natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
a mechanism for transferring from La Poste to the State any negative effect on the spread linked to the fact that La Poste is not subject to collective procedures under ordinary law.
mehanizem retrocesije morebitnega negativnega učinka na spread, ki bi bil povezan s tem, da za podjetje La Poste ne veljajo kolektivni postopki občega prava, s podjetja La Poste na državo.
CLARIFICATION OF THE DECREE IMPLEMENTING THE LAW OF 16 JULY 1980
POJASNILO ODLOKA O IZVAJANJU ZAKONA Z DNE 16. JULIJA 1980
According to the French authorities, there is no need to amend the substance of the provisions in question, but simply to clarify how they are interpreted.
Francoski organi navajajo, da ne gre za spremembo vsebine zadevnih določb, ampak samo za pojasnilo njihove razlage.
They are therefore proposing to amend the Decree implementing the Law.
Zato predlagajo spremembo odloka o izvajanju zakona.
The amendment would apply to the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Decree, which organises the supervisory power conferred on the Prefect or on the supervisory authority.
Sprememba naj bi se nanašala na četrti odstavek člena 3-1 odloka, s katerim je urejeno pooblastilo za nadzor, podeljeno prefektu ali nadzornemu organu.
The amendment must dispel any misgivings harboured by the Commission concerning the scope of the expression ‘shall do so’ (‘y pourvoit’).
S spremembo naj bi se odpravil vsak pomislek, ki ga ima Komisija glede pomena izraza „za to poskrbi“.
It is therefore proposed to spell out that the representative of the State or the supervisory authority must release resources from the budget of the regional or local authority, or the establishment.
Predlaga se torej pojasnilo, da predstavnik države ali organ, pristojen za nadzor, zagotovi sredstva v okviru proračuna skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava.
Duly amended, the provision in the Decree would read:
Tako spremenjena določba odloka bi se glasila:
‘If the notice given has had no effect by the time these deadlines expire, the representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision shall enter the expenditure in the budget of the defaulting authority or publicly owned establishment.
„Če ob izteku teh rokov opomin ostaja brez učinka, predstavnik države ali organ, pristojen za nadzor, odhodek vpiše v proračun skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava, ki ni izpolnila obveznosti.
The representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision shall, as appropriate, release the necessary resources from the budget of the defaulting authority or establishment, either by reducing the appropriations allocated to other expenditures and still available or by increasing resources’ (the amendment is shown in italic).
Po potrebi zagotovi potrebna sredstva v okviru proračuna skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava bodisi z zmanjšanjem sredstev, ki so namenjena za druge odhodke in so še na voljo, bodisi s povečanjem sredstev“ (spremembe so podčrtane).
According to the French authorities, this proposal, in association with the observations and the academic articles supplied during the previous discussions on the opening letter, prevents the Prefect or the representative of the State, under the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980, from increasing the resources of the local authority or establishment concerned by a subsidy from the State or an injection of public resources.
Po mnenju francoskih organov je s tem predlogom v povezavi s pripombami in članki pravnih teoretikov, poslanimi med razpravami pred dopisom o sprožitvi postopka, izključeno, da bi prefekt ali predstavnik države v okviru postopka, uvedenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, lahko povečal sredstva zadevne skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava s subvencijo države ali injekcijo javnih sredstev.
INCORPORATION OF A REFERENCE SPELLING OUT THE ABSENCE OF GUARANTEE IN LA POSTE’S CONTRACTS INVOLVING A CLAIM
VKLJUČITEV NAVEDBE O NEOBSTOJU POROŠTVA V POGODBE PODJETJA LA POSTE, KI VKLJUČUJEJO TERJATVE
The initial proposal by the French authorities
Prvotni predlog francoskih organov
In recital 59 of the opening decision, the Commission took the view that the proposal by the French authorities to amend the Decree implementing the Law of 16 July 1980‘does not exclude the possibility that, where the resources of La Poste are exhausted, the creditor who has not obtained repayment of his claim under application of the Law of 16 July 1980 could bring legal action to render the State liable on the basis of a breach of the principle of equality before public burdens’.
Komisija v uvodni izjavi 59 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka meni, da na podlagi predloga francoskih organov za spremembo odloka o izvajanju zakona z dne 16. julija 1980„ni mogoče izključiti, da se bo v primeru izčrpanja sredstev podjetja La Poste upnik, ki mu terjatev ni bila poplačana na podlagi zakona iz leta 1980, obrnil na sodišče in uveljavljal odgovornost države na podlagi kršitve enakosti pred javnimi bremeni“.
Although the French authorities deny that the State can be held liable solely on the grounds of La Poste’s insolvency, in order to dispel any doubts in the Commission, the French authorities are making a proposal based on the exception of accepted risk.
Čeprav francoski organi zanikajo, da bi bilo odgovornost države mogoče uveljavljati samo na podlagi plačilne nesposobnosti podjetja La Poste, pa zaradi odprave pomislekov Komisije ponujajo predlog, ki temelji na izjemi sprejetega tveganja.
This exception, which applies both to the liability of the State with or without fault, is based on the principle that the injury resulting from a situation to which the victim knowingly exposed himself precludes the victim from having any right to compensation (see the judgments by the Council of State in Sille and Meunier.
Ta izjema, ki se uporablja za sistem krivdne in nekrivdne odgovornosti države, temelji na načelu, da v zvezi s škodo, nastalo zaradi položaja, ki se mu je žrtev vede izpostavila, ne obstaja pravica do povrnitve škode (glej sodbi sodišča Conseil d’Etat v zadevah Sille in Meunier ).
Consequently, in order to ensure that this exception is applied, the French authorities propose to confirm officially to La Poste’s creditors that their claim does not enjoy a state guarantee and that, in the event of insolvency, the State would not be obliged to substitute itself for the undertaking financially to pay the claim.
Da bi si francoski organi zagotovili uporabo te izjeme, predlagajo, naj se upnikom podjetja La Poste uradno potrdi, da za njihovo terjatev ni državnega poroštva in da v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti država ne bo odgovorna za poplačilo terjatev namesto tega podjetja.
Such a notification is not against the law since the law in no way provides that in the event of La Poste’s insolvency, the State should replace the undertaking financially in order to pay its debts.
Taka informacija ni v nasprotju z zakonom, saj zakon nikjer ne določa, da bi morala država v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti podjetja La Poste prevzeti odgovornost za poplačilo njegovih dolgov.
Beyond the clarification of the Decree implementing the Law of 16 July 1980, the French authorities therefore undertake, jointly with La Poste, to include the following statement in the financing contract for each transaction (for all instruments covered by a contract):
Poleg pojasnila odloka o izvajanju zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 se torej francoski organi, skupaj s podjetjem La Poste, obvezujejo, da bodo za vsak postopek v pogodbe o financiranju (za vsak instrument iz pogodbe) vključili naslednje:
‘The issue/programme/loan does not enjoy any form of direct or indirect state guarantee.
„Za izdajo/program/posojilo ni odobreno nobeno posredno ali neposredno državno poroštvo.
In the event of insolvency, the State would not be obliged to act as financial substitute for La Poste for payment of the claim’.
V primeru plačilne nesposobnosti podjetja La Poste država ne bo odgovorna za poplačilo terjatev namesto tega podjetja.“
The Commission’s misgivings set out in the opening decision
Pomisleki, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka
In recital 61 of the opening decision, the Commission sets out the following misgivings concerning the above proposals by the French authorities:
Komisija je v točki 61 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka navedla naslednje pomisleke glede zgoraj navedenega predloga francoskih organov:
the exception of accepted risk is a rule established by case law that could develop,
izjema sprejetega tveganja je pravilo, določeno s sodno prakso, ki bi se lahko spremenila,
‘this argument, which is derived from the fundamental principles of public law, through secondary law instruments, appears imperfect because those instruments would be likely to be annulled in the event of conflict’,
„ta predlog, ki izhaja iz temeljnih načel javnega prava in temelji na instrumentih sekundarnega prava, se zdi nepopoln, ker bi bili ti instrumenti v primeru spora dokaj zlahka razveljavljeni“,
finally, La Poste’s debts are not only financial but also commercial or other; these scenarios are not addressed by the additional proposal by the French authorities.
nazadnje, terjatve podjetja La Poste niso samo finančne, ampak so tudi komercialne ali druge narave; ti primeri pa v dodatnem predlogu francoskih organov niso obravnavani.
Information provided by the French authorities to address these misgivings
Odgovori francoskih organov na te pomisleke
As pointed out above, according to the French authorities the State’s strict liability cannot be incurred solely on the grounds of La Poste’s lack of assets because making the State liable requires a decision by the State to act or not to act, and in this case there is a practical impossibility of acting.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, francoski organi menijo, da nekrivdne odgovornosti države ni mogoče uveljavljati samo na podlagi nezadostnosti sredstev podjetja La Poste, ker mora za uveljavljanje odgovornosti države obstajati odločitev države o izvršitvi ali opustitvi, tu pa obstaja praktična nezmožnost izvršitve.
The French authorities’ proposal therefore has value only as an additional means of clarification for creditors since the proposal would incidentally remove any risk of the State’s strict liability being incurred thanks to the exception of accepted risk.
Predlog francoskih organov torej velja samo kot dodatni ukrep pojasnila za upnike, poleg tega pa zaradi izjeme sprejetega tveganja omogoča izločitev vsakega tveganja uveljavljanja nekrivdne odgovornosti države.
According to the French authorities, the Commission’s first objection amounts to taking the view that, even if the national law of a Member State did not include a provision, the mere risk of a change in case law, i.e. a change in national law, is enough to constitute State aid.
Po mnenju francoskih organov bi prvi ugovor Komisije privedel do ugotovitve, da tudi če v notranjem pravu države članice ni določbe, bi tveganje preobrata sodne prakse, to je spremembe notranjega prava, zadostovalo za utemeljitev državne pomoči.
The French authorities challenge that reasoning.
Francoski organi izpodbijajo to sklepanje.
According to them, the exception of accepted risk is a general principle of public law that has been confirmed by case law on many occasions, never contradicted and widely commented.
Po njihovem mnenju je izjema sprejetega tveganja splošno načelo javnega prava, ki je bilo s sodno prakso mnogokrat potrjeno, nikoli zavrnjeno in obširno obravnavano.
The Commission cannot argue that there is State aid because of a possible change in the law, which in this case is highly improbable.
Komisija potencialnega ukrepa pomoči ne more utemeljiti z morebitno spremembo prava, ki je v tem primeru več kot neverjetna.
The Commission’s second objection relates to the fact that these secondary law instruments are easily annulled in case of conflict.
Drugi ugovor Komisije se nanaša na dejstvo, da gre za instrumente sekundarnega prava, ki jih je mogoče v primeru spora zlahka razveljaviti.
It is true that the law and the regulation take precedence over the contract.
Res je, da zakon in uredba prevladata nad pogodbo.
However, for the Commission’s objection to have real weight, it would have to rely on a higher-ranking text.
Toda da bi bil ugovor Komisije dejansko upošteven, bi se moral sklicevati na besedilo višje ravni.
According to the French authorities, there is nothing to support the Commission’s objection on this point.
Po mnenju francoskih organov nič ne podpira ugovora Komisije v zvezi s tem.
However, the French authorities admit that the third objection, which is that bond issues are not the only instruments giving rise to claims, is pertinent, although of limited scope in the case of La Poste because financial debt is La Poste’s main form of debt and the vast majority is bond debt.
Vendar pa francoski organi priznavajo, da je tretji ugovor, s katerim je ugotovljeno, da izdaje obveznic niso edini instrumenti, ki ustvarjajo terjatve, upošteven, toda v omejenem obsegu v primeru podjetja La Poste, ker je finančni dolg glavni dolg podjetja La Poste in ker je to podjetje večinoma zadolženo prek izdaje obveznic.
Extension of the proposal
Razširitev predloga
The French authorities have therefore indicated that they would be willing, if the Commission closed the formal investigation procedure by a decision to the effect that there is no aid within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Procedural Regulation, to extend their proposal to include a statement concerning the absence of a guarantee to all contracts involving a claim.
Francoski organi so torej pojasnili, da so, če bi Komisija končala formalni postopek preiskave s sklepom o neobstoju pomoči v smislu člena 7(2) postopkovne uredbe, pripravljeni razširiti svoj predlog o vključitvi neobstoja poroštva na vse pogodbe, ki vključujejo terjatve.
According to the French authorities, this extension would make it possible to avoid any risk of incurring the State’s strict liability based solely on La Poste’s insolvency.
Po mnenju francoskih organov bi bilo na podlagi te razširitve mogoče izključiti vsakršno tveganje uveljavljanja nekrivdne odgovornosti države samo na podlagi plačilne nesposobnosti podjetja La Poste.
Moreover, incurring the State’s strict liability because of a decision by the supervisory authority not to sell the assets needed for the continuity of the public service would simply have the effect of placing La Poste’s creditors in the same situation they would have been in had they been creditors of a public limited company.
Poleg tega naj bi bil učinek uveljavljanja nekrivdne odgovornosti države zaradi odločitve nadzornega organa, da ne proda sredstev, potrebnih za kontinuiteto javne službe, samo ta, da bi bili upniki podjetja La Poste postavljeni v položaj, v katerem bi bili, če bi bili upniki delniške družbe.
Assessment by the French authorities of the classification of the measures as aid following their proposals
Presoja francoskih organov glede opredelitve ukrepov kot pomoči po njihovih predlogih
According to the French authorities, the two clarification measures proposed above would allow La Poste’s creditors to be made fully aware of their rights.
Po mnenju francoskih organov naj bi zgoraj predlagana ukrepa pojasnitve omogočila, da se upniki podjetja La Poste seznanijo s svojimi pravicami.
Consequently, the French authorities cannot be considered as ‘responsible for the expectations created in the minds of La Poste’s creditors concerning the existence of a guarantee’ and as voluntarily maintaining ‘an opaque legal situation’ that could lead the State ‘to be obliged to repay La Poste’s debts if it were no longer able to meet its commitments’, as the Commission maintains in recital 74 of its opening decision.
Zato za francoske organe ni mogoče šteti, kot je to storila Komisija v uvodni izjavi 74 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, da so „odgovorni za pričakovanja, ustvarjena pri upnikih podjetja La Poste glede obstoja poroštva,“ in da prostovoljno vzdržujejo „nejasen pravni položaj“, ki bi državo lahko privedel do tega, da „bi morala vrniti dolgove podjetja La Poste, če to podjetje ne bi več moglo izpolnjevati svojih obveznosti“.
According to the French authorities, the fact that La Poste is subject not to collective procedures under ordinary law but to the provisions of the Law of 16 July 1980 does not mean that it is possible to conclude that there is a state guarantee; second, the proposed clarification measures make it possible to dismiss any State responsibility for the market’s alleged faith in such a guarantee.
Po mnenju francoskih organov namreč po eni strani na podlagi dejstva, da za podjetje La Poste ne veljajo kolektivni postopki občega prava, ampak se zanj uporabljajo določbe zakona z dne 16. julija 1980, ni mogoče ugotoviti obstoja državnega poroštva; po drugi strani se lahko s predlaganima ukrepoma pojasnitve izključiti vsaka odgovornost države za domnevno zaupanje trga v tako poroštvo.
Under these conditions, it is not possible to hold the State responsible for any potential effect.
V teh okoliščinah ni mogoče državi pripisati nobenega morebitnega učinka.
The criterion of imputability is therefore not met, contrary to what the Commission states in recital 76 of the opening decision.
Merilo pripisa odgovornosti naj torej ne bi bilo izpolnjeno, kar je v nasprotju s trditvijo Komisije v uvodni izjavi 76 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka.
Likewise, recital 75 of the opening decision, in which the Commission refers to the 2000 Guarantees Notice to justify the presence of state resources, is no longer valid because the facts do not support the existence of a state guarantee.
Prav tako naj ne bi držala uvodna izjava 75 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, v kateri se Komisija sklicuje na svoje obvestilo o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000, navedeno za utemeljitev prisotnosti državnih sredstev, ker naj ne bi nobeno dejstvo potrjevalo obstoja državnega poroštva.
TRANSFER MECHANISM
MEHANIZEM RETROCESIJE
In order to supplement the proposed mechanism, the French authorities would be willing to consider with the Commission the following approach.
Za dopolnitev predlaganega mehanizma naj bi bili francoski organi pripravljeni s Komisijo preučiti naslednji pristop.
The proposed approach results from the analysis of the Commission position in point 2.1.3 of its 2000 Guarantees Notice: ‘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’. Likewise, in recital 114 of its opening decision, the Commission points out that it regards as a problem the fact that ‘France is not taking all measures necessary to prevent this legal form producing economic effects to the benefit of an undertaking that operates on competitive markets’.
Predlagani pristop izhaja iz analize stališča Komisije v odstavku 2.1.3 njenega obvestila o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000: „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.“ Prav tako Komisija v uvodni izjavi 114 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka navaja, da se ji zdi problematično dejstvo, da „Francija ne sprejme vseh koristnih ukrepov za preprečitev, da bi ta status povzročil gospodarske učinke v korist podjetja, ki deluje na konkurenčnih trgih“.
The French authorities challenge the applicability to La Poste of point 2.1.3 of the Commission’s 2000 Guarantees Notice and maintain that the Commission has been unable to establish that the fact that La Poste is not subject to collective procedures under private law is reflected in more favourable financing conditions.
Francoski organi ugovarjajo dejstvu, da se točka 2.1.3 obvestila Komisije o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev iz leta 2000 uporablja za podjetje La Poste, in trdijo, da Komisija ni mogla dokazati, da dejstvo, da za podjetje La Poste ne veljajo kolektivni postopki zasebnega prava, vodi do ugodnejših pogojev financiranja.
Nonetheless, the French authorities have offered to examine with the Commission the setting up of a transfer mechanism by La Poste to the State, on a euro-for-euro basis, of any adverse effect on the spread that is linked to the fact that La Poste is not subject to collective procedures under private law, using a calculation method that would be validated by the Commission and could be audited.
Kljub temu so francoski organi Komisiji predlagali skupno preučitev vzpostavitve mehanizma retrocesije s podjetja La Poste na državo, na podlagi načela euro za euro, za morebitni negativni učinek na spread, ki bi bil povezan z dejstvom, da za podjetje La Poste ne veljajo kolektivni postopki občega prava, v skladu z mehanizmom izračuna, ki bi ga potrdila Komisija in ki bi ga bilo mogoče revidirati.
According to the French authorities, the introduction of such an approach would complement the clarification proposals set out above in order to extinguish the myth of a state guarantee, while definitively avoiding any risk of aid.
Po mnenju francoskih organov bi bila z izvedbo takega pristopa dopolnjena zgoraj navedena predloga pojasnitve, s čimer bi se končal mit o državnem poroštvu in bi se dokončno izključilo vsako tveganje pomoči.
ASSESSMENT
OCENA POMOČI
CLASSIFICATION AS AID
OPREDELITEV KOT POMOČ
Article 107(1) TFEU reads: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
Člen 107(1) PDEU določa: „Razen če Pogodbi ne določata drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.“
UNLIMITED STATE GUARANTEE: STATE RESOURCES
OBSTOJ NEOMEJENEGA DRŽAVNEGA POROŠTVA: PRISOTNOST DRŽAVNIH SREDSTEV
As was pointed out in recital 56 of the opening decision, La Poste has the status of a publicly owned establishment of an industrial or commercial character, or ‘EPIC’, and consequently enjoys a special legal position with regard to the payment of its creditors and its continuation in business in the event of insolvency.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 56 odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, ima podjetje La Poste zaradi svojega statusa osebe javnega prava, ki se šteje za enakovredno osebi javnega prava industrijske in komercialne narave, poseben pravni položaj, kar zadeva poplačilo upnikov in ohranitev obstoja v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti.
By way of introduction, the Commission would point out that La Poste is not subject to the ordinary law rules governing the administration and winding up of firms in difficulty.
Komisija najprej opozarja, da za podjetje La Poste ne velja obče pravo s področja sanacije in likvidacije podjetij v težavah.
The French authorities do not contest this point, but deny that there is any mechanism that might be equivalent to a state guarantee for La Poste.
Francoski organi temu ne ugovarjajo, zanikajo pa obstoj kakršnega koli mehanizma, enakovrednega državnemu poroštvu, v korist podjetja La Poste.