natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the case in question, recent government decisions, in particular the resolution of the issue of the financing of civil service pensions, the maintenance of services reserved for La Poste, the support for the distribution of the livret A and the increase in postal tariffs (which incidentally also constitute government acts, if not State aid in themselves) offset the effect of the Commission’s recommendation letter.
V tem primeru so lahko nedavne vladne odločitve, to je zlasti rešitev vprašanja financiranja pokojnin uradnikov, ohranitev storitev, pridržanih podjetju La Poste, podpora za distribucijo knjižic A in povišanje poštnih tarif (ki poleg tega pomenijo tudi akte javnega organa, če ne prave državne pomoči), izravnale učinek dopisa s priporočilom Komisije.
This does not mean that the Commission’s recommendation letter and, more generally, the pressure exerted on the change in La Poste’s legal status, and therefore the guarantee enjoyed by La Poste, are not taken into account by the rating agencies.
To ne pomeni, da bonitetni agenciji ne upoštevata dopisa s priporočilom Komisije in splošneje pritiskov na spremembo statusa podjetja La Poste in torej na poroštvo, ki ga ima to podjetje.
Of course, these pressures are taken into account and analysed as a weakening of the support that the State could provide to La Poste: they therefore influence the rating.
Ti pritiski se seveda upoštevajo in razlagajo kot oslabitev podpore, ki bi jo država lahko zagotovila podjetju La Poste: torej vplivajo na oceno.
Moreover, that is why, on 4 October 2006, the day the Commission recommended that France terminate the unlimited guarantee enjoyed by La Poste as a legal entity governed by public law, the rating agency Fitch lowered its rating (from AAA stable to AAA negative) on the grounds that ‘the European Commission’s recommendation’ had to be interpreted as ‘the first tangible sign of pressure on La Poste’s legal status and, therefore, on its rating’, which confirms that the legal status is a key factor.
To je tudi razlog, zaradi katerega je bonitetna agencija Fitch 4. oktobra 2006, na dan, ko je Komisija od Francije zahtevala ukinitev neomejenega poroštva, ki ga ima podjetje La Poste kot pravna oseba javnega prava, znižala svojo oceno (z AAA stabilna na AAA negativna) z obrazložitvijo, da je treba „priporočilo Evropske komisije razlagati kot prvi otipljivi znak pritiska na pravni status podjetja La Poste in torej njegove ocene,“ kar potrjuje, da je pravni status ključni element.
In order to illustrate the need to argue on the basis of the ceteris paribus assumption, the Commission would point out that S & P, in the same note from 2007, also spelled out that a change in La Poste’s ownership structure (and hence a loss of the guarantee) would lead to a change in the methodology applied to determine the rating, but that the change would not necessarily lead to a change in the La Poste’s rating given the expected improvement in La Poste’s stand — alone situation in the coming years.
Da bi Komisija ponazorila, da mora sklepanje temeljiti na predpostavki, da vse drugo sicer ostane nespremenjeno, opozarja, da je S & P v istem obvestilu iz leta 2007 pojasnila tudi, da bi sprememba lastniške strukture podjetja La Poste (in torej izguba poroštva) privedla do spremembe metodologije, uporabljene za določitev bonitetne ocene, vendar da ta sprememba ne bi nujno privedla do spremembe ocene podjetja La Poste glede na pričakovano izboljšanje notranjega položaja podjetja La Poste v prihodnjih letih.
This seems to confirm that in the absence of this status, La Poste would have to improve its stand-alone situation to maintain the same rating.
Zdi se, da to potrjuje, da bo moralo podjetje La Poste za ohranitev enake ocene izboljšati svoj notranji položaj, če ne bo imelo tega statusa.
However, assuming that La Poste’s stand-alone situation were to remain constant, the weakening in the state support given to La Poste would lead to its rating being downgraded .
Po drugi strani, če bi notranji položaj podjetja La Poste ostal enak, bi morala oslabitev podpore države za podjetje La Poste privesti do znižanja njegove ocene .
The French authorities’ arguments intended to demonstrate that La Poste’s legal status and the resulting guarantee are not the only factors taken into consideration by the rating agencies in no way invalidate the Commission’s argument
Trditve francoskih organov, s katerimi želijo dokazati, da status podjetja La Poste in poroštvo, ki izhaja iz njega, nista edina elementa, ki sta ju bonitetni agenciji upoštevali, nikakor ne morejo ovreči dokaza Komisije
Most of the observations made by the French authorities intended to demonstrate the alleged ‘absence of effect of the guarantee on La Poste’s rating’ simply amount to demonstrating that the guarantee is not the only factor taken into account by the rating agencies.
Večina pripomb francoskih organov, namenjenih dokazu domnevnega „neobstoja učinka poroštva na bonitetno oceno podjetja La Poste“, dokazuje samo to, da poroštvo ni edini element, ki sta ga bonitetni agenciji upoštevali.
The Commission accepts this point: it in no way invalidates the finding that the guarantee is taken into account by the rating agencies when determining the rating of postal operators.
Komisija se strinja s tem: nikakor pa to ne more ovreči ugotovitve, da bonitetni agenciji pri določitvi ocene poštnih operaterjev upoštevata poroštvo.
Moreover, the French authorities do not argue on the basis of the ceteris paribus assumption.
Poleg tega sklepanje francoskih organov ne temelji na predpostavki, da vse drugo sicer ostane nespremenjeno.
Arguments by the French authorities drawn from the rating agencies’ doctrine on the rating of postal entities
Trditve francoskih organov, izpeljane iz doktrine agencij o oceni poštnih subjektov
The French authorities examine the methodology used by the rating agencies set out in the S & P note on the influence of government support on the ratings of postal operators.
Francoski organi so preučili metodologijo, ki sta jo uporabili bonitetni agenciji, na podlagi obvestila agencije S & P o vplivu državne podpore na bonitetno oceno poštnih operaterjev.
They stress that, in the classification described by S & P, qualification for category 1 is based on broad criteria but does not refer to the status of the operator being rated.
Poudarjajo, da se pri razvrstitvi, ki jo je opisala S & P, za uvrstitev v kategorijo 1 upoštevajo obširna merila, ne upošteva pa se status ocenjenega operaterja.
The French authorities conclude that legal status is not an important factor for the rating agencies.
Francoski organi na podlagi tega ugotavljajo, da status za bonitetni agenciji ne pomeni pomembnega elementa analize.
The Commission challenges this analysis and points out that S & P clearly defines the legal status of operators as one of the key factors in assessing the strength of state support (see paragraphs 264-267 on S & P methodology).
Komisija izpodbija to analizo in poudarja, da S & P jasno opredeljuje status operaterjev kot enega od ključnih elementov za oceno moči državne pomoči (glej uvodne izjave 264 do 267 o metodologiji S & P).
Moreover, the French authorities stress that the Italian Post Office was classified by S & P in the same category as La Poste, even though it is governed by private law and its financial performance does not justify its being classified in this category.
Poleg tega francoski organi poudarjajo, da je S & P italijansko pošto uvrstila v isto kategorijo kot podjetje La Poste, čeprav ima zasebnopravni status in njena finančna uspešnost ne upravičuje uvrstitve v to kategorijo.
The finding that a postal operator governed by private law, namely Poste Italiane, may be regarded by a rating agency as enjoying strong state support and classified in the same category as La Poste in no way invalidates the Commission’s argument to establish that the existence of a guarantee dependent on La Poste’s legal status is taken into account by the rating agencies.
Ugotovitev, da lahko bonitetna agencija za poštnega operaterja z zasebnopravnim statusom, v tem primeru Poste Italiane, šteje, da je upravičen do močne državne podpore, in ga uvrsti v isto kategorijo kot podjetje La Poste, nikakor ne more ovreči dokaza Komisije, da bonitetni agenciji upoštevata obstoj poroštva, ki izhaja iz statusa podjetja La Poste.
The Commission recognises that postal entities such as Poste Italiane may be classified in the same category as La Poste without enjoying a guarantee because other factors show that they also have strong state support.
Komisija namreč priznava, da se lahko poštni subjekti, kot je Poste Italiane, uvrstijo v isto kategorijo kot podjetje La Poste, ne da bi bili upravičeni do poroštva, če drugi elementi dokazujejo, da so prav tako upravičeni do močne državne podpore.
In order to demonstrate that the guarantee has no influence on the rating, it would have to be shown that Poste Italiane and La Poste were in a strictly comparable situation with regard to the different factors taken into account by the rating agencies to estimate the level of state support and that the only difference between them was the existence of a guarantee enjoyed by La Poste.
Da bi dokazali, da poroštvo nikakor ne vpliva na bonitetno oceno, bi bilo treba dokazati, da sta Poste Italiane in La Poste v popolnoma primerljivem položaju glede na različne elemente, ki jih bonitetni agenciji upoštevata pri oceni državne podpore, in da je edina razlika med tema subjektoma obstoj poroštva v korist podjetja La Poste.
In other words, in order for the comparison to be meaningful, it must be shown that ceteris paribus applies, which the French authorities have not done.
Z drugimi besedami, da bi bila primerjava smiselna, je treba dokazati, da „vse drugo sicer ostane nespremenjeno“, česar francoski organi niso storili.
Moreover, even if the French authorities had demonstrated that the situations of Poste Italiane and La Poste are strictly comparable — apart from the existence of a guarantee in favour of the French Post Office (which has not been demonstrated) — it should be noted in any event that S & P has a different assessment of the degree of support provided by the Italian and French States to their respective post offices.
Tudi če bi francoski organi dokazali, da sta položaja Poste Italiane in La Poste popolnoma primerljiva – razen obstoja poroštva v korist francoske pošte – (kar ni bilo dokazano), pa ugotavljamo, da je agencija S & P stopnjo podpore italijanske države in francoske države njunima zadevnima poštama vsekakor različno presojala.
S & P takes the view that the potential support provided by the Italian State to the Italian Post Office is ‘strong’, whereas the support provided by the French State to La Poste is ‘extremely strong’.
S & P namreč meni, da je morebitna podpora italijanske države podjetju Poste Italiane „močna“, medtem ko je podpora francoske države podjetju La Poste „izjemno močna“.
The Commission does not rule out that this difference in assessment should be seen as the influence of the guarantee, whose existence was recalled by S & P in the same note just after the confirmation that La Poste enjoyed extremely strong support.
Komisija ne izključuje, da je v tej razliki presoje treba videti vpliv poroštva, na obstoj katerega je S & P opozorila v istem obvestilu takoj za trditvijo, da je podjetje La Poste upravičeno do izjemno močne podpore.
In any event, there are no grounds for drawing any conclusions about the reasons why the Poste Italiane was, at a particular moment, classified in the same category as La Poste.
Nikakor ni treba izpeljati ugotovitve glede razlogov, zaradi katerih je bilo podjetje Poste Italiane v nekem trenutku uvrščeno v isto kategorijo kot podjetje La Poste.
First, the current proceedings do not address those reasons.
Po eni strani se namreč ta postopek ne nanaša na te razloge.
Second, the many different factors that the rating agencies have to take into account in their assessments means that it is not possible to draw conclusions about the specific effect on the rating of the existence or otherwise of an ultimate statutory guarantee.
Po drugi strani številni elementi, ki jih morata bonitetni agenciji upoštevati pri oceni, ne omogočajo sklepanja o posebnem učinku obstoja ali neobstoja skrajnega zakonskega poroštva na bonitetno oceno.
Arguments by the French authorities drawn from ratings in the private sector
Trditve francoskih organov, izpeljane iz bonitetnih ocen na zasebnem področju
The French authorities recall that ‘there are many cases in the private sector where the rating of a subsidiary is linked to the parent company’s rating’.
Francoski organi opozarjajo, da „je na zasebnem področju obilica primerov, v katerih je bonitetna ocena hčerinskega podjetja povezana z oceno matičnega podjetja“.
They conclude that this type of approach is therefore not a specific feature of the status of a legal entity governed by public law.
Ugotavljajo, da naj tovrstni pristop torej ne bi pomenil posebnosti javnega statusa.
The Commission does not deny that the rating of a subsidiary may be linked to that of its parent company, including in the private sector, and in particular to the estimated degree of support that the parent company is willing to offer its subsidiary, which may possibly be reflected in guarantee commitments made by the parent.
Komisija ne izpodbija, da je lahko bonitetna ocena hčerinskega podjetja povezana z oceno matičnega podjetja, vključno v zasebnem sektorju, in zlasti s stopnjo ocenjene podpore, ki jo je matično podjetje pripravljeno ponuditi svojemu hčerinskemu podjetju in se lahko morebiti izrazi s poroštvenimi obveznostmi, ki jih prevzame prvo.
This argument serves only to confirm the Commission’s analysis.
Ta trditev samo potrjuje analizo Komisije.
It illustrates that the status of établissement public and the resulting guarantee are factors demonstrating state support that have been taken into account by the rating agencies when rating La Poste.
Kaže namreč, da sta status osebe javnega prava in poroštvo, ki izhaja iz njega, elementa, ki dokazujeta državno podporo in ki sta ga bonitetni agenciji upoštevali pri oceni podjetja La Poste.
Arguments by the French authorities drawn from La Poste’s rating
Trditve francoskih organov, izpeljane iz bonitetne ocene podjetja La Poste
The French authorities also stress that in 2005 La Poste’s rating was downgraded by S & P to AA– with a stable outlook even though there had been no change to its legal status.
Francoski organi tudi poudarjajo, da je S & P leta 2005 bonitetno oceno podjetja La Poste znižala na AA– s stabilnimi obeti, čeprav se status ni spremenil.
The French authorities conclude that La Poste’s rating is not a consequence of its legal status.
Francoski organi sklepajo, da bonitetna ocena podjetja La Poste ni samo posledica njegovega statusa.
The French authorities also point out that the two factors mentioned by S & P in support of the rating are the economic importance of the public service tasks and the strong shareholder backing, not the legal status.
Poudarjajo tudi, da sta v obvestilu S & P z dne 3. aprila 2007 o podjetju La Poste elementa, ki ju S & P navaja v podporo bonitetni oceni, gospodarski pomen nalog javne slube in „strong shareholding backing“, ne pa status.
As pointed out above, the Commission recognises that the existence of a guarantee is not the only factor taken into account by the rating agencies when assessing the degree of support that the public authorities are willing to provide to an undertaking in difficulty.
Kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj, Komisija priznava, da obstoj poroštva ni edini element, ki ga bonitetni agenciji upoštevata pri oceni stopnje podpore, ki so jo javni organi pripravljeni zagotoviti podjetju, ki bi se znašlo v težavah.
In basing its argument on the S & P study on the influence of government support on the ratings of postal operators, the Commission has nonetheless shown that the existence of a guarantee is taken into account by the rating agencies as an essential component of the state support for La Poste.
Komisija, ki se je oprla na študijo S & P o vplivu podpore vlade na bonitetne ocene poštnih operaterjev, pa je vseeno pokazala, da bonitetni agenciji obstoj poroštva upoštevata kot bistveni element podpore države za podjetje La Poste.
In this regard, the Commission challenges the analysis by the French authorities that the strong shareholder backing referred to by S & P in its note dated 3 April 2007 is distinct from the question of the public status and of the guarantee.
V zvezi s tem Komisija izpodbija analizo francoskih organov, v skladu s katero naj bi bil strong shareholder backing, ki ga S & P navaja v obvestilu z dne 3. aprila 2007, ločen od vprašanja javnega statusa in poroštva.
The study on the influence of government support on the ratings of postal operators shows that the legal status and the guarantee are indeed essential factors when estimating the level of state support for La Poste.
Iz študije o vplivu državne podpore na bonitetno oceno poštnih operaterjev namreč izhaja, da sta status in poroštvo bistvena elementa za oceno podpore države za podjetje La Poste.
The Commission also challenges the interpretation by the French authorities of the note dating from April 2007 stating that S & P chose a top-down methodology solely on the basis of its hypothesis that the State would remain a 100 % shareholder in La Poste over the medium term and not at all on the basis of La Poste’s status as an entity governed by public law and the guarantee associated with that status.
Komisija izpodbija tudi razlago francoskih organov obvestila iz aprila 2007, v skladu s katero je S & P metodologijo top-down izbrala izključno na podlagi svoje predpostavke, da bi morala srednjeročno država ostati 100-odstotni delničar podjetja La Poste, nikakor pa ne na podlagi javnopravnega statusa podjetja La Poste in poroštva, povezanega s tem statusom.
The Commission would point out that the ‘likelihood of a change in the group’s capital structure’ which, according to S & P, would lead to the loss of the status of a publicly owned establishment and the guarantee attached to that status, is explicitly taken into account by S & P in its rating.
Komisija opozarja, da S & P v oceni izrecno upošteva „verjetno spremembo kapitalske strukture“, ki bo po besedah S & P povzročila izgubo statusa osebe javnega prava in poroštva, povezanega s tem statusom.
It is therefore clear that for S & P, it is not only the change in the capital structure that is important, but also the implications (loss of publicly owned establishment status and of the guarantee); the change in capital structure is the most far-reaching step in the La Poste’s increasing independence from the State.
Jasno je torej, da je za S & P pomembna ne samo sprememba kapitalske strukture, ampak tudi posledice (izguba javnega statusa in poroštva), saj je sprememba kapitalske strukture najdaljnosežnejši korak v doseganju vse večje neodvisnosti podjetja La Poste od države.
The borrowing terms actually obtained by La Poste
Pogoji financiranja, ki jih je podjetje La Poste dejansko pridobilo
The French authorities argue that the announcement by the Commission of the existence of the guarantee and of its imminent removal as a result have had no effect on La Poste’s financing terms.
Francoski organi trdijo, da napoved Komisije glede obstoja poroštva in njegove posledične prihodnje ukinitve nikakor ni vplivala na pogoje financiranja podjetja La Poste.
During the bond issue in October 2006, just after the Commission’s announcement of its recommendation that measures be taken, La Poste obtained a mid-swap spread of 12 basis points for the 15-year bond and 4 basis points for the 7-year bond.
Zadnje je namreč pri izdaji obveznic oktobra 2006, takoj potem, ko je Komisija napovedala svoje priporočilo koristnih ukrepov, doseglo spread na mid swap v višini 12 bazičnih točk za izdajo za 15 let in 4 bazičnih točk za izdajo za 7 let.
In 2004, on the occasion of the previous bond issue of a 15-year bond, the mid-swap spread was 8 basis points.
Predhodna izdaja obveznic leta 2004, ki se je nanašala na obveznico za 15 let, pa je privedla do spreada 8 bazičnih točk na mid swap.
The French authorities conclude that La Poste’s financing terms were not based on the de jure or de facto existence of a guarantee.
Francoski organi ugotavljajo, da pogoji financiranja podjetja La Poste ne temeljijo na pravnem ali dejanskem obstoju poroštva.
The Commission takes the view that the French authorities’ conclusion that the Commission’s announcement had no effect on the financing terms is unfounded since, on the contrary, the spread deteriorated, moving from 8 to 12 basis points.
Po mnenju Komisije ugotovitev francoskih organov, da napoved Komisije ni vplivala na pogoje financiranja, ni utemeljena, ker se nasprotno ugotavlja poslabšanje spreada z 8 na 12 točk.
In addition, even assuming that the spread had been reduced, which is not the case, the Commission had misgivings about the conclusions that could be drawn about the influence of the Commission’s announcement on La Poste’s financing costs, since many other factors are also taken into account by investors, for example La Poste’s financial structure, which changed between 2004 and 2006.
Tudi če bi se spread zmanjšal, kar ne drži, ima poleg tega Komisija pomisleke o ugotovitvah, ki bi jih bilo mogoče izpeljati glede vpliva napovedi Komisije na stroške financiranja podjetja La Poste, ker so vlagatelji upoštevali tudi številne druge elemente, kot je finančna struktura podjetja La Poste, ki se je lahko med letoma 2004 in 2006 spreminjala.
Moreover, even if the financing terms before and after the Commission’s announcement had been identical, or if the difference had not been significant, that would not prove that the guarantee does not influence borrowing terms.
Tudi če bi bili pogoji financiranja pred napovedjo Komisije in po njej enaki ali če razlika ne bi bila pomembna, to ne bi nikakor dokazovalo, da poroštvo ne vpliva na pogoje financiranja.
At the time of the bond issue referred to by the French authorities, the guarantee enjoyed by La Poste was classified as State aid.
Ob izdaji, ki so jo navedli francoski organi, je bilo namreč poroštvo, do katerega je bilo upravičeno podjetje La Poste, opredeljeno kot veljavna pomoč.
It therefore remained valid and covered the bond issues.
Ostalo je torej veljavno in je pokrivalo izdaje.
The guarantee becomes illegal aid, if that is the case, only from the date set by this decision for it to be withdrawn.
Poroštvo postane nezakonita pomoč, kjer je to ustrezno, šele od datuma, ki je s tem sklepom določen za njegovo ukinitev.
Lastly, provided that the Commission has demonstrated that the guarantee deriving from La Poste’s legal status is likely to provide an advantage to La Poste because of the positive impact on its rating, the Commission takes the view that it does not have to demonstrate the specific effects that the guarantee has had in the past.
Nazadnje, ker je Komisija dokazala, da lahko poroštvo, ki izhaja iz statusa podjetja La Poste, temu zagotovi prednost zaradi pozitivnega vpliva na njegovo bonitetno oceno, Komisija meni, da ji ni treba dokazati konkretnih učinkov, ki jih je to poroštvo imelo v preteklosti.
It is an established principle of the State aid rules that the Commission does not have to prove the real effects of aid measures because in that case, the Member States which do not notify aid measures would be at an advantage compared to those that do.
Ustaljeno načelo sheme državnih pomoči je namreč, da Komisiji ni treba dokazati dejanskih učinkov pomoči, saj bi imele v tem primeru države članice, ki ne priglasijo pomoči, prednost v primerjavi z državami članicami, ki to storijo.
A Member State notifying an unlimited guarantee would have the measure prohibited because of its potential effects only, whereas a Member State which did not notify the aid would be able to defend itself by demonstrating that, in the specific case, the guarantee has not produced any advantages to the beneficiary.
Ukrep države članice, ki je priglasila neomejeno poroštvo, bi bil namreč prepovedan zaradi samih morebitnih učinkov, medtem ko bi se država, ki ga ne bi priglasila, lahko branila z dokazovanjem, da poroštvo konkretno ni zagotovilo prednosti svojemu upravičencu.