natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
And it speaks of publicly owned establishments, and not of publicly owned establishments with public accountants.
Poleg tega se sklicuje na naravo osebe javnega prava, ne pa na naravo oseb javnega prava z javnim računovodjo.
The French authorities do not explain why it should apply to publicly owned establishments only if they have a public accountant.
Francoski organi tudi ne pojasnjujejo, zakaj naj bi se to mnenje uporabljalo samo za osebe javnega prava z javnim računovodjo.
As regards the arguments put forward by the French authorities to the effect that the opinion is not applicable because it predates the Organic Law on the Finance Act, and is contrary to the subsequent case law of the Council of State, the Commission has already shown here that the Organic Law does not stand in the way of an implied guarantee given by the State to La Poste.
Kar zadeva trditve francoskih organov, da naj se mnenje ne bi uporabljalo, ker je bilo sprejeto pred LOLF in v nasprotju s poznejšo sodno prakso sodišča Conseil d’Etat, je Komisija zgoraj dokazala, da LOLF ne ovira obstoja implicitnega državnega poroštva v korist podjetja La Poste.
The Commission takes the view, therefore, that the Council of State’s opinion is indeed applicable to La Poste, and that it acknowledges the existence of a state guarantee deriving from the public character of an organisation.
Komisija torej meni, da se mnenje sodišča Conseil d’Etat uporablja za podjetje La Poste in da sodišče Conseil d’Etat priznava obstoj državnega poroštva, ki izhaja iz javne narave organa.
That there are state guarantees that derive from an administrative or legislative act which ‘produces and entails financial consequences for the State’ is confirmed in a memorandum from the Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry dated 22 July 2003, concerning a ‘Census of implied and express guarantee arrangements granted by the State’.
Poleg tega je obstoj implicitnih poroštev, ki izhajajo iz upravnega ali zakonodajnega akta, ki „ustvarja in vsebuje finančne posledice za državo,“ potrjen z obvestilom ministra za gospodarstvo, finance in industrijo z dne 22. julija 2003, katerega namen je bil „popis mehanizmov implicitnega ali eksplicitnega poroštva države“.
That memorandum shows that a state guarantee can derive from legal acts of very different kinds.
To obvestilo dokazuje, da lahko državno poroštvo izhaja iz zelo različnih pravnih aktov.
In an explanatory note attached to the memorandum, in part 3, under the heading ‘Experience of calls made on guarantees and the judgments of the Council have clarified a number of textbook cases of guarantees which need to be identified’, the French authorities affirm that ‘Some legal forms by their structure entail a liability on the part of their shareholders; this is true in particular of [the forms of partnership known as] the société en nom collectif, or SNC, and the groupement momentané d’entreprises, or GIE.
Komisija tudi poudarja, da v pojasnilu, priloženem temu obvestilu, natančneje v delu 3 z naslovom „na podlagi izkušenj z aktiviranjem poroštva in sodne prakse Conseil je bilo mogoče izboljšati določeno število šolskih primerov implicitnega poroštva, ki jih je treba opredeliti,“ francoski organi navajajo, da „nekatere pravne oblike po sestavi vključujejo odgovornost svojih delničarjev, zlasti družbe z neomejeno odgovornostjo in gospodarska interesna združenja (začasna skupina podjetij).
With these last two forms third parties will always seek out the State shareholder.
Pri teh zadnjih dveh oblikah bodo tretje osebe sistematično iskale državnega delničarja.
A creditor of La Poste can be sure that his claim will be repaid
Upniku podjetja La Poste je zagotovljeno, da bo njegova terjatev poplačana
The Commission will now consider the steps to be taken by creditors of La Poste in order to settle their claims if La Poste were to be in financial difficulty and unable to meet its debts.
Komisija namerava zdaj preučiti postopek upnika podjetja La Poste za poravnavo njegove terjatve, če bi bilo podjetje La Poste v finančnih težavah in ne bi moglo plačati svojih dolgov.
The Commission will seek to determine whether, at the end of a procedure that is defined in advance and conducted in public, a creditor of La Poste will be in a position comparable to that of a creditor of an enterprise governed by commercial law.
Komisija bo ugotovila, ali je upnik po koncu vnaprej opredeljenega in objavljenega postopka v primerljivem položaju kot upnik podjetja, za katero velja trgovinsko pravo.
This examination will show that:
Ta preučitev bo pokazala, da:
the conventional obstacles to the settlement of a claim against a body governed by private law are absent in the case of a publicly owned establishment (1);
običajne ovire, ki nasprotujejo poravnavi terjatve organa zasebnega prava, ne obstajajo pri osebah javnega prava (1),
the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 for the recovery of the debts of a publicly owned establishment that has been found by a court to be in default does not in any way lead to the cancellation of the debt (2);
postopek izterjave dolgov oseb javnega prava, obsojenih s sodno odločbo, določen z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, nikakor ne vodi do izginitve dolga (2),
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 (3);
ima sistem odgovornosti države pri izvajanju postopka izterjave dolgov oseb javnega prava vse značilnosti mehanizma poroštva (3),
even if he were to fail to obtain satisfaction, a creditor could always invoke the effects of a legitimate mistake that he made when his claim arose regarding the prospect that it would always be honoured (4).
tudi če upnik ne bi dobil zadoščenja, lahko uveljavlja pravne učinke upravičene napake, ki jo je storil pri ustvarjanju terjatve glede tega, da naj bi bila vedno poplačana (4).
The conventional obstacles to the settlement of a claim against a body governed by private law are absent in the case of a publicly owned establishment
Običajne ovire, ki nasprotujejo poravnavi terjatve organa zasebnega prava, ne obstajajo pri osebah javnega prava
It was made clear in the description of the measure that La Poste is not subject to the ordinary law rules governing the compulsory administration or winding up of firms in difficulty.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno v opisu ukrepa, za podjetje La Poste ne velja obče pravo s področja sanacije in sodne likvidacije podjetij v težavah.
A creditor of La Poste is not in danger of seeing his claim cancelled because compulsory winding-up proceedings have been brought, or of obtaining only partial payment of his initial claim at the end of compulsory administration or winding-up proceedings under the ordinary law.
Upnik podjetja La Poste torej ne tvega, da bi njegova terjatev izginila zaradi sprožitve sodnega postopka likvidacije ali da bi po koncu občepravnega postopka sanacije ali sodne likvidacije dobil samo delno poplačilo svoje prvotne terjatve.
In addition, as the Commission’s expert has pointed out, the fact that La Poste has legal personality is no bar to the existence of a guarantee given by the French State.
Poleg tega, kot je poudarila izvedenka Komisije, dejstvo, da je podjetje La Poste pravna oseba, ni ovira za obstoj poroštva francoske države.
There are commercial forms of enterprise such as public limited companies (SAs) or private limited companies (SARLs) whose members are not obliged to pay the debts of the organisation in which they take part, but there are also many categories of organisation or legal person carrying on a commercial activity in which private members are indeed liable for the debts of the organisation they have set up.
Čeprav namreč obstajajo komercialne družbe, na primer delniške družbe (d.d.) in družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo (d.o.o.), v katerih družbeniki niso dolžni vrniti dolgov strukture, v kateri so udeleženi, pa nasprotno obstajajo številne kategorije družb ali pravnih oseb s komercialno dejavnostjo, katerih zasebni družbeniki odgovarjajo za dolgove ustanovljene družbe.
This is true of the forms of partnership known as the société en nom collectif, the groupement d’intérêt économique, or the société civile.
To velja za družbe z neomejeno odgovornostjo, gospodarska interesna združenja in družbe po civilnem pravu.
Thus there is no express principle of ordinary law governing the liability of members for debts.
Ni torej izrecnega načela občega prava na področju poroštva družbenikov za dolgove.
In the absence of legislation, it cannot be said that the principle that applies must necessarily be that debts or losses are not guaranteed.
Ni torej mogoče trditi, da se uporablja načelo neobstoja poroštva za dolgove in izgube, kadar besedilo ne obstaja.
In French law, the independence conferred by legal personality, or the existence of funds that belong only to the company, is not a test that allows it to be determined how the debts contracted by a legal person are guaranteed.
Neodvisnost, ki jo daje pravna oseba, in tudi obstoj lastnega premoženja v francoskem pravu nista merilo, na podlagi katerega je mogoče določiti sistem poroštva za dolgove, ki nastanejo pravni osebi.
It may also be concluded that there is nothing to prevent the legislature from providing that a publicly owned establishment can be set up by a public body that will bear any loss only up to the limit of its initial contribution or endowment.
Iz zgornjih razmislekov je mogoče tudi sklepati, da zakonodajalcu ne bi nič preprečevalo določitve, da lahko osebo javnega prava ustanovi javna oseba, ki bi izgube krila samo v višini svojega vložka ali prvotne dotacije.
The Commission’s expert has sought to complete the picture by considering whether there is an implicit principle of ordinary law governing the guaranteeing of debts in cases where the partners or members in an organisation have not chosen to join together in one of the legal forms offered by the legislature; the Commission’s expert finds an answer in Articles 1871 et seq. of the Civil Code.
Izvedenka Komisije je sklepanje dopolnila z iskanjem obstoja (implicitnega) načela občega prava na področju poroštva za dolgove, kadar se družbeniki ali člani strukture niso postavili v okvir, ki ga ponuja zakonodajalec, odgovor pa je našla v členu 1871 in naslednjih členih civilnega zakonika.
These articles deal with partners who have not registered their partnership.
V teh členih so obravnavani družbeniki, ki svoje družbe niso registrirali.
The expert concludes that in so far as there is a principle of ordinary law, it would be a principle whereby those who set up a legal person guarantee its debts.
Izvedenka iz tega sklepa, da če bi bilo treba izpeljati načelo občega prava, bi to bilo načelo poroštva za dolgove ustanovljenih pravnih oseb.
The legislation is silent on the matter, and its silence cannot be made to imply a principle of guarantee without infringing the rights of the defence that apply in French law and in the law of the Union.
V besedilih naj torej to ne bi bilo opredeljeno, zato naj ne bi bilo mogoče sklepati o načelu poroštva, razen če se kršijo pravice do obrambe v francoskem pravu in pravu Unije.
The Commission would observe, however, that Article 1871-1 of the Civil Code provides that every partner in an unregistered partnership contracts in his own name and is liable personally to third parties.
Komisija vseeno poudarja, da člen 1872-1 civilnega zakonika določa, da vsak družbenik neregistrirane družbe sklepa pogodbe v svojem imenu in ima torej edini obveznosti do tretjih oseb.
Thus every partner has unlimited liability for the debts he has contracted.
Vsak družbenik je torej neomejeno odgovoren za nastale dolgove.
The Commission does not seek to deduce from this one consideration that the State is liable for the debts of La Poste; but it does believe that the French authorities’ argument does not invalidate the Commission’s expert’s argument that in so far as there is a principle of ordinary law it would be a principle of guarantee.
Komisija seveda iz tega edinega razmisleka ne namerava sklepati, da je država odgovorna za dolgove podjetja La Poste, ampak meni, da trditev francoskih organov ne more ovreči trditve njene izvedenke, da če bi bilo treba izpeljati načelo občega prava, bi to bilo načelo poroštva.
In addition, the Commission would point out that in the explanatory note attached to the memorandum of 22 July 2003 from the Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry, the French authorities themselves draw a parallel between the liability of a shareholder for a société en nom collectif and the liability of the State for a publicly owned establishment.
Poleg tega Komisija opozarja, da francoski organi v pojasnilu, priloženem obvestilu ministra za gospodarstvo, finance in industrijo z dne 22. julija 2003, sami primerjajo odgovornost delničarja za družbo z neomejeno odgovornostjo in odgovornost države za osebo javnega prava.
unlike the creditors of undertakings governed by commercial law, creditors of La Poste (which is not subject to the ordinary law rules governing the compulsory administration and winding up of firms in difficulty) are not in danger of seeing their claim cancelled in whole or in part following court liquidation proceedings;
v nasprotju z upniki podjetij, za katere velja trgovinsko pravo, upniki podjetja La Poste (glede na to, da zanj ne velja obče pravo s področja sanacije in sodne likvidacije podjetij v težavah) ne tvegajo, da bi njihova terjatev po koncu sodnega postopka likvidacije popolnoma ali deloma izginila,
the fact that La Poste has legal personality is no bar to a state guarantee to La Poste; and
dejstvo, da je podjetje La Poste pravna oseba, ni ovira za državno poroštvo v korist podjetja La Poste,
in the absence of any express limitation on the State’s liability in respect of La Poste, La Poste’s creditors may legitimately act on the principle that the State will bear the debts of La Poste, even though La Poste possesses legal personality.
ker odgovornost države v zvezi s podjetjem La Poste ni izrecno omejena, se upniki podjetja La Poste lahko zakonito oprejo na načelo, po katerem država krije dolgove podjetja La Poste, čeprav je La Poste pravna oseba.
The procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 for the recovery of the debts of a publicly owned establishment that has been found by a court to be in default does not in any way lead to the cancellation of the debt
Postopek izterjave dolgov oseb javnega prava, obsojenih s sodno odločbo, določen z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, nikakor ne vodi do izginitve dolga
The Commission will now consider the procedure for the recovery of the debts of publicly owned establishments that have been found by a court to be in default, in order to determine whether the procedure can result in the extinction of a claim on La Poste, which would make the outcome for the creditor similar to that of insolvency proceedings in the courts, as the French authorities assert.
Komisija namerava zdaj preučiti postopek izterjave dolgov oseb javnega prava, obsojenih s sodno odločbo, da bi ugotovila, ali lahko ta postopek vodi do ugasnitve terjatve do podjetja La Poste, pri čemer je rezultat za upnika podoben rezultatu, ki izhaja iz uporabe sodnih postopkov, kot trdijo francoski organi.
The procedure is laid down in the Law of 16 July 1980 and in implementing provisions which are cited in the section of this Decision describing the measure.
Ta postopek je bil določen z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 in različnimi izvedbenimi besedili, ki so navedena v oddelku tega sklepa o opisu ukrepa.
The Law of 16 July 1980 confers important prerogatives on the State: the mandatory payment order and the creation of sufficient resources
Z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 so državi podeljene pomembne posebne pravice: plačilo po uradni dolžnosti in ustvarjanje zadostnih sredstev
As has been explained in the description of the measure, the Law of 16 July 1980 provides that ‘if the decision-making body of the authority or establishment has not released or created the resources […] the supervisory authority shall do so, and if necessary shall issue a mandatory payment order’.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno pri opisu ukrepa, zakon z dne 16. julija 1980 določa: „če posvetovalni organ skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava ni zagotovil ali ustvaril sredstev, za to poskrbi […] nadzorni organ ter po potrebi izvrši plačilo po uradni dolžnosti“.
The Decree of 12 May 1981, which on this point remains unchanged by the amending Decree of 2008, states that the representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision ‘shall, as appropriate, release the necessary resources, either by reducing the appropriations allocated to other expenditures and still available, or by increasing resources’.
Poleg tega je v odloku z dne 12. maja 1981, ki v tej točki ni bil spremenjen z odlokom iz leta 2008, pojasnjeno, da predstavnik države ali organ, pristojen za nadzor, „po potrebi zagotovi potrebna sredstva bodisi z zmanjšanjem sredstev, ki so namenjena za druge odhodke in so še na voljo, bodisi s povečanjem sredstev“.
Thus the Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it designate the State as the authority responsible for covering the debts of publicly owned establishments.
Z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 in njegovimi izvedbenimi ukrepi je država torej določena kot pristojni organ za izterjavo dolgov oseb javnega prava.
They also confer important prerogatives on the State: the mandatory payment order and the creation of sufficient resources.
Poleg tega sta ji s temi besedili podeljeni pomembni posebni pravici: plačilo po uradni dolžnosti in ustvarjanje zadostnih sredstev.
The French authorities deny that the resources referred to here can ever be state resources.
Francoski organi zavračajo zamisel, da bi navedena sredstva lahko bila državna sredstva. Kot je navedeno v delu v zvezi s pripombami države članice, francoski organi namreč trdijo, da je z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 nadzornemu organu podeljeno pooblastilo za nadomestitev. V zvezi s tem naj bi nadzorni organ lahko izvajal samo pristojnosti tega izvršilnega organa, ki ne vključujejo možnosti razpolaganja z državnimi sredstvi.
As has been indicated in the part of this Decision concerning the observations of the Member State, the French authorities contend that the power conferred on the supervising authority by the Law of 16 July 1980 is only one of substitution. The supervising authority is empowered only to exercise the powers of the executive into whose shoes it steps, and those powers do not include the power to avail itself of the state budget.
V podporo tej razlagi so navedeni pripravljalna dela za zakon z dne 16. julija 1980, članki pravnih teoretikov ter odločitve sodišča Conseil d’Etat v zvezi z zadevo Campoloro.
In support of this interpretation the French authorities cite the legislative history of the Law of 16 July 1980, a number of scholarly articles, and the decisions of the Council of State in Campoloro. They acknowledge, however, that the 1980 Law does not in principle prevent the State from providing financing to support the public body concerned.
Francoski organi vseeno priznavajo, da zakon iz leta 1980 načelno ne prepoveduje finančnega posredovanja države v podporo zadevni javni osebi.
The Commission accepts that the legislation does not expressly require the State to subsidise a publicly owned establishment on an exceptional basis if it is in financial difficulty.
Komisija priznava, da v besedilih ni izrecno določena obveznost države, da v primeru, da ima oseba javnega prava finančne težave, tej izplača izredno subvencijo.
This does not in any way invalidate the demonstration of the existence of an implied guarantee.
Vendar pa to nikakor ne more ovreči dokaza obstoja implicitnega poroštva.
The Commission also accepts that the resources to be released in the first place are the resources of the establishment itself.
Komisija tudi priznava, da so sredstva, ki jih je treba zagotoviti, najprej lastna sredstva osebe javnega prava.
But this does not prevent a finding that once a publicly owned establishment’s own resources are exhausted its debts can be honoured only out of state funds.
Kljub temu se lahko ugotovi, da je mogoče dolgove osebe javnega prava, ki je dolžnica, po izčrpanju lastnih sredstev plačati samo z državnimi sredstvi.
Such a finding is consistent with the fact that a guarantee mechanism is a subsidiary mechanism, in that the debtor’s own resources are called upon before those of the guarantor.
Ta ugotovitev je v skladu z dejstvom, da je mehanizem poroštva podreden v tem smislu, da se sredstva dolžnika zberejo pred sredstvi njegovega poroka.
The Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it do not lay down a procedure for liquidation with cancellation of obligations: a shortage of funds will be covered, or will be only temporary
Zakon z dne 16. julija 1980 in njegovi izvedbeni ukrepi ne določajo postopka likvidacije–prenehanja obstoja s prenehanjem obveznosti; položaj nezadostnosti sredstev je krit ali samo začasen
The Commission will now consider the interpretation of the French authorities which maintains that at the end of the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 some creditors may see their claim irrevocably cancelled, and that their situation is equivalent to that of creditors of undertakings subject to court proceedings.
Komisija bo zdaj preučila razlago francoskih organov, v skladu s katero bi po koncu postopka, določenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, nekaterim upnikom njihova terjatev lahko prenehala brez možnosti pravnega sredstva in bi bil njihov položaj enak položaju upnikov podjetij, za katera veljajo sodni postopki.
The Commission’s expert observes that the Law of 16 July 1980 and the Decree implementing it support the view that in the event that funds are insufficient there are only two possibilities open: either the supervising authority releases the necessary resources, or the payment is deferred.
Izvedenka Komisije poudarja, da zakon z dne 16. julija 1980 in njegov izvedbeni odlok kažeta, da sta v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev mogoča samo dva primera: bodisi nadzorni organ zagotovi potrebna sredstva bodisi se plačilo odloži.
At no stage does the procedure indicate that in the event of a continuing insufficiency of funds the debt will come to an end.
Nikjer ni navedeno, da bi bil postopek v primeru trajne nezadostnosti sredstev ustavljen.
The Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it do provide for a situation where funds are insufficient, but they treat this situation as a temporary one, pending the creation of additional resources, which is the only outcome they envisage.
Čeprav je namreč položaj nezadostnosti sredstev predviden z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 in njegovimi izvedbenimi ukrepi, se ta položaj šteje samo za začasnega, dokler se ne ustvarijo dodatna sredstva, kar je edini izhod, predviden z besedili.
At no stage do they contemplate a situation where the creation of additional resources is impossible or the resources thereby created are in turn insufficient.
Nikjer ni predvideno, da bi bilo to ustvarjanje dodatnih sredstev nemogoče ali nezadostno.
After the creation of resources, the legislation indicates that the responsible authority is to issue a mandatory payment order.
Po tej fazi ustvarjanja sredstev je v besedilih navedeno, da pristojni organ izvrši plačilo po uradni dolžnosti.
The 1989 circular referred to above is more precise with regard to a shortage of funds, stressing that it is necessarily of a temporary character, since the creditor must be informed of the balance that will be paid later.
Zgoraj navedena okrožnica iz leta 1989 je še natančnejša v zvezi z nezadostnostjo sredstev in vztraja pri nujno začasni naravi te nezadostnosti, kajti v tem primeru je treba upniku sporočiti preostanek, ki bo plačan pozneje.
According to the Commission’s expert, ‘from a reading of this legislation, creditors can conclude that if their claim is not met immediately it will be met at a later date’.
Kot navaja izvedenka Komisije, „lahko upniki z branjem teh besedil sklepajo, da bo njihova terjatev, če ne bo poplačana takoj, poplačana pozneje“.