natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, as regards the third objection, the French authorities consider that it is based on a mere supposition of a possible belief or expectation among suppliers that their claims enjoy a State guarantee, a supposition which cannot by itself serve to demonstrate the existence of an advantage, but must be corroborated by information establishing that IFP and its subsidiaries have actually benefited from an economic advantage of this kind.
francoski organi nazadnje v zvezi s tretjim ugovorom menijo, da temelji samo na domnevnem prepričanju ali pričakovanju dobaviteljev v zvezi z državnim poroštvom za njihovo terjatev, pri čemer samo na podlagi te domneve ni mogoče utemeljiti obstoja prednosti, temveč jo je treba podkrepiti z dokazom, da so oseba javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe dejansko imele tako gospodarsko prednost.
Nevertheless, as specified in recital 106 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities indicate that they are willing to extend their proposal to include a statement concerning the absence of a guarantee to include all contracts involving a claim, so as to explicitly rule out any risk that the State might incur strict liability on the basis solely of the insolvency of IFP.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 106 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se Komisija smiselno sklicuje, francoski organi navajajo, da so pripravljeni razširiti svoj predlog o vključitvi neobstoja poroštva na vse pogodbe, ki vključujejo terjatev, tako da se izrecno izključi vsakršno tveganje uveljavljanja nekrivdne odgovornosti države že samo na podlagi plačilne nesposobnosti osebe javnega prava IFP.
INCORPORATION OF A REFERENCE SPELLING OUT THE ABSENCE OF A GUARANTEE IN THE FINANCING CONTRACTS OF IFP’S SUBSIDIARIES AXENS, BEICIP-FRANLAB AND PROSERNAT
VKLJUČITEV NAVEDBE O NEOBSTOJU POROŠTVA V POGODBE O FINANCIRANJU HČERINSKIH DRUŽB OSEBE JAVNEGA PRAVA IFP AXENS, BEICIP-FRANLAB IN PROSERNAT
To supplement the proposed mechanism, the French authorities make an additional proposal to the Commission, similar to that made on the creation of La Banque Postale, with regard to the terms on which IFP’s subsidiaries (Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat) are able to borrow on the market, under which an undertaking would be given that in the financing contract for each transaction (for all instruments covered by a contract) the following clause would be included in writing: ‘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’.
Poleg tega francoski organi za dopolnitev predlaganega mehanizma Komisiji dajejo dodatni predlog, podoben tistemu ob ustanovitvi podjetja La Banque Postale, in sicer da se pri posojilnih pogojih za hčerinske družbe osebe javnega prava IFP (Axens, Beicip-Franlab in Prosernat) na trgih zavežejo, da se za vsako transakcijo v pogodbe o financiranju (za vsak instrument iz pogodbe) 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.“
As specified in recitals 107 to 110 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities consider that the two clarification measures proposed (the details of which are set out in recitals 55 and 59) would allow the creditors of IFP and its subsidiaries to be made fully aware of their rights, so that France could not be held ‘responsible for the expectations created in the minds of IFP’s creditors concerning the existence of a guarantee’, or regarded as voluntarily maintaining an opaque legal situation that procures an advantage for IFP and is liable to commit the State’s resources, as the Commission indicated in recital 87 of the opening decision.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od 107 do 110 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se Komisija smiselno sklicuje, po mnenju francoskih organov predlagana ukrepa pojasnitve (podrobneje razložena v uvodnih izjavah 55 in 59) omogočata, da se upniki osebe javnega prava IFP in njenih hčerinskih družb seznanijo s svojimi pravicami, tako da za Francijo ni mogoče šteti, kot je Komisija navedla v uvodni izjavi 87 odločitve o začetku postopka, da je „odgovorna za pričakovanja, ustvarjena pri upnikih osebe javnega prava IFP glede obstoja poroštva“ in da namerno vzdržuje „nejasen pravni položaj“, ki „osebi javnega prava IFP daje prednost in odpira možnosti dodelitve državnih sredstev“.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
DODATNE PRIPOMBE FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV
By letters dated 16 July 2010 and 26 November 2010, the French authorities provided additional information which in their opinion showed that there was no State aid to IFP.
Francoski organi so v dopisih z dne 16. julija 2010 in 26. novembra 2010 navedli dodatne elemente, ki po njihovem mnenju potrjujejo neobstoj državne pomoči za osebo javnega prava IFP.
In their letter dated 16 July 2010, as a preliminary point, they say that in the France Télécom case the European Union courts held that in order to establish the existence of State aid the Commission was obliged to demonstrate that there was a real advantage [53].
Potem ko so najprej opozorili na zadevo France Télécom [53], v dopisu z dne 16. julija 2010 poudarjajo, da je sodišče Evropske unije opozorilo na obveznost Komisije, da dokaže obstoj dejanske prednosti, da bi se lahko ugotovil obstoj državne pomoči.
They consider that in this case, the unlimited guarantee which according to the Commission arises from IFP’s legal form in reality confers no economic advantage on it.
Menijo, da v obravnavanem primeru neomejeno poroštvo, ki naj bi po mnenju Komisije izhajalo iz statusa osebe javnega prava IFP, tej v resnici ne zagotavlja gospodarske prednosti.
In their letter dated 26 November 2010, the French authorities say that in their opinion the burden of proof lies with the Commission.
Francoski organi v dopisu z dne 26. novembra 2010 trdijo, da po njihovem mnenju dokazno breme nosi Komisija.
They draw attention to the requirements laid down in European Union case-law with regard to proof and reasoning, more especially by the General Court in the France Telecom case cited above and by the Court of Justice in Krantz [54] and more recently in Deutsche Post AG [55].
V zvezi s tem opozarjajo na zahteve glede dokaza in obrazložitve, določene v sodni praksi Evropske unije, zlasti Splošnega sodišča v zgoraj navedeni zadevi France Télécom in Sodišča Evropske unije v zadevah Krantz [54] in nedavno Deutsche Post AG [55].
The French authorities consider that the analysis presented by the Commission in this case is based ‘more on hypotheses than on an analysis in concreto’.
Po mnenju francoskih organov analiza Komisije v obravnavanem primeru temelji „bolj na domnevah kot na analizi in concreto“.
Furthermore, in the view of the French authorities, the Commission considers that IFP could benefit from an advantage at three levels: (i) that of its relations with banks and financial institutions, (ii) that of its relations with suppliers, and (iii) that of its relations with third-party industrial partners that make use of its research services.
Poleg tega še menijo, da bi lahko imela oseba javnega prava IFP po mnenju Komisije prednosti na treh ravneh: (i) na ravni odnosov z bančnimi in finančnimi ustanovami, (ii) na ravni odnosov z dobavitelji in (iii) na ravni odnosov s tretjimi industrijskimi partnerji, ki uporabljajo raziskovalne storitve.
The French authorities consider that in its dealings with banks and financial institutions IFP has so far drawn no economic advantage from its EPIC status.
Francoski organi v zvezi z odnosi osebe javnega prava IFP z bančnimi in finančnimi ustanovami menijo, da oseba javnega prava IFP od statusa EPIC doslej ni imela nobene gospodarske prednosti.
They provide evidence to show that: (i) over the long term, IFP recorded zero debt in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 [56] and in 2008 and 2009, (ii) over the medium term, although IFP each year negotiated overdraft facilities with various banking institutions, it obtained rates comparable to market rates and in any case has never made use of these credit lines, and finally (iii) over the short term, IFP’s debt was close to zero or at zero during the period under review.
Komisiji navajajo elemente, ki potrjujejo, (i) da z dolgoročnega vidika oseba javnega prava IFP v letih 2005, 2006 in 2007 [56] ter 2008 in 2009 ni bila zadolžena, (ii) da se je s srednjeročnega vidika oseba javnega prava IFP seveda letno pogajala o limitu v različnih bančnih ustanovah, vendar je dosegla obrestne mere, primerljive s tržnimi, in v vsakem primeru nikoli ni uporabila teh kreditnih linij, ter, nazadnje, (iii) da s kratkoročnega vidika oseba javnega prava IFP v obravnavanem obdobju skoraj ni bila ali sploh ni bila zadolžena.
As regards its dealings with suppliers, the French authorities consider that IFP, as a contracting authority, is subject to the disclosure and competitive procurement obligations laid down in Order (ordonnance) No 2005-649 of 6 June 2005 [57], and consequently that it cannot benefit from any advantage.
Francoski organi v zvezi z odnosi z dobavitelji menijo, da mora oseba javnega prava IFP kot naročnik objaviti razpis in zbrati ponudbe v skladu s sklepom št. 2005-649 z dne 6. junija 2005 [57] in da zato ne more imeti prednosti.
In their letter dated 26 November 2010, the French authorities reiterate this analysis, and say that in their opinion the fact that IFP’s orders are subject to a tendering procedure in accordance Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts [58] constitutes a guarantee sufficient to avoid distortion of competition in the market.
Francoski organi v dopisu z dne 26. novembra 2010 znova navajajo navedeno analizo in pojasnjujejo, da je za naročila osebe javnega prava IFP obvezen postopek zbiranja ponudb, skladen z Direktivo 2004/18/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev [58], po njihovem mnenju zadostno zagotovilo za izognitev izkrivljanju konkurence na trgu.
According to France IFP has ensured competition between its suppliers, in line with the obligations arising from European Union law, and consequently cannot be accused of enjoying an unlawful advantage, at least in the absence of any specific evidence to that effect.
Oseba javnega prava IFP po mnenju Francije s tem, ko zbira ponudbe med dobavitelji v skladu z obveznostmi, ki izhajajo iz prava Evropske unije, ne bi mogla biti, vsaj če ni posebnega dokaza, obtožena za koriščenje nezakonite prednosti.
The French authorities stress that recourse to electronic purchasing has been facilitated precisely in order to improve efficiency of public procurement: for example, recital 13 of Directive 2004/18/EC indicates that ‘This purchasing technique allows the contracting authority … to have a particularly broad range of tenders … and hence to ensure optimum use of public funds through broad competition.’ They refer to a Commission report which concluded that the public procurement legislation had had a positive impact in terms of lowering prices, the fall being presented as the ‘social benefit’ of fairer competition between tenderers [59].
Poudarjajo, da je bila prav zaradi učinkovitosti javnega naročanja olajšana uporaba sistemov elektronskih nakupov, pri čemer je v uvodni izjavi 13 Direktive 2004/18/ES na primer navedeno, da „ta način naročanja naročniku [omogoča], da […] dobi veliko število ponudb in z veliko konkurenco zagotovi optimalno uporabo javnih sredstev“. V zvezi s tem navajajo poročilo Komisije [59], v katerem je bil ugotovljen pozitiven učinek zakonodaje o javnih naročilih v obliki znižanja cen, ki je bilo predstavljeno kot „socialna korist“ pravičnejše konkurence med ponudniki.
By imputing these economies to IFP’s EPIC status, the Commission is at odds with the spirit of the Directive, which sees the selection procedures as the key vector for better competition leading to a reduction in public procurement costs.
Zato naj Komisija s „pripisovanjem“ navedenih prihrankov statusu EPIC, ki ga ima oseba javnega prava IFP, ne bi ravnala v skladu z Direktivo, po kateri naj bi bili izbirni postopki ključni za boljšo konkurenco, ki bi omogočila nižje stroške javnega naročanja.
Finally, with regard to IFP’s dealings with its customers, France says that the contract research activities concerned are the services provided by IFP at the request of a customer, third party or subsidiary, on a subject which comes within the scope of IFP’s task, does not involve strategic interests for IFP in terms of ownership of the results, is of a nature to enrich IFP’s knowledge and skills in the conduct of the public R&D programmes that it carries out, and does not come within the exclusive field of activities of its subsidiaries.
Francija nazadnje v zvezi z odnosi osebe javnega prava IFP s strankami trdi, da zadevne dejavnosti pogodbenih raziskav zajemajo storitve osebe javnega prava IFP po naročilu stranke, tretje osebe ali hčerinske družbe, na temo, ki spada v okvir nalog osebe javnega prava IFP, za osebo javnega prava IFP na ravni lastništva rezultatov ne pomeni strateških interesov, lahko obogati znanja in veščine osebe javnega prava pri vodenju programov javnih raziskav in razvoja, ki jih izvaja, in ne spada na področje izključnih dejavnosti hčerinskih družb.
The French authorities note that the research services that these customers acquire call for specific equipment and expertise.
Francoski organi navajajo, da sta za raziskovalne storitve, ki jih dobijo stranke, potrebna posebna oprema in strokovno znanje.
France contends that even if IFP were to benefit from its EPIC status in the performance of these economic activities, the advantage would have no material impact on the market.
Francija v zvezi s tem trdi, da tudi če bi oseba javnega prava IFP zaradi svojega statusa EPIC imela prednost pri izvajanju teh gospodarskih dejavnosti, to ne bi imelo stvarnega učinka na trg.
In particular, it would not be liable to distort competition or to affect trade between Member States.
Zaradi prednosti naj se zlasti ne bi mogli izkrivljati konkurenca in prizadeti trgovina med državami članicami.
Over the period since the change of IFP’s status (which occurred in July 2006), the French authorities nevertheless acknowledge that IFP may potentially have benefited from a reduction in charges as a result of the lack of subscription to performance bonds, but say that on the basis of the sums usually charged by banks and insurance companies to provide this type of service the amount involved is negligible.
Vendar francoski organi za obdobje po spremembi statusa osebe javnega prava IFP (julija 2006) priznavajo, da bi oseba javnega prava IFP morebiti lahko imela nižje stroške, ker ji ni treba skleniti garancij za dobro izvedbo pogodbenih obveznosti, ki pa bi na podlagi zneskov, ki jih običajno zahtevajo banke in zavarovalnice za zagotavljanje te vrste storitve, pomenile zanemarljiv znesek.
The French authorities conclude that any such effect would not have the character of an advantage, which calls into question the very existence of State aid to IFP.
Francoski organi iz tega sklepajo, da tak učinek ne bi pomenil prednosti, kar naj bi izpodbijalo obstoj državne pomoči za osebo javnega prava IFP.
6 COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES AND FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
6 PRIPOMBE TRETJIH OSEB IN FRANCOSKIH ORGANOV
OBSERVATIONS FROM UOP
PRIPOMBE DRUŽBE UOP LIMITED
In its letter dated 28 November 2008, UOP submits that it has an interest n the proceedings [60], and goes on to put forward some general observations and to argue that the entity that it refers to as ‘IFP/Axens’ receives State aid:
Družba UOP Limited v dopisu z dne 28. novembra 2008 najprej utemelji svoj interes za vključitev v postopek [60] kot zainteresirana tretja oseba in nato poda nekaj splošnih pripomb in navede, da po njenem mnenju subjekt, ki ga imenuje „IFP/Axens“, prejema državno pomoč:
IFP/Axens, consisting of the publicly owned establishment and its subsidiary Axens, is undeniably perceived by the market as a public entity (5.1.1);
združenje „IFP/Axens“, ki ga sestavljata oseba javnega prava in njena hčerinska družba Axens, naj bi se na trgu nesporno dojemalo kot javni subjekt (5.1.1),
the award of EPIC status to IFP/Axens has allowed and continues to allow significant distortion of competition in the process technologies market in which UOP operates, as it confers advantages in relations with suppliers, capital providers and customers (5.1.2).
dodelitev statusa EPIC združenju „IFP/Axens“ naj bi omogočila in tudi v prihodnje omogočala občutno izkrivljanje konkurence na trgu procesnih tehnologij, na katerem je dejavna družba UOP Limited, ker naj bi dajala prednosti v odnosih z dobavitelji, vlagatelji kapitala in strankami (5.1.2).
MARKET PERCEPTION OF IFP/AXENS
DOJEMANJE SUBJEKTA „IFP/AXENS“ NA TRGU
According to UOP, the French authorities’ argument that Axens is a separate economic entity, like the other IFP subsidiaries, is untenable.
Trditev francoskih organov, da so družba Axens in druge hčerinske družbe osebe javnega prava IFP različni gospodarski subjekti, po mnenju družbe UOP Limited ne more držati.
The Commission, argues UOP, has rightly pointed out that (i) Axens is wholly owned by IFP; (ii) the implementation by Axens of the R&D of IFP reflects strategic priorities decided by the State; (iii) the managers of the publicly owned establishment IFP participate in the management of Axens; (iv) Axens has an exclusive contract with IFP, which is crucial to the subsidiary’s economic activity; and (v) there is in particular an agreement providing for first call on and provision of staff.
Komisija naj bi upravičeno opozorila, (i) da je družba Axens v stoodstotni lasti osebe javnega prava IFP; (ii) da družba Axens pri izvajanju R & R osebe javnega prava IFP izraža strateške prednostne naloge, ki jih določi država; (iii) da so poslovodje osebe javnega prava IFP vključeni v upravljanje družbe Axens; (iv) da naj bi imela družba Axens z osebo javnega prava IFP sklenjeno izključno pogodbo, ki naj bi bila poglavitna za gospodarsko dejavnost hčerinske družbe; (v) da naj bi obstajal zlasti sporazum o prvi uporabi in posredovanju osebja.
UOP adds that the image IFP and Axens present of their relationship, and the market perception of their relationship, also constitute decisive factors:
Družba UOP Limited poleg elementov, povzetih v prejšnji uvodni izjavi, dodaja, da naj bi bila odločilna dejavnika tudi vtis, ki ga IFP in Axens vzbujata o svojem odnosu, in njegovo dojemanje na trgu:
IFP and Axens present themselves on the market as a single economic entity, ‘IFP/Axens’.
oseba javnega prava IFP in družba Axens naj bi se na trgu predstavljali kot en sam gospodarski subjekt „IFP/Axens“.
Axens’s Internet site mentions in particular that the company is ‘backed by nearly fifty years of R&D and industrial success’ [61].
Na spletni strani družbe Axens naj bi bilo zlasti navedeno, da se „družba skoraj petdeset let opira na uspehe v R & R in industriji“ [61].
Axens’s advertisements for its technology refer to IFP.
Poleg tega naj bi se družba Axens pri oglaševanju svoje tehnologije sklicevala na osebo javnega prava IFP.
Axens and IFP staff sometimes visit their licensees together.The industrial press illustrates the market perception of IFP/Axens as a single economic entity.
Zaposleni družbe Axens in osebe javnega prava IFP naj bi včasih skupaj obiskali imetnike licenc;gospodarski tisk naj bi dajal zgled, kako trg „IFP/Axens“ dojema kot en sam gospodarski subjekt.
UOP encloses extracts from press cuttings referring to the activities of ‘IFP/Axens’ in the field of process technology licences, or alternatively referring to such licences being provided by IFP via its subsidiary Axens.
Družba UOP Limited je zlasti priložila časopisne izrezke, ki se nanašajo na dejavnosti „IFP/Axens“ na področju licenc za procesne tehnologije ali pa je v njih navedeno, da oseba javnega prava IFP take licence dodeljuje prek svoje hčerinske družbe Axens.
UOP also provides examples of articles or presentations in which Axens staff have given the impression that Axens is seen by IFP as comprising the entire activities of the industrial and procatalysis divisions.
Družba UOP Limited je poleg tega priložila primere člankov ali predstavitev, v katerih naj bi zaposleni družbe Axens dali razumeti, da naj bi oseba javnega prava IFP Axens štela za enoto, ki zajema „vse dejavnosti industrijskega oddelka in družbe Procatalyse“.
THE ADVANTAGES CONFERRED BY THE EPIC STATUS
PREDNOSTI, DODELJENE NA PODLAGI STATUSA EPIC
UOP indicates that the fact that Axens is perceived by both suppliers and customers as disposing of unlimited State resources to finance its activities gives it a significant market edge.
Po navedbah družbe UOP Limited naj bi prepričanje dobaviteljev in strank, da ima družba Axens neomejena državna sredstva za financiranje svojih dejavnosti, zanjo pomenilo veliko prednost na trgu.
Even supposing that this is only a market perception, its importance is magnified in the context of the world economic crisis.
Čeprav naj bi šlo samo za dojemanje na trgu, naj bi bil ta dejavnik še pomembnejši v okviru svetovne gospodarske krize.
As regards customers, the guarantees offered by IFP/Axens are of particular significance in a market where customers take account of long-term economic considerations before opting for a given technology.
Pri strankah naj bi bila poroštva, ki bi jih dal subjekt „IFP/Axens“, posebno pomembna na trgu, na katerem stranke pred izbiro dane tehnologije upoštevajo dolgoročne gospodarske vidike.
Taking the example of ‘aromatic compounds’, UOP explains, in substance, that before implementing such technologies, customers have to make very significant investments in the design and construction of the production infrastructures, which takes several years of work.
Družba UOP Limited na primeru „aromatičnih kompleksov“ v bistvu pojasnjuje, da se morajo stranke pred uporabo takih tehnologij sprijazniti z zelo velikimi naložbami v zasnovo in gradnjo proizvodnih infrastruktur, za kar je potrebnih več let dela.
However, the success of these industrial complexes is linked to the performance of the technologies used, with customers generally requiring them to be guaranteed by the seller of the processes [62].
Toda uspeh teh industrijskih kompleksov naj bi bil odvisen od uspešnosti uporabljenih tehnologij, ki naj bi jih po splošnem pričakovanju strank zagotovil prodajalec postopkov [62].
If the required performance level is not achieved, they will not hesitate to hold the assignee responsible and to require compliance with strict obligations regarding compensation.
Če zahtevana raven uspešnosti ne bi bila dosežena, bi zagotovo uveljavljale odgovornost prevzemnika in zahtevale upoštevanje strogih obveznosti v zvezi s sanacijo.
The long-term solvency of the assignee is consequently an important factor in the choice made by purchasers, not only for compliance with contractual obligations, but also for the prospects offered in the field of R&D as pledges of future improvements in the performance of the process acquired.
Dolgoročna plačilna sposobnost prevzemnika naj bi bila zato pomembna pri izbiri kupcev, ne samo zaradi upoštevanja pogodbenih obveznosti, temveč tudi zaradi ponujenih priložnosti na področju R & R, ki zagotavljajo prihodnje izboljšanje zmogljivosti kupljenega postopka.
IFP/Axens, perceived by the market as depending on the State, therefore has an advantage over its competitors, since purchasers have no particular reason to doubt its long-term survival.
Subjekt „IFP/Axens“, ki se na trgu dojema kot odvisen od države, naj bi torej imel prednost v primerjavi s tekmeci, ker kupci nimajo posebnega razloga, da bi dvomili o njegovem dolgoročnem preživetju.