natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court found that the Commission had failed to show that a draft contract for a shareholders’ loan that had not been signed or put into effect by France Télécom might have produced an improvement in France Télécom’s economic position by comparison with the situation in which it found itself (paragraph 254), and that the Commission could not presume, on the sole basis of a unilateral offer by the State to grant a loan of a certain amount, that that offer would confer economic advantages on the beneficiary, without taking account of the conditions governing the performance of the loan contract, in particular those regarding the granting and the repayment of the loan, especially as the beneficiary had not accepted the offer but had confined itself to funding on the terms prevailing in the market (paragraph 255).
Splošno sodišče je v tej zadevi sklepalo, da Komisija ni dokazala „morebitnega izboljšanja gospodarskega položaja podjetja FT, ki bi lahko izviralo iz te ponudbe [načrt pogodbe o posojilu delničarja, ki ga FT ni ne podpisala ne izvršila] v razmerju do položaja, v katerem je bilo“ (točka 254) in da „Komisija […] samo na podlagi enostranske ponudbe države o podelitvi kreditne linije v določenem znesku ne more predpostavljati, da ta ponudba pomeni ugodne gospodarske učinke za upravičenca, ne da bi upoštevala pogoje izvršitve pogodbe o zadevnem posojilu in zlasti pogoje, vezane na podelitev in vračilo tega posojila, in to toliko manj, če upravičenec te ponudbe ni sprejel, ampak se je refinanciral pod tržnimi pogoji“ (točka 255) (poudarek dodali francoski organi).
Case C-69/88 [1990] ECR I-583.
Sodba Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti z dne 7. marca 1990 v zadevi Krantz.
Case C-399/08, 2 September 2010, not yet reported in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča Evropske unije z dne 2. septembra 2010 v zadevi Deutsche Post AG.
The French authorities refer to their letters dated 7 May and 9 June 2008.
Francoski organi se sklicujejo na dopisa z dne 7. maja in 9. junija 2008.
The French authorities refer to their reply to the Commission letter dated 3 August 2007.
Francoski organi se sklicujejo na svoj odgovor na dopis Komisije z dne 3. avgusta 2007.
European Commission, A Report on the Functioning of Public Procurement Markets in the EU, 3 February 2004.
[59] Evropska komisija, 3. februar 2004, „A report on the functioning of public procurement markets in the EU“ ( „Poročilo o delovanju trgov javnih naročil v EU“).
UOP states that it operates in the markets for the supply of products and services to the petroleum refining, gas treatment and petrochemicals production industries and to most manufacturing industries.
Družba UOP Limited navaja, da deluje na trgih dobave proizvodov in opravljanja storitev za industrije rafiniranja nafte, predelave plina in petrokemijske proizvodnje ter za večino proizvodnih industrij.
More specifically, it indicates that it designs, implements and authorises the exploitation of licences, and provides maintenance of process technologies for such things as oil conversion, clean fuel production, fuel desulphurisation and petrochemicals.
Natančneje navaja, da pripravlja, izvaja in dovoljuje uporabo licenc ter zagotavlja vzdrževanje procesnih tehnologij, kot so predelava nafte, proizvodnja čistih goriv, razžvepljevanje goriv in petrokemija.
It also states that it produces catalysts, molecular filters, adsorbents and other specialised equipment.
Proizvaja tudi katalizatorje, molekulska sita, vpojna sredstva in drugo specializirano opremo.
It states that it is present in various European Union Member States (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungry, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom), that it has representations in Belgium, France and Germany, and that it has two production plants, one in Brimsdown, Enfield, United Kingdom, and the other in Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Poleg tega navaja, da deluje v različnih državah članicah Evropske unije (v Avstriji, Belgiji, Češki republiki, na Danskem, v Franciji, Nemčiji, na Madžarskem, Irskem, v Italiji, na Nizozemskem, Portugalskem, Poljskem, Slovaškem, v Španiji, na Švedskem in v Združenem kraljestvu), da ima predstavništva v Belgiji, Franciji in Nemčiji ter dve proizvodni tovarni, in sicer eno v Brimsdownu, Enfield, v Veliki Britaniji in drugo v regiji Kalabrija v Italiji.
UOP refers to the web page http://www.axens.net/about/history.html, consulted on 20 November 2008.
Družba UOP Limited se sklicuje na spletno mesto http://www.axens.net/about/history.html, kakršno je bilo 20. novembra 2008.
For example, regarding the volume and purity of the product flows, or the consumption of raw materials.
Na primer glede obsega in čistosti tokov proizvodov ali porabe surovin.
The French authorities refer to footnote 3 to decision N 531/2005 cited above.
Francoski organi se sklicujejo na zgoraj navedeno odločitev N 531/2005, opomba 3.
This memo has been in existence since […] (*), and has been updated and endorsed regularly by […] (*).
To obvestilo obstaja od […] (*)in je bilo redno posodobljeno in potrjeno s strani […] (*).
The French authorities forwarded version […] (*) as an annex to their letter.
Francoski organi so dopisu priložili različico […] (*).
The French authorities refer to the letter from UOP dated 23 January 2009, which they say takes up the arguments developed under point 3(b) of the letter dated 28 November 2008.
Francoski organi se sklicujejo na dopis družbe UOP Limited z dne 23. januarja 2009, v katerem je po njihovem mnenju povzeta utemeljitev, predstavljena v točki 3(b) dopisa z dne 28. novembra 2008.
Under this framework licensing system Axens may use IFP’s present and future intellectual property rights essentially in processes in its field of activity to provide engineering services to customers in connection with those processes and to transmit to them the right to use the related technologies in the form of patent licence sub-grants.
Družba Axens lahko v skladu s to omejeno licenco uporablja sedanjo in prihodnjo intelektualno lastnino osebe javnega prava IFP, zlasti na področju postopkov na njenem področju delovanja, da bi strankam zagotovila inženirske storitve v zvezi s temi postopki in nanje prenesla pravico do uporabe povezanih tehnologij v obliki podkoncesij za patentne licence.
Under this product licensing system Axens may use IFP’s present and future technology in its field of activity to manufacture and sell to its customers catalysts, adsorbents, captation masses, equipment, and other products and software developed by IFP.
Družba Axens lahko v skladu s to licenco za izdelke uporablja sedanjo in prihodnjo tehnologijo osebe javnega prava IFP na svojem področju delovanja za izdelavo in prodajo katalizatorjev, adsorbentov, sistemov za zajetje, opreme, drugih izdelkov in programske opreme, ki jih je razvila oseba javnega prava IFP, svojim strankam.
Letter from the French authorities dated 13 October 2008, paragraph 203.
Dopis francoskih organov z dne 13. oktobra 2008, odstavek 203.
See section 4.1.1 C, ‘Conclusion regarding the existence of a state guarantee in favour of La Poste’, recitals 251 to 255 of decision C 56/2007,
Glej del 4.1.1(C), uvodne izjave od 251 do 255 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007 „Sklepna ugotovitev o obstoju državnega poroštva v korist podjetja La Poste“.
As specified in recital 12 (footnote No 11), this legal status was likened to an EPIC before the change in form of La Poste to that of a public limited company.
Ta status je bil, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 12 (opomba 11), enakovreden EPIC pred spremembo statusa podjetja La Poste v delniško družbo.
Council of State, Société de l’hôtel d’Albe, 1 April 1938, Recueil p. 341.
Odločitev Conseil d'État z dne 1. aprila 1938, Société de l’hôtel d’Albe, str. 341.
Council of State judgments in the Campoloro case, 10 November 1999 and 18 November 2005.
Sodbi Conseil d'État v zadevi Campoloro (10. november 1999 in 18. november 2005).
In this judgment, the Council of State merely refused to grant an application brought by a creditor directly against the Minister for Public Works It found that a guarantee would come into play in the event of insolvency; a guarantee mechanism did not require the State to pay a debt of a publicly owned establishment whenever a creditor so requested.
Conseil d'État je v tej sodbi zavrnil le ugoditev zahtevku upnika, naslovljenemu neposredno na ministra za javna dela. Dodelitev poroštva predpostavlja plačilno nesposobnost, ne pa, da mora država že na zahtevo upnika plačati dolg osebe javnega prava.
The Commission refers to its analysis of the Campoloro case in section 4.1.1.A(b)(3) of decision C 56/2007.
Komisija se sklicuje na analizo zadeve Camporolo v delu 4.1.1(A)(b)(3) zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007.
However, in the case of insufficient assets of the publicly owned establishment IFP subsequent to its change in legal form, all its creditors, irrespective of when their claim arose, would be in a comparable situation, all finding that the ordinary law relating to compulsory administration or winding up of undertakings in difficulty did not apply to the publicly owned establishment IFP.
Vendar naj bi bili v primeru nezadostnih sredstev osebe javnega prava IFP po spremembi njenega statusa vsi upniki ne glede na datum nastanka njihove terjatve v primerljivem položaju, saj naj bi bili vsi soočeni s tem, da se za osebo javnega prava IFP ne uporabljajo postopki občega prava na področju sanacije in likvidacije podjetij v težavah.
All the creditors of the publicly owned establishment IFP would be assured of seeing their claims finally paid, as explained under point A(b).
Vsem upnikom osebe javnega prava IFP naj bi bilo zagotovljeno, da bodo njihove terjatve nazadnje poplačane, kot je pojasnjeno v točki A(b).
The Commission wishes to point out in this respect that the guarantee examined here derives from the EPIC status of the publicly owned establishment IFP, that this is a guarantee operating between the State and the publicly owned establishment IFP (the latter’s creditors being only indirect beneficiaries thereof), and that this guarantee covers not only the payment of individual claims, but also the continued existence of IFP or its obligations or both.
Komisija želi v zvezi s tem pojasniti, da tu obravnavano poroštvo izhaja iz statusa EPIC, ki ga ima oseba javnega prava IFP, da gre za poroštvo, ki zavezuje državo in osebo javnega prava IFP (upniki te osebe so le posredni upravičenci do poroštva), in da se to poroštvo ne nanaša le na poplačilo individualnih terjatev, temveč tudi na ohranitev obstoja osebe javnega prava IFP in/ali njenih obveznosti.
General Court in Case T-442/03 SIC v Commission [2008] ECR II-1161, paragraphs 124-127.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 26. junija 2008 v zadevi SIC proti Komisiji (T-442/03, ZOdl. 2008, str. II-1161, točke od 124 do 127).
See also the Guarantees Notice.
Glej tudi zgoraj navedeno obvestilo o poroštvih.
In particular, no such mechanism was set up at the time of the conversion of IFP, France Télécom, Gaz de France, EDF or ADP.
Zlasti ne ob preoblikovanju IFP, France Télécom, Gaz de France, EDF in ADP.
Contrariwise, the French authorities argued that, if La Poste had enjoyed a State guarantee by virtue of its legal form, there would have been no need to give an express guarantee for the debts contracted by the old Administration of Posts and Telecommunications which were transferred to La Poste.
Po mnenju francoskih organov naj v nasprotju s predhodnim položajem ne bi bilo nujno dodeliti eksplicitnega poroštva za dolgove, ki so nastali upravi za pošte in telekomunikacije ter bili preneseni na podjetje La Poste, če bi bilo slednje po statusu upravičeno do državnega poroštva.
But, they argued, such a guarantee was in fact given, in an order dated 31 December 1990.
Vendar pa je bilo to storjeno z odlokom z dne 31. decembra 1990.
Labetoulle, ‘La responsabilité des AAI dotées de la personnalité morale: coup d’arrêt à l’idée de “garantie de l’Etat” ’, RJEP/CJEG No 635, October 2006.
Labetoulle, La responsabilité des AAI dotées de la personnalité morale: coup d’arrêt à l’idée de „garantie de l’État“ (Odgovornost neodvisnih upravnih organov, ki so pravne osebe: ustavitev zamisli „državnega poroštva“), RJEP/CJEG, št. 635, oktober 2006.
On this point, the Commission also refers to section 4.1.1.A(b)(3) of decision C 56/2007.
Komisija se v zvezi s tem sklicuje tudi na del 4.1.1(A)(b)(3) zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007.
The Commission refers to recitals 139 to 141 of decision C 56/2007.
Komisija se sklicuje na uvodne izjave od 139 do 141 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007.
The following part of the memorandum was published in the annual report for 1995 (p. 219): ‘In connection with the draft law on State involvement in the recovery plans for Crédit Lyonnais and Comptoir des Entrepreneurs, the Council of State … took the view that there was a State guarantee for this establishment which derived without any express legislative provision from the very fact that it was a publicly owned establishment’.
Ta del obvestila so objavili avtorji poročila za leto 1995 (str. 219): „Conseil d’État je […] ob osnutku zakona o ukrepanju države pri načrtih sanacije Crédit Lyonnais in Comptoir des Entrepreneurs menil, da bo državno poroštvo za to osebo javnega prava brez izrecne zakonodajne določbe izhajalo iz same narave organizacije kot osebe javnega prava.“
See point 5 in the annex to that memorandum, which lists different acts including for example ‘a ministerial letter, or any other basis’.
Glej točko 5 Priloge k temu obvestilu, v kateri so navedeni različni akti, kot je „dopis ministra ali katera koli druga podlaga“.
In an explanatory note attached to the memorandum, in part 3, under the heading ‘Experience of calls made on guarantees and the judgments of the Council have clarified a number of textbook cases of guarantees which need to be identified’, it is indicated that ‘Some legal forms by their structure entail a liability on the part of their shareholders; this is true in particular of [the forms of partnership known as] the société en nom collectif, or SNC, and the groupement momentané d’entreprises, or GIE. With these last two forms, third parties will always seek out the State shareholder. The same applies to the creation of publicly owned establishments and to some shareholdings in public limited companies’.
V pojasnilu, priloženem k temu obvestilu, natančneje v delu 3 z naslovom „na podlagi izkušenj z aktiviranjem poroštva in sodne prakse Conseil d'État je bilo mogoče izboljšati določeno število šolskih primerov implicitnega poroštva, ki jih je treba opredeliti“, je navedeno, da „nekatere pravne oblike po sestavi vključujejo odgovornost svojih delničarjev, zlasti družbe z neomejeno odgovornostjo in gospodarska interesna združenja (začasna skupina podjetij). Pri teh zadnjih dveh oblikah bodo tretje osebe sistematično iskale državnega delničarja. Enako velja za ustanovitev oseb javnega prava in nekatere deleže v delniških družbah“.
The section of this decision describing the measure explains the terms of the Law of 16 July 1980, the Decree of 20 May 2008 replacing the Decree of 12 May 1981, and the Circular of 16 October 1989.
Določbe upoštevnih aktov, to je zakona z dne 16. julija 1980, odloka z dne 20. maja 2008, ki nadomešča odlok z dne 12. maja 1981, in okrožnice z dne 16. oktobra 1989, so bile navedene v delu tega sklepa, v katerem je bil opisan ukrep.
The Law of 16 July 1980 provides that ‘if the decision-making body of the authority or establishment has not released or created the resources … the supervising authority shall do so, and if necessary shall issue a mandatory payment order’.
Zakon z dne 16. julija 1980 določa: „če posvetovalni organ skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava ni zagotovil ali ustvaril sredstev, za to poskrbi […] nadzorni organ ter po potrebi izvrši plačilo po uradni dolžnosti“.
The Decree of 12 May 1981, which on this point remains unchanged by the amending Decree of 2008, states that the representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision ‘shall, as appropriate, release the necessary resources, either by reducing the appropriations allocated to other expenditures and still available, or by increasing resources’.
V odloku z dne 12. maja 1981, ki v tej točki ni bil spremenjen z odlokom iz leta 2008, je pojasnjeno, da predstavnik države ali organ, pristojen za nadzor, „po potrebi zagotovi potrebna sredstva bodisi z zmanjšanjem sredstev, ki so namenjena za druge odhodke in so še na voljo, bodisi s povečanjem sredstev“.
The Commission refers to section 4.1.1.A(b)(3) of decision C 56/2007.
Komisija se sklicuje na del 4.1.1(A)(b)(3) zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007.
In a memorandum submitted on 27 October 2009 in the postal case, the French authorities denied that it was ‘impossible’ to mobilise own capital and reserves, on the basis of two arguments: the first of these, however, related to the prices charged by La Poste, and cannot be transposed to the circumstances of the present case, since IFP’s prices, unlike those of La Poste, are not subject to sectoral regulation.
Francoski organi v obvestilu, ki so ga v poštni zadevi poslali 27. oktobra 2009, izpodbijajo „nezmožnost“ zagotovitve lastnih sredstev na podlagi dveh argumentov; vendar prvega, ki se nanaša na tarife, ki jih zaračunava podjetje La Poste, ni mogoče uporabiti v okoliščinah obravnavane zadeve, ker tarife osebe javnega prava IFP v nasprotju s tarifami podjetja La Poste niso sektorsko urejene.
The Commission refers to points 112 and 113 of the memorandum sent by the French authorities on 23 January 2008 in the postal case.
Komisija se sklicuje na točki 112 in 113 obvestila, ki so ga francoski organi poslali 23. januarja 2008 v poštni zadevi.
For further details on the position of the French authorities, see section 3.1.1.B(a)(2) of decision C 56/2007.
Za več podrobnosti o stališču francoskih organov glej zlasti del 3.1.1(B)(a)(2) zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007.
ECHR, Société de gestion du port de Campoloro and Société fermière de Campoloro v France, 6 December 2006, No 57516/00.
ESČP, 6. december 2006, Société de gestion du port de Campoloro in Société fermière de Campoloro proti Franciji, št. 57516/00.
In the Campoloro case the ECHR made the State liable for all of the sums owed to the applicant companies by the Commune of Santa-Maria-Poggio.
ESČP je o zadevi Campoloro odločilo tako, da je državi naložilo vse dolgove, ki jih je tožečima družbama dolgovala občina Santa-Maria-Poggio.
The judgment states that (Commission translation) ‘[The French Government] considers that only objective reasons concerned exclusively with its being materially impossible for the commune to release sufficient resources have delayed the complete enforcement of the judgments … The Government therefore maintains that the non-enforcement of the judgments given is not the result of a deliberate refusal to enforce them on the part of the national authorities, State or commune. The absence of funds is not a pretext, but a reality due to the insolvency of the debtor legal person … The non-payment of the debt is due entirely to the commune’s financial difficulties, and these circumstances do not appear to be such as either to release the authority from its obligations or to transfer the burden of its debt to the State (Council of State, commune of Batz-sur-Mer, 25 September 1970). There is no legal basis under national law for substituting the State for the commune where the payment of compensation is concerned. Nor can Article 6-1 of the Convention form the basis of any such substitution in so far as a solution of that kind would be contrary to the very concept of legal personality, which presupposes autonomy and a distinct set of assets’.
V sodbi lahko beremo, da „[francoska vlada] meni, da so popolno izvršitev sodb zadržali samo objektivni razlogi, povezani izključno z materialno nezmožnostjo občine, da zagotovi zadostna sredstva“; „vlada zato trdi, da neizvršitev izdanih sodb ne izhaja iz prostovoljne opustitve dejanja nacionalnih organov, države ali občine. Neobstoj sredstev ni pretveza, ampak je resničnost zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti pravne osebe dolžnice“; „neplačilo dolga izhaja izključno iz finančnih težav občine in te okoliščine se ne zdijo take, da bi se lahko skupnost izognila svojim obveznostim, niti da bi breme svojega dolga prenesla na državo (Conseil d'État, Commune de Batz sur Mer, 25. september 1970). V notranjem pravu ni nobene zakonske podlage za to, da država nadomesti občino pri plačilu odškodnin. Ta nadomestitev tudi ne more temeljiti na členu 6(1) Konvencije, ker bi bila taka rešitev v nasprotju s samim pojmom pravne osebe, za katero se predpostavljata neodvisnost in ločeno premoženje.“
(Commission translation) ‘In view of the above, the Court holds that it is for the defendant State to pay the applicants or, if appropriate, their legal successors, the sums (including interest) due to them as from the delivery, on 10 July 1992, of the judgments of the Bastia administrative tribunal (ibid.) until the day on which this judgment is given’.
„Glede na zgoraj navedeno Sodišče meni, da mora tožena država tožečima strankama, ali kjer je to ustrezno, njunim upravičencem zagotoviti plačilo terjatev, do katerih sta upravičeni od izreka sodb upravnega sodišča v Bastii z dne 10. julija 1992 (ibidem), vključno z obrestmi do dneva izreka te sodbe.“
The Commission wishes to emphasise that the terms used by the ECHR do not refer to a possible liability on the part of the State but hold that it is the responsibility of the State to ‘ensure’ that payment is made.
Komisija želi poudariti, da ESČP v besedišču, ki ga je uporabilo, ni omenilo morebitne odgovornosti države, temveč je menilo, da mora država „zagotoviti“ plačilo.
Such terms relate more to the concept of a guarantee than to that of liability.
To besedišče je povezano bolj s poroštvom kot z odgovornostjo.
A judicial mechanism under national law can therefore be interpreted as an implied guarantee.
Pravni mehanizem notranjega prava je mogoče torej razlagati kot implicitno poroštvo.
ECHR, Artico v Italy, 13 May 1980, Series A, No 37: The ECHR decided that, where a failure to act was imputable to an entity other than the State, it was for the State, as giver of the guarantee provided for in Article 6-1, to act in such a way that the applicant in practice enjoyed the right conferred on him by that Article.
ESČP, 13. maj 1980, Artico proti Italiji, série A, št. 37: ESČP je odločilo, da kadar je za neizpolnitev obveznosti odgovorna druga oseba, in ne država, mora država, ki je zavezana zagotoviti jamstvo iz člena 6(1), ravnati tako, da tožeči stranki zagotovi dejansko uživanje pravice, ki ji je priznana s tem členom.
ECHR, Bourdov v Russia, 19 March 1997, No 59498/00: Here too the Court held that an authority of the State could not use lack of resources as a pretext for not honouring its debt.
ESČP, 19. marec 1997, Bourdov proti Rusiji, št. 59498/00: ESČP je razsodilo, da se „državni organ ne more izgovarjati na neobstoj sredstev, da ne bi poplačal svojega dolga“.
The Commission refers in particular to its arguments presented in decision C 56/2007 relating to the effect on State liability of the absorption by a publicly owned establishment of another structure, the rights and obligations of which are transferred to it at the same time.
Komisija se sklicuje zlasti na sklepanje, predstavljeno v Sklepu C 56/2007, v zvezi z odgovornostjo države za to, da oseba javnega prava prevzame drugo strukturo, katere pravice in obveznosti bi bile ob tej priložnosti prenesene nanjo.
If it were subsequently to meet that structure’s debts towards a third party, no contract or other legal document would have laid down that the State was not required to pay the debts of this publicly owned establishment towards creditors of the absorbed structure, since such a situation could not have been foreseen ex ante.
Če bi nato morala plačati dolgove te strukture do tretje osebe, ne bi nobena pogodba niti noben pravni dokument določal, da država ni odgovorna za vračilo dolgov te osebe javnega prava do upnikov prevzete strukture, ker tega ni bilo mogoče vnaprej predvideti.