law, i.e. the proceeds from the sale of the assets.
Po koncu postopka naj bi upniki subjekta, za katerega velja zakon z dne 16. julija 1980, skupno prejeli povrnjen enak znesek kot upniki subjekta, za katerega velja trgovinsko pravo, to je znesek od unovčenja sredstev.
This procedure differs in only two respects from the procedure applicable under commercial law:
Ta postopek naj bi se od postopka, ki se uporablja v trgovinskem pravu, razlikoval samo v dveh pogledih:
the absence of a single procedure for all creditors: unlike the procedure under private law, whereby claims are processed en masse and creditors are satisfied in decreasing order of priority and pro rata from the amounts available, the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 is different in that only action by the creditor enables him to protect his rights.
po neobstoju hkratne obravnave vseh upnikov: v nasprotju s postopkom zasebnega prava, v katerem se terjatve vseh upnikov obravnavajo hkrati in so upniki odškodovani v padajočem vrstnem redu privilegija ter sorazmerno z razpoložljivimi zneski, je za postopek, uveden z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, značilno, da lahko upnik samo z ukrepanjem ohrani svoje pravice.
The logic of the Law of 16 July 1980 is ‘first come, first served’,
Logika zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 je, „kdor prej pride, prej melje“,
it is the representative of the State who, under the supervision of the administrative court (monitoring for gross negligence as established by the Council of State in the Campoloro judgment of November 2005 cited above), takes on the role equivalent to that of the court-appointed liquidator and administrator.
nalogo, enakovredno nalogi likvidacijskega in sodnega upravitelja, prevzame predstavnik države pod nadzorom upravnega sodišča (nadzor resne krivde, kot jo je dokazalo sodišče Conseil d’Etat v sodbi Campoloro iz novembra 2005).
The French authorities take the view that at the end of the procedure the creditors would no longer have any redress.
Francoski organi menijo, da naj upniki po koncu postopka ne bi več imeli pravnih sredstev.
According to the French authorities, the State cannot be held liable solely on the ground of lack of assets.
Po njihovem mnenju namreč odgovornosti države ni mogoče uveljavljati samo na podlagi nezadostnosti sredstev.
Likewise, under the private-law procedure, the creditors ‘do not recover their right to take individual action’, save in exceptional circumstances, at the end of the compulsory winding-up procedure.
Tudi v postopku zasebnega prava upniki po koncu sodne likvidacije „ne pridobijo pravice do zasebnega pregona“, razen izjemoma.
the ‘procedure’ introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 analysed from the perspective of an equivalence test — taking into account the requirement for continuity of the public service
Postopek, uveden z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, analiziran z vidika preskusa enakovrednosti ob upoštevanju zahteve po kontinuiteti javne službe
In the event that the continuity of the public service would have to be guaranteed, the French authorities admit that the representative of the State, when exercising the powers conferred by the Law of 16 July 1980, could decide not to sell certain assets needed to perform a public service task.
Francoski organi priznavajo, da bi predstavnik države pri izvajanju pooblastil, podeljenih z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, lahko odločil, da se nekatera sredstva, potrebna za izpolnjevanje naloge javne službe, ne prodajo, če bi bilo treba zagotoviti kontinuiteto javne službe.
The failure to sell certain goods, for reasons relating to the requirement for continuity of the public service, would be reflected, if the State did not pay compensation, in lower proceeds from the assets and a corresponding reduction in the amounts recoverable by creditors.
Če država ne bi poskrbela za nadomestilo, bi bila posledica neprodaje določenega premoženja iz razlogov, povezanih z zahtevo po kontinuiteti javne službe, manjše unovčenje sredstev in soodnosno zmanjšanje zneskov, ki bi jih upniki lahko dobili povrnjene.
The procedure would not confer on La Poste’s creditors rights greater than those they would have had under commercial law.
S tem postopkom naj bi upniki podjetja La Poste ne dobili večjih pravic, kot bi jih imeli na podlagi trgovinskega prava.
According to the French authorities, the criterion relating to equivalence set by the Commission would therefore be met a fortiori.
Po mnenju francoskih organov naj bi bilo torej merilo enakovrednosti, ki ga je določila Komisija, a fortiori izpolnjeno.
Nonetheless, the French authorities admit that, in such an event, the State’s strict liability would then be likely to be incurred and reflected in compensation to creditors of the amount of the loss they have suffered, i.e. at most the market value of the assets that the State representative lawfully decided not to sell.
Francoski organi kljub temu priznavajo, da bi se bilo v tem primeru mogoče sklicevati na nekrivdno odgovornost države, ki bi lahko privedla do tega, da bi bili upniki odškodovani v višini škode, ki so jo utrpeli, to je največ v višini prodajne vrednosti sredstev, za katere je predstavnik države zakonito odločil, da se ne prodajo.
According to the French authorities, any such compensation would nonetheless merely reinstate the creditor in the situation that would result from the application of ordinary law and could not, therefore, confer on him, with regard to the equivalence test, any rights greater than those he would have under ordinary law.
Po mnenju francoskih organov bi bil učinek te morebitne povrnitve škode vseeno samo ta, da bi bil upnik postavljen v položaj, ki bi izhajal iz uporabe občega prava, in torej glede na preskus enakovrednosti ne bi mogel pridobiti večjih pravic, kot bi jih imel na podlagi občega prava.
The French authorities conclude that the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 fulfils the equivalence and publicity criteria set by the Commission, which are sufficient to rule out the existence of an advantage.
Francoski organi ugotavljajo, da se pri postopku, uvedenem z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, upoštevata merili enakovrednosti in objave, ki ju je določila Komisija in ki zadostujeta za zavrnitev obstoja prednosti.
They take the view that there is therefore no justification for subjecting La Poste directly to the procedure under ordinary law, which is cumbersome and complex.
Po njihovem mnenju torej ni upravičeno, da bi za podjetje La Poste neposredno veljal težek in zapleten postopek občega prava.
The instruments cited by the Commission on the future of the obligations once the establishment’s resources have been exhausted do not apply to La Poste
Besedila, ki jih Komisija navaja o prihodnosti obveznosti po izčrpanju sredstev oseb javnega prava, se za podjetje La Poste ne uporabljajo
According to the French authorities, the instruments referred to by the Commission in the opening decision, in particular in recital 69, are neither applicable nor transferable to La Poste.
Po mnenju francoskih organov besedil, ki jih Komisija navaja v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, zlasti v uvodni izjavi 69, ni mogoče za podjetje La Poste niti uporabiti niti jih ni mogoče nanj prenesti.
ABSENCE OF ADVANTAGE
NEOBSTOJ PREDNOSTI
According to the French authorities, the Commission’s analysis of the existence of a selective advantage follows two threads:
Francoski organi menijo, da analiza Komisije glede obstoja selektivne prednosti poteka z dveh vidikov:
a circular argument that is based on the 2000 Guarantee Notice,
krožnega sklepanja, ki temelji na obvestilu o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000,
an analysis of the presumed influence of the alleged measure on the rating agencies.
analize domnevnega vpliva zatrjevanega ukrepa na bonitetne agencije.
The Commission’s 2000 Guarantees Notice cannot be used to conclude that there is an advantage in the case in question
Na podlagi obvestila Komisije o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000 ni mogoče sklepati o obstoju selektivne prednosti v obravnavanem primeru
The French authorities take the view that the Commission, in recital 77 of the opening decision, wrongly interprets point 2.1.3 of the 2000 Guarantees Notice.
Francoski organi menijo, da Komisija v uvodni izjavi 77 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka napačno razlaga točko 2.1.3 obvestila o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000.
According to the French authorities, point 2.1.3 implies that, in the case of an enterprise whose legal form rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures, if the enterprise enjoys more favourable funding terms, those terms constitute State aid in the form of a guarantee.
Po njihovem mnenju točka 2.1.3 pomeni, da, če je podjetje, katerega pravni status izključuje možnost stečajnega postopka ali postopka plačilne nesposobnosti, upravičeno do ugodnejših pogojev financiranja, ti pogoji pomenijo pomoč v obliki poroštva.