natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular, in its judgment in Société de l’hôtel d’Albe, the Council of State held that ‘the national tourism office, which has civil personality and financial independence […] was a publicly owned establishment, so that the State cannot be liable for satisfying the debts contracted by the establishment; the Minister for Public Works therefore correctly refused to accede to the [creditor’s] demand’.
Sodišče Conseil d’Etat je v sodbi v zvezi z družbo Société de l’hôtel d’Albe razsodilo, da je „nacionalni urad za turizem, ki je civilnopravna oseba in je finančno neodvisen, […] oseba javnega prava, zato država ni dolžna poravnavati dolgov te osebe javnega prava; minister za javna dela je tako utemeljeno zavrnil zahtevo [upnika]“.
The same reasoning was followed with regard to local authorities in the two decisions by the Council of State in the Campoloro case.
Enako sklepanje naj bi bilo uporabljeno v zvezi z lokalnimi skupnostmi v dveh odločitvah sodišča Conseil d’Etat v zadevi Campoloro.
Third, the French authorities’ expert concludes that the debts contracted by La Poste since the entry into force, on 1 January 2005, of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act (‘LOLF’) do not qualify for an implied guarantee.
Tretjič, izvedenec francoskih organov trdi, da dolgovi, ki so podjetju La Poste nastali od začetka veljavnosti LOLF, tj. 1. januarja 2005, ne morejo biti upravičeni do implicitnega poroštva.
With regard to debts contracted before that date and whose lifetime extends beyond it, the expert acknowledges that two views are possible.
Kar zadeva dolgove, ki so nastali pred 1. januarjem 2005 in ki bi trajali še po tem datumu, izvedenec francoskih organov priznava, da si lahko nasprotujeta dve trditvi:
The fourth subparagraph of Article 3-1 of the Decree of 12 May 1981 provides that ‘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. The representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision shall, as appropriate, release the necessary resources either by reducing the appropriations allocated to other expenditures and still available or by increasing resources.’
Četrti odstavek člena 3-1 odloka z dne 12. maja 1981 določa, da „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.
On the second view, rights as indisputable and decisive as these cannot be claimed by the holders of a supposed implied guarantee. In so far as there is an implied guarantee for the debts of La Poste, therefore, the fact that that guarantee is not authorised in the Finance Act means that it also lapses in respect of debts contracted before 1 January 2005.
v skladu z drugo trditvijo imetniki domnevnega implicitnega poroštva ne morejo zahtevati tako nespornih in odločilnih pravic; torej, če bi za dolgove podjetja La Poste obstajalo implicitno poroštvo, bi dejstvo, da to poroštvo ni bilo dovoljeno v zakonu o financah, povzročilo neveljavnost tega poroštva tudi za dolgove, nastale pred 1. januarjem 2005.
However, on 17 April 2008, Fitch downgraded La Poste’s rating to AA, basing its decision on the fact that ‘La Poste’s status as a public operator no longer justifies its ratings being automatically aligned on the State.’
Agencija Fitch je kljub temu 17. aprila 2008 oceno podjetja La Poste znižala na AA, pri čemer je odločitev utemeljila s tem, da „status javnega izvajalca, ki ga ima podjetje La Poste, ne upravičuje več, da so njegove ocene samodejno usklajene z državo“.
Although Fitch pointed out that it ‘did not presuppose the existence of an implied state guarantee’, it nonetheless confirmed that ‘the statutory obligation on the State to assume La Poste’s commitments remains’.
Čeprav agencija Fitch navaja, da „ne predpostavlja obstoja implicitnega poroštva države“, vseeno trdi, da „zakonska obveznost za državo, da prevzame obveznosti podjetja La Poste, ostaja“.
On the first view, the Constitutional Council has found that guarantees do not lapse merely because they are not expressly authorised by the Finance Act, and the constitutional grounds on which it made this finding, in particular the principle of equality before public burdens and the right of property, apply to guarantees whether express or implied. In so far as there is an implied guarantee for the debts of La Poste, therefore, the fact that it was not authorised by the Finance Act would not mean that it would lapse in respect of debts contracted by La Poste before 1 January 2005.
v skladu s prvo trditvijo ustavni razlogi (zlasti enakost pred javnimi bremeni in lastninska pravica), na podlagi katerih je ustavni svet zavrnil neveljavnost poroštev, katerih dodelitev ni bila izrecno dovoljena v zakonu o financah, veljajo za implicitna in eksplicitna poroštva: torej, če bi za dolgove podjetja La Poste obstajalo implicitno poroštvo, dejstvo, da to poroštvo ni bilo dovoljeno v zakonu o financah, ne bi povzročilo neveljavnosti tega poroštva za dolgove podjetja La Poste, ki so nastali pred 1. januarjem 2005,
In their memorandum of 27 October 2009, the French authorities dispute this view. The conclusion, they argue, is not based on any legislation, since the reference in Article 1871-1 of the Civil Code is concerned with ‘relations between partners’ and not relations with third parties.
Francoski organi v obvestilu z dne 27. oktobra 2009 ugovarjajo tej ugotovitvi, ki naj ne bi temeljila na nobenem besedilu, saj se sklicevanje na člen 1871-1 civilnega zakonika nanaša na „razmerja med družbeniki“, ne pa na razmerja do tretjih oseb.
As indicated above, the operative event giving rise to the liability is nothing but the financial situation of the debtor authority. Moreover, the latter may just as well be an establishment as a local or regional authority.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, je odločilno dejstvo za vzpostavitev odgovornosti finančni položaj skupnosti dolžnice, ki je lahko oseba javnega prava in tudi ozemeljska skupnost.
‘Rating Government-Related Entities: A Primer’. Standard & Poor’s, 14 June 2006.
„Rating Government-Related Entities: A Primer.“ Standard and Poor’s, 14. junij 2006.
The Court also noted that a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights had taken place: ‘The interested parties’ inability to have these judgments implemented constitutes interference with those parties’ property rights — interference such as is referred to in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No 1. The Government has provided no justification at all for such interference, and the Court considers that lack of resources cannot legitimise the omission concerned (ibid)’.
Sodišče je ugotovilo tudi kršitev člena 1 Protokola št. 1 k Evropski konvenciji o človekovih pravicah: „Nezmožnost zadevnih strank, da bi dosegli izvršitev teh sodb, pomeni poseg v njuno lastninsko pravico, ki spada pod prvi stavek prvega odstavka člena 1 Protokola št. 1.
Nor can Article 6-1 of the Convention form the basis of any such substitution in so far as a solution of that kind would be contrary to the very concept of legal personality, which presupposes autonomy and a distinct set of assets’. While the French Government attempted specifically to invoke the differences — highlighted above — between the liability scheme and the guarantee mechanism, these arguments were not in the end accepted by the Court.
Ta nadomestitev tudi ne more temeljiti na členu 6(1) Konvencije, ker bi bila taka rešitev v nasprotju s samim pojmom pravne osebe, za katero se predpostavljata neodvisnost in ločeno premoženje.“ Čeprav se je francoska vlada poskušala sklicevati prav na zgoraj predstavljene razlike med sistemom odgovornosti in mehanizmom poroštva, Sodišče nazadnje teh trditev ni sprejelo.
The same applies to the creation of publicly owned establishments and to some shareholdings in public limited companies’. Here the French authorities themselves point out that the setting up of a publicly owned establishment entails an implied guarantee given by the State to the establishment’s creditors.
Enako velja za ustanovitev oseb javnega prava in nekatere deleže v delniških družbah.“ Tako francoski organi sami opozarjajo, da ustanovitev osebe javnega prava vključuje implicitno državno poroštvo v korist upnikov te osebe javnega prava.
Article 1871-1 provides as follows: ‘Unless another form of organisation has been provided for, the relations between partners are governed, to the extent reasonable, either by the rules applying to sociétés civiles, if the partnership is of a civil character, or, if the partnership is of a commercial character, by the rules applicable to sociétés en nom collectif’. It has been explained above that both of these forms of partnership are legal persons whose members have unlimited liability for their debts.
Člen 1871-1 civilnega zakonika določa naslednji mehanizem: „Razen če ni bila predvidena drugačna organizacija, so razmerja med družbeniki, če je to razumno, urejena bodisi z določbami, ki se uporabljajo za družbe po civilnem pravu, če je družba civilne narave, bodisi z določbami, ki se uporabljajo za družbe z neomejeno odgovornostjo, če je družba komercialne narave.“ Zgoraj pa je bilo pojasnjeno, da so družbe po civilnem pravu in družbe z neomejeno odgovornostjo del pravnih oseb, katerih člani neomejeno odgovarjajo za dolgove.
But equity demands that after so many years the two applicant companies should be compensated […] it turns the State into a forced insurer of the damage caused by the incompetence [of the municipality]’. The Commission’s expert observes that the correct term is not ‘forced insurer’ but rather ‘forced guarantor’.
Res je, da pravičnost zahteva, da se tožečima družbama po toliko letih povrne škoda.“„Državo spremeni v zavezanega zavarovalca škodljivih posledic navedene nesposobnosti [občine].“ Po mnenju izvedenke Komisije ustrezen izraz ni „zavarovalec“, ampak „zavezani porok“.
The entries will be transferred to a special Treasury 904.14 account entitled ‘Winding-up of public Government bodies and para-administrative or professional bodies, and various windings up’. Decree No 81-1009 of 12 November 1981, abolishing the Institut Auguste Comte pour l’étude des sciences et de l’action: any surplus on the winding up is paid to the State.Decree No 83-1185 of 27 December 1983, winding up the Etablissement public chargé de l’aménagement de la ville nouvelle de Lille-Est: ‘the assets and liabilities of the Etablissement public d’aménagement de la ville nouvelle de Lille-Est shall be transferred on this date to the Communauté urbaine de Lille under the conditions established by the above-mentioned agreement of 5 December 1983, with the exception of the goods listed in the Annex to this decree, which shall be transferred to the Institut de recherche des transports’. Decree No 83-1263 of 30 December 1983 relating to the winding up of the Service national d’examen des permis de conduire: ‘the transactions are listed in the special “Winding up of publicly owned establishments” Treasury account ’.
To se bo knjižilo na poseben račun državne blagajne 904.14 z naslovom „Likvidacija oseb javnega prava države, paraupravnih ali strokovnih organov in različne likvidacije.“Odlok št. 81-1009 z dne 12. novembra 1981 o ukinitvi inštituta Auguste Comte za znanstvene študije in delovanje: morebitni likvidacijski prebitek pridrži država.Odlok št. 83-1185 z dne 27. decembra 1983 o razpustitvi osebe javnega prava, pristojne za urejanje novega mesta Lille-Est: „Aktiva in pasiva osebe javnega prava za urejanje mesta Lille-Est se na ta dan preneseta na mestno skupnost Lilla pod pogoji, določenimi z zgoraj navedeno konvencijo z dne 5. decembra 1983, razen premoženja, naštetega v prilogi k temu odloku, ki se prenese na inštitut za raziskavo prometa.“Odlok št. 83-1263 z dne 30. decembra 1983 o razpustitvi nacionalne službe za obravnavo vozniških dovoljenj: postopki se evidentirajo na poseben račun državne blagajne „Likvidacija oseb javnega prava“.
Article 2 of Decree No 2000-1294 of 26 December 2000, winding up the Etablissement public chargé de l’aménagement de la ville nouvelle d’Evry and transferring its rights and obligations to the Agence foncière et technique de la région parisienne: ‘the assets and liabilities of the Etablissement public chargé de l’aménagement de la ville nouvelle d’Evry shall be transferred on this date to the Agence foncière et technique de la région parisienne’ […] .
Odlok št. 2000-1294 z dne 26. decembra 2000 o razpustitvi osebe javnega prava, pristojne za urejanje novega mesta Evry, ter prenosu njenih pravic in obveznosti na Agence foncière et technique de la région parisienne, člen 2: „Aktiva in pasiva osebe javnega prava, pristojne za urejanje novega mesta Evry, se s tem datumom preneseta na Agence foncière et technique de la région parisienne“.
‘it shall take over all the rights and obligations relating to the activity carried on by the Etablissement public’.
[…] „Ta prevzame vse pravice in obveznosti, povezane z dejavnostjo, ki jo izvaja oseba javnega prava“.
of 26 February 2010
z dne 26. februarja 2010
on State aid C 9/09 (ex NN 49/08, NN 50/08 and NN 45/08) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium, the French Republic and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for Dexia SA
o državni pomoči C 9/09 (ex NN 49/08; NN 50/08 in NN 45/08) Kraljevine Belgije, Francoske republike in Velikega vojvodstva Luksemburg za bančno skupino Dexia SA
(notified under document C(2010) 1180)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2010) 1180)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [1],
po pozivu zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo pripombe v skladu z navedenimi določbami [1],
EMERGENCY MEASURES FOR DEXIA
NUJNI UKREPI ZA BANČNO SKUPINO DEXIA
On 30 September 2008, the authorities of Belgium, France and Luxembourg (‘the Member States concerned’) publicly announced the implementation of the capital increase described in section 3.1 of this decision (‘the capital increase’).
Organi Belgije, Francije in Luksemburga (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zadevne države članice) so 30. septembra 2008 javno napovedali izvedbo dokapitalizacije, opisane v razdelku 3.1 tega sklepa (v nadaljnjem besedilu: dokapitalizacija).
On 9 October 2008, the Member States concerned announced the implementation of the guarantee described in section 3.2 (‘the guarantee’).
Zadevne države članice so 9. oktobra 2008 napovedale uveljavitev jamstva, opisanega v razdelku 3.2 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: jamstvo).
By communications of 1 and 2 October 2008, recorded the same day at the Commission, the authorities of the Member States concerned informed the Commission of the measures they had taken in the context of the capital increase.
Organi zadevnih držav članic so Komisijo z dopisi z dne 1. in 2. oktobra 2008, ki jih je Komisija evidentirala istega dne, obvestili o ukrepih, ki so jih sprejeli v okviru dokapitalizacije.
Reasoned letters, justifying the urgency of the measures taken by the Member States concerned in the context of the capital increase, were then addressed to the Commission:
Komisija je nato prejela dopise z obrazložitvijo nujnosti ukrepov, ki so jih zadevne države članice sprejele v okviru dokapitalizacije:
letter from the Banque nationale de Belgique (‘BNB’), received on 1 October 2008,
oktobra 2008 dopis belgijske narodne banke (Banque nationale de Belgique, v nadaljnjem besedilu: BNB),
letter from the Banque de France, received on 2 October 2008,
oktobra 2008 dopis francoske centralne banke (Banque de France),
letter from the Commission luxembourgeoise de surveillance des services financiers (‘CSSF’), received on 10 October 2008.
oktobra 2008 dopis luksemburške komisije za finančni nadzor (Commission luxembourgeoise de surveillance des services financiers – CSSF, v nadaljnjem besedilu: CSSF).
By communications of 9, 13 and 17 October 2008, the Member States concerned informed the Commission of the implementation of the guarantee.
O uveljavitvi jamstva so zadevne države članice Komisijo obvestile z dopisi z dne 9., 13. in 17. oktobra 2008.
By communications of 2, 13 and 14 October 2008, the Member States concerned undertook to present to the Commission, within a period of six months from 3 October 2008, a restructuring plan for Dexia, taking into account the measures taken on 3 and 9 October 2008.
Zadevne države članice so se z dopisi z dne 2., 13. in 14. oktobra 2008 obvezale, da bodo Komisiji v šestih mesecih od 3. oktobra 2008 predložile načrt prestrukturiranja skupine Dexia ob upoštevanju ukrepov, sprejetih 3. in 9. oktobra 2008.
By letters of 8 and 13 October, in a concern for transparency, the BNB informed the Commission of a liquidity assistance operation (‘the LA operation’), put in place by the BNB, in cooperation with the Banque de France, on account of Dexia’s temporary liquidity problems.
BNB je Komisijo z dopisoma z dne 8. in 13. oktobra zaradi preglednosti obvestila o ukrepu likvidnostne pomoči (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ukrep likvidnostne pomoči), ki ga je zaradi začasnih likvidnostnih težav skupine Dexia sprejela v sodelovanju z Banque de France.
It has kept the Commission informed of the amounts drawn on that operation.
Komisijo je redno obveščala o zneskih v okviru tega ukrepa.
On 14 November 2008, the Belgian and French States publicly announced the establishment of a guarantee relating to the financial products of Dexia’s subsidiary, Financial Security Assurance (FSA) (‘the FSA measure’).
Belgija in Francija sta 14. novembra 2008 javno napovedali uveljavitev jamstva za finančne instrumente odvisne družbe skupine Dexia, Financial Security Assurance (FSA – v nadaljnjem besedilu: ukrep za družbo FSA).
FIRST COMMISSION DECISION: NOT TO RAISE OBJECTIONS TO THE EMERGENCY MEASURES
PRVA ODLOČITEV KOMISIJE: NENASPROTOVANJE NUJNIM UKREPOM
By decision of 19 November 2008 [2], the Commission decided not to raise any objections to the LA operation and the guarantee by the Member States concerned in respect of certain of Dexia’s liabilities.
Komisija je v odločitvi z dne 19. novembra 2008 [2] navedla, da ne bo vložila ugovora v zvezi z ukrepom likvidnostne pomoči in jamstvom zadevnih držav članic za obveznosti skupine Dexia.
The Commission considered these measures to be rescue aid to an undertaking in difficulties and therefore compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU [3], and authorised these measures for a period of six months from 3 October 2008, specifying that after that time the Commission would have to re-evaluate the aid as a structural measure.
Menila je namreč, da sta ta ukrepa združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(3)(b) PDEU [3] kot pomoč za reševanje podjetja v težavah, in ju odobrila za šest mesecev od 3. oktobra 2008, pri čemer je pojasnila, da bo po tem obdobju morala pomoč ponovno proučiti kot strukturni ukrep.
The decision of 19 November 2008 also expressly provided that the other aid measures would be examined separately as part of a later decision.
V odločitvi z dne 19. novembra 2008 je bilo tudi izrecno predvideno, da bodo drugi ukrepi pomoči ločeno proučeni v okviru poznejše odločitve.
COMPLAINT BY A THIRD PARTY AGAINST ALLEGED STATE AID RECEIVED BY DEXIA
PRITOŽBA TRETJE OSEBE ZOPER DRŽAVNO POMOČ, KI NAJ BI JO PREJELA DEXIA
By letter received on 6 November 2008, a complaint was lodged with the Commission against allegedly illegal State aid received by Dexia.
Z dopisom z dne 6. novembra 2008 je bila pri Komisiji vložena pritožba zoper domnevno nezakonito državno pomoč za skupino Dexia.
This complaint was lodged by a competitor of Dexia Banque Belgique (‘DBB’) and refers in particular to the EUR 3 billion capital increase subscribed to by the authorities and Dexia’s Belgian shareholders and the guarantee issued by the Belgian State in respect of interbank and similar loans in favour of Dexia.
Pritožbo je vložil konkurent družbe Dexia Banque Belgique (v nadaljnjem besedilu: DBB), nanaša pa se na dokapitalizacijo v višini 3 milijard EUR, ki so jih zagotovili organi in belgijski delničarji skupine Dexia, ter na jamstvo, ki ga je Belgija dodelila za medbančna posojila skupini Dexia.
EXTENSION OF THE MEASURES AND DEXIA’S RESTRUCTURING PLAN
PODALJŠANJE UKREPOV IN NAČRT PRESTRUKTURIRANJA SKUPINE DEXIA
Furthermore, under this initial restructuring plan, the authorities of the Member States concerned asked the Commission to authorise the extension of the guarantee mechanism until the deadline provided for in the guarantee agreement, that is to say 31 October 2009, and the continuation of the preferential remuneration rate of 25 basis points for the guarantee covering bonds with a maturity of less than one month.
Organi zadevnih držav članic so v okviru prvotnega načrta prestrukturiranja Komisijo še zaprosili za podaljšanje jamstvenega mehanizma do roka, določenega s pogodbo o jamstvu, to je do 31. oktobra 2009, in ohranitev preferenčne stopnje nadomestila v višini 25 bazičnih točk navedenega jamstva za obveznice z dospelostjo do enega meseca.
In addition, the Commission was also asked to confirm that, if the guarantee were to be extended beyond October 2009 (to October 2010), that extension would be compatible with the common market.
Komisijo so še prosili, naj potrdi, ali bi bilo morebitno dodatno podaljšanje jamstva po oktobru 2009 (do oktobra 2010) združljivo s skupnim trgom.
As a precautionary measure, the Belgian Government also requested the extension until 31 October 2009 of the possibility of Dexia using LA operations provided by the BNB.
Po drugi strani je belgijska vlada preventivno tudi zaprosila, naj se do 31. oktobra 2009 podaljša možnost, da Dexia zaprosi za likvidnostno pomoč BNB.
Finally, the Belgian and French Governments notified the Commission of the implementation of the FSA measure, publicly announced on 14 November 2008.
Nazadnje sta belgijska in francoska vlada Komisiji priglasili sprejetje ukrepa za družbo FSA, ki sta ga javno napovedali 14. novembra 2008.
SECOND COMMISSION DECISION: INITIATION OF THE FORMAL PROCEDURE
DRUGA ODLOČITEV KOMISIJE: SPROŽITEV FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA
By letter of 13 March 2009, the Commission notified the Belgian, French and Luxembourg authorities of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU concerning all the aid granted to Dexia [4].
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 13. marca 2009 belgijske, francoske in luksemburške organe obvestila o svoji odločitvi, da glede vseh pomoči, dodeljenih skupini Dexia, sproži postopek iz člena 108(2) PDEU [4].
However, the letter specifies that, in order to allow the rapid sale of FSA, the Commission did not raise any objection to certain aspects of the FSA measure which were considered to be compatible with the internal market, on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.
V dopisu je kljub temu pojasnila, da – ker želi omogočiti hitro prodajo družbe FSA – ne nasprotuje nekaterim vidikom ukrepa za družbo FSA, ki so se v skladu s členom 107(3)(b) PDEU šteli za združljive z notranjim trgom.
Finally, the letter specifies that the guarantee by the Member States concerned in favour of Dexia, valid until 30 October 2009, could be considered to be compatible with the internal market, on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, pending the Commission’s final decision closing the formal procedure.
Nazadnje je v dopisu podrobno določeno, da se lahko jamstvo zadevnih držav članic za skupino Dexia, veljavno do 30. oktobra 2009, šteje za združljivo z enotnim trgom v skladu s členom 107(3)(b) PDEU do dokončne odločitve Komisije, na podlagi katere bo mogoče končati formalni postopek.
The Commission’s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The Commission received no comments on this subject from interested parties.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ni prejela pripomb zainteresiranih strani.