natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [3],
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenima določbama, [3]
1 PROCEDURE
1 POSTOPEK
In the course of a formal investigation in State aid case No C 51/05, concerning aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole [4], the French authorities informed the Commission, by letter dated 18 July 2006, registered as received on 19 July 2006, that on 7 July 2006 the Institut Français du Pétrole (‘IFP’), which had formerly been a trade body (établissement professional) within the meaning of the legislation known as Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests (loi sur la gestion des intérêts professionnels), had now been converted into a publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial — ‘EPIC’).
Francoski organi so v okviru formalne preiskave državne pomoči C 51/05 glede ukrepov pomoči, ki jih je Francija odobrila Institut Français du Pétrole [4], v dopisu z dne 18. julija 2006, evidentiranem 19. julija 2006, službe Komisije obvestili, da se je oseba javnega prava IFP, prej strokovna ustanova v smislu akta, imenovanega zakon št. 43-612 z dne 17. novembra 1943 o upravljanju poklicnih interesov, 7. julija 2006 preoblikovala v osebo javnega prava industrijske in komercialne narave („établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial“, v nadaljnjem besedilu: EPIC).
This conversion was evidenced in two documents which the French authorities enclosed with their letter: i) Decree No 2006-797 of 6 July 2006 establishing the constitution of the publicly owned establishment IFP (décret portant statuts de l’établissement public IFP), and ii) Article 95 of Programme Law No 2005-781 of 13 July 2005 establishing the energy policy guidelines (loi de programme fixant les orientations de la politique énergétique), under which the Decree cited above had been issued.
Podlaga za preoblikovanje je v dveh dokumentih, ki so ju francoski organi priložili dopisu: (i) odlok št. 2006-797 z dne 6. julija 2006 o določitvi novega statuta osebe javnega prava IFP in (ii) člen 95 programskega zakona št. 2005-781 z dne 13. julija 2005 o določitvi smernic energetske politike (v skladu s katerim je bil sprejet navedeni odlok).
By letters dated 3 August 2007 and 7 May 2008, the Commission requested information from the French authorities; they replied by letters dated 28 September 2007 and 26 June 2008 respectively.
Komisija je z dopisoma z dne 3. avgusta 2007 in 7. maja 2008 na francoske organe naslovila zahtevi po podatkih, na kateri so ti odgovorili v dopisih z dne 28. septembra 2007 in 26. junija 2008.
On 16 July 2008, in a previous case, the Commission adopted a decision on a first measure implemented by France to assist the IFP group (‘decision C 51/2005’) [5].
Komisija je v okviru predhodne zadeve 16. julija 2008 sprejela Odločbo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Odločba C 51/2005) o prvi državni pomoči Francije za skupino IFP [5].
In that decision, the Commission stressed that the question of the existence of additional State aid, in the form of a potential unlimited State guarantee stemming from the EPIC status of IFP, would be the subject of a separate investigation in another proceeding.
V njej je poudarila, da je vprašanje obstoja dodatne državne pomoči v obliki morebitnega neomejenega državnega poroštva na podlagi statusa EPIC, ki ga ima oseba javnega prava IFP, predmet ločene preiskave v okviru drugega postopka.
This second proceeding under Article 108(2) TFEU was the subject of a Commission decision dated 16 July 2008 (‘the opening decision’) [6], taken pursuant to Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [7] (‘the Procedural Regulation’), against the unlimited State guarantee from which the IFP group was potentially benefiting.
Drugi postopek iz člena 108(2) PDEU je bil predmet odločitve Komisije z dne 16. julija 2008 [6] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločitev o začetku postopka), sprejete na podlagi člena 4(4) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [7] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: postopkovna uredba), o neomejenem državnem poroštvu, do katerega je lahko bila upravičena skupina IFP.
The Commission published the opening decision in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 October 2008, asking interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.
Komisija je 11. oktobra 2008 z objavo zgoraj navedene odločitve o začetku postopka v Uradnem listu Evropske unije zainteresirane tretje osebe pozvala k predložitvi pripomb k zadevnemu ukrepu.
The Commission received observations from France by letter dated 14 October 2008.
Pripombe Francije je prejela v dopisu z dne 14. oktobra 2008.
By letter dated 6 November 2008, registered as received by the Commission on the same day, the legal advisers of UOP Ltd (‘UOP’) informed the Commission that their client wished to comment on the measure.
Svetovalci družbe UOP Limited so Komisijo v dopisu z dne 6. novembra 2008, evidentiranem pri Komisiji istega dne, obvestili o želji svoje stranke, da pripravi pripombe k zadevnemu ukrepu.
In view of the time needed for translation, they asked for extra time until 30 November 2008 in which to send their comments.
Ob upoštevanju potrebnega roka za prevod so tedaj zaprosili za podaljšanje roka do 30. novembra 2008, da bi lahko predložili pripombe.
In the same letter of 28 November 2008 UOP’s legal advisers sought permission for their client to submit additional comments in the course of the proceeding.
Svetovalci družbe UOP Limited so v istem dopisu z dne 28. novembra 2008 zaprosili za dovoljenje, da bi lahko njihova stranka med postopkom predložila dodatne pripombe.
By letter dated 17 December 2008, the Commission acceded to this request, agreeing to extend the deadline for UOP’s reply until 23 January 2009 to enable it to submit any additional comments.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 17. decembra 2008 odgovorila na prošnjo in sprejela podaljšanje roka za odgovor družbe UOP Limited do 23. januarja 2009, tako da ji je omogočila predložitev morebitnih dodatnih pripomb.
By letter dated 23 January 2009, UOP’s legal advisers forwarded additional comments from their client.
Svetovalci družbe UOP Limited so v dopisu z dne 23. januarja 2009 predložili dodatne pripombe svoje stranke.
By letter dated 6 May 2009, the Commission communicated to the French authorities all the comments made by UOP on the opening decision, where necessary in a confidential version.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 6. maja 2009 francoskim organom poslala vse pripombe družbe UOP Limited k odločitvi o začetku postopka, po potrebi v zaupni različici.
By letter dated 20 November 2009, the Commission requested further information from the French authorities, asking for a reply within twenty days.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 20. novembra 2009 zaprosila francoske organe za nove dodatne informacije in jih pozvala k predložitvi odgovora v dvajsetih dneh.
On 20 May 2010, a meeting organised by the Commission was held in Brussels to discuss with the French authorities the consequences for the present case of the decision adopted by the Commission on 26 January 2010 concerning State aid granted to La Poste by State aid measure No C 56/07 (ex E 15/05) (‘decision C 56/2007’) [8].
Službe Komisije so 20. maja 2010 pripravile sestanek v Bruslju, da bi s francoskimi organi obravnavale posledice sklepa, ki ga je Komisija sprejela 26. januarja 2010 v zvezi z državno pomočjo C 56/07 (ex E 15/05), dodeljeno podjetju La Poste [8] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sklep C 56/2007), za to zadevo.
La Poste was an entity governed by public law which up to that time had a status that could be deemed equivalent to that of an EPIC [9], and the case concerning it (the ‘La Poste case’ or the ‘postal case’) presented significant similarities with the measure at issue, so much so that the French authorities had put forward the same arguments,mutatis mutandis, in their comments on each of the two cases.
Ker je bilo podjetje La Poste javni subjekt, ki je do takrat imel status, enakovreden EPIC [9], je z njim povezana zadeva (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zadeva La Poste ali poštna zadeva) zelo primerljiva z zadevnim ukrepom, tako da so francoski organi v pripombah k obema zadevama navedli smiselno enake trditve.
On 4 June 2010, a list of additional questions was sent to France by e-mail, since the Commission wished to receive a written contribution from the French authorities on the various points covered during this meeting.
Franciji je bil v elektronskem dopisu z dne 4. junija 2010 poslan seznam dodatnih vprašanj, ker so službe Komisije želele imeti pisna stališča francoskih organov o različnih točkah, obravnavanih na tem sestanku.
On 16 July 2010, the French authorities supplied the information requested.
Francoski organi so 16. julija 2010 poslali zahtevane podatke.
By letter dated 29 September 2010, the Commission asked the French authorities to transmit additional information, requesting a reply within 20 days.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 29. septembra 2010 francoske organe zaprosila za dodatne informacije in jih pozvala k predložitvi odgovora v dvajsetih dneh.
As indicated by the Commission in the opening decision and in decision C 51/2005 [10], IFP performs three tasks:
Kot je Komisija navedla v odločitvi o začetku postopka in v zgoraj navedeni odločbi C 51/2005, [10] ima oseba javnega prava IFP tri naloge:
research and development in the fields of oil and gas prospecting and refining and petrochemicals technologies,
raziskovanje in razvoj na področjih iskanja nafte in plina, tehnoloških postopkov rafiniranja in petrokemije,
the training of engineers and technicians, and
usposabljanje inženirjev in tehnikov ter
the provision of sector information and documentation.
panožne informacije in dokumentacija.
Furthermore, IFP directly and indirectly controls commercial enterprises with which it has concluded exclusive research and licensing agreements.
Oseba javnega prava IFP ima poleg tega neposreden ali posreden nadzor nad gospodarskimi družbami, s katerimi je sklenila izključne sporazume o raziskavah in licencah.
On the basis of a body of consistent evidence, the details of which are recalled in recital 137, the Commission considered in decision C 51/2005 that the combination of the public limited companies Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat, together with their parent, IFP, constituted an economic group (the ‘IFP group’) for purposes of competition law.
Komisija je na podlagi skupka ujemajočih se dejstev, podrobneje razloženih v uvodni izjavi 137, v zgoraj navedeni odločbi C 51/2005 menila, da delniške družbe Axens, Beicip-Franlab in Prosernat ter njihova matična družba, oseba javnega prava IFP, sestavljajo gospodarsko skupino (v nadaljnjem besedilu: skupina IFP) v smislu konkurenčnega prava.
This refers to:(a) a ten-year exclusive framework licensing agreement under which the subsidiary may use IFP’s present and future intellectual property rights essentially in processes in its field of activity to provide engineering services to customers in connection with those processes and to transmit to them the right to use the related technologies in the form of patent licence sub-grants;(b) a ten-year exclusive product licensing agreement under which the subsidiary may use IFP’s present and future technology in its field of activity to manufacture and sell to its customers catalysts, adsorbents, captation masses, equipment, and other products and software developed by IFP; and(c) a ten-year industrial research agreement under which [IFP offers its subsidiary the results of its research in the field of refining and petrochemicals in order that it may, if it so wishes, pursue the research in a joint project with IFP and then exploit the said results.] [12] Failing that, IFP can offer these results to another enterprise.
Gre za:(a) izključno pogodbo o omejeni licenci za obdobje desetih let, na podlagi katere lahko hčerinska družba uporablja sedanjo in prihodnjo intelektualno lastnino osebe javnega prava IFP, zlasti na področju postopkov na njenem področju delovanja, da bi strankam zagotovila inženirske storitve v zvezi s temi postopki in nanje prenesla pravico do uporabe povezanih tehnologij v obliki podkoncesij za patentne licence;(b) izključno pogodbo za licence za izdelke za obdobje desetih let, na podlagi katere lahko hčerinska družba uporabi sedanjo in prihodnjo tehnologijo skupine IFP na svojem področju delovanja za izdelavo in prodajo katalizatorjev, adsorbentov, sistemov za zajetje, opreme, drugih izdelkov in programske opreme, ki jih je razvila skupina IFP, in(c) pogodbo o industrijskih raziskavah za obdobje desetih let, na podlagi katere [skupina IFP predloži svoji hčerinski družbi rezultate svojih raziskav na področju rafiniranja in petrokemije, da lahko hčerinska družba, če želi, sodeluje pri raziskavah s skupino IFP ter uporabi navedene rezultate.] [12] Če hčerinska družba ne uporabi te možnosti, lahko skupina IFP svoje rezultate ponudi drugim družbam.
Each partner bears the costs of its participation in the research project, and at project end IFP holds the ownership rights to the products and processes while its subsidiary holds the ownership rights to the industrialisation stages of the products and processes.
Vsak partner krije stroške svojega sodelovanja pri projektu in rezultatih raziskovalnega projekta, pri čemer ima skupina IFP lastninsko pravico za izdelke in postopke, medtem ko ima hčerinska družba lastninsko pravico za stopnje industrializacije izdelkov in postopkov.
The subsidiary pays the parent royalties under the licensing agreements and remuneration […] [13] for access to IFP’s research capacity.
Hčerinska družba v zameno za sporazuma matični družbi plača licenčnino na podlagi licenčnih pogodb in izvede plačilo […] [13] za dostop do raziskovalne zmogljivosti osebe javnega prava IFP.
Beicip-Franlab specialises in the publication and distribution of deposits exploration software and in consultancy and advisory services.
Družba Beicip-Franlab je specializirana za izdajanje in razširjanje programske opreme na področju „raziskav in nahajališč“ ter za izvajanje študij in svetovanje.
In 2006, its turnover was EUR 42 million. An exclusive development, marketing and use agreement, signed in 2003 for a period of ten years, provides that Beicip-Franlab [receives proposals from IFP relating to the results of its research] (**) into the algorithms, models and methodologies [constituting the outcome of the research of] (**) IFP in the field of deposit exploration, and may request permission from IFP to produce products on that basis.
Leta 2006 je njen promet znašal 42 milijonov EUR. Izključna pogodba o razvoju, trženju in uporabi, ki je bila podpisana leta 2003 za obdobje desetih let, določa, da [skupina IFP ponudi družbi Beicip-Franlab rezultate svojih raziskav] (**) na področju algoritmov, modelov ali metodologij, [ki jih je razvila] (**) skupina IFP na področju „raziskav in nahajališč“, ter da lahko od skupine IFP zahteva, da proizvede izdelke na tej podlagi.
Beicip-Franlab covers all of the product development costs borne by IFP.
Družba Beicip-Franlab krije vse stroške razvoja izdelkov osebe javnega prava IFP.
In addition, Beicip-Franlab makes various additional payments […] (*) to cover maintenance and rights of use.
Družba Beicip-Franlab poleg tega plača različne dodatne zneske […] (*) za vzdrževanje in pravice do uporabe.
An amendment was signed in 2005, which modifies the payment arrangements while at the same time retaining the principle of total coverage of development costs by Beicip-Franlab.
Leta 2005 je bil podpisan aneks, s katerim so se spremenili plačilni pogoji, hkrati pa se je ohranilo načelo, da družba Beicip-Franlab krije vse stroške razvoja.
Prosernat provides consultancy and other services and supplies gas treatment and sulphur recovery plants.
Družba Prosernat zagotavlja študije in storitve ter sklope naprav na področju predelave plina in razžvepljevanja.
Prosernat pays its parent a fee out of the annual turnover for the licence for the processes, and a fee on a case-by-case basis for equipment. The IFP’s remuneration for Prosernat’s access to the results of the research work amounts to […] (*) % of Prosernat’s global annual turnover.
Znesek, ki ga družba Prosernat plača osebi javnega prava IFP za dostop do izsledkov raziskav, je […] (*) % skupnega letnega prometa družbe Prosernat.
In accordance with Article 6 of decision C 51/2005, a clause was inserted in 2009 in the exclusive agreements governing the remuneration to IFP to be paid by its subsidiaries Axens et Prosernat [14], so as to ensure that IFP received a minimum variable remuneration, covering at least 25 % of the costs of feasibility studies preparatory to industrial research activities, 50 % of the costs of industrial research and, where appropriate, 75 % of the costs of pre-competitive development activities, within the meaning of the Community framework for state aid for research and development of 17 February 1996 (‘the 1996 R&D Framework’) [15], carried out by IFP in the subsidiaries’ fields of activity [16].
V skladu s členom 6 zgoraj navedene odločbe C 51/2005 je bila leta 2009 [14] v izključne sporazume, ki urejajo plačila, ki jih osebi javnega prava IFP nakažeta njeni hčerinski družbi Axens in Prosernat, vstavljena klavzula za zagotovitev, da se matični družbi plača najmanjše nepavšalno plačilo, ki pokriva najmanj 25 % stroškov pripravljalnih študij izvedljivosti za industrijsko raziskovanje, 50 % stroškov industrijskega raziskovanja in po potrebi 75 % stroškov dejavnosti predkonkurenčnega razvoja v smislu okvira Skupnosti za državno pomoč za raziskave in razvoj z dne 17. februarja 1996 [15] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: okvir R & R iz leta 1996), ki jih opravi skupina IFP na področjih dejavnosti hčerinskih družb. [16]
In accordance with the opening decision, the investigation of the measure should take account of the potential impact of the State guarantee arising from the EPIC status of IFP on all the activities of the IFP group, including the publicly owned establishment IFP and its three subsidiaries governed by private law [17].
V skladu z odločitvijo o začetku postopka se pri preučitvi zadevnega ukrepa zdi potrebno upoštevati morebitni vpliv državnega poroštva, ki izhaja iz statusa EPIC, ki ga ima oseba javnega prava IFP, na vse subjekte skupine IFP (skupaj z osebo javnega prava IFP in njenimi tremi hčerinskimi družbami zasebnega prava). [17]
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE
3 OPIS UKREPA
Until 2006, IFP was a legal person governed by private law, a trade body within the meaning of Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests, placed under the economic and financial supervision of the French Government.
Oseba javnega prava IFP, ustanovljena kot pravna oseba zasebnega prava, je imela do leta 2006 status strokovne ustanove v smislu akta, imenovanega zakon št. 43-612 z dne 17. novembra 1943 o upravljanju strokovnih interesov, in je bila pod gospodarskim in finančnim nadzorom francoske vlade.
The principle that IFP was to be converted into an EPIC was laid down in Article 95 of Programme Law No 2005-781 of 13 July 2005 establishing the energy policy guidelines.
V členu 95 programskega zakona št. 2005-781 z dne 13. julija 2005 o določitvi smernic energetske politike je bilo določeno načelo preoblikovanja ustanove IFP v EPIC.
The conversion became effective from the publication in the Journal Officiel de la République Française of Decree No 2006-797 of 6 July 2006 establishing the constitution of the publicly owned establishment IFP.
Preoblikovanje je začelo veljati z objavo odloka št. 2006-797 z dne 6. julija 2006 o statutu osebe javnega prava IFP v Uradnem listu Republike Francije.
From the date of its change of legal form, IFP, as en EPIC, became a legal person governed by public law [18].
Ustanova IFP je kot EPIC na datum spremembe statusa postala pravna oseba javnega prava. [18]
The legal implications of the EPIC form are explained in detail in part 2 of decision C 56/2007 (‘Description of the measure’) and in part 3.2.1 of the opening decision, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis.
Pravne posledice opredelitve kot EPIC so podrobneje razložene v delu 2 („Opis ukrepa“) zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007 in v delu 3.2.1 („Pravne posledice statusa EPIC, dodeljenega IFP“) odločitve o začetku postopka, na katera se Komisija smiselno sklicuje.
4 REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
4 RAZLOGI ZA ZAČETEK FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
In the opening decision, the Commission began by expressing doubts about the special arrangements governing the bankruptcy of EPICs, which departed from the ordinary law on such matters. It considered that these were akin to an unlimited State guarantee mechanism which mobilised public resources:
Komisija je v odločitvi o začetku postopka najprej menila, da ima pomisleke glede ukrepa, ker je sistem, ki odstopa od občega prava in se za EPIC izvaja na področju stečaja, podoben mehanizmu neomejenega državnega poroštva, pri katerem se zagotovijo javna sredstva:
EPICs, as legal entities governed by public law, are not subject to insolvency and bankruptcy procedures, by virtue of the general principle of the immunity from seizure of the assets of legal entities governed by public law, which has been recognised by the French courts, including the Court of Cassation [19], since the late nineteenth century.
postopki zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti in stečajni postopki se ne uporabljajo za EPIC kot pravne osebe javnega prava na podlagi splošnega načela, ki ga francoska sodna praksa ter zlasti kasacijsko sodišče priznavata od konca 19. stoletja, in sicer da pravnim osebam javnega prava premoženja ni mogoče zaseči.
For further details, the Commission refers to section 3.2.1.1 of the opening decision, recitals 38 to 40 [20].
Komisija se za več podrobnosti sklicuje na del 3.2.1.1 odločitve o začetku postopka, in sicer na uvodne izjave od 38 do 40; [20]
EPICs are subject to the Law of 16 July 1980 and its implementing rules.
za EPIC se, nasprotno, uporabljajo zakon z dne 16. julija 1980 in njegovi izvedbeni akti.
These expressly identify the State as the authority responsible for covering the debts of publicly owned establishments. They confer on it important prerogatives, such as the issuing of a mandatory payment order and the creation of sufficient resources, and organise a principle of last-resort State liability for the debts of legal entities governed by public law.
V skladu z njimi je država izrecno določena kot pristojni organ za izterjavo dolgov oseb javnega prava in ima pomembne pristojnosti, kot sta plačilo po uradni dolžnosti in ustvarjanje zadostnih sredstev, v njih pa je urejeno tudi načelo odgovornosti države za dolgove pravnih oseb javnega prava kot zadnjega sredstva.
For further details, the Commission refers to section 3.2.1.2 of the opening decision, recitals 41 to 45 [21].
Komisija se za več podrobnosti sklicuje na del 3.2.1.2 odločitve o začetku postopka, in sicer na uvodne izjave od 41 do 45; [21]
In the event of the winding up of an EPIC, the general principle applies that its debts will be transferred to the State or to another public entity [22], which means that creditors of an EPIC have an assurance that they will not lose the money they are owed by a publicly owned establishment.
če bi EPIC prenehala, se na splošno uporablja načelo prenosa dolgov na državo ali drugi pravni subjekt javnega prava, [22] tako da je vsakemu upniku osebe EPIC zagotovljeno, da ni nikoli oškodovan za terjatev do osebe javnega prava.
For further details, the Commission refers to section 3.2.1.3 of the opening decision, recitals 46 to 51 [23].
Komisija se za več podrobnosti sklicuje na del 3.2.1.3 odločitve o začetku postopka, in sicer na uvodne izjave od 46 do 51; [23]
EPICs may possibly also have preferential access to Treasury imprest accounts.
EPIC bi lahko imele prednosten dostop do predujmov iz državnih sredstev.