natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the publicly owned establishment IFP, the impact of the unlimited guarantee arises directly from its EPIC status: as a legal person governed by public law, IFP is not subject to the ordinary law governing the administration and winding up of firms in difficulty.
pri osebi javnega prava IFP vpliv neomejenega poroštva neposredno izhaja iz statusa EPIC: za osebo javnega prava IFP kot pravno osebo javnega prava namreč ne velja obče pravo s področja sanacije in sodne likvidacije podjetij v težavah.
In the light of this particularity, the parent of the IFP group may carry on economic activities itself, under more advantageous conditions than other market participants not benefiting from comparable protection (7.1.1.1).
Matična družba skupine IFP bi lahko ob upoštevanju navedene posebnosti neposredno izvajala gospodarske dejavnosti pod ugodnejšimi pogoji kot drugi udeleženci na trgu, ki nimajo primerljivega varstva (7.1.1.1);
As regards the activities carried out directly by the IFP subsidiaries governed by private law, which, for their part, are entirely subject to the ordinary law of bankruptcy, any direct liability of the publicly owned establishment, and therefore of the State, seems impossible.
pri dejavnostih, ki jih neposredno izvajajo hčerinske družbe zasebnega prava skupine IFP, za katere v celoti velja obče pravo na področju stečaja, se neposredno ugotavljanje odgovornosti osebe javnega prava in posledično države ne zdi mogoča.
If a subsidiary’s assets are insufficient, therefore, it has to be considered whether the creditors of Axens, Prosernat and Beicip-Franlab could benefit from an indirect mechanism whereby the parent would be liable for its subsidiaries, equivalent to a guarantee mechanism (7.1.1.2).
Zato je treba v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev hčerinske družbe preučiti, ali bi lahko za upnike družb Axens, Prosernat in Beicip-Franlab veljal posredni mehanizem na podlagi morebitne odgovornosti matične družbe za njene hčerinske družbe, enak mehanizmu poroštva (7.1.1.2).
Unlimited State guarantee to IFP conferred by its EPIC status
Kritje osebe javnega prava IFP z neomejenim poroštvom države, dodeljenim na podlagi njenega statusa EPIC
In decision C 56/2007, the Commission concluded [70] that the special factors intrinsically linked to the legal form of La Poste as a publicly owned establishment [71], and in particular the existence of a guarantee ensuring the payment of individual claims and the continued existence of La Poste or its obligations or both, implied that the State performed the role of guarantor of last resort in respect of the economic activities of the publicly owned establishment.
Komisija je v zgoraj navedenem sklepu C 56/2007 ugotovila, [70] da značilnosti, tesno povezane s statusom osebe javnega prava La Poste [71], zlasti obstoj poroštva za poplačilo individualnih terjatev in ohranitev obstoja in/ali obveznosti podjetja La Poste, pomenijo, da ima država vlogo poroka v skrajni sili za gospodarske dejavnosti, ki jih izvaja oseba javnega prava.
In the present case, the Commission considers that the arguments set out in decision C 56/2007 can essentially be transposed to the EPIC status of the publicly owned establishment IFP, and that IFP also enjoys a special legal position with regard to the payment of its creditors and its continuation in business in the event of insolvency.
Komisija v obravnavanem primeru meni, da je mogoče trditve iz zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007 v bistvu uporabiti za status EPIC, dodeljen osebi javnega prava IFP, in da je ta tudi v posebnem pravnem položaju, kar zadeva poplačilo upnikov in ohranitev obstoja v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti.
For the purposes of the present analysis, therefore, the Commission will refer to the arguments set out in section 4.1, ‘Classification as aid’, of decision C 56/2007.
Zato se bo Komisija za potrebe te analize sklicevala na trditve iz dela 4.1 („Opredelitev kot pomoč“) zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007.
It is first necessary to consider the argument of the French authorities that the existence of a State guarantee in favour of EPICs is ruled out by the legislation or the case-law, before showing that in the event that IFP were in default its creditors would benefit from a more favourable procedure than the creditors of undertakings governed by ordinary law.
Preden se dokaže, da bi za upnike osebe javnega prava IFP v primeru ustavitve njenih plačil veljal ugodnejši postopek kot za upnike podjetij občega prava, je treba najprej preveriti trditev francoskih organov, da zakonodaja ali sodna praksa izključujeta državno poroštvo za EPIC (a).
Rejection of the arguments of the French authorities
Zavrnitev trditev francoskih organov
Contrary to the French authorities’ affirmation, the Commission is able to conclude that French law does acknowledge the existence of implied guarantees, and in particular the existence of a State guarantee deriving from the status of publicly owned establishment.
Komisija lahko v nasprotju s trditvami francoskih organov ugotovi, da francosko pravo dopušča obstoj implicitnih poroštev in natančneje obstoj državnega poroštva zaradi statusa osebe javnega prava.
The Commission rejects the arguments of the French authorities for the following reasons.
Komisija zavrača trditve francoskih organov zaradi teh razlogov.
Firstly, where the French authorities assert that there is no legislation or decision laying down the principle that the State is to guarantee the debts of EPICs, the Commission refers to recitals 120 and 121 of decision C 56/2007, mutatis mutandis.
Prvič, Komisija se smiselno sklicuje na uvodni izjavi 120 in 121 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, v katerih francoski organi trdijo, da noben akt ali odločitev ne določa načela, da naj bi država jamčila za dolgove EPIC.
The Commission considers, on the contrary, that although it is true that there is no legislation or decision confirming or excluding the existence of an express State guarantee in favour of EPICs, this absence does not mean that there can be no implied guarantee.
Komisija pa, nasprotno, meni, da kljub neobstoju akta ali odločitve, ki bi potrjevala ali izključevala obstoj izrecnega državnega poroštva za EPIC, ta neobstoj ne omogoča izključitve obstoja implicitnega poroštva.
Secondly, where the French authorities consider that the courts have held that there is no such guarantee, notably in the judgments in Société de l’hôtel d’Albe [72] and Campoloro [73], the Commission refers to recitals 122 to 124 of decision C 56/2007, mutatis mutandis.
Drugič, Komisija se smiselno sklicuje na uvodne izjave od 122 do 124 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, v katerih francoski organi menijo, da obstaja sodna praksa o neobstoju poroštev, zlasti sodba Société de l'hôtel d'Albe [72] in sodbi Campoloro [73].
In Société de l’hôtel d’Albe, as the Commission expert pointed out in the postal case, the judgment did not refer to the precise situation in which the guarantee would come into play [74].
V prvi zadevi sodba Société de l'hôtel d'Albe, kot je poudarila izvedenka Komisije v poštni zadevi, ne zadeva prav položaja, v katerem bi lahko šlo za poroštvo [74].
In Campoloro [75], the Commission considers, on the contrary, that the judgments establish a scheme of State liability in proceedings for the recovery of the debts of publicly owned establishments which displays all the characteristics of a guarantee mechanism.
Druga zadeva [75] pa po mnenju Komisije dokazuje, da ima sistem odgovornosti države pri izvajanju postopka izterjave dolgov oseb javnega prava vse značilnosti mehanizma poroštva.
Thirdly, in the postal case the French authorities argued that the debts contracted by EPICs since the entry into force of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act on 1 January 2005 did not qualify for an implied guarantee: the Commission considers that this argument cannot hold:
Tretjič, trditev francoskih organov v poštni zadevi, da za dolgove EPIC, nastale od začetka veljavnosti LOLF, to je od 1. januarja 2005, ne more obstajati implicitno poroštvo, po mnenju Komisije ne more držati:
The Commission emphasises that the change of legal form of the publicly owned establishment IFP occurred on 7 July 2006, i.e. after the entry into force of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act.
Komisija poudarja, da se je status osebe javnega prava IFP spremenil 7. julija 2006, to je po začetku veljavnosti LOLF.
Under such circumstances, it is not necessary to examine the arguments put forward by the French authorities’ expert in the postal case regarding debts contracted before 1 January 2005, despite the fact that the French authorities refer to this mutatis mutandis in their comments.
V teh okoliščinah ni treba preučiti trditev izvedenca francoskih organov v poštni zadevi o morebitnih dolgovih, ki so nastali pred 1. januarjem 2005, čeprav se francoski organi v pripombah na to smiselno sklicujejo.
Debts contracted by IFP before 1 January 2005 were contracted by a trade body within the meaning of Law No 43-612 of 17 November 1943 on the management of trade interests, and therefore by a legal person governed by private law, and consequently could not be covered, at the time they were entered into [76], by the unlimited guarantee conferred by the EPIC status.
Dolgovi, ki jih je imela oseba javnega prava IFP pred 1. januarjem 2005, so bili dolgovi strokovne ustanove v smislu akta, imenovanega zakon št. 43-612 z dne 17. novembra 1943 o upravljanju strokovnih interesov (in s tem torej pravne osebe zasebnega prava) in zato ob njihovem vpisu [76] niso mogli biti kriti z neomejenim državnim poroštvom, dodeljenim na podlagi statusa EPIC.
The Commission nevertheless notes, as its expert pointed out in the postal case, and as it explained in recital 130 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, that the obligation to enter State guarantees in a Finance Act is confined to the ‘giving’ (octroi) of such guarantees. To ‘give’ a guarantee the State must confer a guarantee on an organisation or an operation by an express manifestation of its intention. The scope of the obligation to enter guarantees in the Finance Act does not extend to guarantees that arise out of the legal form of an organisation, or out of an obligation established in case-law, which are guarantees of an implied and automatic character. This category is not the result of a decision of the State, but of the fact that the State places itself in an existing legal framework, the guarantee being only one effect of that framework [77].
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, kot je med drugim navedla tudi njena izvedenka v poštni zadevi in kot je že sama razložila v uvodni izjavi 130 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se smiselno sklicuje, da je področje uporabe obveznosti, da se državna poroštva navedejo v zakonu o financah, omejeno na „odobritev“ takih poroštev; da zato odobritev poroštva obsega primere, v katerih se država z izrecno izjavo volje odloči, da bo poroštvo dodelila organu ali za transakcijo; da področje uporabe obveznosti, da se poroštva vpišejo v zakon o financah, torej ne obsega poroštev, izhajajočih iz statusa ali obveznosti, določene v sodni praksi, za katera sta značilni implicitnost in samodejnost; da druga kategorija ne izhaja iz odločitve države, ampak izhaja iz dejstva, da se država postavi v že obstoječ pravni okvir, pri čemer je poroštvo samo njegova posledica [77].
Fourthly, the Commission rejects the argument of the French authorities that, if a State guarantee does exist in favour of EPICs, any establishment of a new EPIC (including by change of legal form) would necessitate measures to preserve the rights of creditors arising before the change, and that conversely (modus tollens), since no such mechanism has ever been set up [79], no guarantee exists in favour of the publicly owned establishment IFP:
Četrtič, Komisija zavrača trditev francoskih organov, da bi bilo treba v primeru obstoja državnega poroštva za EPIC za vsako ustanovitev nove EPIC (vključno s spremembo statusa) uvesti ukrepe poroštev za ohranitev pravic upnikov, nastalih pred navedenim preoblikovanjem, in njeno kontrapozicijo (modus tollens), da naj za osebo javnega prava IFP ne bi obstajalo državno poroštvo, ker tak mehanizem ni bil nikoli vzpostavljen [79]:
As pointed out by the Commission’s expert in the postal case, and as recalled in recital 133 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that this assertion is based on too broad an interpretation of the constitutional protection of the right of property.
Komisija v skladu z navedbami svoje izvedenke v poštni zadevi in opozorilom v uvodni izjavi 133 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se smiselno sklicuje, meni, da taka trditev izhaja iz preširoke razlage ustavnega varstva lastninske pravice;
The Commission takes the view, as it did in recital 134 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, that in the same way, when an EPIC is converted into a company that can be made the subject of court proceedings for administration or winding up, the right of property does not require that a specific measure be taken to preserve the entitlements of creditors, and that the fact that no such measure has been taken does not constitute evidence that there is no implied guarantee.
Komisija bi v zvezi s tem rada pojasnila, kot je med drugim že storila v uvodni izjavi 134 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se smiselno sklicuje, da se v skladu z lastninsko pravico tudi ne zahteva, da se za zagotovitev pravic upnikov ob preoblikovanju EPIC v družbo, za katero veljajo postopki sanacije in sodne likvidacije, določi poseben ukrep, in da neobstoj takih ukrepov ni znak, da implicitno poroštvo ne obstaja;
The Commission adds that, as explained in recitals 135 and 136 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the fact that the French authorities decided to give an express guarantee to La Poste when it obtained a legal form equivalent to that of an EPIC in 1990 [80] does not mean that there was no implied guarantee before that date.
Komisija dodaja, kot je pojasnila v uvodnih izjavah 135 in 136 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na kateri se smiselno sklicuje, da odločitev francoskih organov, da dodelijo eksplicitno poroštvo podjetju La Poste [80], ko je leta 1990 pridobilo status, enakovreden EPIC, ne dokazuje, da implicitnega poroštva zanj ni bilo že prej.
Finally, as regards the article by Mr Labetoulle cited by the French authorities [81], and its analysis of the Campoloro case-law [82], the Commission refers to the part of the present decision relating to the liability of the State and to section 4.1.1 A(b)(3) of decision C 56/2007
Nazadnje se Komisija sklicuje na del tega sklepa, ki se navezuje na uveljavljanje odgovornosti države, in na del 4.1.1(A)(b)(3) zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007 v zvezi s člankom D. Labetoulla, ki so ga navedli francoski organi [81], ter na svojo analizo sodne prakse v zadevi Campoloro [82].
Contrary to the argument put forward by the French authorities, who contend that such a guarantee is excluded by the legislation, the Commission notes that the existence of implied guarantees arising out of the legal form of publicly owned establishments is confirmed by a memorandum of the Council of State drawn up in 1995 in the Crédit Lyonnais case, which took the view that the organisation concerned enjoyed an implied guarantee given by the State by reason merely of its character as a publicly owned establishment [83].
Komisija v nasprotju z navedbami francoskih organov, ki menijo, da je tako poroštvo izključeno s predpisi, ugotavlja, da je obstoj implicitnih poroštev, povezanih s statusom osebe javnega prava, potrjen z obvestilom Conseil d’État, ki je bilo predloženo leta 1995 v zadevi Crédit Lyonnais, v kateri je obstoj implicitnega državnega poroštva utemeljen s samo naravo organizacije kot osebe javnega prava [83].
As explained in recitals 142 to 145 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission does not share the interpretation put forward by the French authorities that this opinion of the Council of State cannot be transposed to the case of IFP.
Kot je Komisija pojasnila v uvodnih izjavah od 142 do 145 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje, se ne strinja z razlago francoskih organov, da tega mnenja Conseil d'État ne bi bilo mogoče uporabiti za osebo javnega prava IFP.
The opinion makes no reference to the aims of the establishment or to whether or not a public accountant is present within it.
Zlasti poudarja, da nikjer v mnenju ni sklicevanja na nalogo niti na navzočnost ali nenavzočnost javnega računovodje v okviru osebe javnega prava.
Moreover, the French authorities do not explain why, in their view, this opinion should apply to publicly owned establishments only if they have a public accountant.
Francoski organi poleg tega niti ne pojasnjujejo, zakaj naj bi se to mnenje uporabljalo samo za osebe javnega prava, ki imajo javnega računovodjo.
The Commission rejects the arguments put forward by the French authorities to the effect that the opinion is not applicable because it predates the Organic Law governing the Finance Act and is contrary to the subsequent case-law of the Council of State: in recital 104 above, and in decision C 56/2007, the Commission concluded that the Organic Law governing the Finance Act did not stand in the way of an implied guarantee given by the State to IFP.
Komisija poleg tega zavrača trditve francoskih organov, da naj se mnenje ne bi uporabljalo, ker je bilo sprejeto pred LOLF in je v nasprotju s poznejšo sodno prakso Conseil d’État, pri čemer je v uvodni izjavi 104 in zgoraj navedenem sklepu C 56/2007 opozorila, da LOLF ne ovira obstoja implicitnega državnega poroštva za osebo javnega prava IFP.
Finally, as indicated in recitals 146 and 147 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission notes the 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’, which confirms that there are implied State guarantees that derive from an administrative or legislative act which ‘produces and entails financial consequences for the State’.
Komisija je nazadnje, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 146 in 147 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na kateri se smiselno sklicuje, seznanjena z obvestilom ministra za gospodarstvo, finance in industrijo z dne 22. julija 2003, katerega predmet je bil „popis mehanizmov implicitnega ali eksplicitnega poroštva države“ in v katerem je potrjen obstoj implicitnih poroštev, ki izhajajo iz upravnega ali zakonodajnega akta, ki „povzroča in ima finančne posledice za državo“.
That memorandum shows that a State guarantee can derive from legal acts of very different kinds [84] and indicates that the setting up of a publicly owned establishment may entail an implied guarantee given by the State to the establishment’s creditors [85].
Navedeno obvestilo dokazuje, da lahko državno poroštvo izhaja iz zelo različnih pravnih aktov [84], in opozarja, da lahko ustanovitev osebe javnega prava vključuje implicitno državno poroštvo za upnike te osebe [85].
A creditor of IFP can be sure that his claim will be repaid.
Upniku osebe javnega prava IFP je zagotovljeno, da bo njegova terjatev poplačana
Following the example of the argument in section 4.1.1.A(b) of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission will now set out to demonstrate that in the event of a default by IFP, its creditors would be in a more favourable position than that of creditors of an enterprise governed by commercial law.
Komisija namerava odslej po zgledu dokaza iz dela 4.1.1(A)(b) zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katerega se smiselno sklicuje, dokazati, da bi bili upniki osebe javnega prava IFP v primeru ustavitve plačil v ugodnejšem položaju kot upniki podjetja, za katero velja trgovinsko pravo.
Firstly, in the case of publicly owned establishments, the conventional obstacles to the settlement of a claim against a body governed by private law are not applicable.
Prvič, tradicionalne omejitve za poravnavo terjatve organizacije zasebnega prava se ne uporabljajo pri osebah javnega prava.
On the basis of the factors detailed at greater length in recitals 150 to 154 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission concludes on this first point that:
Komisija na podlagi elementov, podrobneje navedenih v uvodnih izjavah od 150 do 154 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje, o tej prvi točki ugotavlja, da:
unlike the creditors of undertakings governed by commercial law, creditors of IFP (which is not subject to the ordinary law governing the compulsory administration or winding up of firms in difficulty) are not in danger of seeing their claim cancelled in whole or in part as an outcome of compulsory winding-up proceedings;
v nasprotju z upniki podjetij, za katera velja trgovinsko pravo, upniki osebe javnega prava IFP (glede na to, da zanjo 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 IFP has legal personality is no bar to the existence of a guarantee given by the State;
dejstvo, da je oseba javnega prava IFP pravna oseba, ni ovira za državno poroštvo,
in the absence of any express limitation on the State’s liability in respect of IFP, IFP’s creditors may legitimately act on the principle that the State will bear the debts of IFP, even though IFP possesses legal personality.
ker odgovornost države za osebo javnega prava IFP ni izrecno omejena, se njeni upniki lahko zakonito oprejo na načelo, da država krije dolgove osebe javnega prava IFP, čeprav je ta pravna oseba.
Secondly, in the case of the recovery of the debts of a publicly owned establishment that has been found by a court to be in default, the procedure laid down in the Law of 16 July 1980 (and in implementing provisions [86]) is, for the reasons explained in recitals 113 to 117, more favourable to IFP’s creditors than insolvency proceedings in the courts under ordinary law, in so far as it is not liable to result in the cancellation of their claim on IFP.
Drugič, v primeru izterjave dolgov oseb javnega prava, obsojenih s sodno odločbo, postopek, uveden z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 (in različnimi izvedbenimi akti [86]), zaradi razlogov, pojasnjenih v uvodnih izjavah od 113 do 117, upnikom osebe javnega prava IFP omogoča boljši položaj kot sodni postopki občega prava, ker ne more povzročiti ugasnitve terjatve, ki jo imajo do osebe javnega prava IFP.
In accordance with the analysis developed in recitals 157 to 161 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission notes firstly that the Law of 1980 [87] and its implementing provisions [88] designate the State as the authority responsible for covering the debts of publicly owned establishments, and confer important prerogatives on the State: the mandatory payment order and the creation of sufficient resources.
Komisija v skladu z analizo uvodnih izjav od 157 do 161 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se smiselno sklicuje, najprej ugotavlja, da je država z zakonom iz leta 1980 [87] in njegovimi izvedbenimi ukrepi [88] določena kot pristojni organ za izterjavo dolgov oseb javnega prava, poleg tega pa sta ji s temi akti dodeljeni pomembni posebni pravici: plačilo po uradni dolžnosti in ustvarjanje zadostnih sredstev.