natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The commencement of such proceedings [116] would be requested, where appropriate, by a debtor within forty-five days at the latest following the cessation of payments (unless the debtor had already requested the commencement of conciliation proceedings).
Dolžnik bi po potrebi zaprosil za začetek postopka [116] najpozneje v petinštiridesetih dneh po ustavitvi plačil (razen če ni zaprosil že za začetek spravnega postopka).
The purpose of such a compulsory winding up procedure would be to end the business activity of the undertaking or to sell its assets through a general or separate sale of its interests and property [117].
Namen takega postopka sodne likvidacije bi bil ustaviti dejavnost podjetja ali unovčiti njegovo premoženje s skupno ali ločeno prodajo njegovih pravic in premoženja [117].
In the order commencing the winding up proceedings [118], the court appoints a supervisory judge (juge-commissaire) and, as liquidator, a court-registered administrator (mandataire judiciaire) or another person chosen for competence in this field.
Sodišče bi v sodni odločbi [118], s katero bi se začela sodna likvidacija, določilo stečajnega sodnika in za likvidacijskega upravitelja imenovalo sodnega upravitelja ali osebo, izbrano na podlagi njene usposobljenosti na tem področju.
Within a month of his appointment, the liquidator draws up a report on the situation of the undertaking and then carries out the liquidation operations and the verification [119] of claims [120].
Likvidacijski upravitelj bi nato v mesecu, v katerem je bil imenovan, pripravil poročilo o položaju podjetja, nato pa bi prešel na postopke likvidacije in preizkusa [119] terjatev [120].
The proceeds of the liquidation are shared among the creditors according to their ranking (preferential and mortgage creditors, creditors secured by a special security over movable property, unsecured creditors, i.e. without preference, pro rata to their claims).
Izkupiček likvidacije bi se zatem razdelil med upnike glede na njihov položaj (prednostni in hipotekarni upniki, upniki s posebnim premičninskim zavarovanjem, nezavarovani, tj. neprivilegirani upniki, sorazmerno z njihovimi terjatvami).
Where there are no longer any current liabilities and the liquidator has sufficient sums at his disposal to satisfy the creditors, or where continuing the winding up has become impossible due to lack of assets, the court closes the winding up [121].
Če ni več zapadlih obveznosti, likvidacijski upravitelj pa ima na voljo dovolj sredstev za povrnitev škode upnikom ali če se postopki sodne likvidacije ne morejo nadaljevati zaradi nezadostnosti sredstev, sodišče razglasi ustavitev postopka sodne likvidacije [121].
After closure of the proceedings, similar proceedings cannot be resumed against the debtor.
Za dolžnika po ustavitvi postopka velja načelo o prepovedi ponovnega začetka postopka.
In other words, a judgment terminating the winding-up proceedings owing to lack of assets prevents the creditors from bringing further proceedings against the debtor unless the claim results from a criminal conviction or rights attached to the person of the creditor [122].
Z drugimi besedami, sodna odločba o ustavitvi postopka sodne likvidacije zaradi nezadostnosti sredstev upnikom ne daje možnosti za postopek proti dolžniku, razen [122] če je terjatev nastala zaradi kazenske obsodbe ali pravic, povezanih z upnikom.
No guarantee mechanism for IFP’s private-law subsidiaries
Neobstoj mehanizma poroštva za hčerinske družbe zasebnega prava, ki pripadajo osebi javnega prava IFP
As the Commission expert explained in the postal case, in some commercial forms of enterprise, and in particular public limited companies (SAs) or private limited companies (SARLs), the members are not normally speaking obliged to pay the debts of the organisation in which they take part to an amount beyond their initial contribution.
Kot je pojasnila izvedenka Komisije v poštni zadevi, v nekaterih gospodarskih družbah, zlasti delniških družbah in družbah z omejeno odgovornostjo, družbenikom običajno ni treba poplačati dolgov strukture, v kateri so udeleženi, v znesku, višjem od njihovega prvotnega vložka.
IFP’s subsidiaries are public limited companies and fall squarely into this category.
Hčerinske družbe, ki pripadajo osebi javnega prava IFP, kot delniške družbe spadajo prav v to kategorijo.
Therefore, in the IFP group, as in any other group of companies, in the event of default by a subsidiary with limited liability (in this case a public limited company), the liability of the parent (as for any other ordinary shareholder) is confined to the loss of its contributions, always assuming there are no suretyships, endorsements, guarantees, letters of intent or letters of comfort [123] explicitly committing it.
Zato je v skupini IFP kot v vsaki drugi skupini družb v primeru neizpolnjevanja obveznosti hčerinske družbe, ustanovljene v obliki družbe z omejenim tveganjem (v tem primeru delniške družbe), če ni jamstev, poroštev, garancij, pisem o nameri ali patronatskih izjav [123], ki bi jo izrecno zavezovali, odgovornost matične družbe omejena na izgubo njenih vložkov (kot pri vsakem drugem navadnem delničarju).
In view of the fact that IFP and its subsidiaries belong to the same economic group for purposes of competition law, it has to be considered whether or not, in the event of default on the part of one of these private-law subsidiaries, the relationship of economic dependency of the subsidiaries on their parent may in French company law automatically trigger the liability of the publicly owned establishment IFP, and consequently mobilise public resources, since the State is responsible for the bulk of IFP’s financing and has implicitly guaranteed it as a publicly owned establishment.
Ker oseba javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe spadajo v isto gospodarsko skupino v smislu konkurenčnega prava, je treba preveriti, ali se lahko v francoskem pravu gospodarskih družb na podlagi odnosa gospodarske odvisnosti hčerinskih družb od svoje matične družbe v primeru neizpolnjevanja obveznosti navedenih hčerinskih družb zasebnega prava samodejno uveljavlja odgovornost osebe javnega prava IFP ali ne in s tem zagotovijo javna sredstva, pri čemer država zagotavlja glavni del financiranja in je osebi javnega prava dodelila implicitno državno poroštvo.
At the end of the present detailed examination, the Commission concludes that in French civil and commercial law, in the event of default by one of the subsidiaries, (i) its controlling shareholder will not in principle be liable, except where the controlling shareholder can be shown to have committed a fault in the management of its subsidiary.
Komisija lahko po tej temeljiti preučitvi sklepa, da se odgovornost kontrolnega delničarja hčerinske družbe v primeru njenega neizpolnjevanja obveznosti v francoskem civilnem in trgovinskem pravu načeloma ne uveljavlja, razen za dokaz krivde kontrolnega delničarja pri upravljanju svoje hčerinske družbe (i).
The plans to reform the Civil Code, recently contemplated then abandoned, which aimed precisely to extend the principle of vicarious liability to the relationship between parent and subsidiaries of a group, confirm a contrario (ii) that such a principle does not exist at present in French law.
Nedavni osnutki reforme civilnega zakonika, ki so bili nato opuščeni in so bili namenjeni prav širitvi načela odgovornosti za dejanja druge osebe na odnos med matično družbo in hčerinskimi družbami skupine, nasprotno potrjujejo, da takega načela za zdaj v francoskem pravu ni (ii).
No general vicarious liability of a shareholder for its subsidiary
Neobstoj splošne odgovornosti delničarja za hčerinsko družbo
According to legal theory [124], the organisation of a group never by itself gives rise to a chain of liability.
Hierarhična odgovornost v skladu s pravnimi teoretiki [124] sama po sebi nikoli ne izvira iz organizacije skupine.
French law keeps to the principle of personal liability set out in Article 1382 of the Civil Code [125].
V francoskem pravu naj bi veljalo načelo osebne odgovornosti iz člena 1382 civilnega zakonika [125].
Only an unlawful act which can be imputed to the conduct of the parent could open access to its assets.
Dostop do premoženja matične družbe bi bil torej mogoč samo v primeru nezakonitega ravnanja, za katero je odgovorna matična družba.
As a preliminary point, the parent of the IFP group is a legal person governed by public law, namely the publicly owned establishment IFP, which raises an additional difficulty: the question has first to be asked which court, an administrative court or an ordinary civil or criminal court, would have jurisdiction under the French system to establish whether when a legal person governed by private law is to be wound up compulsorily, and is controlled by a legal person governed by public law, there is any liability that rests on the controlling entity.
Najprej, ker je matična družba skupine IFP v obravnavanem primeru pravna oseba javnega prava (oseba javnega prava IFP), to vprašanje pomeni dodatno težavo: predhodno se je treba namreč vprašati o sodnem organu (upravnem ali rednem), ki bi bil v francoskem sistemu po potrebi pristojen za ugotavljanje morebitne odgovornosti pravne osebe javnega prava, ki nadzira pravno osebo zasebnega prava, ki je v sodni likvidaciji.
As regards proceedings for liability because of insufficient assets [126], the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction (Tribunal des conflits) for long considered that the ordinary courts had jurisdiction where the legal person governed by public law was manager de jure [127], and that the administrative courts had jurisdiction where the legal person governed by public law was manager de facto [128].
Komisija ugotavlja, da je sodišče za spore pri odškodninskih tožbah zaradi nezadostnosti sredstev [126] dolgo menilo, da je redno sodišče pristojno, če je javna oseba pravni upravitelj [127], upravno sodišče pa, če je javna oseba dejanski upravitelj [128].
However, it seems that the jurisdiction of the administrative and the ordinary courts is now distinguished by reference to the nature of the service provided: whether it is an administrative public service, or an industrial or commercial activity.
Vendar se zdi, da razdelitev pristojnosti med upravnimi in rednimi sodišči na tem področju odslej temelji na vrsti izvajanih storitev, glede na to, ali gre za javno upravno službo ali dejavnost industrijske ali komercialne narave.
Where an administrative public service is involved, the old rule, based on de jure or de facto management, seems to have been abandoned by the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction [129] in its Département de la Dordogne decision [130], where the Court decided that the administrative courts had jurisdiction because the service involved was an administrative public service, regardless of whether the legal person governed by public law was the de jure or de facto manager of the person governed by private law that actually performed the public service task.
Pri javni upravni službi se zdi, da je sodišče za spore [129] po svoji odločbi v zadevi Département de la Dordogne [130] opustilo predhodno sodno prakso, ki je temeljila na pravnem ali dejanskem upravljanju: višje sodišče je tedaj razsodilo v prid pristojnosti upravnega sodišča, kadar gre za javno upravno službo, in sicer ne glede na to, ali je javna oseba pravni ali dejanski upravitelj zasebnika, ki izvaja to nalogo javne službe.
The Court recalled that in line with its judgment in Blanco [131]‘the liability which may lie with the State or with other legal persons governed by public law by reason of damage attributed to their administrative public services is governed by public law’ (emphasis added), and that the situation was otherwise only where the law expressly so provided; the Court went on to find that in Law of 25 January 1985 on compulsory administration and winding-up procedures, (now codified in Articles L. 624-3 et seq. of the Commercial Code) the legislature had not, ‘by way of exception to the principles governing the liability of public-law persons, intended to confer jurisdiction on the ordinary courts for determining the civil liability of the State or other legal persons governed by public law in the performance of a duty to provide an administrative public service’ (emphasis added).
Potem ko je sodišče za spore v skladu s sodbo v zadevi Blanco [131] opozorilo, da „se za morebitno odgovornost države ali drugih pravnih oseb javnega prava zaradi škode, pripisane njihovim upravnim javnim službam, uporablja ureditev javnega prava“ (poudarek dodan) in da drugače velja le, če je to izrecno določeno z zakonom, je presodilo, da iz zakona z dne 25. januarja 1985 o sanaciji in sodni likvidaciji podjetij (danes kodificiran v členu L.624-3 in naslednjih trgovinskega zakonika) ne izhaja, da „je zakonodajalec nameraval z odstopanjem od načel, ki urejajo odgovornost javnih oseb, prenesti pristojnosti za ugotavljanje civilne odgovornosti države ali drugih pravnih oseb javnega prava zaradi izvajanja naloge upravne javne službe na redna sodišča“ (poudarek dodan).
Conversely, where an industrial or commercial activity is concerned, jurisdiction to determine the civil liability of a legal person governed by public law controlling a private person in liquidation clearly rests with the ordinary courts.
Če pa gre za dejavnost industrijske ali komercialne narave, je civilna odgovornost pravne osebe javnega prava, ki nadzira zasebnika, ki je v likvidaciji, jasno v pristojnosti rednih sodišč.
In its judgment in Société d’Économie Mixte Olympique d’Alès en Cévennes [132], the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction held in particular that ‘although jurisdiction to determine the civil liability of the State or of other legal persons governed by public law in respect of the performance of a duty to provide an administrative public service rests with the administrative courts, such proceedings come under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts where it is shown that the State or the legal person governed by public law is liable in respect of an industrial or commercial activity; there is no necessity to determine whether the public authority acted as manager de jure or de facto’ (emphasis added).
Sodišče za spore je v odločbi v zadevi Société d'Économie Mixte Olympique d'Alès en Cévennes [132] zlasti menilo, da „čeprav so za ugotavljanje civilne odgovornosti države ali drugih pravnih oseb javnega prava zaradi izvajanja naloge upravne službe pristojna upravna sodišča, so za tako tožbo pristojna redna sodišča, če se odgovornost države ali pravne osebe javnega prava ugotavlja zaradi dejavnosti industrijske ali komercialne narave, ne da bi bilo treba razlikovati, ali je zadevna javna skupnost delovala kot dejanski ali pravni upravitelj“ (poudarek dodan).
In the case before it the Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction ruled that the activities conducted by a public limited company with a board of directors and supervisory board (SEM Olympique d’Alès en Cévennes) were not of an administrative public service nature, on the basis of two considerations: the company’s object [133] and its financing [134].
Sodišče za spore je za to ugotovitev v tedaj obravnavani zadevi zavrnilo, da ima dejavnost delniške družbe z upravo in nadzornim svetom (SEM Olympique d'Alès en Cévennes) naravo upravne javne službe na podlagi dveh vidikov: njene dejavnosti po eni strani [133] in načina financiranja po drugi strani [134].
As regards more specifically the public limited companies Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat, which are subsidiaries governed by private law controlled by the publicly owned establishment IFP, it emerges from the information contained in the file, especially that recalled in recital 159, that their object is economic and not administrative [135].
Prav za delniške družbe Axens, Beicip-Franlab in Prosernat, hčerinske družbe zasebnega prava pod nadzorom osebe javnega prava IFP, je iz podatkov v spisu, zlasti tistih, ki so navedeni v uvodni izjavi 159, razvidno, da je njihova dejavnost gospodarska [135], in ne upravna.
In addition, the bulk of the resources of these companies comes from operating proceeds generated by their economic activities and not from public funding.
Poleg tega večina sredstev navedenih podjetij izvira iz prihodkov iz poslovanja, ustvarjenih z njihovimi gospodarskimi dejavnostmi, ne pa iz javnega financiranja.
Finally, it should be noted that these subsidiaries of a publicly owned establishment were set up as commercial companies on the initiative of a legal person governed by private law [136] (and not of a legal person governed by public law, because IFP was converted into an EPIC only on 7 July 2006).
Nazadnje je treba pripomniti, da so bile navedene hčerinske družbe, ki pripadajo osebi javnega prava IFP, ustanovljene kot gospodarske družbe na pobudo pravne osebe zasebnega prava [136] (in ne javne osebe, ker se je oseba javnega prava IFP v EPIC spremenila šele 7. julija 2006).
Therefore the industrial and commercial nature of the activities of Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat seems undeniable and, in the event of compulsory winding up by the court, jurisdiction to hear any case concerning liability against the publicly owned establishment IFP would undoubtedly lie with the ordinary courts.
Zato se industrijska in komercialna narava dejavnosti družb Axens, Beicip-Franlab in Prosernat ne zdi sporna, v primeru sodne likvidacije pa bi bila za odločanje o morebitni tožbi na ugotovitev odgovornosti proti osebi javnega prava IFP nedvomno pristojna redna sodišča.
It must therefore be considered in what circumstances the controlling shareholder may be held liable in the light of the case-law of the Court of Cassation.
V teh okoliščinah je treba preveriti pogoje za uveljavljanje odgovornosti kontrolnega delničarja z vidika sodne prakse kasacijskega sodišča.
In order to extend compulsory winding-up proceedings initiated in respect of a specific person (the subsidiary) so as to include another legal person (the parent), the conditions laid down are very strict.
Toda postavljeni pogoji za širitev postopka sodne likvidacije, začetega v zvezi z določeno osebo (hčerinsko družbo), na drugo pravno osebo (matično družbo) so zelo strogi.
Confronted by a defaulting subsidiary, the victims of its actions have to prove misconduct on the part of the parent in order to obtain redress; this may in particular take the form of (α) denial by the parent of the legal personality of its subsidiary, or (β) mismanagement of the controlled company.
Če hčerinska družba ne izpolnjuje obveznosti, morajo žrtve njenega ravnanja za prejetje odškodnine dokazati krivdno ravnanje matične družbe, zlasti zanikanje matične družbe, da je njena hčerinska družba pravna oseba (α), in protipravno upravljanje nadzorovane družbe (β).
Denial by the parent of the legal personality of the subsidiary
Zanikanje matične družbe, da je njena hčerinska družba pravna oseba
In its judgments the Court of Cassation has established that the liability of a parent company may extend to the actions of its subsidiaries in two exceptional cases: firstly, where the assets of the subsidiaries are inseparable from those of the parent (confusion du patrimoine), and secondly, where the subsidiaries are fictitious legal persons [137].
V skladu s sodno prakso kasacijskega sodišča obstaja možnost, da se odgovornost matične družbe razširi na ravnanje njenih hčerinskih družb v dveh izjemnih primerih [137]: če je premoženje hčerinskih družb združeno s premoženjem matične družbe (primer, imenovan „združitev premoženja“) in če so hčerinske družbe fiktivne pravne osebe (primer, imenovan „fiktivnost pravne osebe“).
The concept of inseparable assets [138] generally applies to a situation where the accounts of the two separate legal entities are such that it is impossible to determine to which of them a specific asset or liability belongs.
Pojem „združitev premoženja“ [138] na splošno označuje položaj, ko ni mogoče določiti, na katero računovodstvo ločenih pravnih subjektov se nanašajo posamezna sredstva ali obveznosti.
However, to show that assets are inseparable it is not enough that there should be links, even close links, between the companies of the group.
Vendar za dokaz take združitve premoženja ne zadostujejo povezave med družbami v skupini, tudi če so tesne.
Likewise, the fact that partners or managers or even the registered office [139] are identical does not by itself mean that the assets are inseparable.
Prav tako niti istovetnost družbenikov ali upraviteljev ali celo istovetnost sedeža [139] sami po sebi ne omogočata ugotovitve o združitvi premoženja.
The fact that relations within the group are formally defined in agreements between the parent company and its subsidiaries usually suffices to rule out any possibility of inseparability of assets [140].
Formalizacija odnosov znotraj skupine v okviru pogodb, ki so jih sklenile matična družba in hčerinske družbe, najpogosteje zadostuje za izločitev vsake možnosti za združitev premoženja [140].
In two recent cases, Metaleurop [141] and AOL Liberté [142], the Court of Cassation seems actually to have tightened its approach to the conditions for the extension of proceedings to include the parent company of a group.
Zdi se, da je kasacijsko sodišče v dveh nedavnih zadevah Metaleurop [141] in AOL Liberté [142] še okrepilo nadzor nad pogoji širitve postopka v zvezi z matično družbo skupine.
Even very intensive integration of the group companies does not necessarily entail inseparability of assets.
Celo če je povezanost med družbami skupine zelo tesna, to ne pomeni nujno združitve premoženja.
In the present case, it has to be pointed out that the Commission has already found that ‘IFP and the subsidiaries concerned are distinct legal entities and their accounts are separate’ [145].
V obravnavanem primeru je treba ugotoviti, da je Komisija že poudarila, da „so računovodski izkazi osebe javnega prava IFP in zadevnih hčerinskih družb kot različnih pravnih subjektov ločeni“ [145].
In addition, the agreements signed between IFP and its subsidiaries, especially the agreements for exclusive technology transfer or the assignment of staff [146], do not produce general disorder in the accounts such as to justify unification of the assets within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Cassation, since each service is specifically entered in the respective balance sheets of each entity of the IFP group, as will be established in particular in sections 7.1.4 and 7.3.
Poleg tega sporazumi, ki so jih podpisale oseba javnega prava IFP in njene hčerinske družbe, zlasti izključni sporazumi o prenosu tehnologij, ali posredovanje osebja [146] ne kažejo na splošno nepreglednost računovodskih izkazov, ki bi utemeljevala združitev premoženja v smislu sodne prakse kasacijskega sodišča, ker je vsaka storitev posebej vknjižena v bilancah vsakega subjekta iz skupine IFP, kot bo med drugim ugotovljeno v delih 7.1.4 in 7.3.
To show that a subsidiary is a ‘fictitious legal entity’ it must be established that the constitution of the subsidiary is flawed for lack of intention to cooperate (affectio societatis) so that the subsidiary does not have a real existence as a company.
Pri „fiktivnosti pravne osebe“ gre za določitev neobstoja elementov družbene pogodbe hčerinske družbe (affectio societatis) za dokaz, da družba dejansko ne obstaja.
The Court of Cassation [147] considers that there is a fictitious company where the legal person against which the proceedings are brought exists only apparently, by reason of a lack of any activity separate from that of the natural or legal person directing the business [148].
Kasacijsko sodišče [147] meni, da gre za fiktivno družbo, kadar pravna oseba, zoper katero je začet postopek, obstaja samo navidezno, ker se njena dejavnost ne razlikuje [148] od dejavnosti poslovodje, ki je fizična ali pravna oseba.
On the basis of publicly available information [149], the Commission also notes that the publicly owned establishment IFP and Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat have neither the same contact information nor the same business premises:
Komisija na podlagi javno dostopnih informacij [149] še ugotavlja, da oseba javnega prava IFP ter družbe Axens, Beicip-Franlab in Prosernat nimajo istih kontaktnih podatkov niti istih krajev poslovanja: