natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Law of 16 July 1980 is applicable to La Poste, which is categorised by the Law of 2 July 1990 as a legal entity governed by public law.
Zakon z dne 16. julija 1980 se uporablja za podjetje La Poste, ki je bilo z zakonom z dne 2. julija 1990 opredeljeno kot pravna oseba javnega prava.
Article 1, Section II, of the Law of 16 July 1980 provides that ‘Where a judicial decision which has become final orders a local authority or a publicly owned establishment to pay a sum of money the amount of which is fixed in the decision itself, payment of the sum must be ordered within two months of notification of the decision.
Člen 1(II) zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 določa: „Če je bilo lokalni skupnosti ali osebi javnega prava s pravnomočno sodno odločbo naloženo plačilo denarnega zneska, katerega višina je določena v sami odločbi, je treba ta znesek plačati ali zanj izdati izplačilni nalog v dveh mesecih od vročitve sodne odločbe.
If payment is not ordered within that period, the representative of the State in the département or the supervisory authority shall issue a mandatory payment order.
Če plačilo ali izdaja izplačilnega naloga nista opravljena v tem roku, predstavnik države v departmaju ali nadzorni organ izvrši plačilo po uradni dolžnosti.
If insufficient funds are available, the representative of the State in the département or the supervisory authority shall give the authority or establishment formal notice to create the necessary resources; if the decision-making body of the authority or establishment has not released or created the resources, the representative of the State in the département or the supervisory authority shall do so, and if necessary shall issue a mandatory payment order’.
V primeru nezadostnih sredstev predstavnik države v departmaju ali nadzorni organ pošlje skupnosti ali osebi javnega prava opomin, da je treba ustvariti potrebna sredstva; če posvetovalni organ skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava ni zagotovil ali ustvaril teh sredstev, za to poskrbi predstavnik države v departmaju ali nadzorni organ ter po potrebi izvrši plačilo po uradni dolžnosti.“
Lastly, the fifth subparagraph of Article 3-1 of the same Decree provides that ‘If within eight days following notification of entry of the appropriation the local authority or publicly owned establishment has not ordered payment of the sum due, the representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision shall within one month issue a mandatory payment order’.
Po potrebi zagotovi potrebna sredstva bodisi z zmanjšanjem sredstev, ki so namenjena za druge odhodke in so še na voljo, bodisi s povečanjem sredstev.“ Nazadnje, peti odstavek člena 3-1 navedenega odloka določa, da „če lokalna skupnost ali oseba javnega prava v osmih dneh po uradnem obvestilu o vpisu sredstva ni izvršila plačila dolgovanega zneska, predstavnik države ali organ, pristojen za nadzor, v enem mesecu to opravi po uradni dolžnosti“.
The Decree of 12 May 1981 was repealed and replaced by Decree No 2008-479 of 20 May 2008 on the enforcement of financial penalties imposed on public entities.
Zgoraj navedeni odlok z dne 12. maja 1981 je bil razveljavljen in nadomeščen z odlokom št. 2008-479 z dne 20. maja 2008 o izvrševanju denarnih obsodb, izrečenih zoper javne skupnosti.
The circular of 16 October 1989 states that ‘Where there are no or insufficient appropriations, which situation is referred to in the second subparagraph of Section II of Article 1 of the Law of 16 July 1980, the authorising officer shall also, before the expiry of the four-month period, inform the creditor of that fact by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, specifying the amount the payment of which will subsequently be ordered.
Poleg tega je v okrožnici z dne 16. oktobra 1989 določeno, da „mora uradnik, ki izdaja izplačilne naloge, v primeru nezadostnih ali neobstoječih sredstev, to je stanja iz člena 1(II), drugi pododstavek, zakona z dne 16. julija 1980, pred iztekom štirimesečnega roka o tem s priporočenim pismom s povratnico obvestiti upnika in navesti znesek, ki bo plačan pozneje.
Such payment order will cover either the whole amount due where there are no appropriations or the balance where there are insufficient appropriations’.
To plačilo se bo nanašalo bodisi na celotni dolgovani znesek v primeru popolnega neobstoja sredstev bodisi na preostanek v primeru nezadostnosti sredstev.“
It is clear from all these provisions that the Law of 16 July 1980 and its implementing rules are intended only to ensure the enforcement of final judicial decisions ordering either the State, a local authority or a publicly owned establishment to pay a sum of money.
Iz vseh teh določb izhaja, da so zakon z dne 16. julija 1980 in njegova izvedbena besedila namenjeni samo za izvrševanje pravnomočnih sodnih odločb, s katerimi je državi, ali lokalni skupnosti, ali osebi javnega prava naloženo plačilo denarnega zneska.
They do not prescribe any compulsory administration or winding-up procedure.
Ta besedila ne določajo postopka sanacije ali likvidacije.
The Law of 16 July 1980 and its implementing rules expressly identify the State as the authority responsible for covering the debts of publicly owned establishments.
Poleg tega je z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 in njegovimi izvedbenimi besedili država izrecno določena kot pristojni organ za vračilo dolgov oseb javnega prava.
The State has important prerogatives: first, the issuing of a mandatory payment order, and second, the creation of sufficient resources.
Država ima pomembni posebni pravici: po eni strani je to plačilo po uradni dolžnosti, po drugi strani pa ustvarjanje zadostnih sredstev.
This calls for an examination of the extent to which the possibilities for creditors to obtain compensation through the liability of the State in the event of La Poste defaulting can be likened to a form of guarantee.
Zato je treba preučiti, koliko je mogoče možnosti povrnitve škode, ki so upnikom na voljo z uveljavljanjem odgovornosti države v primeru neizpolnitve obveznosti podjetja La Poste, enačiti z obliko poroštva.
In addition to noting the above-mentioned two elements (inapplicability of insolvency procedures and applicability of the Law of 16 July 1980), the Commission observed in its opening decision that rules applicable to certain EPICs might apply also to La Poste:
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka poleg zgoraj navedenih elementov (neuporaba postopkov plačilne nesposobnosti in uporaba zakona z dne 16. julija 1980) poudarila, da bi se lahko pravila, ki se uporabljajo za nekatere EPIC, uporabljala tudi za podjetje La Poste.
TRANSFER OF THE LIABILITIES OF AN EPIC THAT HAS BEEN WOUND UP TO ANOTHER PUBLICLY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT OR TO THE STATE
PRENOS OBVEZNOSTI RAZPUŠČENE EPIC NA DRUGO OSEBO JAVNEGA PRAVA ALI DRŽAVO
Codifying instruction No 02-060-M95 of 18 July 2002 on the financial and accounting regulation of national publicly owned establishments of an industrial and commercial character (‘the codifying instruction’) provides that two situations may arise in the event of the closure of an EPIC with a public accountant:
Zakonodajno navodilo št. 02-060-M95 z dne 18. julija 2002 o finančni in računovodski ureditvi nacionalnih oseb javnega prava industrijske in komercialne narave (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakonodajno navodilo) določa, da lahko ustavitev delovanja EPIC, ki jo upravlja javni računovodja, privede do dveh primerov:
either a new publicly owned establishment replaces the former EPIC and takes over its property, rights and obligations,
bodisi nekdanjo EPIC nadomesti nova oseba javnega prava, ki prevzame premoženje, pravice in obveznosti prve,
or the publicly owned establishment is declared wound up, in which case ‘the instrument winding up the establishment may already designate the beneficiary of the balance of the liquidation, which will generally be the State’.(32) The guide to the financial organisation of the creation, conversion and abolition of national publicly owned establishments and of public interest groups of 14 November 2006 (‘the guide to financial organisation’), which is available on the website of the Ministry of Finance, states: ‘The instrument abolishing the establishment must explicitly provide for the transfer of the rights, property and obligations of the abolished establishment to the structure which is to take over its activity or its assets (i.e. either a publicly owned establishment or the State) […] More generally, it must be provided that the new establishment will replace the entities whose activities it is taking over in respect of the rights and obligations resulting from the contracts concluded for the purpose of performing the tasks assigned to it’.
bodisi se z besedilom razglasi razpustitev osebe javnega prava; v tem primeru je „v besedilu o razpustitvi osebe javnega prava lahko že določen subjekt, ki mu pripada likvidacijski saldo, na splošno država“.(32) Vodnik za finančno organiziranje ustanovitev, preoblikovanj in ukinitev nacionalnih oseb javnega prava in skupin javnega interesa z dne 14. novembra 2006 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: vodnik za finančno organiziranje), ki je na voljo na spletni strani ministrstva za finance, določa: „V besedilu o ukinitvi osebe javnega prava mora biti izrecno določen prenos pravic, premoženja in obveznosti z ukinjene osebe javnega prava na strukturo, ki bo prevzela njeno dejavnost ali premoženje (to je na osebo javnega prava ali državo)“ […] „Splošneje, določeno mora biti, da nova oseba javnega prava nadomesti pravne osebe, katerih dejavnost prevzame, pri pravicah in obveznostih, izhajajočih iz pogodb, sklenjenih za izpolnjevanje nalog, ki so ji dodeljene.“
Although the provisions of the codifying instruction and of the guide to financial organisation are applicable only to EPICs which have a public accountant, there is evidence to suggest that EPICs which do not have a public accountant would also, in the event of their being closed down, have their debts transferred to the State or to another publicly owned establishment.
Čeprav se določbe zakonodajnega navodila in vodnika za finančno organiziranje uporabljajo samo za EPIC, ki imajo javnega računovodjo, je iz nekaterih elementov razvidno, da se bodo tudi v primeru zaprtja EPIC, ki nimajo javnega računovodje, njihovi dolgovi preneseni na državo ali drugo osebo javnega prava.
Thus, Charbonnages de France stated in the notes to its accounts of 31 December 2000 that all the rights and obligations of an EPIC must, in the event of closure, be transferred either to another legal entity governed by public law or to the French Government itself, and that the terms and conditions of such a transfer must be specified in the law adopted with a view to closing down the EPIC in question.
Tako je družba Charbonnages de France v opombah k svojim finančnim izkazom z dne 31. decembra 2000 objavila, da je treba v primeru zaprtja vse pravice in obveznosti EPIC prenesti bodisi na drug pravni subjekt javnega prava bodisi na samo francosko vlado, pogoje takega prenosa pa je treba določiti v zakonu, sprejetem za zaprtje zadevne EPIC.
This statement does not apply only to EPICs with a public accountant, Charbonnages de France being in fact an EPIC without a public accountant.
Ta trditev ni omejena samo na EPIC, ki imajo javnega računovodjo; Charbonnages de France EPIC je sicer brez javnega računovodje.
According to some rating agencies, if ERAP were to be wound up, although it is also an EPIC without a public accountant, the balance of its debt and of its assets would also be transferred to the State.
Poleg tega bi bil po mnenju nekaterih bonitetnih agencij v primeru razpustitve podjetja ERAP saldo njegovih dolgov in sredstev prav tako prenesen na državo, čeprav je ERAP tudi EPIC brez javnega računovodje.
According to Fitch, as an EPIC, ERAP is not subject to winding-up procedures.
Po mnenju bonitetne agencije Fitch„za podjetje ERAP kot EPIC ne veljajo postopki likvidacije.
It can be wound up only by a legislative procedure and, in that event, the balance of its debt and of its assets will revert to the State. According to Moody’s , ERAP cannot be the subject of restructuring measures imposed by the compulsory winding-up procedures court.
Podjetje se lahko razpusti samo z zakonodajnim postopkom, in v tem primeru saldo njegovih dolgov in sredstev preide na državo.“ Po mnenju bonitetne agencije Moody’s„podjetje ERAP ne more biti predmet prestrukturiranj, ki jih naloži sodišče za postopke sodne likvidacije.
Hence, in the event of the company being wound up, its assets/liabilities would be transferred to the authority responsible for creating it, i.e. the State itself.
Tako bi bili v primeru razpustitve družbe njena sredstva/obveznosti preneseni na organ, pristojen za njeno ustanovitev, to je samo državo.“
In the light of the foregoing, and despite the fact that La Poste does not have a public accountant, it should be examined whether, in the event of a winding up, the principle of the transfer of the debts to the State or to another legal entity governed by public law is applicable to La Poste given that it is treated as equivalent to an EPIC.
Glede na te elemente in čeprav podjetja La Poste ne upravlja javni računovodja, je treba preučiti, ali se za podjetje La Poste v primeru likvidacije uporablja načelo prenosa dolgov na državo ali drug pravni subjekt javnega prava, pri čemer je treba upoštevati, da se to podjetje šteje za enakovredno osebi javnega prava industrijske in komercialne narave.
If that were the case, creditors would be assured of not losing the money they are owed and could make do with a lower rate of interest or grant more favourable payment terms and conditions than they would if there were no such assurance.
Upnik bi tako imel jamstvo, da ne bo izgubil svoje terjatve, in bi se lahko zadovoljil z manjšo obrestno mero ali odobril ugodnejše plačilne pogoje in roke, kot če takega jamstva ne bi bilo.
Such a transfer would therefore have the same effects as a guarantee.
Tak prenos bi torej imel enake učinke kot poroštvo.
DIRECT ACCESS TO TREASURY ACCOUNTS
NEPOSREDEN DOSTOP DO DRŽAVNIH SREDSTEV
Again according to Fitch, ERAP’s liquidity is guaranteed by its instant access to Treasury imprest accounts.
Prav tako po mnenju agencije Fitch je „likvidnost podjetja ERAP zagotovljena z njegovim neposrednim dostopom do predujmov iz državnih sredstev“.
As ERAP is an EPIC, the access which La Poste might also have to Treasury imprest accounts should be examined.
Ker je podjetje ERAP oseba javnega prava industrijske in komercialne narave, je treba preučiti tudi morebitni dostop podjetja La Poste do predujmov iz državnih sredstev.
OBSERVATIONS AND PROPOSALS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
PRIPOMBE IN PREDLOGI FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV
OBSERVATIONS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
PRIPOMBE FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV
The French authorities dispute the existence of both a guarantee and an advantage for La Poste.
Francoski organi zanikajo obstoj poroštva na eni strani in prednosti podjetja La Poste na drugi.
ABSENCE OF GUARANTEE
NEOBSTOJ POROŠTVA
First, according to the French authorities, publicly owned establishments do not enjoy an automatic guarantee because of their legal form (A) and, second, the Commission’s argument in the opening decision is flawed (B).
Po mnenju francoskih organov osebe javnega prava niso upravičene do samodejnega poroštva zaradi svojega statusa (A), poleg tega pa je sklepanje Komisije v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka napačno (B).
Publicly owned establishments do not enjoy an automatic guarantee because of their legal form.
Osebe javnega prava niso upravičene do samodejnega poroštva zaradi svojega statusa
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 besedilu in tudi v nobeni odločitvi ni določeno načelo, po katerem naj bi država načelno neomejeno jamčila za dolgove EPIC.
Second, the courts have found against the existence of guarantees.
Drugič, o neobstoju poroštev je bilo odločeno v sodni praksi.
Third, the Organic Law of 1 August 2001 governing the Finance Act (‘LOLF’) lays down that only a provision of a finance act can create a guarantee.
Tretjič, temeljni zakon z dne 1. avgusta 2001 o zakonih o financah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: LOLF) določa, da se lahko poroštvo oblikuje samo z določbo zakonov o financah.
Accordingly, according to the French authorities’ expert, it has been legally possible to give an implied guarantee since the full entry into force of the LOLF on 1 January 2005.
Zato po mnenju izvedenca francoskih organov od 1. januarja 2005, ko je LOLF začel veljati v celoti, ni bilo mogoče zakonito dati nobenega implicitnega poroštva.
Debts contracted by La Poste since 1 January 2005 are not, therefore, covered by an implied guarantee.
Za dolgove podjetja La Poste, nastale od 1. januarja 2005, naj torej ne bi obstajalo implicitno poroštvo.
As for debts incurred before 1 January 2005, the French authorities’ expert takes the view that, in the absence of a court judgment, it is impossible to determine whether the lapsing of the implied guarantees given before 1 January 2005, the giving of which was not expressly authorised by a finance act, could be rejected on the basis of respect for constitutionally protected creditors’ rights.
Ker po mnenju izvedenca francoskih organov v zvezi z dolgovi, nastalimi pred 1. januarjem 2005, ni sporne odločitve, 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, if EPICs enjoyed a state guarantee, the change in their legal form would require the introduction of new measures to protect creditors’ rights.
Četrtič, če bi bile EPIC upravičene do državnega poroštva, bi bilo treba za spremembo njihovega statusa uvesti ukrepe za ohranitev pravic upnikov.
Such a mechanism has never been introduced.
Tak mehanizem pa ni bil nikoli vzpostavljen.
On the contrary, when the Administration of Posts and Telecommunications was converted into an independent legal entity (La Poste) on 1 January 1991, the State, by order (arrêté) of 31 December 1990, granted an express guarantee for debts incurred before 31 December 1990 and transferred to La Poste.
Nasprotno, država je pri preoblikovanju uprave za pošto in telekomunikacije v samostojno pravno osebo (La Poste) 1. januarja 1991 z odlokom z dne 31. decembra 1990 odobrila eksplicitno poroštvo za dolgove, ki so nastali pred 31. decembrom 1990 in bili preneseni na podjetje La Poste.
That would not have been necessary if La Poste, as an establishment equivalent to an EPIC, had enjoyed a statutory state guarantee.
To ne bi bilo nujno, če bi bilo podjetje La Poste kot oseba javnega prava, ki se šteje za enakovredno osebi javnega prava industrijske in komercialne narave, zakonsko upravičeno do državnega poroštva.
Legislative and regulatory provisions granting a state guarantee to certain activities of ERAP and of the French Development Agency (Agence française du développement), both of which are EPICs, have also been adopted.
Prav tako so bile sprejete zakonske določbe in predpisi, s katerimi je bilo državno poroštvo odobreno za nekatere dejavnosti podjetja ERAP in Agence française du développement (Francoska agencija za razvoj), ki sta dve EPIC.
Finally, the French authorities refer to an article by Mr Labetoulle, the former President of the litigation division of the Council of State.
Zadnjič, francoski organi navajajo članek nekdanjega predsednika oddelka za spore pri sodišču Conseil d’Etat D. Labetoulla.
According to Mr Labetoulle, ‘in law, there is nothing automatic about the granting, enjoyment and scope of this guarantee [a state guarantee that applies ipso jure to state-owned public establishments]’.
Po mnenju tega avtorja „v pravu ni nobene samodejnosti pri podeljevanju, koriščenju in obsegu tega poroštva [državnega poroštva, ki naj bi se polnopravno uporabljalo za državne osebe javnega prava]“.
The Commission’s argument concerning the existence of a guarantee is flawed
Sklepanje Komisije o obstoju poroštva je napačno
The reimbursement of individual claims is not guaranteed
Poplačilo individualnih terjatev ni zajamčeno
The Law of 16 July 1980 cannot form the basis of a guarantee
Poroštvo ne more temeljiti na zakonu z dne 16. julija 1980
According to the French authorities, the Law of 16 July 1980 grants the supervisory authority power of substitution for the executive of the person whom it replaces.
Po mnenju francoskih organov je z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 nadzorni organ pooblaščen za nadomestitev izvršilnega organa osebe, ki jo nadomesti.
Therefore, the supervisory authority may exercise only the powers of that executive, which do not include the possibility of having access to the state budget.
V zvezi s tem lahko nadzorni organ izvaja samo pristojnosti tega izvršilnega organa, ki ne vključujejo možnosti razpolaganja z državnimi sredstvi.
The Law of 16 July 1980 does not, therefore, provide an obligation for the State to commit its own resources.
Zakon z dne 16. julija 1980 naj torej ne bi določal obveznosti države, da zagotovi lastna sredstva.
The French authorities also refer to academic articles.
Francoski organi se sklicujejo tudi na članka pravnih strokovnjakov.
These articles point out that the expression ‘y pourvoit’ in Article 1 of the Law of 16 July 1980 refers to a power of ‘substitution’ in which ‘it is a matter of principle that the substitute has the same powers as the substitutee’, the granting of an exceptional subsidy being, moreover, ‘outside the scope of the power of substitution’ and therefore not provided for by the Law of 16 July 1980.
V njiju naj bi bilo opozorjeno, da se izraz „za to poskrbi“ iz člena 1 zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 sklicuje na pooblastilo za „nadomestitev“, pri katerem „velja načelo, da ima subjekt, ki je nadomestil drug subjekt, enake pristojnosti kot nadomeščeni subjekt“, pri čemer naj bi bila dodelitev izredne subvencije „zunaj izvajanja pooblastila za nadomestitev“ in naj torej z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980 ne bi bila določena.
Finally, the French authorities cite the decisions of the Council of State of 10 November 1999 and 18 November 2005 in the Campoloro case.
Nazadnje francoski organi navajajo odločitvi sodišča Conseil d’Etat z dne 10. novembra 1999 in 18. novembra 2005 o zadevi Campoloro.
It is not possible to incur the strict liability of the State solely on the ground of lack of assets
Nekrivdne odgovornosti države, obrazložene samo z nezadostnostjo sredstev, ni mogoče uveljavljati
Moreover, the French authorities assert that the possibilities of compensation opened by incurring liability, under restrictive conditions, to creditors of legal entities governed by public law cannot be considered equivalent to a form of guarantee.
Francoski organi trdijo, da možnosti povrnitve škode, ki so upnikom javnih oseb pod omejenimi pogoji na voljo z uveljavljanjem odgovornosti, ni mogoče enačiti z obliko poroštva.
A guarantee requires the guarantor to accept the fact of the guarantee.
Poroštvo za poroka predpostavlja, da prevzame dejanje, za katero je porok.
If it is a matter of incurring liability for a fault or, in the case of strict liability, the consequences of one’s own action, there can be no question of a guarantee.
Če gre za prevzem krivde, v primeru nekrivdne odgovornosti pa za posledice ukrepanja, se vprašanje poroštva ne bi smelo pojavljati.
Then the French authorities maintain that, in any event, the liability of the State cannot be incurred on the sole ground that the Prefect or supervisory authority was unable to take any measures that could allow the claim to be repaid because of the financial and asset situation of the regional or local authority or publicly owned establishment.
Francoski organi trdijo, da odgovornosti države nikakor ni mogoče uveljavljati samo zato, ker prefekt ali nadzorni organ zaradi finančnega in premoženjskega položaja skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava ni mogel sprejeti nobenega ukrepa, s katerim bi omogočil poplačilo terjatve.