natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, according to the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU to State aid in the form of guarantees (‘the 2008 Guarantees Notice’), point 1.2, second paragraph, fourth indent, the Commission considers that there is aid in the form of a guarantee where more favourable funding terms are obtained by enterprises ‘whose legal form rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures or provides an explicit State guarantee or coverage of losses by the State’.
Vendar pa se v skladu s četrto alineo drugega odstavka točke 1.2 obvestila Komisije iz leta 2008 o uporabi členov 107 in 108 PDEU za državno pomoč v obliki poroštev (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo o poroštvih iz leta 2008) kot pomoč v obliki poroštva obravnavajo ugodnejši pogoji financiranja, ki jih pridobijo podjetja, katerih pravna narava izključuje stečaj ali druge postopke plačilne nesposobnosti, ali zagotavlja izrecno državno poroštvo ali državni prevzem izgube.
Consideration must therefore be given to the arguments by which the French authorities seek to show that there is no state guarantee here.
Treba je torej preučiti trditve francoskih organov, s katerimi želijo dokazati, da ne obstaja nikakršno državno poroštvo.
Guarantee of payment of individual claims
Poroštvo za poplačilo individualnih terjatev
In order to establish whether there is a guarantee for individual claims, the Commission will first consider whether, as the French authorities contend, any such guarantee is ruled out by the legislation or the case law (a).
Da bi ugotovili, ali obstaja poroštvo za individualne terjatve, je treba najprej preučiti, ali je tako poroštvo izključeno z besedili ali sodno prakso, kot trdijo francoski organi (a).
The Commission will then examine the steps to be taken by creditors of La Poste in order to recover their claims in the event that La Poste should be in financial difficulty and should be unable to pay its debts (b).
Komisija bo nato preučila postopek upnika podjetja La Poste za poravnavo terjatve, če bi bilo to v finančnih težavah in ne bi moglo odplačati dolgov (b).
The Commission will seek to determine whether the procedure to be followed is such that the position of a creditor of La Poste is comparable to that of a creditor of a firm governed by commercial law.
Komisija bo ugotovila, ali je postopek, ki se uporablja, tak, da sta upnik podjetja La Poste in upnik podjetja, za katero velja trgovinsko pravo, v primerljivem položaju.
Contrary to the French authorities’ affirmation, French law does acknowledge the existence of implied guarantees, and in particular the existence of a state guarantee deriving from the status of publicly owned establishment
V nasprotju s trditvami francoskih organov francosko pravo dopušča obstoj implicitnih poroštev in natančneje obstoj državnega poroštva zaradi statusa osebe javnega prava
The arguments of the French authorities
Preučitev trditev francoskih organov
First, the French authorities assert that there is no legislation or decision laying down the principle that the State is to guarantee the debts of EPICs.
Prvič, francoski organi trdijo, da v nobenem besedilu in tudi v nobeni odločitvi ni določeno načelo, po katerem naj bi država neomejeno jamčila za dolgove EPIC.
The Commission observes that while it is true that there is no legislation or decision providing expressly for a state guarantee for EPICs — just as there is no legislation or decision expressly ruling out any state guarantee for such establishments — this does not mean that there can be no implied guarantee.
Komisija ugotavlja, da čeprav ne obstaja besedilo ali odločitev, ki bi izrecno določala državno poroštvo v korist EPIC – prav tako kot ne obstaja besedilo ali odločitev, ki bi izrecno izključevala vsakršno državno poroštvo v korist EPIC –, s tem ni izključena prisotnost implicitnega poroštva.
Second, according to the French authorities, the courts have held, notably in the judgment in the case of Société de l’hôtel d’Albe and in Campoloro, that there is no such guarantee.
Drugič, po navedbah francoskih organov naj bi bilo v sodni praksi odločeno o neobstoju poroštev, zlasti v sodbi Société de l’hôtel d’Albe in zadevi Campoloro.
The Commission would observe that in Société de l’hôtel d’Albe, as pointed out by the Commission’s expert, the Council of State merely refused to grant an application brought by a creditor directly against the Minister for Public Works.
Komisija ugotavlja, kot je poudarila njena izvedenka, da sodišče Conseil d’Etat v sodbi Société de l’hôtel d’Albe zavrača ugoditev zahtevku upnika, naslovljenemu neposredno na ministra za javna dela.
A guarantee would come into play in the event of insolvency.
Za uveljavljanje poroštva se predpostavlja položaj plačilne nesposobnosti.
The judgment cited did not concern the specific situation in which a guarantee might be invoked.
Navedena sodba se ne nanaša na točno določen položaj, v katerem se lahko uveljavlja poroštvo.
A guarantee mechanism does not require the State to pay a debt of a publicly owned establishment whenever a creditor so requests.
Mehanizem poroštva ne pomeni, da bo država na preprosto zahtevo upnika dolžna poravnati dolg osebe javnega prava.
The Commission’s analysis of the Campoloro case is set out in section 4.1.1.A(b)(3) of this Decision.
Analiza Komisije v zvezi z zadevo Camporolo je predstavljena v oddelku 4.1.1.A(b)(3) tega sklepa.
It will be shown that the judgment in Campoloro establishes a scheme of state liability in proceedings for the recovery of the debts of publicly owned establishments which displays all the characteristics of a guarantee mechanism.
Kot bo prikazano, zadeva Camporolo nasprotno kaže, da ima sistem odgovornosti države pri izvajanju postopka izterjave dolgov oseb javnega prava vse značilnosti mehanizma poroštva.
The guarantee links the State and La Poste; creditors of La Poste benefit only indirectly; and the guarantee covers not just the payment of individual claims (see Section 4.1.1.A of this Decision) but also the continued existence of La Poste or its obligations or both (see Section 4.1.1.B).
Tu obravnavano poroštvo je namreč poroštvo, ki povezuje državo in podjetje La Poste (upniki podjetja La Poste so samo posredni upravičenci): poleg tega se poroštvo nanaša ne samo na poplačilo individualnih terjatev (glej oddelek 4.1.1.A tega sklepa), ampak tudi na ohranitev obstoja podjetja La Poste in/ali njegovih obveznosti (glej oddelek 4.1.1.B tega sklepa).
The implied state guarantee to La Poste dates from before 1 January 2005, and the Commission takes the view that the argument that there can be no implied guarantee since 1 January 2005 is false.
Ker je implicitno poroštvo države v korist podjetja La Poste veljalo pred 1. januarjem 2005, Komisija meni, da trditev, da implicitno poroštvo ne more obstajati po 1. januarju 2005, ni upoštevna.
In paragraph 110 of its decision of 25 July 2001 on the Organic Law on the Finance Act, the Constitutional Council found that guarantees which were given before the enactment of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act and which have not been identified and listed have not lapsed as a result.
Ustavni svet je v odstavku 110 sklepa z dne 25. julija 2001 o LOLF pojasnil, da poroštva, ki so bila dodeljena pred začetkom veljavnosti LOLF in niso bila popisana, niso neveljavna.
According to the Commission’s expert, this reasoning applies squarely to implied guarantees, linked to the status of publicly owned establishments, which have not yet been identified and listed but which nevertheless remain valid.
Po mnenju izvedenke Komisije se to sklepanje popolnoma uporablja za obstoj implicitnih poroštev, povezanih s statusom oseb javnega prava, ki še niso bila popisana, toda kljub temu ostajajo veljavna.
But although the Constitutional Council has indeed found that guarantees given without the authorisation of the Finance Act have not lapsed, the French authorities’ expert doubts whether the arguments that led to that conclusion apply without distinction to express guarantees and to implied guarantees.
Izvedenec francoskih organov ima kljub temu pomisleke o dejstvu, ali razlogi, na podlagi katerih je ustavni svet zavrnil neveljavnost poroštev, katerih dodelitev ni bila dovoljena v zakonu o financah, veljajo za implicitne in eksplicitne terjatve.
He takes the view that holders of a supposed implied guarantee cannot claim rights as indisputable and decisive as those conferred by an express guarantee.
Po njegovem mnenju imetniki domnevnega implicitnega poroštva ne morejo zahtevati tako nespornih in odločilnih pravic kot imetniki eksplicitnega poroštva.
The French authorities’ expert merely expresses doubt, so his argument is not decisive, and the Commission notes that it is not suggested in this paragraph 110 of the Constitutional Council’s decision that guarantees given expressly do not lapse whereas implied guarantees do.
Poleg dejstva, da je trditev izvedenca francoskih organov omejena na izražanje pomislekov in torej ni odločilna, Komisija ugotavlja, da nič v uvodni izjavi 110 ne kaže, da samo eksplicitna poroštva niso neveljavna.
Article 61 of the Organic Law on the Finance Act, to which the paragraph relates, does not confine itself to express guarantees either.
Tudi člen 61 LOLF, na katerega se uvodna izjava nanaša, ni omejen samo na eksplicitna poroštva.
The Commission believes that the opinion of the Constitutional Council that a guarantee does not come to an end merely because it is not authorised in the Finance Act applies whether the guarantee is express or implied.
Zato Komisija meni, da se mnenje ustavnega sveta, v skladu s katerim kazen za morebitni neobstoj dovoljenja v zakonu o financah ne more biti neveljavnost poroštva, uporablja za implicitna in eksplicitna poroštva.
The Commission takes the view, therefore, that the fact that the implied guarantee given by the State to La Poste has not been authorised in the Finance Act does not mean that it has lapsed.
Komisija tako meni, da zaradi neobstoja dovoljenja implicitnega poroštva države za podjetje La Poste v zakonu o financah to poroštvo ni neveljavno.
In addition, as the Commission’s expert pointed out, the obligation to enter state guarantees in a Finance Act is confined to the ‘giving’(octroi) of such guarantees.
Poleg tega je, kot je poudarila izvedenka Komisije, področje uporabe obveznosti, da se državna poroštva navedejo v zakonu o financah, omejeno na „dodelitev“ takih poroštev.
To ‘give’ a guarantee the State must by an express manifestation of its intention confer a guarantee on an organisation or an operation.
Dodelitev poroštva obsega primere, v katerih se država z izrecnim izrazom volje odloči, da bo poroštvo podelila organu ali postopku.
The scope of the obligation to enter guarantees in the Finance Act does not extend to guarantees that arise out of the legal form of an organisation, or out of an obligation established in case law, which are guarantees of an implied and automatic character.
Področje uporabe obveznosti, da se poroštva vpišejo v zakon o financah, torej ne obsega poroštev, izhajajočih iz statusa ali sodne obveznosti, za katera je značilna implicitna in samodejna narava.
This category is not the result of a decision of the State, but of the fact that the State places itself in an existing legal framework, the guarantee being only one effect of that framework.
Ta druga kategorija ne izhaja iz odločitve države, ampak izhaja iz dejstva, da se država postavi v že obstoječ pravni okvir, pri čemer je poroštvo samo njegova posledica.
The Commission concludes that the argument put forward by the French authorities on the basis of the Organic Law on the Finance Act is not convincing, and that the fact that it is not stated in any Finance Act that the State extends a guarantee to La Poste by reason of its legal form does not mean that there is no such guarantee.
Komisija ugotavlja, da trditev francoskih organov, ki temelji na LOLF, ni prepričljiva in da dejstvo, da v nobenem zakonu o financah ni določeno, da država zagotavlja poroštvo za podjetje La Poste zaradi njegovega statusa, ne izključuje obstoja takega poroštva.
The Commission would emphasise that it is not in any event bound by the description of the measure as a ‘guarantee’ for purposes of French law, or by the fact that a guarantee is or is not caught by the Organic Law on the Finance Act.
Vsekakor Komisija poudarja, da je ne zavezuje opredelitev ukrepa kot poroštva v francoskem pravu niti dejstvo, da naj bi šlo za poroštvo, za katero velja LOLF.
From the Commission’s point of view the only relevant consideration is how the measure is to be described for purposes of Community law, and the Guarantees Notice in particular.
Po mnenju Komisije je upoštevna samo opredelitev tega ukrepa na podlagi prava Evropske unije in zlasti glede na obvestilo o poroštvih.
Community law recognises the existence of a guarantee once a Member State legally has to repay a claim on another person in the event of that person’s defaulting.
Komisija poudarja, da se v pravu Evropske unije priznava obstoj implicitnega poroštva, kadar je država članica pravno zavezana poplačati terjatev druge osebe v primeru neizpolnitve obveznosti te osebe.
Fourth, the French authorities contend that if EPICs enjoyed a state guarantee, any change in their legal form would necessitate measures to preserve the rights of creditors arising before the change.
Četrtič, francoski organi menijo, da če bi bile EPIC upravičene do državnega poroštva, bi bilo treba za spremembo njihovega statusa sprejeti ukrepe poroštev, s katerimi bi se ohranile pravice upnikov, nastale pred preoblikovanjem zadevne javne osebe.
No such mechanism has ever been set up (for example in connection with the conversions of France Télécom, Gaz de France, EDF or ADP), which proves, it is claimed, that there is no guarantee.
Ker tak mehanizem ni bil nikoli vzpostavljen (glej zlasti preoblikovanje družb France Télécom, Gaz de France, EDF in ADP), naj bi to dokazovalo, da poroštvo ne obstaja.
The Commission’s expert explains that this assertion is based on a very broad interpretation of the constitutional protection of the right of property.
Kot pojasnjuje izvedenka Komisije, naj bi taka trditev izhajala iz zelo široke razlage ustavnega varstva lastninske pravice.
According to the French authorities’ argument, the protection of the right of property requires that all claims be preserved.
Glede na trditev francoskih organov naj bi varstvo lastninske pravice zahtevalo ohranitev vsake terjatve.
The constitutional protection of the right of property is not confined to cases where the right of property depends on a public body; on the French authorities’ interpretation, therefore, claims would have to be protected whenever they were rendered more fragile by any event in the life of any company.
Glede na to, da se ustavno varstvo lastninske pravice ne nanaša samo na primer, v katerem je ta odvisna od javne osebe, bi taka razlaga pomenila, da bi bilo treba v primeru dogodka v življenju katere koli družbe terjatve zavarovati, če so zaradi nastale spremembe „postale ranljive“.
But in French positive law as it stands there is nothing to preserve such claims.
Vendar pa nič v sedanjem stanju francoskega veljavnega prava ne ohranja terjatev.
If the argument is confined to claims guaranteed by the State, it would mean that a right of property that had once been guaranteed by the State would enjoy constitutional protection superior to other property rights.
Če bi bilo treba trditev nadalje omejiti na primere terjatev, za katere jamči država, bi to pomenilo, da bi morala biti lastninska pravica, za katero je sprva jamčila država, upravičena do večjega ustavnega varstva kot druge lastninske pravice.
There is nothing to suggest that this is so.
Nič ne kaže na to.
Lastly, a claim is a right in personam, not to be confused with a right of property, which by its nature is a right in rem.
Nazadnje, terjatev je osebna pravica, ki se ne sme zamenjevati z lastninsko pravico, ki je v bistvu stvarna pravica.
Rights in personam cannot be brought within the more far-reaching protection extended to rights in rem.
Okrepljenega varstva, ki velja za stvarne pravice, ni mogoče razširiti tudi na osebne pravice.
The Commission concludes that, when an EPIC is converted into a company that can be made the subject of court proceedings for administration or winding up, the right of property does not require that a specific measure be taken to preserve the entitlements of creditors.
Komisija ugotavlja, da lastninska pravica ne zahteva, da se za zagotovitev pravic upnikov ob preoblikovanju EPIC v družbo, za katero veljajo postopki sanacije in sodne likvidacije, določi poseben ukrep.
The fact that no such measure has been taken, therefore, does not constitute evidence that there is no implied guarantee.
Zato neobstoj takih ukrepov ni znak, da implicitno poroštvo ne obstaja.
Contrariwise, the French authorities argue that, if La Poste had enjoyed a state guarantee by reason 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 argue, 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.
The Commission points out that the fact that the French authorities may have decided to give an express guarantee does not mean that there was no implied guarantee.
Komisija poudarja, da dejstvo, da so se francoski organi odločili dodeliti eksplicitno poroštvo, ne dokazuje, da implicitnega poroštva ni bilo.
The same reasoning applies to an argument put forward by the French authorities regarding the guarantee given by the State for certain activities of ERAP or the French Development Agency.
Enako sklepanje se uporablja za trditev francoskih organov v zvezi s poroštvom, ki ga je država dodelila za nekatere dejavnosti podjetja ERAP in Agence Française du Développement.
In choosing to give an express guarantee in certain cases even though there was already an implied guarantee, the State may have been motivated for example by a concern for transparency and a desire to augment the creditors’ legal certainty.
Dejstvo, da se je država v nekaterih primerih odločila dati eksplicitno poroštvo, čeprav je že obstajalo implicitno poroštvo, bi bilo mogoče pojasniti s skrbjo za preglednost in željo po povečanju pravne varnosti upnikov.
As the French authorities’ expert asserts, ‘holders of a supposed implied guarantee cannot claim rights as indisputable and decisive as those conferred by an express guarantee’.
Kot namreč trdi izvedenec francoskih organov, „imetniki domnevnega implicitnega poroštva ne morejo zahtevati tako nespornih in odločilnih pravic kot imetniki eksplicitnega poroštva“.
Last, the French authorities cite an article by Mr Labetoulle, former president of the litigation division of the Council of State.
Nazadnje, francoski organi navajajo članek nekdanjega predsednika oddelka za spore pri Conseil d’Etat D. Labetoulla.
This article will be considered along with the judgment in Campoloro in the section of this Decision dealing with the liability of the State.
Ta članek in sodna praksa v zadevi Campoloro bosta preučena v oddelku tega sklepa o uveljavljanju odgovornosti države.
The Commission concludes that:
Komisija na podlagi zgornjih elementov ugotavlja, da:
contrary to the affirmations of the French authorities, there is no legislation or decision that excludes the existence of a state guarantee to La Poste; and
po eni strani, v nasprotju s trditvami francoskih organov nobeno besedilo in nobena odločitev ne izključujeta obstoja državnega poroštva v korist podjetja La Poste,
the fact that there is no legislation expressly providing for such a guarantee does not mean that there can be no implied guarantee.
po drugi strani, dejstvo, da to poroštvo ni izrecno določeno v nobenem besedilu, ne izključuje obstoja implicitnega poroštva.
The existence of implied guarantees arising out of the legal form of publicly owned establishments is confirmed by a memorandum of the Council of State
Obstoj implicitnih poroštev, povezanih s statusom osebe javnega prava, je potrjen z obvestilom francoskega sodišča Conseil d’Etat
The existence of an implied guarantee arising out of the legal form of publicly owned establishments is confirmed by a memorandum of the Council of State drawn up in 1995 in the Crédit Lyonnais case, which was cited in the opening decision.
Obstoj implicitnega poroštva, povezanega s statusom osebe javnega prava, je potrjen z obvestilom sodišča Conseil d’Etat, ki je bilo predloženo leta 1995 v zadevi Crédit Lyonnais in je že bilo navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka.
The Council of State there took the view that the organisation concerned enjoyed an implied guarantee by reason merely of its character as a publicly owned establishment: ‘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’.
Sodišče Conseil d’Etat je v tem obvestilu implicitno poroštvo oprlo na samo naravo organa kot osebe javnega prava: „Sodišče Conseil d’Etat je […] ob osnutku zakona o ukrepanju države pri načrtih sanacije Crédit Lyonnais in Comptoir des Entrepreneurs menilo, da bo državno poroštvo za to osebo javnega prava brez izrecne zakonodajne določbe izhajalo iz same narave organa kot osebe javnega prava.“
The Commission has repeatedly asked the French authorities to send it the full text of this memorandum.
Komisija je francoske organe večkrat prosila, naj ji pošljejo celotno obvestilo.
The French authorities have replied that the memorandum in question was not drawn up at the request of the Government and was not given formal status in any official document.
Francoski organi so odgovorili, da zadevno obvestilo, ki ni bilo izdano na zahtevo vlade, ni bilo oblikovano v uradni dokument.
According to the French authorities, the memorandum to which the Commission refers consisted only of the one sentence quoted in the annual report.
Po navedbah francoskih organov naj bi obvestilo, na katero se sklicuje Komisija, sestavljal samo zadevni stavek iz letnega poročila.
In addition, the French authorities argue, that opinion cannot be transposed to the case of La Poste, for several reasons: because it concerned a publicly owned establishment with a public accountant set up specifically to manage state support for the recovery of Crédit Lyonnais; because it predated the Organic Law on the Finance Act, which was adopted on 1 August 2001; and because its application is contrary to the subsequent case law of the Council of State.
Poleg tega naj po mnenju francoskih organov tega mnenja ne bi bilo mogoče uporabiti za podjetje La Poste, ker se uporablja za osebo javnega prava z javnim računovodjo, posebej ustanovljeno za zagotovitev upravljanja državne podpore za sanacijo družbe Crédit Lyonnais, ker je bilo sprejeto pred temeljnim zakonom z dne 1. avgusta 2001 o zakonih o financah (LOLF) in ker naj bi bila njegova uporaba v nasprotju s poznejšo sodno prakso Conseil d’Etat.
The Commission would point out that the interpretation put forward by the French authorities according to which the Council of State’s opinion cannot be transposed to the case of La Poste contradicts that opinion’s very wording.
Komisija poudarja, da je razlaga francoskih organov, v skladu s katero naj mnenja sodišča Conseil d’Etat ne bi bilo mogoče uporabiti za podjetje La Poste, v nasprotju z izrazi iz tega mnenja.
The Council of State does not refer to the aims of the establishment.
Sodišče Conseil d’Etat se namreč v mnenju nikjer ne sklicuje na nalogo osebe javnega prava.