natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The French authorities conclude that the procedure introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 does not confer any advantage over the procedure under ordinary law and that there is therefore no justification for subjecting IFP directly to a procedure such as that which applies under ordinary law.
Francoski organi iz tega sklepajo, da postopek, uveden z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, upniku ne daje nobene prednosti v primerjavi s postopkom občega prava in da torej ni upravičeno, da bi se za osebo javnega prava IFP neposredno uporabil tak postopek.
In the opening decision, in particular in recital 82, the Commission referred specifically to the French consolidating instruction No 02-060-M95 of 18 July 2002, on the financial and accounting regulation of national publicly owned industrial and commercial establishments, and to the guide to the financial organisation of the creation, conversion and abolition of national publicly owned establishments and of public interest groups (Guide sur l’organisation financière des créations, transformations et suppressions des établissements publics nationaux et des groupements d’intérêt) of 14 November 2006; as explained in recital 68 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities contend that the instruments in question are neither applicable nor transferable to IFP.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 68 Sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se smiselno sklicuje Komisija, francoski organi poudarjajo, da besedil, ki ju je Komisija navedla v odločitvi o začetku postopka, zlasti v uvodni izjavi 82, namreč zakonodajnega navodila št. 02-060-M95 z dne 18. julija 2002 o finančni in računovodski ureditvi nacionalnih oseb javnega prava industrijske in komercialne narave ter vodnika za finančno organiziranje ustanovitev, preoblikovanj in ukinitev nacionalnih oseb javnega prava in skupin javnega interesa z dne 14. novembra 2006, ni mogoče niti uporabiti za osebo javnega prava IFP niti jih ni mogoče nanjo prenesti.
Concerning the recapitalisation of IFP’s subsidiaries, the French authorities take the view firstly that the question raised in recital 80 of the opening decision should be considered not in order to establish the existence of any State guarantee, but rather in order to measure the potential effects of such a guarantee, which could place IFP and its subsidiaries in a preferential situation on account of the easier terms for recapitalisation.
Francoski organi v zvezi z dokapitalizacijo hčerinskih družb osebe javnega prava IFP najprej menijo, da se vprašanje iz uvodne izjave 80 odločitve o začetku postopka ne bi smelo presojati za dokaz obstoja morebitnega državnega poroštva, temveč prej za merjenje mogočih učinkov takega poroštva, na podlagi katerega bi bile oseba javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe zaradi ugodnejših pogojev dokapitalizacije v prednostnem položaju.
They argue that the Commission’s argument is based on two incorrect ideas:
Poleg tega trditve Komisije po njihovem mnenju temeljijo na dveh napačnih stališčih:
On the one hand, the Commission commits an error in its reasoning regarding any support that IFP could provide to its subsidiaries through an intra-group transfer, since the conditions on which the parent of a group can support one of its subsidiaries in difficulty are strictly regulated by company law, even if it is a legal person governed by public law [43], and are totally unrelated to the concept of undertaking within the meaning of competition law.
Komisija naj bi po eni strani napačno sklepala v zvezi z morebitno podporo, ki bi jo lahko oseba javnega prava IFP dajala hčerinskim družbam s prenosom znotraj skupine, ker so pogoji, pod katerimi lahko matična družba, čeprav je pravna oseba javnega prava, podpira katero od hčerinskih družb v težavah, strogo urejeni v pravu gospodarskih družb [43] in nikakor niso povezani s pojmom podjetja v smislu konkurenčnega prava,
On the other hand, the French authorities deny that the EPIC status of IFP, with any possible State guarantee that such a status might imply, enables it to recapitalise its subsidiaries more easily than group parent companies with a legal form governed by private law.
francoski organi po drugi strani zanikajo, da bi lahko oseba javnega prava IFP zaradi svojega statusa EPIC in državnega poroštva, ki bi ga po potrebi vključeval tak status, lažje dokapitalizirala svoje hčerinske družbe, kot bi to lahko storile matične družbe skupine s pravnim statusom zasebnega prava.
According to the French authorities, the fact that a company temporarily bears the losses of one of its subsidiaries is part of the normal operation of a group, as the European Union court has already recognised [44], and the intervention of a public investor acting according to the same rules of conduct as a private investor is not considered to contain State aid elements within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU [45].
To, da družba začasno krije izgube katere od hčerinskih družb, po mnenju francoskih organov izhaja iz običajnega delovanja skupine družb, kot je med drugim že priznalo Sodišče Evropske unije [44], posredovanje javnega vlagatelja, ki bi deloval po istih pravilih ravnanja kot zasebni vlagatelj, pa ne bi vsebovalo elementov državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU [45].
This is the case in particular for IFP, which has the legal possibility (and not the obligation) to recapitalise a subsidiary in difficulties according to the same assessment criteria as any prudent investor.
Tak bi bil zlasti primer osebe javnega prava IFP, ki bi imela pravno možnost (in ne obveznost), da dokapitalizira hčerinsko družbo v težavah po isti merilih presoje kot vsak preudarni vlagatelj.
Finally, the French authorities deny that EPICs have any possibility at all of ‘direct access’ to ‘Treasury imprest accounts’.
Francoski organi nazadnje zanikajo, da ima EPIC kakršno koli možnost „neposrednega dostopa“ do „državnih sredstev“.
They say that the budgetary mechanism of the ‘financial assistance account’, regulated by Article 24 of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act, provides for the constitution of appropriations accounts, capped by the Finance Act, which allow the State to grant advance payments to various bodies, if it wishes and if it is able to do so (in particular in the light of European Union law).
Pojasnjujejo, da proračunski mehanizem „račun finančne pomoči“ iz člena 24 LOLF določa uvedbo računov za omejena sredstva (navzgor omejenih v skladu z zakonom o financah), ki državi, če to želi in lahko (zlasti z vidika prava Evropske unije), omogoča, da odobri predujme različnim organizacijam.
According to the French authorities, EPICs have not got ‘direct access’ to these accounts.
Francoski organi trdijo, da EPIC nimajo „neposrednega dostopa“ do teh računov.
NO ADVANTAGE IS CONFERRED ON IFP OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES
NEOBSTOJ VSAKRŠNE PREDNOSTI ZA OSEBO JAVNEGA PRAVA IFP IN NJENE HČERINSKE DRUŽBE
The French authorities consider, first, that it cannot be concluded from the Guarantees Notice cited above that an advantage exists in the present case; second, that an extension to IFP’s subsidiaries, which are public limited companies under ordinary law, of any advantages from which IFP might benefit on account of its EPIC status would be in contradiction with the Commission’s decision-making practice; and third, that no proof has been given of an actual economic advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries in the present case.
Francoski organi najprej menijo, da na podlagi zgoraj navedenega obvestila Komisije o poroštvih ni mogoče sklepati o obstoju prednosti v obravnavanem primeru, da bi bila širitev morebitnih prednosti osebe javnega prava IFP, ki naj bi jih ta uživala zaradi statusa EPIC, na njene hčerinske družbe, ki so delniške družbe občega prava, v nasprotju s prakso odločanja Komisije in da v obravnavanem primeru ni dokazana dejanska gospodarska prednost za osebo javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe.
The French authorities consider that the Commission misinterprets point 1.2 of the Guarantees Notice cited above, which provides that ‘The Commission also regards as aid in the form of a guarantee the more favourable funding terms obtained by enterprises whose legal form rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures or provides an explicit State guarantee or coverage of losses by the State’: Firstly, the French authorities deny that IFP, as an EPIC, possesses a legal status which rules out any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings.
Komisija po mnenju francoskih organov napačno razlaga točko 1.2 zgoraj navedenega obvestila o poroštvih, ki določa, da „Komisija kot pomoč v obliki poroštva obravnava tudi ugodnejše pogoje financiranja, ki jih pridobijo podjetja, katerih pravna narava izključuje stečaj ali druge postopke plačilne nesposobnosti, ali zagotavlja izrecno državno poroštvo ali državni prevzem izgube“:
In any event, they say, the Commission has not proved this, but provided evidence to show only that IFP’s status would not allow the application of one specific procedure (namely the procedure introduced by the Law of 25 January 1985). Secondly, the French authorities deny that the fact that under the law and its own constitution a body cannot be made the subject of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings automatically secures it more favourable funding terms on the market.
prvič, francoski organi zanikajo, da ima oseba javnega prava IFP kot EPIC pravni status, ki izključuje vsakršen stečajni postopek ali postopek zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti; Komisija naj tega nikakor ne bi dokazala, temveč naj bi samo dokazala, da ta položaj ne omogoča uporabe posebnega postopka (v obravnavanem primeru postopka, uvedenega z zakonom z dne 25. januarja 1985);
In order to conclude that an enterprise is receiving aid in the form of a guarantee, the Commission must first, in application of point 1.2 of the Guarantees Notice cited above, demonstrate that it dos indeed receive more favourable funding terms.
drugič, francoski organi zanikajo samodejnost povezave med pravno in statutarno nezmožnostjo biti predmet stečajnega postopka ali postopka zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti ter pravico do ugodnejših pogojev financiranja na trgih; Komisija bi morala pri uporabi točke 1.2 zgoraj navedenega obvestila o poroštvih predhodno dokazati obstoj ugodnejših pogojev financiranja, da bi lahko štela, da podjetje s pravnim statusom, ki izključuje možnost stečajnega postopka ali postopka zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti, prejema pomoč v obliki poroštva.
The French authorities contend that in the opening decision, when examining potential advantages to IFP’s subsidiaries arising out of the existence of an unlimited guarantee for their parent EPIC, the Commission disregarded its own decision-making practice.
Komisija naj poleg tega v odločitvi o začetku postopka ne bi upoštevala svoje prakse odločanja pri preučitvi morebitnih prednosti, ki naj bi za hčerinske družbe osebe javnega prava IFP izhajale iz obstoja neomejenega poroštva za EPIC.
They say the Commission’s line of reasoning contradicts the approach it took at the time of the creation of La Banque Postale [46]. Like IFP’s subsidiaries, La Banque Postale was a public limited company wholly owned by an entity similar to an EPIC.
Komisija naj bi sprejela sklepanje, ki je v protislovju s tistim, ki ga je sprejela ob ustanovitvi podjetja La Banque Postale [46]: medtem ko je bilo zadnjenavedeno podjetje tako kot hčerinske družbe osebe javnega prava IFP delniška družba v stoodstotni lasti subjekta, primerljivega z EPIC, je Komisija menila (in sicer razen za obveznosti, ki jih je Francija sprejela v tej zadevi), da je mogoče že samo na podlagi pravnega statusa delniške družbe občega prava izključiti obstoj vsakršnega neomejenega poroštva za hčerinsko družbo.
Leaving aside the commitments given by France in that case, the Commission took the view that the legal status of public limited company under ordinary law was by itself sufficient to rule out the possibility of an unlimited guarantee to the subsidiary. Following the same reasoning, according to the French authorities, it must be held that IFP’s subsidiaries, which likewise have the legal form of public limited company under ordinary law, do not benefit from any unlimited guarantee conferred by the status of EPIC.
Na podlagi istega sklepanja bi morali po mnenju francoskih organov ugotoviti, da hčerinske družbe osebe javnega prava IFP, ki imajo prav tako status delniške družbe občega prava, tudi ne uživajo neomejenega poroštva, morebiti dodeljenega na podlagi statusa EPIC.
Finally, the French authorities contend that the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of an actual economic advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries, and in the opening decision merely refers to funding terms ‘considered’ more favourable, without providing actual proof.
Komisija naj nazadnje ne bi dokazala dejanske gospodarske prednosti za osebo javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe, temveč naj bi se v odločitvi o začetku postopka zadovoljila z navedbo pogojev financiranja, „ki se štejejo“ za ugodnejše, ne da bi za to predložila dejanski dokaz.
European Union case-law requires the Commission to show that IFP’s EPIC status has in fact enabled it to obtain more favourable funding terms [47].
V sodni praksi Evropske unije naj bi se zahtevalo, da Komisija v obravnavanem primeru dokaže, da je lahko oseba javnega prava IFP na podlagi statusa EPIC dejansko dobila ugodnejše finančne pogoje.
The French authorities say that in the course of the procedure they provided evidence to show that IFP’s EPIC status had not procured and would not procure any financial advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries; in particular, the conversion of IFP was carried out with due regard for a general principle of continuity, especially in terms of its activity, organisation, accounting and financial regime (resources and accounting and financial rules) and tax treatment.
Toda francoski organi so med postopkom sporočili nekatere podatke, ki potrjujejo, da oseba javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe zaradi statusa EPIC, dodeljenega osebi javnega prava IFP, niso dobile niti niso mogle dobiti finančne prednosti, ker se je oseba javnega prava IFP preoblikovala zlasti ob upoštevanju splošnega načela kontinuitete, posebno na ravni svoje dejav nosti, organizacije, računovodskega in finančnega sistema (sredstva ter računovodska in finančna pravila) ter svoje davčne obravnave.
The French authorities consider that the factors above demonstrate that:
Po mnenju francoskih organov zgoraj navedeni elementi dokazujejo, da:
the financial situation of IFP and its subsidiaries is sound, which makes the question of possible bankruptcy and consequently last-resort State intervention irrelevant;
naj bi bil finančni položaj osebe javnega prava IFP in hčerinskih družb dober, zaradi česar naj bi bilo vprašanje morebitnega stečaja in posledično posredovanja države kot zadnje možnosti brezpredmetno,
the terms for the short-term funding of IFP and its subsidiaries are different for each of these entities, and result from specific negotiations conducted on a one-to-one basis with their respective banks;
naj bi bili pogoji kratkoročnega financiranja osebe javnega prava IFP in hčerinskih družb za vsak subjekt drugačni in naj bi izhajali iz posebnih pogajanj, ki jih imajo intuitu personae s svojimi bankami,
the relations that IFP and its subsidiaries maintain with their suppliers and customers do not give rise to preferential conditions resulting from an expectation on the part of these suppliers and customers of a State guarantee.
naj v odnosih osebe javnega prava IFP in hčerinskih družb z dobavitelji in strankami ne bi bilo prednostnih pogojev, ki bi izhajali iz pričakovanj dobaviteljev in strank glede državnega poroštva.
The French authorities conclude from this that:
Francoski organi iz tega sklepajo, da:
the analysis set out by the Commission in its opening decision is questionable: IFP and its subsidiaries do not enjoy any State guarantee;
je analiza, ki jo je Komisija opravila v odločitvi o začetku postopka, sporna: oseba javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe nimajo državnega poroštva;
the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of an advantage to IFP and its subsidiaries deriving from IFP’s EPIC status;
Komisija ni dokazala obstoja prednosti za osebo javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe na podlagi statusa EPIC, dodeljenega IFP;
the Commission has not, therefore, demonstrated the existence of State aid to IFP and its subsidiaries.
Komisija zato ni dokazala obstoja državne pomoči za osebo javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe.
Nonetheless, in order to dispel any doubts on the part of the Commission, the French authorities have indicated that they are willing to implement the following measures if the Commission agrees to close the procedure by a decision finding that no aid is involved, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Procedural Regulation cited above:
Da bi francoski organi odpravili vse pomisleke Komisije, so vseeno navedli, da so pripravljeni izvesti naslednje ukrepe, če bi Komisija privolila v končanje postopka s sklepom o neobstoju pomoči v skladu s členom 7(2) zgoraj navedene postopkovne uredbe:
clarification of the Decree implementing the Law of 16 July 1980;
pojasniti odlok o izvajanju zakona z dne 16. julija 1980;
incorporation of a reference spelling out the absence of a guarantee in IFP’s contracts involving a claim;
vključiti navedbo o neobstoju poroštva v pogodbe osebe javnega prava IFP, ki vključujejo terjatve;
incorporation of a reference spelling out the absence of a guarantee in the financing contracts of IFP’s subsidiaries.
vključiti navedbo o neobstoju poroštva v pogodbe hčerinskih družb osebe javnega prava IFP o financiranju.
INCORPORATION OF A REFERENCE SPELLING OUT THE ABSENCE OF A GUARANTEE IN IFP’S CONTRACTS INVOLVING A CLAIM
VKLJUČITEV NAVEDBE O NEOBSTOJU POROŠTVA V POGODBE OSEBE JAVNEGA PRAVA IFP, KI VKLJUČUJEJO TERJATVE
As explained in recitals 97 to 100 of decision C 56/2007 cited above, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities challenge the Commission’s view [50] that the State can be held liable solely on the grounds of the insolvency of IFP.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od 97 do 100 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se Komisija smiselno sklicuje, francoski organi izpodbijajo stališče Komisije [50], da je mogoče odgovornost države uveljavljati že samo na podlagi plačilne nesposobnosti osebe javnega prava IFP.
However, they put forward a proposal based on the plea of accepted risk ( l’exception de risque accepté, see the judgments of the Council of State in Sille [51] and Meunier [52]) under which, as they suggested in the postal case, IFP’s creditors would be officially informed that their claim does not enjoy a State guarantee and that, in the event of insolvency, the State will not be obliged to substitute itself for the undertaking financially to pay the claim.
Vendar ponujajo predlog, ki temelji na izjemi sprejetega tveganja (glej sodbi Conseil d'État v zadevah Sille [51] in Meunier [52]), po zgledu tega, kar so predlagali v poštni zadevi, naj se upnikom osebe javnega prava IFP uradno potrdi, da za njihovo terjatev ni državnega poroštva in da v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti država ne bo odgovorna za poplačilo terjatev namesto tega podjetja.
Consequently, the parties concerned would be exposing themselves to risk in full knowledge of the facts, and could not claim any right to compensation.
Zato se morebitne zainteresirane strani, ki se izpostavijo vede in ob popolni seznanjenosti z dejstvi, ne morejo sklicevati na pravico do povrnitve škode.
The French authorities therefore undertake, jointly with IFP, to include the following statement in the financing contract for each transaction (for all instruments covered by a contract):
Francoski organi se torej skupaj z osebo javnega prava IFP obvezujejo, da bodo za vsak postopek v pogodbe o financiranju (za vsak instrument iz pogodbe) vključili naslednje:
‘The issue/programme/loan does not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee. In the event of insolvency, the State would not be obliged to act as financial substitute for IFP for payment of the claim.’
„Za izdajo/program/posojilo ni odobreno nobeno neposredno ali posredno državno poroštvo. Država v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti osebe javnega prava IFP ne bo odgovorna za poplačilo terjatev namesto te osebe.“
As explained in recital 101 of decision C 56/2007 cited above, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities have also noted the misgivings set out by the Commission in recital 71 of the opening decision, which indicated that the plea of accepted risk was a rule established by case-law that could develop; that it was based on secondary law instruments which could be annulled in the event of conflict; and, finally, that the proposal of the French authorities did not cover all possible scenarios, since debts could be not only financial but also commercial or other forms of debt again.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 101 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se Komisija smiselno sklicuje, so se francoski organi seznanili tudi z dvomi Komisije, ki je v uvodni izjavi 71 odločitve o začetku postopka navedla, da je po eni strani izjema sprejetega tveganja pravilo, določeno s sodno prakso, ki bi se lahko spremenilo, da po drugi strani tako pravilo temelji na instrumentih sekundarnega prava, ki jih je mogoče v primeru spora zlahka razveljaviti, in da nazadnje predlog francoskih organov ne pokriva vseh primerov, saj so lahko terjatve ne samo finančne, ampak tudi komercialne ali druge narave.
As specified in recitals 102 to 104 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, after reiterating their opposition in principle to the Commission’s position that the State may incur strict liability solely on the grounds of IFP’s the lack of assets, the French authorities have provided additional information to address these misgivings:
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od 102 do 104 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se Komisija smiselno sklicuje, so francoski organi, potem ko so opozorili na svoje načelno nasprotovanje stališču Komisije do uveljavljanja nekrivdne odgovornosti države že samo na podlagi nezadostnosti sredstev osebe javnega prava IFP, navedli dodatne elemente kot odgovor na navedene dvome:
The French authorities consider that the Commission’s first objection would seem to say that even if there is no actual provision to this effect in the national law of a Member State, the mere risk of a change in the case-law, i.e. a change in national law, is enough to create State aid.
po mnenju francoskih organov bi prvi ugovor Komisije privedel do ugotovitve, da tudi če v notranjem pravu države članice glede tega ni določbe, bi že tveganje spremembe sodne prakse, to je spremembe notranjega prava, zadostovalo za utemeljitev obstoja državne pomoči.
The Commission cannot argue that there is State aid because of a possible change in the law, which in this case is highly improbable, the plea of accepted risk being a general principle of public law that has been confirmed by case-law on many occasions, has never been contradicted, and has been widely commented.
Komisija morebitnega ukrepa pomoči ne more utemeljiti z morebitno spremembo prava, ki je v obravnavanem primeru več kot neverjetna, ker je izjema sprejetega tveganja splošno načelo javnega prava, ki je bilo s sodno prakso mnogokrat potrjeno, nikoli zavrnjeno in obširno obravnavano,
Concerning the second objection, the French authorities recognise that statute law and regulations take precedence over contracts, and that a disputed clause can always be annulled.
kar zadeva drugi ugovor, francoski organi priznavajo, da zakon in uredba prevladata nad pogodbo in da se sporna klavzula lahko vedno razveljavi.
However, they consider that the objection does not in fact refer to any higher-ranking text, that it is not substantiated, and therefore has no weight.
Vendar ta ugovor po njihovem mnenju nima podlage v besedilu višje ravni, ni podprt in ga torej ni mogoče uporabiti,