natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
There is therefore no transfer of the assets, rights and obligations of the EPIC, nor cessation of activity but, rather, the organisation of legal continuity by the legislature, as shown for example by Article 25 of Law No 2004-803 of 9 August 2004 relating to the public gas and electricity service and to gas and electricity companies: ‘conversion into the companies Electricité de France and Gaz de France involves neither the creation of new legal entities nor the cessation of activity.
Tu torej ni prenosa premoženja, pravic in obveznosti EPIC niti ustavitve dejavnosti, ampak zakonodajalec organizira pravno kontinuiteto, kot dokazujejo izrazi iz člena 25 zakona št. 2004-803 z dne 9. avgusta 2004 o javni službi za električno energijo in plin ter o elektroenergetskih in plinskih podjetjih: „Preoblikovanje v družbi Electricité de France in Gaz de France ne vključuje niti ustanovitve novih pravnih oseb niti ustavitve dejavnosti.
The assets, rights, obligations, contracts and authorisations of any kind of the companies Electricité de France and Gaz de France, both within France and outside France, are those of each of the publicly owned establishments at the time when their legal form is changed.
Premoženje, pravice, obveznosti, pogodbe in kakršna koli dovoljenja družb Electricité de France in Gaz de France v Franciji in zunaj nje so premoženje, pravice, obveznosti, pogodbe in dovoljenja vsake od oseb javnega prava ob preoblikovanju njune pravne oblike.
Such a conversion does not allow these assets, rights, obligations, contracts and authorisations to be in any way called into question and, in particular, has no effect on the contracts concluded with third parties by Electricité de France, Gaz de France, etc. The operations brought about by this conversion do not lead to the collection of duties or taxes of any kind’.
To preoblikovanje ne omogoča nikakršnega izpodbijanja tega premoženja, pravic, obveznosti, pogodb in dovoljenj in zlasti nikakor ne vpliva na pogodbe, ki jih s tretjimi osebami skleneta Electricité de France, Gaz de France […]. Za postopke, ki jih povzroči to preoblikovanje, ni treba plačati nobenih dajatev, davkov ali taks“.
Guided by its expert, the Commission concludes that analysis of the various scenarios whereby publicly owned establishments are closed down enables the following conclusions to be drawn:
Komisija ob upoštevanju mnenja svoje izvedenke ugotavlja, da je iz analize različnih primerov prenehanja obstoja oseb javnega prava mogoče izpeljati naslednje ugotovitve:
although there is no overall judicial scheme for organising the closing down of publicly owned establishments, experience shows that the legislation always provides for transferring the rights and obligations of the establishment that is to be closed down either to the State or to the body that is to take over its task.
čeprav ni splošne pravne ureditve, s katero bi bilo organizirano prenehanje obstoja oseb javnega prava, je iz prakse razvidno, da je s pravnim besedilom vedno organiziran prenos pravic in obveznosti osebe javnega prava, ki bo prenehala obstajati, bodisi na državo bodisi na subjekt, ki prevzame njeno nalogo.
To the Commission’s knowledge, no example of legislation is to be found noting the cancellation of the debts,
Kot je znano Komisiji, ne obstaja noben primer besedila, s katerim bi bil potrjen odpis dolgov,
it is the ‘rights and obligations’ that are transferred, with the term ‘obligations’ undoubtedly referring to debts.
prenesejo se „pravice in obveznosti“, pri čemer se izraz obveznosti zagotovo nanaša na dolgove.
Some legislation uses the vaguer term, ‘assets’ [patrimoine].
V nekaterih besedilih je uporabljen ohlapnejši izraz „premoženje“.
According to Cornu’s Vocabulaire juridique, by ‘assets’ is meant a ‘collection of the property and obligations of one and the same person (that is to say of his duties and charges assessable in monetary terms)’ — a formulation that would also include debts.
Glede na Cornujev pravni glosar so premoženje „vsa sredstva in obveznosti iste osebe (to je njene pravice in bremena, ocenjeni v denarju)“, kar naj bi vključevalo tudi dolgove.
The only example found of the pure and simple closing down of a publicly owned establishment involves, in any case, the transfer of the ‘debts’ themselves,
Edini najdeni primer preprostega prenehanja obstoja osebe javnega prava se vsekakor nanaša na prenos „dolgov“,
even when the task disappears, the establishment’s rights and obligations are, in practice, taken over by another body,
tudi kadar naloga preneha obstajati, v praksi pravice in obveznosti osebe javnega prava prevzame drug organ,
the practice described is in accordance with codifying instruction No 02-060-M95 of 18 July 2002 and the Guide sur l’organisation financière des créations, transformations et suppressions des établissements publics nationaux [Guide to the financial organisation of the creation, conversion and abolition of national publicly owned establishments].
opisana praksa je v skladu z zakonodajnim navodilom št. 02-060-M95 z dne 18. julija 2002 in Vodnikom za finančno organiziranje ustanovitev, preoblikovanj in ukinitev nacionalnih oseb javnega prava.
Even though such legislation concerns only establishments with a public accountant — such as La Poste does not have — it nonetheless confirms the lessons drawn from actual practice, namely that the rights and obligations of a wound-up EPIC go either to the State or to the legal entity that will take over the establishment’s task.
Čeprav se ti besedili nanašata samo na osebe javnega prava z javnim računovodjo, kar ne velja za podjetje La Poste, vseeno potrjujeta to, kar izhaja iz prakse, in sicer da pravice in obveznosti likvidirane EPIC preidejo bodisi na državo bodisi na pravno osebo, ki bo prevzela nalogo osebe javnega prava.
The Commission concludes that this analysis shows that the creditor of such a publicly owned establishment can be certain that his claim will not be cancelled with the closing down of the establishment.
Kot ugotavlja Komisija, je iz te analize razvidno, da je lahko upnik take osebe javnega prava prepričan, da njegova terjatev ne bo prenehala s prenehanjem obstoja osebe javnega prava.
The demonstration would not be complete without examining the issue of whether, on the model of successions under private law, the heir may refuse the succession, particularly if the debts are too great.
Dokaz ne bi bil popoln brez preučitve vprašanja, ali lahko po zgledu nasledstev v zasebnem pravu dedič zavrne nasledstvo, zlasti če so dolgovi preveliki.
It appears that there is only very limited scope for refusing a succession under administrative law.
Očitno je, da je možnost zavrnitve nasledstva v upravnem pravu zelo omejena.
According to S. Carpi-Petit: ‘unlike in civil law, which makes the option available to all beneficiaries, the ability to exercise an option is not a general principle of administrative law governing successions.
Kot navaja S. Carpi-Petit: „V nasprotju s civilnim pravom, ki omogoča izbiro vsem s pravico do nasledstva, možnost izbire ni splošno načelo upravnega prava s področja nasledstev.
It is offered only to certain beneficiaries, depending on the nature of the operation carried out.
To imajo na voljo samo nekateri subjekti, ki imajo pravico do nasledstva, odvisno od narave izvedenega postopka.
Thus, the transfers implied by abolition pure and simple are not optional.
Tako prenosi, ki izhajajo iz preprostih ukinitev, niso poljubni.
As for transfers brought about by replacements, whether or not they are optional depends on the pre-existence of the testator’.
Kar zadeva prenose, ki izhajajo iz nadomestitev, je njihova poljubnost odvisna od predhodnega obstoja de cujus“.
Where abolitions pure and simple are concerned, S. Carpi-Petit deduces from his exhaustive study that ‘there being no option available for the benefit of the State is a situation that also obtains in administrative law.
Kar zadeva preproste ukinitve, S. Carpi-Petit iz svoje izčrpne študije sklepa, da „se neobstoj izbire, ki bi bila na voljo državi, uporablja tudi v upravnem pravu.
This implies that, where the existence or otherwise of the right to exercise an option is concerned, the simplest scenario is doubtless that in which a national publicly owned establishment is abolished, without its task being taken over.
To pomeni, da je v zvezi z obstojem ali neobstojem pravice do izbire najpreprostejši primer zagotovo ukinitev nacionalne osebe javnega prava brez prevzema naloge.
In that case, the successor in title is always the State.
V tem primeru je namreč pravni naslednik vedno država.
If the State were to refuse the assets left by the abolished publicly owned establishment, the assets would then necessarily have no one in charge of them — a state of affairs that is not permitted.
Če zavrne premoženje, ki ga je zapustila ukinjena oseba javnega prava, to nujno ostane brez gospodarja, kar je izključeno.
Moreover, it is not possible to impute the burden of the succession to another property.
Poleg tega ni mogoče naložiti bremena nasledstva drugega premoženja.
Thus, there is no ability to exercise an option in the case of the abolition pure and simple of a national publicly owned establishment’.
Tako v primeru preproste ukinitve nacionalne osebe javnega prava ni možnosti izbire“.
With regard to possible ways of finding a replacement body to carry out an establishment’s task, ‘there are two types of replacement in administrative law in relation to successions.
Kar zadeva primere nadomestitve pri nalogi, „v upravnem pravu s področja nasledstev obstajata dve vrsti nadomestitve.
In the first scenario, a legal entity to replace the natural person/testator is created for this function.
V prvem primeru se za to funkcijo ustanovi pravna oseba, ki nadomesti fizično osebo – de cujus.
This legal entity then constitutes the universal successor in title.
Ta je torej univerzalni pravni naslednik.
It therefore seems only right to refuse it the right to exercise an option’.
Zato se zdi logično, da se ji zavrne pravica izbire“.
The Commission’s expert points out that, when it comes to the abolition pure and simple of publicly owned establishments through the abolition of their tasks, the objection could be made to this reasoning that the fact that the State is in no position to refuse the assets does not necessarily imply that it is also unable to refuse the debts.
Izvedenka Komisije poudarja, da bi lahko oporekali temu sklepanju glede preprostih ukinitev oseb javnega prava z ukinitvijo naloge, ker nezmožnost države, da zavrne premoženje, ne pomeni nujno nezmožnosti zavrnitve dolgov.
It nonetheless seems that, where publicly owned entities are concerned, inability to refuse a succession is based mainly on the public law status of publicly owned establishments rather than on its not being possible to leave assets with no one in charge of them.
Vseeno se zdi, da kar zadeva osebe javnega prava, nezmožnost zavrnitve nasledstva temelji predvsem na javnopravnem statusu oseb javnega prava, ne pa na nezmožnosti, da se premoženje pusti brez gospodarja.
Guided by its expert, the Commission concludes that the debts of publicly owned establishments are in practice always transferred to another legal entity governed by public law in the event of the closing down of the publicly owned establishment that carried out the task concerned.
Komisija na podlagi mnenja svoje izvedenke ugotavlja, da se dolgovi oseb javnega prava v primeru prenehanja obstoja osebe javnega prava, ki je opravljala nalogo, v praksi vedno prenesejo na drugo pravno osebo javnega prava.
The creditors of these publicly owned establishments, such as La Poste, therefore have a guarantee that their unpaid claims will not be cancelled.
Upnikom teh oseb javnega prava, med katerimi je podjetje La Poste, je tako zagotovljeno, da njihove neporavnane terjatve ne bodo prenehale.
Conclusion regarding the existence of a state guarantee in favour of La Poste
Sklepna ugotovitev o obstoju državnega poroštva v korist podjetja La Poste
On the basis of the evidence of the existence of a guarantee ensuring the payment of individual claims and the continued existence of La Poste’s obligations, the Commission concludes that:
Komisija na podlagi elementov, predloženih za dokaz obstoja poroštva za poplačilo individualnih terjatev in ohranitev obstoja obveznosti podjetja La Poste, ugotavlja, da:
the creditors of La Poste do not encounter the usual private and public law obstacles to the payment of a claim,
se upniki podjetja La Poste ne srečujejo z običajnimi ovirami, ki obstajajo v zasebnem pravu in javnem pravu ter ki bi lahko preprečile poravnavo terjatve,
in recovering the amounts owed to them, the creditors of La Poste may use specific procedures authorising the State to force the debtor body to settle the claim and, if need be, enabling the State to increase La Poste’s resources for settling it,
lahko upniki podjetja La Poste za izterjavo svojih terjatev uporabijo posebne postopke, na podlagi katerih lahko država prisili dolžnika, da poravna terjatev, in po potrebi poveča sredstva podjetja La Poste za plačilo terjatve,
nowhere does French law give the creditors of La Poste to understand that La Poste could face, for good, a situation in which it had a shortage of funds,
upniki podjetja La Poste ne morejo na nobeni podlagi v francoskem pravu sklepati, da bi se to podjetje lahko dokončno znašlo v položaju brez zadostnih sredstev,
the budgetary documents indicate that, if there is a shortage funds, the State could give an exceptional grant to public sector bodies, of which La Poste is one,
je iz proračunskih dokumentov mogoče razumeti, da bi država v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev subjektom v javnem sektorju, med katere spada podjetje La Poste, lahko dodelila izredno subvencijo,
if the procedures described above do not enable the creditor to obtain satisfaction, he can hold the State liable in order to obtain the payment of his claim in full,
če upnik na podlagi zgoraj opisanih postopkov ne doseže poravnave svoje terjatve, lahko uveljavlja odgovornost države, da bi dosegel plačilo terjatve v celoti,
if the actions envisaged above were to be spread out over time, the creditor can be certain that his claim will not be cancelled, even if La Poste were to be subject to organic development of the kind that, as experience shows, in fact takes place.
če bi zgoraj opisani ukrepi trajali dlje, je upnik prepričan, da njegova terjatev ne bo izginila, tudi če bi podjetje La Poste spremenilo obliko, kot je razvidno iz prakse.
These special factors are intrinsically linked to La Poste’s legal form as a publicly owned establishment.
Te posebnosti so tesno povezane s statusom osebe javnega prava, ki ga ima podjetje La Poste.
The procedures described above imply that the State performs the role of guarantor of last resort.
Zgoraj opisani postopki pomenijo, da ima država v skrajnem primeru vlogo poroka.
It may therefore be legitimately concluded that La Poste benefits from an unlimited guarantee on the part of the French State because of its legal form as a publicly owned establishment.
Zato je mogoče upravičeno ugotoviti, da je podjetje La Poste zaradi svojega statusa osebe javnega prava upravičeno do neomejenega poroštva francoske države.
The unlimited state guarantee to La Poste results in a transfer of state resources within the meaning of point 2.1 of the 2008 Communication on guarantees.
Neomejeno državno poroštvo v korist podjetja La Poste pomeni prenos državnih sredstev v smislu točke 2.1 obvestila o poroštvih iz leta 2008.
Indeed, La Poste pays no premium for this guarantee, and the State therefore waives the remuneration that normally accompanies guarantees.
Podjetje La Poste namreč ne plačuje nobene premije za to poroštvo, država pa se torej odpoveduje plačilu, ki običajno spremlja poroštva.
Moreover, the guarantee creates the risk of a potential and future claim on the resources of the State, which could find itself obliged to pay La Poste’s debts.
Po drugi strani poroštvo ustvarja tveganje morebitne in prihodnje zagotovitve sredstev države, ki bi lahko bila zavezana plačati dolgove podjetja La Poste.
Finally, the State’s unlimited guarantee to La Poste is imputable to the State because it derives from the combination of La Poste’s public-law legal form, principles of national law and two legislative acts, namely the Law of 25 January 1985, now the Commercial Code, and the Law of 16 July 1980 and the measures implementing it.
Nazadnje, neomejeno državno poroštvo v korist podjetja La Poste je treba pripisati državi, ker izhaja iz kombinacije javnopravnega statusa podjetja La Poste, načel nacionalnega prava in dveh zakonodajnih aktov, to je zakona z dne 25. januarja 1985, ki je postal trgovinski zakonik, in zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 ter njegovih izvedbenih ukrepov.
EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE
OBSTOJ SELEKTIVNE PREDNOSTI
The guarantee is an essential component of state support, thanks to which La Poste enjoys more favourable borrowing terms that it would have obtained had it been judged solely on its own merits (a).
Poroštvo je bistveni element državne podpore, zaradi katerega ima podjetje La Poste ugodnejše pogoje financiranja, kot bi jih pridobilo, če bi ga ocenjevali samo na podlagi njegovih odlik (a).
Given the unlimited nature of the guarantee, it is not possible to calculate the amount of the market premium that La Poste should pay to the State, which renders the transfer mechanism proposed by the French authorities inapplicable (b).
Ob upoštevanju neomejenosti poroštva ni mogoče izračunati zneska tržne premije, ki bi ga podjetje La Poste moralo plačati državi, zaradi česar je mehanizem retrocesije, ki so ga predlagali francoski organi, neupošteven (b).
The more favourable borrowing terms obtained by La Poste thanks to the implicit state guarantee constitute a selective advantage (c).
Ugodnejši pogoji financiranja, ki jih je podjetje La Poste pridobilo zaradi implicitnega državnega poroštva, pomenijo selektivno prednost (c).
The guarantee is an essential component of state support, thanks to which La Poste enjoys more favourable borrowing terms that it would have obtained had it been judged solely on its own merits.
Poroštvo je bistveni element državne podpore, zaradi katerega ima podjetje La Poste ugodnejše pogoje financiranja, kot bi jih pridobilo, če bi ga ocenjevali samo na podlagi njegovih odlik (a)
Borrowing terms are set on the basis of the financial rating in particular
Pogoji financiranja se določijo zlasti na podlagi bonitetne ocene
Borrowing terms are set on the basis of the financial rating in particular: the more an undertaking’s rating deteriorates because of an increased risk of insolvency, the higher the remuneration required by the investor.
Pogoji financiranja se določijo zlasti na podlagi bonitetne ocene: slabša ko je bonitetna ocena podjetja zaradi povečanega tveganja plačilne nesposobnosti, višje bo plačilo, ki ga bo zahteval vlagatelj.
A contrario, an undertaking with a very low risk of insolvency will be able to borrow on very favourable terms.
Po drugi strani bo lahko podjetje z zelo majhnim tveganjem plačilne nesposobnosti posojila najemalo po zelo ugodnih pogojih.
Contrary to what the French authorities maintain, the rating agencies take the view that the guarantee is a determining factor of state support for La Poste, thanks to which the latter enjoys a higher rating than it would have obtained had it been judged solely on its own merits
V nasprotju s trditvami francoskih organov bonitetne agencije menijo, da je poroštvo odločilni element državne podpore za podjetje La Poste, zaradi katerega ima višjo bonitetno oceno, kot bi jo dobilo, če bi ga ocenjevali samo na podlagi njegovih odlik
The guarantee, as an essential component of state support for La Poste, influences La Poste’s financial rating
Poroštvo kot bistveni element državne podpore vpliva na bonitetno oceno podjetja La Poste
Rating-agency analyses concerning the existence of a state guarantee in favour of La Poste
Analize bonitetnih agencij v zvezi z obstojem poroštva države v korist podjetja La Poste
In a study on the influence of government support on the ratings of postal operators dated 22 November 2004, Standard & Poor’s point out that ‘La Poste’s legal status, which ensures a last-recourse sovereign guarantee, confers the ultimate statutory guarantee of the Republic of France on its obligations’.
Bonitetna agencija Standard and Poor’s v študiji o vplivu državne podpore na bonitetne ocene poštnih operaterjev z dne 22. novembra 2004 navaja, da je s pravnim statusom podjetja La Poste, ki mu v skrajnem primeru zagotavlja državno poroštvo, podeljeno skrajno zakonsko poroštvo Francoske republike za obveznosti podjetja La Poste.
On 3 April 2007, Standard & Poor’s confirmed its conclusion that the status of publicly owned establishment confers on La Poste an ultimate state guarantee, even though the guarantee is not timely and express, as reflected by the rating differentiation between La Poste and the Republic of France.
Agencija Standard and Poor’s je 3. aprila 2007 potrdila svojo ugotovitev, da status osebe javnega prava podjetju La Poste zagotavlja skrajno poroštvo francoske države, čeprav to poroštvo ni takojšnje in eksplicitno, kot izhaja iz razlike v oceni med podjetjem La Poste in Francosko republiko.
As for Fitch, another leading rating agency, it pointed out on 31 March 2006, when confirming the AAA rating given to La Poste,that La Poste was a public group that enjoyed a guarantee from the French State.
Druga pomembna bonitetna agencija Fitch je 31. marca 2006 ob potrditvi ocene AAA podjetju La Poste opozorila, da je to podjetje javna skupina, upravičena do poroštva francoske države.
In this respect the Commission would point out that, from the perspective of EU law, it does not matter whether the obligation on the State to assume liability for La Poste’s commitments derives from what is termed a guarantee under national law or from a simple statutory obligation.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja, da z vidika prava Unije ni pomembno, ali obveznost države, da prevzame obveznosti podjetja La Poste, izhaja iz tega, kar se v nacionalnem pravu imenuje poroštvo, ali iz preproste zakonske obveznosti.
Under both scenarios, there is a state guarantee from the perspective of EU law (see the 2008 Guarantees Notice, which explains that public guarantees may be linked to the status of the undertaking itself and imply coverage of losses by the State.
Z vidika prava Unije je namreč to v obeh primerih poroštvo (glej obvestilo o poroštvih iz leta 2008, v katerem je pojasnjeno, da so lahko javna poroštva povezana s statusom samega podjetja in vključujejo državni prevzem izgube).
On 4 September 2009 Fitch pointed out: ‘However, as the agency had pointed out in 2008 when downgrading La Poste’s rating from AAA to AA, it does not recognise the existence of an implied state liquidity guarantee in favour of La Poste.
Agencija Fitch je 4. septembra 2009 navedla: „Vendar agencija, kot je navedla pri znižanju ocene podjetja LP z ‚AAA‘ na ‚AA‘ leta 2008, ne priznava obstoja implicitnega poroštva države v korist podjetja LP na področju likvidnosti.
Since 2006 it has been possible to activate State aid schemes only if the liquidity requirements are consistent with European competition rules; accordingly, La Poste’s status as a public operator no longer justifies automatically aligning its ratings on those of the State.
Od leta 2006 se namreč mehanizmi državne pomoči lahko aktivirajo samo, če so likvidnostne potrebe v skladu z evropskimi pravili konkurence; zaradi tega status javnega izvajalca, ki ga ima podjetje LP, ne upravičuje več, da so njegove ocene samodejno usklajene z ocenami države.
Therefore, access to advances from the Treasury in the event of a liquidity crisis is no longer guaranteed, which may substantially delay state support when needed’. Fitch therefore takes the view that it has not been possible to activate the liquidity guarantee since 2006 because it no longer complies with European competition rules.
Tako dostop do predujmov iz državnih sredstev v primeru likvidnostne krize ni več zagotovljen, kar lahko bistveno zadrži državno podporo v primeru potrebe.“ Agencija Fitch torej meni, da od leta 2006 ni več mogoče aktivirati poroštva na področju likvidnosti, ker ni v skladu z evropskimi pravili konkurence.