natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
are unable, in the current state of French law, to rely on an automatic liability of the controlling shareholder of the subsidiaries, the publicly owned establishment IFP, and hence of the French State, for the actions of IFP’s subsidiaries: they must first show that there has been a fault on the part of the publicly owned establishment, which means that any liability is not automatic and cannot be likened to a guarantee mechanism.
v sedanjem stanju francoskega prava ne morejo samodejno uveljavljati odgovornosti osebe javnega prava IFP (in s tem francoske države) kot kontrolnega delničarja hčerinskih družb za ravnanje njenih hčerinskih družb; predhodno morajo namreč predložiti dokaz, da je oseba javnega prava krivdno ravnala, kar izključuje možnost, da je tako uveljavljanje odgovornosti samodejno in se torej lahko enači z mehanizmom poroštva.
The Commission emphasises that it has already come to similar conclusions in other cases in which it took the view that a public limited company wholly owned by a publicly owned establishment, or by the State itself, was not covered by the unlimited public guarantee enjoyed by its shareholder.
Komisija poudarja, da je že sprejela podobne sklepne ugotovitve v drugih primerih, v katerih je menila, da delniška družba v stoodstotni lasti osebe javnega prava ali države ni bila krita z neomejenim državnim poroštvom, ki ga je imel njen delničar.
As regards companies owned directly by the State, the Commission considered, as early as 2003, in the EDF case [178], that the conversion of an EPIC into a public limited company under ordinary law, which made it subject to the ordinary law on bankruptcy, had the effect of withdrawing the guarantee enjoyed by the undertaking up to that time.
Komisija je o delniških družbah v neposredni lasti države leta 2003 v zadevi EDF [178] menila, da je bilo zaradi preoblikovanja EPIC v delniško družbo občega prava, s tem pa njene podreditve občemu pravu stečaja, odpravljeno dotedanje poroštvo, ki ga je bilo deležno podjetje.
This approach was recently confirmed when La Poste was transformed into a public limited company wholly owned by the State [179].
Ta usmeritev je bila nazadnje potrjena, ko je bilo podjetje La Poste preoblikovano v delniško družbo [179] v stoodstotni državni lasti.
As regards companies held by publicly owned establishments, the Commission acknowledged, in the decision cited above relating to the setting up of La Banque Postale, that the fact that the subsidiary had the legal form of a public limited company wholly owned by a publicly owned establishment (namely La Poste, which at that time was a publicly owned establishment with a form equivalent to that of an EPIC) was by itself sufficient to rule out the possibility of an unlimited guarantee to the subsidiary [180].
Komisija je v zvezi z delniškimi družbami v lasti oseb javnega prava potrdila, da je v zgoraj navedeni odločitvi o ustanovitvi podjetja La Banque Postale pravni status take hčerinske družbe, ki je delniška družba v popolni lasti osebe javnega prava (v tem primeru podjetja La Poste, ki je imelo tedaj status osebe javnega prava, primerljiv z EPIC), sam po sebi zadostoval, da je bil zanjo obstoj neomejenega poroštva izključen [180].
ECONOMIC NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PUBLICLY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT IFP THAT ARE COVERED BY THE UNLIMITED GUARANTEE
GOSPODARSKA NARAVA DEJAVNOSTI OSEBE JAVNEGA PRAVA IFP, KRITIH Z NEOMEJENIM POROŠTVOM
As the Commission already pointed out in its previous decisions relating to the publicly owned establishment IFP [181], under its constitution, IFP performs three tasks:
Kot je Komisija že navedla v predhodnih odločbah v zvezi z osebo javnega prava IFP [181], ima ta v skladu s svojim statutom tri naloge:
the training of engineers and technicians,
usposabljanje inženirjev in tehnikov,
As explained in recital 31, the French authorities consider that the publicly owned establishment IFP is a research organisation assigned a three-fold task in the general interest (research, training and documentation).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 31, francoski organi menijo, da je oseba javnega prava IFP raziskovalna organizacija s tremi nalogami v splošnem interesu (raziskave, usposabljanje in dokumentacija).
The Commission likewise takes the view that in the light of the tasks assigned to it IFP can be termed a ‘research organisation’ within the meaning of point 2.2.(d) of the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation [182] (‘the R&D&I Framework’): its primary goal is to conduct fundamental research [183], industrial research [184] or experimental development [185] and to disseminate their results by way of teaching, publication or technology transfer.
Komisija še meni, da se lahko oseba javnega prava IFP glede na dodeljene naloge opredeli kot „raziskovalna organizacija“ v smislu točke 2.2(d) Okvira Skupnosti za državno pomoč za raziskave in razvoj ter inovacije [182] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: okvir R & R & I): njen glavni cilj je izvajanje temeljnih raziskav [183], industrijskih raziskav [184] ali eksperimentalnega razvoja [185] ter razširjanje njihovih rezultatov z učenjem, objavami ali prenosom tehnologij.
In accordance with the Court of Justice case-law [186], the public financing of the activities carried out by a research organisation (including their cover by an unlimited public guarantee) may [187] lead to the granting of State aid provided that the organisation in question is engaged in an economic activity, i.e. an activity consisting of offering goods and services on a given market [188], regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije [186] se lahko [187] na podlagi javnega financiranja dejavnosti, ki jih izvaja raziskovalna organizacija (vključno z njihovim kritjem z neomejenim državnim poroštvom), odobri državna pomoč, če zadevna organizacija izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost, to je dejavnost, pri kateri se na določenem trgu ponujajo blago in storitve [188], in to neodvisno od njenega pravnega statusa in načina financiranja.
In its decision-making practice the Commission has clarified what it considers to be economic and non-economic activities engaged in by research organisations [189].
Komisija je v zvezi z gospodarsko (ali negospodarsko) naravo dejavnosti raziskovalnih organizacij v svoji praksi odločanja [189] pojasnila, kaj po njenem mnenju spada v eno ali drugo kategorijo.
The Commission takes the view that the primary activities of research organisations are normally of a non-economic character, notably:
Komisija o glavnih dejavnostih raziskovalnih organizacij meni, da načeloma vključujejo negospodarske dejavnosti, zlasti:
education for more and better skilled human resources;
izobraževanje za več in bolje usposobljene človeške vire,
the conduct of independent R&D for more knowledge and better understanding, including collaborative R&D;
vodenje neodvisnih R & R za več znanja in boljše razumevanje, vključno s sodelovalnimi R & R,
the dissemination of research results.
razširjanje rezultatov raziskav.
It furthermore considers that technology transfer activities (licensing, spin-off creation or other forms of management of knowledge created by the research organisation) are of a non-economic character if these activities are of an ‘internal nature’ [190] and all income from these activities is reinvested in the primary activities of the research organisations.
Poleg tega meni, da so dejavnosti prenosa tehnologij (licenciranje, ustvarjanje „oddaljenih podjetij“ ali druge oblike upravljanja znanja, ki so jih oblikovale raziskovalne organizacije) negospodarske, če so te dejavnosti interne [190] in je ves dohodek od njih znova vložen v osnovne dejavnosti raziskovalnih organizacij.
On the other hand, the Commission considers that research carried out under contract with industry, the renting out of research infrastructure and consultancy work constitute economic activities [191].
Vendar Komisija meni, da raziskave, ki se izvajajo po pogodbi z industrijo, oddajanje raziskovalne infrastrukture ali svetovalno delo [191] spadajo med gospodarske dejavnosti.
In the case under examination, the unlimited guarantee conferred on IFP by virtue of its EPIC status covers both its non-economic activities (which in itself does not give rise to any problem under the law governing State aid) and its economic activities, which are of two types.
V obravnavnem primeru neomejeno poroštvo, dodeljeno osebi javnega prava IFP zaradi njenega statusa EPIC, krije obenem njene negospodarske (kar samo po sebi z vidika prava državnih pomoči ne povzroča težav) in gospodarske dejavnosti, ki so dveh vrst.
Regarding the first type of economic activity, although, as indicated in recital 31, the majority of IFP’s activities are non-economic, the French authorities acknowledged in their letters dated 13 January and 16 July 2010 that outside the exclusive field of activity of its subsidiaries IFP provided services consisting essentially in renting out infrastructures and premises, providing staff and supplying legal services to its the subsidiaries, and contract research services for third parties and its subsidiaries.
Francoski organi so v zvezi s prvo vrsto gospodarskih dejavnosti kljub mnenju, navedenem v uvodni izjavi 31, da so dejavnosti osebe javnega prava IFP večinoma negospodarske, v dopisih z dne 13. januarja in 16. julija 2010 potrdili, da oseba javnega prava IFP zunaj izključnih področij dejavnosti svojih hčerinskih družb opravlja storitve, ki zajemajo zlasti oddajanje naprav in prostorov, posredovanje osebja in pravne storitve za hčerinske družbe ter storitve pogodbenih raziskav za tretje osebe in za svoje hčerinske družbe.
As pointed out in recital 185, such activities are economic activities as generally defined by the Commission.
Take dejavnosti so v skladu z navedbo v uvodni izjavi 185 vsekakor gospodarske v pomenu, ki ga temu običajno daje Komisija.
Regarding the second type of economic activity, technology transfers such as licensing, spin-off creation or other forms of management of knowledge created by the research organisation are in principle non-economic, as recalled in recital 184, if they are of an internal nature and if the profits they generate are entirely reinvested in public research.
Pri drugi vrsti gospodarskih dejavnosti so dejavnosti prenosa tehnologij, kot so licenciranje, ustvarjanje „oddaljenih podjetij“ ali druge oblike upravljanja znanja, ki so jih oblikovale raziskovalne organizacije, načeloma, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 184, negospodarske dejavnosti, če so interne in če je dohodek od njih znova vložen v osnovne dejavnosti raziskovalnih organizacij.
In the present case, however, as the Commission found in decision C 51/2005, the very specific relationships between the publicly owned establishment IFP and certain of its subsidiaries governed by private law are such that ‘certain of IFP’s activities fall outside the scope of its non-economic activities insofar as they give rise to commercial exploitation by its subsidiaries’ [192].
Vendar zaradi zelo posebnih odnosov med osebo javnega prava IFP in njenimi hčerinskimi družbami zasebnega prava v skladu z ugotovitvijo Komisije v zgoraj navedeni odločbi C 51/2005 „[n]ekatere dejavnosti skupine IFP niso negospodarske dejavnosti, če jih lahko njene hčerinske družbe tržno izkoriščajo“ [192].
The Commission came to the conclusion that the subsidiaries concerned could not be considered autonomous from their parent in so far as their activities formed part of IFP’s development strategy, IFP exercised not only de jure but also de facto control, exclusive agreements bore witness to strong economic integration, and IFP and the subsidiaries concerned had a common image in the eyes of operators in the relevant sectors.
Komisija je namreč ugotovila, da zadevnih hčerinskih družb ni mogoče obravnavati kot nosilcev dejavnosti, ki so neodvisni od svoje matične družbe, če so njihove dejavnosti vključene v razvojno strategijo osebe javnega prava IFP, če zadnjenavedena izvaja pravni in tudi dejanski nadzor, če izključni sporazumi kažejo na veliko gospodarsko povezovanje ter če imajo nosilci dejavnosti v zadevnih sektorjih skupno podobo o osebi javnega prava IFP in zadevnih hčerinskih družbah.
The technology transfers between IFP and its subsidiaries Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat, and especially those resulting from industrial research work [193], must consequently be categorised as economic activities for purposes of competition law.
Prenose tehnologij, zlasti tistih, ki so rezultat industrijskih raziskav [193], med osebo javnega prava IFP in njenimi hčerinskimi družbami Axens, Beicip-Franlab in Prosernat je zato treba opredeliti kot gospodarske dejavnosti v smislu konkurenčnega prava.
SCOPE OF THE PRESENT DECISION
DOMET TEGA SKLEPA
It is clear from section 7.1.1 that only the activities carried out directly by the publicly owned establishment IFP are covered by the State guarantee; the activities carried out by its subsidiaries, which are governed by private law, are not covered by the guarantee.
Iz dela 7.1.1 je razvidno, da so z državnim poroštvom krite samo dejavnosti, ki jih oseba javnega prava IFP izvaja neposredno, v nasprotju z dejavnostmi, ki jih izvajajo njene hčerinske družbe zasebnega prava, ki ne spadajo na področje kritja.
Moreover, among the activities carried out directly by IFP, there can be a State aid element only in the guarantee cover given to activities of an economic character, and always provided the other conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are also met.
Poleg tega med dejavnostmi, ki jih neposredno izvaja oseba javnega prava IFP, lahko morebitno državno pomoč zajema samo kritje njenih gospodarskih dejavnosti z državnim poroštvom, če so izpolnjeni tudi drugi pogoji iz člena 107(1) PDEU.
Finally, it is clear from section 7.1.2 that these economic activities are confined on the one hand to contract research activities carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP, and on the other hand to the transfer of technologies in the exclusive fields of activity of the subsidiaries Axens, Prosernat and Beicip-Franlab and the renting out of infrastructure, provision of staff and provision of legal services.
Nazadnje je iz dela 7.1.2 razvidno, da so te gospodarske dejavnosti po eni strani omejene na dejavnosti pogodbenih raziskav, ki jih izvaja oseba javnega prava IFP, po drugi strani pa na dejavnosti prenosa tehnologij na izključnih področjih dejavnosti hčerinskih družb Axens, Prosernat in Beicip-Franlab ter na dejavnosti oddajanja infrastrukture, posredovanja osebja in pravne storitve.
EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE TO THE IFP GROUP
OBSTOJ SELEKTIVNE PREDNOSTI ZA SKUPINO IFP
To analyse any advantages that the IFP group may derive from the unlimited guarantee conferred on the parent, IFP, by virtue of its EPIC status, the Commission will proceed in two stages: it will first examine any advantages to the parent (7.1.4.1), and then examine those potentially transferred to its subsidiaries (7.1.4.2).
Komisija bo v dveh korakih analizirala morebitne prednosti, ki bi jih skupina IFP lahko imela zaradi neomejenega poroštva, dodeljenega njeni matični družbi, osebi javnega prava IFP, zaradi njenega statusa EPIC: najprej bo preučila morebitne prednosti, nastale za matično družbo (7.1.4.1), nato pa še tiste, ki bi se lahko prenesle na njene hčerinske družbe (7.1.4.2).
Advantages to the publicly owned establishment IFP
Prednosti, nastale za osebo javnega prava IFP
In the opening decision, in accordance with point 2.1.3 of the Guarantees Notice, the Commission said that it took the view that IFP could derive benefit from its EPIC status mainly through more favourable funding terms on the capital markets [194], which is an advantage resulting from the non-applicability of the ordinary legal procedure for compulsory administration and winding up to legal entities governed by public law.
Komisija je v zgoraj navedeni odločitvi o začetku postopka v skladu s točko 2.1.3 zgoraj navedenega obvestila o poroštvih navedla, da bi lahko oseba javnega prava IFP po njenem mnenju imela prednosti zaradi statusa EPIC, zlasti zaradi ugodnejših pogojev financiranja [194] na kapitalskih trgih, pri čemer navedena prednost izvira iz neuporabe občepravnih postopkov sanacije in sodne likvidacije za pravne osebe javnega prava.
Moreover, in the event of default of the publicly owned establishment, the Commission noted that the State guarantee would cover all of IFP’s debts, which, as specified in recital 71 of the opening decision, might be not only financial but also commercial or of another nature again, in particular claims held by suppliers (whose invoices had not been paid) or by customers (to whom services had not been supplied).
Komisija je poleg tega ugotovila, da bi državno poroštvo v primeru neizpolnjevanja obveznosti osebe javnega prava zajemalo vse terjatve osebe javnega prava, ki so lahko v skladu s pojasnilom v uvodni izjavi 71 odločitve o začetku postopka „ne samo finančne, ampak tudi komercialne ali druge narave“, zlasti terjatve dobaviteljev (katerih računi niso bili plačani) ali strank (ki jim niso bile zagotovljene storitve).
At the end of the detailed examination of the measure, therefore, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to analyse the existence of any advantage to the publicly owned establishment IFP in its relations with (A) banks and financial institutions, (B) its suppliers and (C) its customers.
Zato Komisija po temeljiti preučitvi zadevnega ukrepa meni, da je treba analizirati obstoj morebitne prednosti za osebo javnega prava IFP v odnosih z bančnimi in finančnimi ustanovami (A), dobavitelji (B) in strankami (C).
No advantage in dealings with banks and financial institutions
Neobstoj prednosti v odnosih z bančnimi in finančnimi ustanovami
In the opening decision, although the Commission acknowledged that the publicly owned establishment IFP was not the subject of a financial rating by an external rating agency [195], it pointed out that the funding granted to IFP necessarily entailed an assessment by creditors of the risk of default [196].
Komisija v zgoraj navedeni odločitvi o začetku postopka kljub priznavanju, da oseba javnega prava IFP ni predmet bonitetne ocene zunanje bonitetne agencije, [195] poudarja, da upniki pri financiranju, dodeljenem osebi javnega prava IFP, nujno ocenijo tveganje neplačila [196].
Given that IFP had recourse to the credit market to finance its debt, the Commission could not at the preliminary examination stage rule out the possibility that IFP might enjoy an economic advantage as a result of the weight given by the financial markets in their assessments to the State’s role of last-resort guarantor of IFP’s debts.
Ker oseba javnega prava IFP „za financiranje svojega dolga uporablja trg posojil“, Komisija navaja, da na stopnji predhodne preučitve ne more izključiti, da ima lahko ta oseba pri presoji finančnih trgov gospodarsko prednost, povezano z upoštevanjem vloge države kot poroka v skrajni sili za dolgove osebe javnega prava IFP.
At the end of the detailed examination, the Commission takes note of the information sent by France which is referred to in recital 64 above, and which is summarised in Table 1 in the present recital.
Komisija je po temeljiti preučitvi seznanjena s podatki iz uvodne izjave 64, ki jih je predložila Francija in so povzeti v Preglednici 1 te uvodne izjave (v kateri „KEUR“ pomeni „tisoč EUR“).
Debt of the publicly owned establishment IFP over the period 2005-2010
Zadolženost osebe javnega prava IFP v obdobju od 2005 do 2010
Entity:
Subjekt
EUR thousand
v K EUR
Loans and debts with credit institutions [197]
Posojila in dolgovi pri posojilnih ustanovah [197]
Amounts payable within one year (1)
Rok zapadlosti manj kot eno leto (1)
Amounts payable at over one year
Rok zapadlosti več kot eno leto
of which bank loans and overdrafts and bank credit balances
med katerimi gotovinska posojila in kreditni saldi znašajo
Interest rate on loans and debts contracted with credit institutions:
Obrestne mere za posojila in dolgove, nastale pri posojilnih ustanovah
Interest rate + margin
Obrestna mera + marža
Medium and long-term loans
Srednje- in dolgoročna posojila
Bank loans and overdrafts and short-term credit facilities
Kratkoročni bančno financiranje in kreditne linije
[Bank No 1] [198]
[Banka št. 1] [198]
[Bank No 2] [198]
[Banka št. 2] [198]
[Bank No 3] [198]
[Banka št. 3] [198]
[Bank No 4] [198]
[Banka št. 4] [198]
This information shows that as regards the amounts payable at more than one year, IFP has not had recourse to borrowing from credit institutions since its change of legal form, i.e. over the period between 2006 and 2009 for which the data are available.
Iz navedenih podatkov izhaja, da oseba javnega prava IFP po spremembi statusa, torej v obdobju med letoma 2006 in 2009, za katero so podatki na voljo, za posojila z zapadlostjo nad enim letom ni najemala posojil pri posojilnih ustanovah.
As regards 2010 specifically, the French authorities specified that the publicly owned establishment IFP had received four proposals for credit facilities amounting to EUR […] (*), at a one-year rate varying between EONIA + […] (*) % with [Bank No 4] (**) (plus commitment fee of […] (*) %, i.e. EUR […] (*)) or [Bank No 5] (**) (plus commitment fee of […] (*) %, i.e. EUR […] (*)) and EONIA + […] (*) % with [Bank No 3] (**) (plus commitment fee of […] (*) %, i.e. EUR […] (*)) or [Bank No 1] (**) (plus commitment fee of […] (*) %, i.e. EUR […] (*)).
Francoski organi so za leto 2010 pojasnili, da je oseba javnega prava IFP prejela štiri ponudbe kreditnih linij v znesku […] (*) EUR, po letni obrestni meri med EONIA + […] (*) % pri [banki št. 4] (**) (plus strošek rezervacije sredstev posojila v višini […] (*) %, kar je […] (*) EUR), ali [banki št. 5] (**) (plus strošek rezervacije sredstev posojila v višini […] (*) %, kar je […] (*) EUR), in EONIA + […] (*) % pri [banki št. 3] (**) (plus strošek rezervacije sredstev posojila v višini […] (*) %, kar je […] (*) EUR), ali [banki št. 1] (**) (plus strošek rezervacije sredstev posojila v višini […] (*) %, kar je […] (*) EUR).
IFP also received another spot offer from [Bank No 3] (**) (depending on the term of drawdown chosen), for a rate equal to EURIBOR + […] (*) %.
Oseba javnega prava IFP je prejela tudi drugo ponudbo „spot“ od [banke št. 3] (**) (glede na izbrano trajanje črpanja posojila) po obrestni meri EURIBOR + […] (*) %.
The Commission notes the fact that these rates are equivalent to those negotiated by IFP before its change of status in 2006, when it was still a legal person governed by private law not covered by a State guarantee.
Komisija je seznanjena, da so navedene obrestne mere enake tistim, ki jih je IFP iztržila pred spremembo statusa leta 2006, ko je bila še pravna oseba zasebnega prava, ki ni bila krita z državnim poroštvom.
In view of the above, the Commission acknowledges that, over the period between its change of legal form and 2010, IFP did not derive any actual economic advantage from its EPIC status in its relations with banks and financial institutions.
Komisija ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega priznava, da oseba javnega prava IFP v obdobju od spremembe statusa do leta 2010 ni imela dejanske gospodarske prednosti zaradi svojega statusa EPIC v odnosih z bančnimi in finančnimi ustanovami.
In other words, it appears that the potential advantage that the undertaking might have derived from the unlimited guarantee, in the form of interest rates on borrowings more favourable than what was available on the market, did not materialise during the period under review.
Z drugimi besedami, zdi se, da morebitna prednost, ki bi jo podjetje lahko imelo od neomejenega poroštva v obliki posojilnih obrestnih mer, ugodnejših od tržnih pogojev, v zadevnem obdobju ni bila izkoriščena.
This conclusion naturally applies only for the past, since the Commission cannot make assumptions concerning future conduct by market operators or about their perception of the impact of the State guarantee on the risk of default of the publicly owned establishment IFP.
Taka ugotovitev seveda velja samo za preteklost, ker Komisija ne more predvideti prihodnjega vedenja udeležencev na trgu niti sprememb v njihovem dojemanju vpliva državnega poroštva na tveganje neplačila osebe javnega prava IFP.