natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following the example of the argument in recitals 162 to 168 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that the specific procedure laid down by the Law of 1980 and the measures implementing it is a procedure only for the recovery of claims, and not for winding up, and that at the end of the procedure the claim is not cancelled, whereas at the end of winding-up proceedings under ordinary law a judgment terminating the proceedings on the ground that the assets are insufficient, without penalty, prevents creditors from pursuing the proceedings further.
Komisija v skladu z razmisleki iz uvodnih izjav od 162 do 168 Sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje, meni, da je posebni postopek, opredeljen z zakonom iz leta 1980 in njegovimi izvedbenimi akti, samo postopek izterjave terjatev, ne pa postopek likvidacije in da terjatev po koncu tega postopka ne izgine, po koncu likvidacijskega postopka občega prava pa je v sodbo o zaključku tega postopka zaradi nezadostnosti sredstev brez kazni vključena prepoved za upnike, da znova začnejo postopek.
The Commission also notes that the Law of 1980 and the measures implementing it provide for the deferral of a payment order, and nowhere envisage a cessation of payments, and thereby give creditors to understand that there are or that there will be the resources necessary to settle a claim they hold on the public entity.
Komisija še ugotavlja, da lahko upniki na podlagi zakona iz leta 1980 in njegovih izvedbenih aktov, ki določajo časovni odlog plačila in nikjer ne predvidevajo položaja ustavitve plačil, domnevajo, da obstajajo ali da bodo vedno obstajala potrebna sredstva za poravnavo terjatev, ki jih imajo do javnega subjekta.
These two factors lead to it consider that a shortage of funds will be covered, if necessary by the State, or is temporary only.
Zaradi obeh navedenih elementov meni, da je položaj nezadostnosti sredstev krit, pri čemer ga po potrebi krije država, ali samo začasen.
But winding-up procedures never provide for the possibility that a third party can become liable for the debts of the insolvent party, except of course in the case of a guarantor.
Po drugi strani ni pri nobenem likvidacijskem postopku predvidena možnost, da za dolgove plačilno nesposobne osebe postane odgovorna tretja oseba, razen očitno – ko obstaja porok.
Consequently, the Commission takes the view that the probability that a creditor might not succeed in obtaining satisfaction of his claim under the procedures laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 is low.
Komisija zato meni, da je primer, v katerem upniku ne bi uspelo doseči poravnave terjatve z uporabo postopkov iz zakona z dne 16. julija 1980, malo verjeten.
However, contrary to the conclusion it drew in respect of La Poste in decision C 56/2007, the Commission observes that in this case the resources of its own that IFP would be able to mobilise are relatively high, since, as the French authorities have explained (see recital 44), available funds and investments at the end of 2007 (EUR 150,3 million) represented approximately five times the amount of borrowings and financial liabilities (EUR 25,2 million).
Vendar Komisija v nasprotju s svojimi ugotovitvami o podjetju La Poste v zgoraj navedenem sklepu C 56/2007 opozarja, da so v obravnavanem primeru lastna sredstva, ki jih oseba javnega prava IFP lahko zagotovi v primeru nezadostnosti likvidnih sredstev, razmeroma velika, ker so bili razpoložljiva sredstva in naložbe (150,3 milijona EUR) v skladu s pojasnilom francoskih organov v uvodni izjavi 44 konec leta 2007 enaki približno petkratnemu znesku posojil in finančnih dolgov (25,2 milijona EUR).
Consequently, the Commission recognises that in its present financial position, it seems unlikely, at least in the near future, that a shortage of own resources could lead to IFP being unable to meet its debts and give rise to the need for State intervention.
Komisija tako priznava, da se zdi v sedanjem finančnem položaju vsaj v bližnji prihodnosti malo verjetno, da oseba javnega prava IFP zaradi pomanjkanja lastnih sredstev ne bi mogla odplačati dolgov in bi potrebovala državno posredovanje.
Furthermore, in the event of a default on the part of IFP, the fact that the legislature has laid down rules protecting the assets might then be invoked in any dispute in which it was alleged that there was a strict liability resting on the State [89].
V takih okoliščinah bi se zaradi nezmožnosti zagotoviti sredstva s prodajo premoženja povečala uporaba drugih mehanizmov poroštva (predujmi, ugotavljanje odgovornosti države itd.) Drugič, ker je zakonodajalec izdelal sistem varstva premoženja, bi se lahko povečalo število sporov o nekrivdni odgovornosti države ob morebitnem neizpolnjevanju obveznosti osebe javnega prava IFP [89].
On this point, the Commission takes note of the argument put forward by the French authorities [90] according to which even if the State considers an asset belonging to a publicly owned establishment to be ‘indispensable’ for the provision of a public service, and therefore objects to its sale, it is not bound to compensate via a guarantee mechanism.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem seznanjena s trditvijo francoskih organov [90], da državi, če bi menila, da je premoženje osebe javnega prava „nepogrešljivo“ za izvajanje naloge javne službe, in bi torej nasprotovala njegovi prodaji, ne bi bilo treba plačati nadomestila z mehanizmi poroštva.
The Commission notes, however, that the French authorities have acknowledged that in applying the procedure laid down in the Law of 16 July 1980 the representative of the State is bound by the requirement of continuity of public service (although they deny that IFP can benefit as a result) [91].
Vendar ugotavlja, da so francoski organi priznali (čeprav zanikajo, da bi oseba javnega prava IFP lahko od tega imela prednost), da mora predstavnik države pri izvajanju postopka, uvedenega z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, [91] upoštevati zahtevo po kontinuiteti javne službe.
The Commission therefore considers that such a choice by the public authorities to prevent sales of assets in order to maintain a public service means that the State might incur strict liability for a breach of the principle of equality before public burdens.
Komisija še meni, da bi lahko taka odločitev javnega organa, da se sredstva ne prodajo zaradi ohranitve javne službe, sprožila nekrivdno odgovornost države zaradi kršitve enakosti pred javnimi bremeni.
Thirdly, for the reasons already set out in recitals 185 to 226 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that, in the unlikely event that the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980 does not result in payment of creditors, the courses still open to them to render the State liable have the characteristics of a guarantee mechanism.
Tretjič, Komisija zaradi razlogov, že predstavljenih v uvodnih izjavah od 185 do 226 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje, meni, da imajo pravna sredstva, ki bi upniku ostala za uveljavljanje odgovornosti države, v malo verjetnem primeru, da mu postopek iz zakona iz leta 1980 ne bi omogočal poplačila terjatve, značilnosti mehanizma poroštva.
Although the French authorities consider that the State has in principle no liability, whether for a fault on its part or in the absence of any such fault [92], they acknowledge that, if there is a requirement of continuity of public service that is binding on the representative of the State in the procedure laid down by the Law of 16 July 1980, a court may order that the creditor be compensated.
Čeprav francoski organi menijo, da odgovornosti države načeloma ni mogoče uveljavljati niti kot krivdno niti kot nekrivdno [92], priznavajo, da bi se lahko zgodilo, da bi sodišče odredilo povrnitev škode upniku, če bi predstavnik države moral pri izvajanju postopka, določenega z zakonom iz leta 1980, upoštevati zahtevo po kontinuiteti javne službe.
But in that event the French authorities consider that the creditor is not given any advantage, as the compensation he receives is comparable to that which he would have received under ordinary law.
V tem primeru francoski organi vseeno menijo, da upnik ne bi pridobil nikakršne prednosti, ker bi bila njegova odškodnina primerljiva s tisto, ki bi jo prejel v primeru uporabe občega prava.
The Commission draws attention, however, to certain specific features of the special scheme introduced by the Law of 1980: under the ordinary law governing compulsory winding up, creditors (and especially unsecured creditors) will not as a general rule recover the whole of their claims, and the enterprise being wound up will not usually have its debts paid by a third party.
Komisija v zvezi s tem poudarja nekatere posebnosti posebne pravice, uvedene z zakonom iz leta 1980, in sicer da upniki (zlasti nezavarovani upniki) na podlagi občega prava v zvezi s sodno likvidacijo načeloma ne dobijo poplačanega celotnega dolga in da najpogosteje dolgov podjetja v likvidaciji ne plača tretja oseba.
The French authorities also further deny that any possibility of compensation of creditors that may be opened up if the State is held liable can be considered equivalent to a guarantee.
Francoski organi poleg tega izpodbijajo, da je mogoče možnosti povrnitve škode, ki so upnikom na voljo z uveljavljanjem odgovornosti, izenačiti z obliko poroštva.
The Commission takes the view, however, that, in the procedure for the recovery of the debts of the public bodies referred to in the Law of 16 July 1980, the liability of the State, with or without fault, is indeed equivalent to a guarantee mechanism for purposes of European Union law, because it ensures creditors that if IFP should default the State will be required to meet their claims.
Komisija povsem nasprotno meni, da je uveljavljanje odgovornosti države (krivdne ali nekrivdne) pri izvajanju postopka izterjave dolgov javnih oseb iz zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 enako mehanizmu poroštva za namene prava Evropske unije, ker upnikom zagotavlja poplačilo njihove terjatve, s tem ko državo obvezuje za poplačilo te terjatve v primeru neizpolnitve obveznosti osebe javnega prava IFP.
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) in Société de gestion du port de Campoloro et Société fermière de Campoloro v France [93] (the Campoloro case) also points to the existence of an automatic guarantee.
Poleg tega je s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ESČP) v zadevi Société de gestion du port de Campoloro in Société fermière de Campoloro proti Franciji [93] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zadeva Campoloro) priznano samodejno poroštvo.
Finally, as shown in recitals 181 to 184 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that the French authorities’ proposal for a clarification of the Decree implementing the Law of 1980 is not sufficient to prevent an increase in resources from being achieved by an injection of public funds.
Komisija nazadnje po zgledu dokaza v uvodnih izjavah od 181 do 184 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katerega se smiselno sklicuje, meni, da predlog francoskih organov za pojasnilo odloka o izvajanju zakona iz leta 1980 ni zadosten za izključitev možnosti, da se sredstva zagotovijo z vložkom javnih sredstev.
The French authorities propose to amend the Decree implementing the Law of 1980 as follows (the amendment is shown in italic): ‘If the notice given has had no effect by the time these deadlines expire, the representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision shall enter the expenditure in the budget of the defaulting authority or publicly owned establishment. The representative of the State or the authority responsible for supervision shall, as appropriate, release the necessary resources from the budget of the defaulting authority or establishment either by reducing the appropriations allocated to other expenditures and still available or by increasing resources’.
Francoski organi so predlagali naslednjo spremembo odloka o izvajanju zakona iz leta 1980: „Če ob izteku teh rokov opomin ostaja brez učinka, predstavnik države ali organ, pristojen za nadzor, odhodek vpiše v proračun skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava, ki ni izpolnila obveznosti. Po potrebi zagotovi potrebna sredstva iz proračuna skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava bodisi z zmanjšanjem sredstev, ki so namenjena za druge odhodke in so še na voljo, bodisi s povečanjem sredstev“ (spremembe so podčrtane).
However, as the Commission pointed out in recital 67 of the opening decision, neither in its present wording nor in the amended wording proposed by the French authorities does the legislation prevent an increase in resources from being made possible by a subsidy or injection of public funds.
Komisija vseeno poudarja, kakor je storila že v uvodni izjavi 67 odločitve o začetku postopka, da akti niti v sedanji različici niti v različici, spremenjeni na podlagi predloga francoskih organov, ne izključujejo, da se sredstva lahko zagotovijo s povečanjem sredstev, ki je bilo predhodno omogočeno s subvencijo ali vložkom javnih sredstev.
For the reasons already set out in recitals 204 to 211 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission also considers that the EHCR’s judgment in the Campoloro case demonstrates that, in this instance, the liability accepted by the French State operates as an implied guarantee of the public authorities’ liabilities and is not linked to any condition relating to injury.
Komisija zaradi razlogov, že predstavljenih v uvodnih izjavah od 204 do 211 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje, še meni, da odločitev ESČP v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Campoloro dokazuje, da uveljavljanje odgovornosti francoske države v tem primeru deluje kot implicitno poroštvo za dolgove javnih organov in ni povezano z nobenim pogojem škode.
The Commission notes more specifically that the ECHR rejected the arguments of the French authorities which attempted to base their case [94] on the absence of, firstly, an operative event imputable to the State and, secondly, a guarantee on the part of the State to public authorities possessing legal personality, and accepted the contrary arguments of the applicants [95].
Komisija zlasti ugotavlja, da je ESČP zavrnilo trditve francoskih organov, ki so te [94] poskušali utemeljiti, po eni strani, z neobstojem odločilnega dejstva, ki bi ga bilo mogoče pripisati državi, in, po drugi strani, z neobstojem državnega poroštva za javne organe, ki so pravne osebe, in sprejelo nasprotne trditve tožečih strank [95].
In the light of the above, the ECHR charged the whole of the debtor communes’ debt to the State [97].
Na podlagi zgornjega je ESČP državi naložilo plačilo celotnega dolga občin dolžnic [97].
The Commission considers that this judgment has three important implications:
Po mnenju Komisije iz te sodne prakse izhajajo trije pomembni elementi:
Subject to the applicants obtaining a court judgment recognising their claim, the liability of the State functions as an implied guarantee [98], in so far as the French State is required to pay the whole of the debt of the public body [99] and no distinction is made between debt conceivably due to the public authority’s insolvency and possible defaults imputable to the State (the ECHR did not at any time seek to identify an act or omission imputable to the State, and looked no further than the debtor’s insolvent status).
ob upoštevanju, da tožeči stranki dobita sodno odločbo, s katero se njuna terjatev prizna, odgovornost države deluje kot implicitno poroštvo [98], ker je francoska država po eni strani prisiljena plačati celotni dolg javne osebe [99], po drugi strani pa ni bila opravljena nikakršna razdelitev med tem, kar bi lahko spadalo v položaj plačilne nesposobnosti javne skupnosti dolžnice, in morebitnimi neizpolnitvami obveznosti, za katere je odgovorna država (ker si ESČP nikjer ne prizadeva najti odločilnega dejstva, za katerega bi bila odgovorna država, ampak se nanaša samo na položaj plačilne nesposobnosti dolžnika),
This liability covers the debts of public authorities possessed, however, of legal personality.
ta odgovornost obsega dolgove javnih organov, ki pa so vendar pravne osebe.
The existence of legal personality and of assets specific to the authority was expressly invoked by the French Government in its opposition to holding the French State liable, but this argument was rejected by the ECHR.
Francoska vlada se je izrecno sklicevala na obstoj pravne osebe in lastnega premoženja, ko je nasprotovala uveljavljanju odgovornosti francoske države, toda ESČP je to trditev zavrnilo,
The scope of the State guarantee extends to include public authorities dependent on the State.
področje uporabe državnega poroštva zajema javne organe, ki so odvisni od države.
The guarantee is therefore intrinsically connected with the debtor’s public-law legal form.
To poroštvo je torej tesno povezano z javnopravnim statusom dolžnika.
Moreover, the Commission notes that the solution adopted by the ECHR in the Campoloro case is not an isolated one and stems from a well established line of case-law, notably in the judgments in the cases Artico v Italy [100] and Bourdov v Russia [101].
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da rešitev, ki jo je ESČP uporabilo v zadevi Campoloro, ni osamljena, ampak izhaja iz zelo uveljavljene usmeritve sodne prakse, uporabljene zlasti v sodbah v zadevi Artico proti Italiji [100] in zadevi Bourdov proti Rusiji [101].
For the reasons already set out in recitals 212 to 220 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission considers that the observations made by the French authorities are not of a nature to invalidate this reasoning.
Komisija zaradi razlogov, že predstavljenih v uvodnih izjavah od 212 do 220 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje, meni, da pripombe francoskih organov ne morejo ovreči tega dokaza.
As it argued in the postal case, in recital 222 of decision C 56/2007, and in the opening decision, the Commission concludes that, as French law currently stands, a creditor of IFP who has not obtained the payment of his claim by recourse to the procedures introduced by the Law of 16 July 1980 may receive all of the sums corresponding to the unmet claim by invoking the State’s last-resort liability. This is the opposite of what happens within the framework of winding-up proceedings under ordinary law, where the reimbursement of the creditor is limited by the value of the available assets.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega v skladu s svojo ugotovitvijo o poštni zadevi v uvodni izjavi 222 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007 in odločitvi o začetku postopka iz predhodno navedenega sklepa, da lahko v sedanjem stanju francoskega prava upnik osebe javnega prava IFP, ki ni dosegel poravnave svoje terjatve s postopki iz zakona z dne 16. julija 1980, prejme vse zneske, ki ustrezajo neplačani terjatvi, tako da se v skrajnem primeru sklicuje na odgovornost države, kar je v nasprotju s tem, kar se zgodi v likvidacijskem postopku občega prava, v katerem je poplačilo upnika omejeno z vrednostjo razpoložljivih sredstev.
In consequence of the above, the Commission considers that the State’s liability is treated as a guarantee, it is not the subject of any limitation by French legislation, and is intrinsically linked to the public-law legal form possessed by the debtor body.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega meni, da se odgovornost države obravnava kot poroštvo, da zanjo s francoskim pravim aktom ni določena nobena omejitev in da je tesno povezana z javnopravnim statusom organa dolžnika.
Furthermore, for the reasons already set out in recitals 223 to 226 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, the Commission takes note of the French proposal to include a clause in all IFP contracts involving claims so as to limit any risk of triggering the State’s strict liability based on IFP’s insolvency alone.
Komisija je poleg tega zaradi razlogov, že predstavljenih v uvodnih izjavah od 223 do 226 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se smiselno sklicuje, seznanjena s francoskim predlogom za vstavitev klavzule v vse pogodbe osebe javnega prava IFP, ki vključujejo terjatev, tako da se omeji tveganje uveljavljanja nekrivdne odgovornosti države samo na podlagi plačilne nesposobnosti osebe javnega prava IFP.
It considers that such a legal framework would remain fragile and that there are doubts about its durability, because the plea of accepted risk is a rule established by case-law, which could always evolve.
Vendar meni, da bi tak pravni okvir ostal krhek in bi obstajali pomisleki o njegovi trajnosti, ker je izjema sprejetega tveganja pravilo, določeno s sodno prakso, ki se lahko vedno spremeni.
The Commission considers, however, that such a proposal is inherently inadequate as it does not cover all eventualities: it would not mean that the State guarantee could never come into play for any type of liability (in particular non-contractual liability and criminal liability).
Vendar Komisija meni, da tak predlog sam po sebi ne zadostuje, ker ne zajema vseh primerov: ne omogoča izključitve možnosti, da bi državno poroštvo veljalo za vse vrste odgovornosti (zlasti nepogodbene in kazenske odgovornosti).
Moreover, it is impossible to make it contractually clear to its debtors that the State will not be liable for IFP’s debts, as IFP may find itself indebted towards a third party through a variety of judicial mechanisms, in particular if it were to absorb another entity holding claims by initially unidentifiable third parties [102].
Poleg tega ni mogoče pogodbeno določiti, da država ne bo odgovorna za dolgove osebe javnega prava IFP do njenih dolžnikov, ker oseba javnega prava IFP lahko na primer postane dolžnik do tretje osebe z različnimi pravnimi mehanizmi, zlasti z združitvijo z drugim subjektom [102], ki bi imel terjatve tretjih oseb, ki jih sprva ni mogoče opredeliti.
Ultimately, as regards the individual claims held by third parties, the Commission considers that only a text of general scope applicable in any situation and to any type of third party, indicating that the State is not the guarantor of IFP, would be enough to eliminate the unlimited guarantee.
Komisija nazadnje v zvezi s terjatvami tretjih oseb meni, da bi se lahko samo s splošnim aktom, s katerim se navede, da država ni porok osebe javnega prava IFP, in ki se uporablja v vseh položajih in za vse vrste tretjih oseb, „odpravilo“ neomejeno poroštvo.
In addition, even if the French proposals were to make it quite impossible for a creditor of IFP to hold the State liable for paying its claim (something which in the Commission’s view has not been shown), such proposals would not enable it to be clearly established what would happen in the event of IFP becoming insolvent [103].
Nazadnje, tudi ob predpostavki, da bi francoski predlogi upniku osebe javnega prava IFP popolnoma onemogočili uveljavljanje odgovornosti države, da bi dobil poplačilo svoje terjatve (domneva, ki po mnenju Komisije ni preverjena), na podlagi teh predlogov ni mogoče jasno ugotoviti, kaj bi se zgodilo v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti [103] osebe javnega prava IFP.
Fourthly, even if he were to fail obtain satisfaction, the creditor of a publicly owned establishment could invoke legal effects arising from a legitimate mistake he made at the time the claim arose, when he believed that the claim would always be honoured.
Četrtič, tudi če upnik osebe javnega prava ne bi dobil zadoščenja, lahko uveljavlja pravne učinke upravičene napake, ki jo je storil ob nastanku terjatve glede tega, da naj bi bila vedno poplačana.