natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For further details, the Commission refers to section 3.2.1.4 of the opening decision, recital 52 [24].
Komisija se za več podrobnosti sklicuje na del 3.2.1.4 odločitve o začetku postopka, in sicer na uvodno izjavo 52. [24]
As explained in recitals 65 to 74 of the opening decision, to which the Commission refers for more details, the clarifications to legislation and regulations proposed by the French authorities did not at first sight seem sufficient to assuage these doubts.
Poleg tega se v skladu z navedbami v uvodnih izjavah od 65 do 74 odločitve o začetku postopka, na katere Komisija napotuje za več podrobnosti, zakonodajna in zakonska pojasnila francoskih organov ne zdijo zadostna, da bi vnaprej odpravila dvome.
The Commission said that it could not be ruled out that there might be a selective economic advantage, mainly through funding terms considered more favourable, even if IFP and its subsidiaries were not the subject of a financial rating by an external rating agency.
Komisija je nato navedla, da kot posledico navedenega položaja ni mogoče izključiti selektivne gospodarske prednosti, zlasti zaradi pogojev financiranja, ki se štejejo za ugodnejše, celo če oseba javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe niso predmet bonitetne ocene zunanje bonitetne agencije.
The IFP group might also have been advantaged in its dealings with customers and suppliers in so far as they believed their claims to be covered by a State guarantee.
Skupina IFP bi lahko imela prednost tudi pri odnosih s strankami in dobavitelji, ker bi ti menili, da so upravičeni do državnega poroštva za svoje terjatve.
Consequently, it could not be ruled out at the preliminary examination stage that in the case of the supply or purchase of goods or services involving a claim, the suppliers or customers concerned would grant terms to IFP that were better than those they would have granted to an undertaking not benefiting from a State guarantee.
Zato pri predhodni preučitvi ni bilo mogoče izključiti, da zadevni dobavitelji ali stranke v primeru dobave ali nakupa blaga ali storitev, ki vključujejo terjatev, osebi javnega prava IFP ponujajo boljše pogoje kot podjetju, ki nima državnega poroštva.
On the basis of the information available at the end of its preliminary examination, the Commission considered that the unlimited nature of the guarantee, especially as regards its duration, amount and scope, made it extremely difficult to calculate the amount of the market premium that IFP ought to pay the State for such protection.
Komisija je poleg tega po koncu predhodne preučitve na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij menila, da neomejenost poroštva, zlasti kar zadeva njegovo trajanje, znesek in obseg, zelo otežuje izračun zneska tržne premije, ki bi jo morala oseba javnega prava IFP plačati državi za dodelitev navedenega varstva.
Finally, the Commission doubted whether the aid was compatible with the internal market, particular because it did not at first sight appear to be intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or regions.
Nazadnje je navedla, da ima pomisleke glede združljivosti državne pomoči z notranjim trgom, zlasti ker se ta ne zdi prima facie namenjena pospeševanju razvoja določenih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij.
5 OBSERVATIONS AND PROPOSALS PUT FORWARD BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
5 PRIPOMBE IN PREDLOGI FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV
INITIAL OBSERVATIONS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
ZAČETNE PRIPOMBE FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV
In their observations of 14 October 2008, the French authorities pointed out, as a preliminary point, that the procedure against the IFP group had been initiated in parallel to the postal case cited above; they said they were therefore reiterating the same arguments mutatis mutandis as those they developed during the examination of that case [26].
Francoski organi so v pripombah z dne 14. oktobra 2008 najprej opozorili, da se je postopek zoper skupino IFP začel hkrati z zgoraj navedeno poštno zadevo, in zato navedli, da bodo smiselno povzeli iste trditve, kot so jih razvili ob preučitvi te zadeve [26].
Despite these similarities, the French authorities nevertheless wished to draw attention to the specific features of IFP: it was a research organisation assigned a three-fold task in the general interest (research, training and documentation), with an overwhelming majority of non-economic activities, and this justified the public funding granted to it.
Francoski organi so morali kljub podobnostim opozoriti na posebnosti osebe javnega prava IFP: gre za raziskovalno organizacijo s tremi nalogami v splošnem interesu (raziskave, usposabljanje in dokumentacija), njene dejavnosti pa so večinoma negospodarske, kar bi utemeljevalo javno financiranje, ki ji je dodeljeno.
Moreover, they specified the reasons for its conversion into EPIC form, which they said was intended to ensure that IFP’s legal form was consistent with the nature of its activities and its method of funding; relinquishing the form of trade body governed by private law would bring IFP closer to the public sphere.
Poleg tega so pojasnili razloge za spremembo statusa v EPIC: uskladitev med vrsto dejavnosti in načinom financiranja IFP po eni strani ter njenim pravnim statusom po drugi strani naj bi utemeljevala spremembo statusa, tako da bi se IFP približala javni sferi, s tem ko bi opustila obliko strokovne ustanove zasebnega prava.
The French authorities disputed the existence of State aid, since, in their opinion, two of the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU were not met: the mechanism at issue did not involve any transfer of State resources (5.1.1) and did not confer any advantage on IFP (5.1.2).
Francoski organi so izpodbijali obstoj državne pomoči, ker dva od pogojev iz člena 107(1) PDEU po njihovem mnenju nista izpolnjena, saj zadevni mehanizem ne vključuje prenosa državnih sredstev (5.1.1), poleg tega pa osebi javnega prava IFP (5.1.2) ne daje nobene prednosti.
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE IMPUTABLE TO THE STATE INVOLVING A TRANSFER OF STATE RESOURCES
NEOBSTOJ POROŠTVA, KI SE GA DA PRIPISATI DRŽAVI IN VKLJUČUJE PRENOS DRŽAVNIH SREDSTEV
According to the French authorities, (A) publicly owned establishments do not enjoy any guarantee because of their legal form, and (B) the Commission’s argument in the opening decision is flawed.
Osebe javnega prava naj po mnenju francoskih organov po eni strani ne bi bile upravičene do poroštva zaradi svojega statusa (A), po drugi strani pa naj bi bilo sklepanje Komisije v odločitvi o začetku postopka napačno (B).
No unlimited State guarantee
Neobstoj vsakršnega neomejenega državnega poroštva
As explained in recitals 41 to 45 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities develop five pleas in law in support of their arguments.
Francoski organi navajajo pet razlogov v podporo svojim trditvam, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od 41 do 45 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se Komisija smiselno sklicuje.
First, no legislation or decision lays down the principle that the State would, out of principle, indefinitely guarantee the debts of EPICs.
Prvič, v nobenem aktu in tudi v nobeni odločitvi naj ne bi bilo določeno načelo, po katerem naj bi država načeloma neomejeno jamčila za dolgove EPIC.
Second, the Council of State has found against the existence of guarantees, in particular in its judgment in Société de l’hôtel d’Albe [27] and in its two judgments in the Campoloro case [28].
Drugič, v sodni praksi Conseil d'État naj bi bilo odločeno o neobstoju poroštev, zlasti v sodbi Société de l'hôtel d'Albe [27] in v obeh odločitvah, sprejetih v zadevi Campoloro [28].
Debts contracted since 1 January 2005 are therefore not covered by an implied guarantee.
Za dolgove, nastale od 1. januarja 2005, naj torej ne bi obstajalo implicitno poroštvo.
As for debts incurred before 1 January 2005, the expert takes the view that, in the absence of a court judgment, it is impossible to determine whether it might be held that implied guarantees given before 1 January 2005 which were not expressly authorised by a finance act retain their validity on the basis of respect for the constitutionally protected rights of creditors.
Ker v zvezi z dolgovi, nastalimi pred 1. januarjem 2005, ni sodne odločbe, po mnenju izvedenca francoskih organov ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali bi bilo mogoče neveljavnost implicitnih poroštev, ki so bila dana pred 1. januarjem 2005 in katerih odobritev ne bi bila izrecno dovoljena z zakonom o financah, zavrniti – ali ne – na podlagi upoštevanja ustavno zaščitenih pravic upnikov.
Fourth, France considers that if EPICs enjoyed a State guarantee, the change in their legal form would require the introduction of new measures to protect creditors’ rights.
Četrtič, Francija meni, da če bi bile EPIC upravičene do državnega poroštva, bi bilo treba za spremembo njihovega statusa uvesti ukrepe za ohranitev pravic upnikov.
Since such a mechanism has never been introduced [32], France concludes conversely that EPICs do not benefit from any State guarantee.
Ker tak mehanizem ni bil nikoli vzpostavljen, [32] francoski organi sklepajo, da EPIC nasprotno niso upravičene do državnega poroštva.
Fifth, the French authorities refer to an article by Mr Labetoulle, a former president of the litigation division of the Council of State, according to which ‘in law, there is nothing automatic about the granting, enjoyment and scope of this guarantee [a State guarantee that applies automatically to State-owned public establishments]’ [33].
Petič, francoski organi navajajo članek nekdanjega predsednika oddelka za spore pri Conseil d’État, D. Labetoulla [33], v skladu s katerim „v pravu ni nobene samodejnosti pri dodeljevanju, koriščenju in obsegu tega poroštva [državnega poroštva, ki naj bi se polnopravno uporabljalo za državne osebe javnega prava]“.
Flawed Commission argument [34]
Napačno sklepanje Komisije [34]
The French authorities consider that, as far as EPICs are concerned, (a) the reimbursement of individual claims is not guaranteed, and (b) there is no assurance of the continued existence of the publicly owned establishment or of its obligations.
Francoski organi menijo, da v zvezi z EPIC poplačilo individualnih terjatev ni zajamčeno (a), tako kot ni zagotovljena ohranitev obstoja osebe javnega prava ali njenih obveznosti (b).
The reimbursement of individual claims is not guaranteed
Neobstoj poroštva za poplačilo individualnih terjatev
As explained in recitals 46 to 49 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities consider that the Law of 16 July 1980 cannot serve as a basis for a guarantee. In the light of the legislative history of the Law, an interpretation of the Campoloro decisions of 10 November 1999 [35] and 18 November 2005 [36], and the academic literature on the subject [37], France argues that the Law of 16 July 1980 does not impose an obligation on the State to commit its own resources.
Po mnenju francoskih organov poroštvo ne more temeljiti na zakonu z dne 16. julija 1980, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah od 46 do 49 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se Komisija smiselno sklicuje: Francija na podlagi pripravljalnih del za zakon, razlage sodne prakse v zadevi Campoloro z dne 10. novembra 1999 [35] in z dne 18. novembra 2005 [36] ter člankov pravnih teoretikov [37] navaja, da po njenem mnenju zakon z dne 16. julija 1980 ne določa obveznosti države, da zagotovi lastna sredstva: izraz „za to poskrbi“ iz člena 1 naj bi državi dajal samo pooblastilo za „nadomestitev“ izvršilnega organa osebe, ki jo nadomesti, s tem da pri njegovem izvajanju „[velja] načelo, da ima subjekt, ki je nadomestil drugi subjekt, enake pristojnosti kot nadomeščeni subjekt“.
The expression ‘y pourvoit’ (‘shall do so’) in Article 1 confers on the State only a power of ‘substitution’ for the executive of the person whom it replaces, in the exercise of which it is a matter of principle that the substitute has the same powers as the person replaced. When acting as a substitute, therefore, the State may exercise only the powers of that executive, which do not include access to the State budget, and the granting of an exceptional subsidy is outside the scope of the power of substitution.
Zato naj bi država v okviru navedene nadomestitve lahko izvajala samo pristojnosti tega izvršilnega organa, ki ne vključujejo možnosti razpolaganja z državnimi sredstvi, pri čemer naj bi bila dodelitev izredne subvencije „zunaj izvajanja pooblastila za nadomestitev“.
Furthermore, as indicated in recitals 50 to 53 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities maintain that the State cannot incur strict liability solely on the ground of a lack of assets.
Poleg tega v skladu z navedbami v uvodnih izjavah od 50 do 53 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje Komisija, francoski organi menijo, da nekrivdne odgovornosti države ni mogoče uveljavljati samo zaradi nezadostnosti sredstev.
According to the French authorities, any guarantee requires the guarantor to accept the fact of the guarantee.
Po mnenju francoskih organov vsako poroštvo za poroka namreč predpostavlja, da prevzame odgovornost za dejanje, za katero je porok.
Where liability arises out of responsibility for a fault or, in the case of strict liability, for the consequences of one’s own actions, there can be no question of a guarantee.
Ker odgovornost vključuje prevzem odgovornosti za krivdo, v primeru nekrivdne odgovornosti pa odgovornost za posledice ukrepanja, se vprašanje poroštva ne more pojavljati.
According to France, the liability of the State cannot be incurred on the sole ground that the prefect or supervising authority was unable to take any measures that could allow the claim to be repaid because of the financial and asset situation of the publicly owned establishment.
Francija trdi, da odgovornosti države ni mogoče uveljavljati samo zato, ker prefekt ali nadzorni organ zaradi finančnega in premoženjskega položaja osebe javnega prava ni mogel sprejeti nobenega ukrepa, s katerim bi omogočil poplačilo terjatve.
There is no fault: inaction on the part of the prefect or the supervising authority is not necessarily a fault.
Krivda bi morala biti zavrnjena, kajti to, da prefekt ali nadzorni organ ni izvedel svojih pristojnosti, naj samo po sebi ne bi pomenilo krivdnega ravnanja.
The French authorities recognise that when implementing the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 the representative of the State is subject to the requirement of continuity of the public service, but consider that even if a court were to order that a creditor be compensated, such compensation would merely place the creditor in the same position that he would have been in under ordinary law, because under ordinary law the asset would have been sold and the body of creditors would have received the corresponding sum.
Vendar francoski organi priznavajo, da mora predstavnik države pri izvajanju postopka, uvedenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, zagotavljati kontinuiteto javne službe, pri čemer pa menijo, da tudi če bi sodišče odredilo povrnitev škode upniku, bi bil upnik posledično postavljen v položaj, v katerem bi bil na podlagi občega prava, kajti v tem primeru bi bilo zadevno premoženje prodano, masa upnikov pa bi prejela ustrezni znesek.
There is therefore be no advantage to the creditor.
Iz tega naj torej ne bi izhajala nobena prednost za upnika.
The continued existence of IFP or of its obligations is not guaranteed
Neobstoj poroštva v zvezi z ohranitvijo obstoja osebe javnega prava IFP ali njenih obveznosti
As explained in recitals 54 to 56 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities consider that the inapplicability to legal persons governed by public law of the administration and winding-up procedures provided for under ordinary law does not exclude the possibility of the bankruptcy of an EPIC or prevent bankruptcy proceedings being brought against it.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od 54 do 56 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se Komisija smiselno sklicuje, po mnenju francoskih organov neuporaba občepravnih postopkov sanacije in likvidacije za javne osebe ne izključuje možnosti stečaja EPIC ali stečajnega postopka zoper njo.
They challenge the Commission’s analysis, which is based on its Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees (‘the Guarantees Notice’) [38], and consider that in the case in point the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of ‘more favourable funding terms’ attributable to the exclusion of the possibility of bankruptcy, and has not established that IFP cannot go bankrupt, nor that insolvency proceedings are impossible: the Law of 1985 is merely a procedural law, and the fact that EPICs lie outside its scope does not mean that administration, winding-up or ad hoc bankruptcy proceedings cannot be brought against them.
Izpodbijajo analizo Komisije, ki temelji na obvestilu o državni pomoči v obliki poroštev [38] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo o poroštvih), in menijo, da Komisija v obravnavanem primeru ni dokazala obstoja „ugodnejših pogojev financiranja“, ki bi jih bilo treba pripisati izključitvi možnosti stečajnega postopka, niti tega, da oseba javnega prava IFP ne more iti v stečaj, niti tega, da ni mogoč postopek zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti, ker je zakon iz leta 1985 samo postopkovni zakon, to, da EPIC ne spadajo na področje njegove uporabe, pa ne izključuje postopka sanacije, likvidacije ali stečaja ad hoc zoper njih.
Moreover, as explained in recitals 57 to 67 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities maintain that the application of the ‘procedure’ introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980, rather than the collective procedure under ordinary law, does not confer any advantage on the creditor.
Poleg tega, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah od 57 do 67 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje Komisija, po mnenju francoskih organov uporaba „postopka“, uvedenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, namesto kolektivnega postopka občega prava upniku ne daje nobene prednosti.
To assess whether the application of a specific procedure in the event of insolvency confers an advantage on the entity subject to the procedure as compared with undertakings subject to commercial law, they challenge the need to fulfil the criteria of publicity [39] and equivalence [40] referred to by the Commission in recital 81 of the opening decision [41], but they use these same criteria to analyse the procedure established by the Law of 16 July 1980.
Izpodbijajo nujnost upoštevanja meril objave [39] in enakovrednosti [40], ki ju je določila Komisija v uvodni izjavi 81 odločitve o začetku postopka za oceno, ali z uporabo posebnega postopka v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti subjekt, za katerega se ta postopek uporabi, pridobi prednost v primerjavi s podjetji, za katere velja trgovinsko pravo, [41] vendar uporabljajo isti merili za analizo postopka, uvedenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980.
As regards the publicity criterion, they consider that the procedure is correctly identified by the rating agencies as applicable in the event of the insolvency of an EPIC; as regards the equivalence criterion, they draw a distinction depending on whether or not there is a requirement for continuity of the public service, at the same time noting that the financial situation of IFP and its subsidiaries makes it unlikely that IFP might be short of assets, since available funds and investments at the end of 2007 (EUR 150,3 million) represented approximately five times the amount of borrowings and financial liabilities (EUR 25,2 million):
Po njihovem mnenju pri merilu objave bonitetne agencije postopek pravilno opredeljujejo tako, da se uporablja v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti EPIC, pri merilu enakovrednosti pa razlikujejo med primerom, v katerem naj bi se uporabljala zahteva po kontinuiteti javne službe, in primerom, v katerem naj se taka zahteva ne bi uporabljala, pri čemer navajajo, da glede na finančni položaj osebe javnega prava IFP in njenih hčerinskih družb ni verjetno, da bi bila sredstva skupine IFP nezadostna, saj so bili njena razpoložljiva sredstva in naložbe (150,3 milijona EUR) konec leta 2007 enaki približno petkratnemu znesku posojil in finančnih dolgov (25,2 milijona EUR):
If there is no requirement for continuity of the public service, in the event of lack of assets of the publicly owned establishment, application of the procedure introduced by the Law of 1980 would not place the creditors in a more favourable position than if the procedure under ordinary law had been applied: they would recover the same amount as the creditors of an entity subject to commercial law, i.e. the proceeds from the sale of the assets, and would no longer have any redress at the end of the procedure [42], since, according to France, the State cannot be held liable solely on the ground of lack of assets.
če se ne uporablja nobena zahteva po javni službi, v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev osebe javnega prava uporaba postopka, uvedenega z zakonom iz leta 1980, upnikom ne bi omogočala boljšega položaja kot uporaba postopka občega prava: povrnjen bi jim bil enak znesek kot upnikom subjekta, za katerega velja trgovinsko pravo, to je znesek od unovčenja sredstev, in po koncu postopka [42] ne bi več imeli pravnih sredstev, ker po mnenju Francije odgovornosti države ni mogoče uveljavljati že samo na podlagi nezadostnosti sredstev.
Only two aspects would be different:
Različna bi bila samo dva vidika:
The absence of a single procedure for all creditors: unlike the procedure under private law, whereby claims are processed en masse and creditors are satisfied in decreasing order of priority and pro rata from the amounts available, the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 requires creditors to take action to protect their rights.
neobstoj hkratne obravnave vseh upnikov: v nasprotju s postopkom zasebnega prava, v katerem se terjatve vseh upnikov obravnavajo hkrati in je upnikom škoda povrnjena v padajočem vrstnem redu privilegija ter sorazmerno z razpoložljivimi zneski, je za postopek, uveden z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, značilno, da lahko upnik samo s tožbo ohrani svoje pravice.
The approach of the Law of 16 July 1980 is ‘first come, first served’.
Logika zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 je, „kdor prej pride, prej melje“,
It is the representative of the State who, under the supervision of the administrative court (monitoring for gross negligence as established by the Council of State in the Campoloro judgment cited above), takes on the role equivalent to that of the liquidator and court-appointed administrator.
nalogo, enakovredno nalogi likvidacijskega in sodnega upravitelja, prevzame predstavnik države pod nadzorom upravnega sodišča (nadzor resne krivde, kot je dokazal Conseil d’État v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Campoloro);
According to the French authorities, such a procedure would not confer on IFP’s creditors rights greater than those they would have had under commercial law.
Upniki osebe javnega prava IFP po mnenju francoskih organov s tem postopkom ne bi dobili večjih pravic, kot bi jih imeli na podlagi trgovinskega prava.
However, the French authorities admit that, in such an event, the State might incur strict liability, and would have to compensate creditors for the loss they had suffered (not exceeding the market value of the assets retained by the State for the continuity of the public service).
Francoski organi kljub temu priznavajo, da bi se bilo v tem primeru mogoče sklicevati na nekrivdno odgovornost države: v tem primeru bi upniki dobili odškodnino v višini škode, ki so jo utrpeli (največ v višini prodajne vrednosti sredstev, ki jih država ohrani zaradi kontinuitete javne službe).
The creditors would therefore potentially be reinstated in the same situation as that which would have resulted from the application of ordinary law.
Upniki bi bili torej mogoče v istem položaju, kakršen bi izhajal iz uporabe občega prava.