natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards suppliers, UOP considers that preferential terms may be granted to IFP/Axens as compared with its competitors; UOP cites the contracts signed jointly by IFP and Axens mentioned in the opening decision.
Družba UOP Limited v zvezi z dobavitelji meni, da bi se lahko subjektu „IFP/Axens“ odobrili prednostni pogoji v primerjavi z njegovimi tekmeci; zato se sklicuje na pogodbe, ki sta jih skupaj podpisali oseba javnega prava IFP in družba Axens ter so navedene v odločitvi o začetku postopka.
As regards the financial markets, UOP considers that IFP/Axens benefits from preferential terms and interest rates on the capital markets as a result of the role of guarantor of last resort played by the State.
Družba UOP Limited v zvezi s finančnimi trgi meni, da ima subjekt „IFP/Axens“ prednostne pogoje in obrestne mere na kapitalskih trgih zaradi vloge poroka v skrajni sili, ki naj bi jo imela država.
Furthermore, in a context of financial crisis, the presence of the State, and the security it represents for investors, makes it possible to attract private capital at a time of shortage.
Vloga države in varnost, ki jo pomeni za vlagatelje, naj bi poleg tega v razmerah finančne krize ob splošnem pomanjkanju omogočili pritegnitev zasebnega kapitala.
Competing undertakings cannot obtain access to comparable funding, or can obtain it only on far less favourable economic terms.
Konkurenčna podjetja naj ne bi imela dostopa do primerljivega financiranja ali pa bi ga lahko dobila pod gospodarsko manj zanimivimi pogoji.
According to UOP, the effects of the economic and financial crisis have strengthened the potential of the measure to distort competition still further.
Učinki gospodarske in finančne krize naj bi po mnenju družbe UOP Limited še okrepili možnost, da bi ukrep izkrivljal konkurenco.
In its letter dated 23 January 2009, UOP refers to its previous observations and to those sent in the course of the proceedings that led to decision C 51/2005 cited above.
Družba UOP Limited se v dopisu z dne 23. januarja 2009 sklicuje na svoje predhodne pripombe in na tiste, ki so bile predložene v okviru postopka v zvezi z zgoraj navedeno odločbo C 51/2005.
UOP considers that this information provides sufficient evidence of the importance of the solvency of co-contractors on the process licensing market concerned.
Te informacije dajejo po njenem mnenju dovolj podatkov, ki dokazujejo pomembnost plačilne sposobnosti sopogodbenikov na zadevnem trgu licenc za postopke.
It reiterates the argument that the customers of the IFP/Axens entity assume they are in a trading relationship with a State body, the long-term viability of which ensures that there is no risk.
Znova ponavlja trditev, da stranke subjekta „IFP/Axens“ predpostavljajo, da so v poslovnem odnosu z državno ustanovo, katere dolgoročna sposobnost preživetja ne pomeni tveganja.
Finally, UOP asks the Commission to analyse the agreements between Axens and its customers, indicating that it is convinced that they contain no clause that would limit liability to Axens alone.
Nazadnje družba UOP Limited poziva Komisijo k analizi sporazumov med družbo Axens in njenimi strankami, pri čemer navaja, da po njenem prepričanju ti ne vsebujejo nobenega dogovora, ki bi lahko omejeval odgovornost družbe Axens.
COMMENTS FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES ON UOP’S OBSERVATIONS
PRIPOMBE FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV K PRIPOMBAM DRUŽBE UOP LIMITED
In their letter dated 22 June 2009, the French authorities consider that UOP’s comments are based on assertions that are mistaken, or in some cases entirely false, and in any event are not founded on any evidence that might demonstrate the existence of State aid to IFP or Axens.
Francoski organi v dopisu z dne 22. junija 2009 menijo, da pripombe družbe UOP Limited„temeljijo na napačnih in celo povsem neresničnih trditvah ter nikakor niso podprte z ničimer, kar bi dokazovalo obstoj državne pomoči za osebo javnega prava IFP ali družbo Axens“.
In substance, the French authorities deny any relevance to the allegation made that ‘IFP/Axens’ is perceived by the market as a public entity benefiting from advantages in relation to customers, suppliers and the financial markets, and reject the assertion that this ‘IFP/Axens’ is a State body whose long-term viability is assured.
Francoski organi v bistvu zanikajo vsako upoštevnost izražene trditve, da se subjekt „IFP/Axens“ na trgu dojema kot javni subjekt, ki ima prednosti v odnosih s strankami in dobavitelji ter na finančnih trgih, zavračajo pa tudi trditev, da naj bi bil navedeni subjekt „IFP/Axens“ državna ustanova, ki je ne skrbi dolgoročna sposobnost preživetja.
The French authorities develop two arguments:
Francoski organi so oblikovali dve trditvi:
firstly, ‘IFP/Axens’ is not a State body with unlimited resources at its disposal; moreover, there is no proof that this entity is perceived as such on the market (6.2.1);
prvič, subjekt „IFP/Axens“ ni državna ustanova z neomejenimi sredstvi; poleg tega nič ne dokazuje, da se navedeni subjekt na trgu dojema kot tak (6.2.1),
secondly, IFP’s EPIC status confers no market advantage on Axens (6.2.2).
drugič, družba Axens zaradi statusa EPIC, ki ga ima oseba javnega prava IFP, na trgu nima nobenih prednosti (6.2.2).
‘IFP/AXENS’ IS NOT A STATE BODY WITH UNLIMITED RESOURCES
SUBJEKT „IFP/AXENS“ NAJ NE BI BIL DRŽAVNA USTANOVA Z NEOMEJENIMI SREDSTVI
The French authorities contend that contrary to UOP’s affirmations the suppliers and customers of ‘IFP/Axens’ do not perceive this undertaking as a State body with unlimited resources.
Dobavitelji in stranke subjekta „IFP/Axens“ po mnenju francoskih organov in v nasprotju s trditvami družbe UOP Limited tega podjetja ne dojemajo kot „državno ustanovo“, ki ima neomejena sredstva.
Firstly, the French authorities refer to the legal analysis which they have sent the Commission and to their previous comments, which, they maintain, show that IFP’s EPIC status confers no State guarantee of any kind.
Prvič, francoski organi se sklicujejo na pravno analizo, ki so jo predložili Komisiji, in svoje predhodne pripombe, ki naj bi po njihovem mnenju dokazovale, da na podlagi statusa EPIC, ki ga ima oseba javnega prava IFP, ni dodeljena nobena vrsta državnega poroštva.
Secondly, the French authorities note that UOP relies on an alleged belief in an unlimited State guarantee for IFP/Axens, a belief which has no existence in law and which is not by itself sufficient to demonstrate that there is State aid.
Drugič, francoski organi ugotavljajo, da se družba UOP Limited sklicuje na „domnevno prepričanje o neomejenem državnem poroštvu za IFP/Axens“, ki naj pravno ne bi obstajalo in samo po sebi ne bi zadostovalo za utemeljitev obstoja državne pomoči.
Thirdly, even supposing that IFP does enjoy a State guarantee – which the French authorities deny – it is not true that any such guarantee would automatically extend to IFP’s subsidiaries on the ground that IFP and its subsidiaries form an economic group for purposes of competition law.
Tretjič, tudi če bi oseba javnega prava IFP imela javno poroštvo – kar francoski organi izpodbijajo –, bi bilo napačno meniti, da se tako poroštvo samodejno razširi na hčerinske družbe osebe javnega prava IFP, ker naj bi ta in njene hčerinske družbe tvorile gospodarsko skupino v smislu konkurenčnega prava.
France argues that IFP’s subsidiaries, and especially Axens, are private-law bodies subject to company law, and would not be covered by such a guarantee, especially because UOP’s theory of the automatic extension of guarantees within a group is contrary to the principle of the autonomy of subsidiaries.
Hčerinske družbe osebe javnega prava IFP, zlasti Axens, namreč po mnenju Francije kot subjekti zasebnega prava, za katere velja pravo gospodarskih družb, nimajo takega poroštva, ker načelo neodvisnosti hčerinskih družb nasprotuje zlasti teoriji o „samodejni razširitvi“ poroštev v skupini, ki jo je predlagala družba UOP Limited.
The concept of a group may have a meaning in competition law, but it is not recognised in company law, and the granting of guarantees within a group is subject to strict conditions of form and substance.
Pojem skupine, ki lahko ima pomen v konkurenčnem pravu, naj ne bi bil priznan v pravu gospodarskih družb, za odobritev poroštva v skupini pa naj bi tako veljali strogi formalni in materialni pogoji.
This is the case in particular for IFP: Article 7 of IFP’s constitution provides for authorisation by the board of directors.
To naj bi veljalo zlasti v primeru osebe javnega prava IFP, ki naj bi potrebovala dovoljenje upravnega odbora v skladu s členom 7 svojega statuta.
In addition, the French authorities consider that the Commission has already taken note of this point, since it accepted that the legal status of Banque Postale, a legal person governed by private law, sufficed in itself to rule out the existence of any unlimited guarantee to Banque Postale [63].
Francoski organi poleg tega menijo, da je Komisija to že ugotovila, ker je potrdila, da „pravni status Banque Postale (pravna oseba zasebnega prava) sam po sebi zadostuje, da se zanjo izključi obstoj vsakršnega neomejenega poroštva za Banque Postale“ [63].
AXENS DOES NOT DERIVE ANY ADVANTAGE ON THE MARKET FROM IFP’S EPIC STATUS
DRUŽBA AXENS NAJ NE BI IMELA NOBENE PREDNOSTI NA TRGU ZARADI STATUSA EPIC, KI GA IMA OSEBA JAVNEGA PRAVA IFP
UOP has argued, the French authorities say, that the market is likewise of the belief that the IFP/Axens entity is a State body with unlimited resources, and enjoys advantages in relation to customers, suppliers and creditors; but the French authorities contend that this argument is not based on any reliable evidence, and is undeniably refuted by the facts.
Trditev družbe UOP Limited, da na trgu vlada prepričanje o subjektu „IFP/Axens“ kot državni ustanovi z neomejenimi sredstvi, ki naj bi bila deležna prednosti v odnosih s strankami ter dobavitelji in upniki, po mnenju Francije ne temelji na „nobenem resnem dokazu“, poleg tega pa „nedvomno ni podprta z dejstvi“.
The French authorities have submitted an internal memo from Axens’s legal and contracts department, entitled ‘Principles of legal security of Axens’ [64], which explains the relations between IFP and Axens.
Francoski organi so predstavili obvestilo službe uprave družbe Axens za pravne zadeve in sporazume (AJA), naslovljeno „Načela pravne varnosti družbe Axens“ [64], v katerem so pojasnjeni odnosi med osebo javnega prava IFP in družbo Axens.
These relations are explicitly governed by the general rule that Axens does not ask for any guarantee from its parent for any reason whatsoever.
Navedeni odnosi so izrecno urejeni s splošnim pravilom, da družba Axens matične družbe ne zaprosi za poroštvo, in to ne glede na razlog.
The French authorities specify that no exception is possible to this rule that there can be no guarantee.
Francoski organi so pojasnili, da ni mogoče nobeno odstopanje od navedenega pravila o neobstoju poroštva.
The relations between Axens and its customers
Odnosi med družbo Axens in njenimi strankami
UOP argues, say the French authorities, that the public guarantee has important implications for Axens’s long-term financial situation, especially in the light of the contractual guarantees and maintenance obligations traditionally provided for in licensing agreements [65]; but there is no justification for this argument, nor has UOP substantiated the reasons why it is convinced that the Commission will not identify any provision limiting liability to Axens alone.
Družba UOP Limited naj bi po mnenju Francije brez kakršne koli utemeljitve navajala pomembnost javnega poroštva za dolgoročni finančni položaj družbe Axens, zlasti v zvezi s pogodbenimi poroštvi in obveznostmi vzdrževanja, običajno določenimi v sporazumih o licencah [65], niti naj ne bi utemeljila razlogov, zaradi katerih je „prepričana, da Komisija ne bo našla nobene določbe o omejevanju odgovornosti za družbo Axens“.
The French authorities contend that the rule described in recital 84, according to which the subsidiary is not to apply for any guarantee from the parent, also applies to any guarantee that Axens might negotiate or conclude with a customer.
Francoski organi so v zvezi z navedenim pojasnili, da pravilo, opisano v uvodni izjavi 84 (da hčerinska družba matične družbe ne zaprosi za poroštvo), velja tudi za vsako poroštvo, o katerem bi se lahko družba Axens pogajala s stranko ali o njem z njo sklenila pogodbo.
They illustrate their argument with the example of aromatic compounds mentioned by UOP in its observations.
Francoski organi so trditev ponazorili s primerom „aromatičnih kompleksov“, ki ga je družba UOP Limited navedla v pripombah.
They say that as a general rule, Axens chooses to limit its liability to a certain fraction of the fee […] (*).
Navedli so, da se družba Axens na splošno odloča, da omeji svojo odgovornost na del licenčnine […] (*).
This guarantee limitation policy, which is one of the ‘Principles of legal security of Axens’, is consequently quite different from the customs of other undertakings operating in this field, which, according to the French authorities, are in the habit of granting unlimited guarantees in certain cases.
Navedena politika omejevanja poroštev, ki naj bi bila eno od načel pravne varnosti družbe Axens, naj bi se zato občutno razlikovala od običajev drugih podjetij na tem področju, ki naj bi po mnenju francoskih organov v nekaterih primerih običajno dodelila neomejena poroštva.
Finally, the French authorities argue that the obligations regarding maintenance or repairs applicable in the event of a claim would not bring into play any financial cover on the part of IFP:
Francoski organi nazadnje opozarjajo, da za obveznosti v zvezi z vzdrževanjem/povrnitvijo škode, ki se uveljavljajo v škodnem primeru, finančnega kritja ne zagotavlja oseba javnega prava IFP:
in the event of default by Axens, the capacity offered by its civil liability insurers through the various insurance policies under its world programme is well in excess of the maximum liability of Axens contractually agreed with its licensees;
če družba Axens ne bi izpolnila obveznosti, bi bila zmožnost, ki bi jo zagotovili njeni zavarovatelji civilne odgovornosti z različnimi določbami o zavarovanju njenega svetovnega programa, veliko večja od njenih najvišjih vrednosti odgovornosti, o katerih se je pogodbeno dogovorila s svojimi imetniki licenc;
the capacity for immediate or rapid mobilisation of Axens’ resources is also very considerable, in particular because of its low debt level;
družba Axens bi prav tako lahko takoj ali zelo hitro zagotovila sredstva, zlasti zaradi majhne zadolženosti;
the agreements between IFP and Axens explicitly limit IFP’s liability in the event of default on the part of one of Axens’ licensees to sums which are necessarily small, as they are correlated to the fee received by IFP;
odgovornost osebe javnega prava IFP v primeru neizpolnitve obveznosti katerega od imetnikov licence družbe Axens bi bila izrecno omejena s sporazumi med osebo javnega prava IFP in družbo Axens na nujno omejene zneske, ker so odvisni od licenčnine, ki jo prejema oseba javnega prava IFP;
Axens’ civil liability insurer expressly waives any recourse against IFP, for any reason whatsoever.
zavarovatelj civilne odgovornosti družbe Axens bi se izrecno odrekel kakršni koli tožbi zoper osebo javnega prava IFP zaradi katerega koli razloga.
The French authorities conclude that UOP’s assertions concerning advantages allegedly obtained by Axens on the process licensing market are invalidated especially by the fact that Axens has continually conducted a policy of limiting guarantees of liability granted to its customers.
Francoski organi iz tega sklepajo, da bi bile trditve družbe UOP Limited o domnevnih prednostih, ki naj bi jih družba Axens dobila na trgu licenc za postopke, ovržene, zlasti ker je družba Axens vedno izvajala politiko omejevanja poroštev za odgovornost, odobrenih svojim strankam.
In other words, IFP’s liability can never extend beyond 100 % of the sums received.
Z drugimi besedami, odgovornost osebe javnega prava IFP nikoli ne more presegati 100 % prejetih zneskov.
Moreover, the framework licence provides that Axens is responsible for financial guarantees granted to sub-licensees with regard to technical performance of the processes.
Pri omejeni licenci je poleg tega določeno, da družba Axens skrbi za finančna poroštva, dana imetnikom podlicenc na področju tehnične zmogljivosti postopkov.
This means that IFP is not liable for technical guarantees given by Axens to its customers.
Oseba javnega prava IFP se torej ne šteje za odgovorno za tehnična poroštva, ki jih Axens dodeljuje svojim strankam.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the licensing agreements between Axens and its customers provide, conversely, that Axens’ financial liability is generally confined to […] (*) % of the royalties paid for each unit for which a claim is made.
Treba je še pojasniti, da licenčne pogodbe med družbo Axens in njenimi strankami simetrično določajo, da je finančna odgovornost družbe Axens na splošno omejena na […] (*) % licenčnine, plačane za vsako enoto, ki je predmet reklamacije.
If for commercial reasons the guarantee given by Axens to its customer proves to be higher than that given to it by IFP, IFP’s liability is totally independent of that of Axens.
Odgovornost osebe javnega prava IFP je povsem neodvisna od odgovornosti družbe Axens, ker je poroštvo, ki ga ta dodeli stranki, zaradi komercialnih razlogov večje od tistega, ki ji ga je dodelila oseba javnega prava IFP.
The same principle is applied to any licence that IFP grants to third parties other than its subsidiaries.
Isto načelo velja za vsako licenco, ki jo bo oseba javnega prava IFP dodelila tretjim osebam, ki niso njene hčerinske družbe.
Finally, the French authorities add that when IFP performs services (studies, research to order, tests, etc.) for its customers, whether subsidiaries or firms outside the group, IFP always seeks to limit its liability.
Francoski organi so nazadnje dodali, da oseba javnega prava IFP svojo odgovornost do strank (hčerinskih družb ali strank zunaj skupine) načeloma omejuje, kadar storitve izvaja v njihovem imenu (študije, raziskave po naročilu, preizkusi itd.).
The liability accepted by IFP then consists in a commitment to rectify the work carried out, while at financial level the principle is that the liability is limited to […] (*) % of the remuneration actually received, with a maximum which may reach up to […] (*) % depending on the case.
Odgovornost, ki jo je prevzela oseba javnega prava IFP, je torej prizadevanje za odpravljanje napak na izvedenih delih, na finančni ravni pa velja načelo, da je odgovornost omejena na […] (*) % dejansko prejetega plačila z najvišjo vrednostjo, ki lahko odvisno od primera doseže največ […] (*) %.
Therefore if the customer considers that the work carried out by IFP is defective, IFP can never be obliged to repeat the work ad infinitum.
Če torej stranka meni, da je delo, ki ga je izvedla oseba javnega prava IFP, pomanjkljivo, tej del nikakor ne bo treba popravljati v nedogled.
The relations between Axens and its suppliers and the funding terms on the financial markets
Odnosi med družbo Axens in njenimi dobavitelji ter njeni pogoji financiranja na finančnih trgih
The French authorities deny any relevance to the assertion by UOP that the alleged belief in the existence of unlimited financial resources available to Axens secures it preferential terms from either its suppliers or the financial markets.
Francoski organi zanikajo vsakršno upoštevnost trditve družbe UOP Limited, da ima družba Axens zaradi domnevnega prepričanja, da ima neomejena finančna sredstva, prednostne pogoje pri dobaviteljih in na finančnih trgih.
France says that UOP has not provided the slightest proof in support of this allegation.
Družba UOP Limited po mnenju Francije ni predložila niti najmanjšega dokaza v podporo navedeni trditvi.
The French authorities consider that the rule described in recital 84, according to which the subsidiary is not to apply for any guarantee from the parent, is sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis put forward by UOP.
Pravilo, opisano v uvodni izjavi 84, da hčerinska družba matične družbe ne zaprosi za poroštvo, po mnenju francoskih organov zadostuje, da se ovrže trditev družbe UOP Limited.
Furthermore, as regards Axens’s borrowing terms on the financial markets, and the terms available to Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat, the French authorities point out that they are prepared to give the Commission an undertaking that a clause would be included in writing in the financing contract for every transaction stating that ‘Pursuant to French law (in particular the need for express statutory authority for each guarantee), the present financing transaction shall not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee’ [69].
Francoski organi poleg tega v zvezi s posojilnimi pogoji družb Axens, Beicip-Franlab in Prosernat na finančnih trgih opozarjajo, da so pripravljeni Komisiji zagotoviti, da se za vsako transakcijo v vsako pogodbo o financiranju pisno vključi naslednje: „Za to financiranje v skladu s francoskim pravom (zlasti potrebo po izrecnem zakonskem dovoljenju za vsako poroštvo) ni nikakršnega neposrednega ali posrednega državnega poroštva.“ [69]
7 ASSESSMENT
7 OCENA
Article 107(1) TFEU reads: ‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’
Člen 107(1) PDEU določa: „Razen če Pogodbi ne določata drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.“
To establish the existence of State aid in the present case it must first be considered whether the EPIC status granted by France to IFP on 7 July 2006 involves the use of State resources (7.1.1) to provide an unlimited public guarantee covering economic activities (7.1.2).
Za ugotovitev obstoja državne pomoči v obravnavanem primeru je treba najprej preveriti, ali se pri ukrepu Francije, ki je 7. julija 2006 osebi javnega prava IFP dodelila status EPIC, uporabljajo državna sredstva (7.1.1) za odobritev neomejenega državnega poroštva, ki krije gospodarske dejavnosti (7.1.2).
The extent of the cover by the State guarantee and the nature of the activities covered will allow the scope of this decision to be defined (7.1.3), and it will then have to be considered whether the measure in question confers a selective advantage on the IFP group (7.1.4) which may affect trade between Member States (7.1.5).
Na podlagi obsega kritja z državnim poroštvom in vrste kritih dejavnosti bo mogoče opredeliti pomen tega sklepa (7.1.3), nato pa bo treba preučiti, ali se z zadevnim ukrepom daje selektivna prednost skupini IFP (7.1.4), ki lahko prizadene trgovino med državami članicami (7.1.5).
USE OF STATE RESOURCES IN THE FORM OF AN UNLIMITED GUARANTEE
UPORABA DRŽAVNIH SREDSTEV V OBLIKI NEOMEJENEGA POROŠTVA
In view of its particular structure as an economic group for purposes of competition law, it is necessary to assess the potential impact of the unlimited State guarantee arising from the EPIC status of the publicly owned establishment IFP on the whole of the IFP group, i.e. on the publicly owned establishment itself and on its subsidiaries, by proceeding in two stages:
Zaradi posebne sestave gospodarske skupine v smislu konkurenčnega prava je treba upoštevati morebitni vpliv neomejenega državnega poroštva, ki izhaja iz statusa EPIC, ki ga ima oseba javnega prava IFP, na vse subjekte skupine IFP, to je na osebo javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe, in sicer v dveh korakih: