natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This confirms that the agency took the view that, before 2006, there was such a guarantee that could be activated.
To potrjuje, da je po mnenju te agencije pred tem datumom tako poroštvo obstajalo in se je lahko aktiviralo.
Fitch attaches decisive importance to the Commission letter dated 26 February 2006 which informed France of its preliminary findings concerning the existence of an unlimited state guarantee.
Agencija Fitch pripisuje odločilni pomen dopisu Komisije z dne 26. februarja 2006, s katerim je Francijo obvestila o svojih predhodnih ugotovitvah glede obstoja neomejenega državnega poroštva.
However, Fitch does not take account of the fact that the Commission, in that letter, classified the guarantee as existing aid and that the letter dated 26 February 2006 contained only a preliminary, non-binding assessment as to the existence of the guarantee, which did not prevent it being called upon if necessary.
Vendar pa agencija Fitch ne upošteva, da je Komisija s tem dopisom poroštvo opredelila kot veljavno pomoč in da dopis z dne 26. februarja 2006 vsebuje samo predhodno in nezavezujočo oceno glede obstoja tega poroštva, ki nikakor ne preprečuje njegovega izvajanja, če je to potrebno.
In conclusion, even though Fitch mistakenly believes that the Commission letter invalidates the guarantee, Fitch nonetheless continues to recognise the ‘exceptional level of support that La Poste can receive from its principal, and the high probability that it would be provided if necessary’.
Skratka, tudi če agencija Fitch napačno meni, da je poroštvo zaradi dopisa Komisije neveljavno, vseeno še naprej priznava „izredno raven podpore, ki jo podjetje LP lahko prejme od svojega pooblastitelja, in močno verjetnost, da mu bo v primeru potrebe zagotovljena“.
An examination of the analyses and methodologies of Standard & Poor’s and Fitch demonstrates that the guarantee, as a determining factor of state support, influences the financial rating.
Iz preučitve analiz in metodologij bonitetnih agencij Standard and Poor’s in Fitch je razvidno, da poroštvo kot odločilni element državne podpore vpliva na bonitetno oceno.
Standard & Poor’s (S & P) Methodology
Standard and Poor’s (S & P) Metodologija
In the above-mentioned study on the influence of government support on the ratings of postal operators, S & P explains that it decides on the methodology to be used to set the rating of a postal operator on the basis of the estimated degree of government support for the operator.
S & P v zgoraj navedeni študiji o vplivu državne podpore na bonitetne ocene poštnih operaterjev pojasnjuje, da metodologijo, ki jo bo uporabila za določitev ocene poštnega operaterja, določi na podlagi ocenjene stopnje državne podpore za tega operaterja.
S & P distinguishes postal operators that receive government support (the French and Italian Post Offices, for example) from those that do not receive any (Deutsche Post and TNT, for example).
S & P razlikuje med poštnimi operaterji, ki so upravičeni do državne podpore (na primer francoska in italijanska pošta), in poštnimi operaterji, ki do nje niso upravičeni (na primer Deutsche Post in TNT).
Within the category of government-supported postal companies, S & P identifies three broad categories:
V kategoriji poštnih operaterjev, ki so upravičeni do državne podpore, S & P določa tri podkategorije:
entities whose rating is the same as the state owner: this category includes entities that are highly integrated into the mechanisms of government and extremely unlikely to be privatised; no postal company falls into this category,
subjekti, katerih bonitetna ocena, je enaka oceni države delničarke: v to kategorijo spadajo subjekti, ki so tesno vključeni v vladne mehanizme in ki verjetno ne bodo privatizirani; sem ni uvrščen noben poštni operater,
entities whose rating is notched down from that of the state owner (by up to two categories or 6 notches): entities that, while autonomous in their operations, are largely public-policy based institutions still in receipt of substantial direct or indirect financial backing from the state, even though there is a high level of uncertainty surrounding the level and timeliness of the state support; La Poste was classified in this category at least until the study was published,entities whose rating is based on the entities’ own merits, with notching up depending on the level of state support.
subjekti, katerih ocena se odšteje od ocene države delničarke z znižanjem (za do dve kategoriji, to je 6 notches): to so subjekti, ki so sicer pri svojih dejavnostih samostojni, a so institucije, ki temeljijo na javni politiki in so upravičene do precejšnje neposredne ali posredne finančne podpore, čeprav obstaja precej negotovosti glede višine in hitrosti navedene podpore; podjetje La Poste je bilo uvrščeno v to kategorijo vsaj do trenutka objave študije,subjekti, katerih bonitetna ocena temelji na subjektovih lastnih odlikah, zviša pa se na podlagi državne podpore.
Classification in the third category assumes that the postal operator receives state support but in the form of policy, regulation or the potential for emergency support rather than regular direct financial subsidy.
Za uvrstitev v to tretjo kategorijo se predpostavlja, da je poštni operater upravičen do državne podpore, vendar bolj v obliki politik, ureditve ali morebitne intervencije v nujnem primeru kot v obliki neposredne redne finančne subvencije.
In the same study, S & P explains that it assesses state support to the postal operator (and hence the methodology to use to determine the rating of the operator and in fine the rating) on the basis of the four following factors: the operator’s status, the likelihood of privatisation, governance and the regulatory regime.
S & P v isti študiji pojasnjuje, da podporo države za poštnega operaterja (torej metodologijo, ki jo je treba uporabiti za določitev ocene navedenega operaterja in torej in fine bonitetno oceno) ocenjuje na podlagi štirih dejavnikov, navedenih v naslednjem vrstnem redu: statusa operaterja, verjetnosti njegove privatizacije, njegovega upravljanja in sistema regulacije.
With regard to the operator’s status, S & P correctly cites the case of the French Post Office by highlighting the ‘extremely strong’ state support and by adding immediately thereafter that La Poste enjoys the ultimate statutory guarantee of the Republic of France.
Kar zadeva status, S & P navaja prav primer francoske pošte in poudarja „izjemno močno“ podporo države, takoj zatem pa dodaja, da je podjetje La Poste upravičeno do skrajnega zakonskega poroštva Francoske republike.
S & P therefore illustrates the influence of the ‘extremely strong’ support from the French State for La Poste by the existence of an ultimate statutory guarantee.
S & P torej moč „izjemno močne“ podpore francoske države za podjetje La Poste ponazarja z obstojem skrajnega zakonskega poroštva.
S & P concludes from this extremely strong support that La Poste’s rating may be determined on the basis of that of the French Republic, notching down by up to three categories or six notches.
Na podlagi te izjemno močne podpore sklepa, da je mogoče oceno podjetja La Poste določiti na podlagi ocene Francoske republike, pri čemer se lahko zniža za največ tri kategorije, to je s 6 notches.
Although the rating given to La Poste by S & P was gradually downgraded, it was never more than 4 notches below the rating of the French Republic (AAA).
Bonitetna ocena, ki jo je agencija S & P dodelila podjetju La Poste, namreč kljub postopnemu nižanju ni bila nikoli za več kot s 4 notches nižja od bonitetne ocene Francoske republike (ocenjene AAA).
The Commission infers from the above that the state guarantee enjoyed by La Poste is a fundamental factor in S & P’s analysis that La Poste receives ‘extremely strong’ state support.
Komisija iz zgoraj navedenega sklepa, da je državno poroštvo, ki ga ima podjetje La Poste, temeljni element pri presoji agencije S & P, glede na katero je podjetje La Poste upravičeno do „izjemno močne“ državne podpore.
It is because of the ‘extremely strong’ state support that S & P applies a top-down methodology to La Poste.
Zaradi te „izjemno močne“ podpore agencija S & P za podjetje La Poste uporablja metodologijo top-down.
If S & P applied a bottom-up methodology or, worse still, did not increase La Poste’s rating because of its state support, as is the case for Deutsche Post and TNT, La Poste’s rating would be lower than it is currently.
Če bi uporabila metodologijo bottom-up ali, še slabše, za podjetje La Poste sploh ne bi odobrila zvišanja ocene zaradi državne podpore, kakor velja za Deutsche Post in TNT, bi imelo podjetje La Poste nižjo bonitetno oceno, kot jo ima zdaj.
In the study on the influence of government support on the rating of postal operators, S & P takes the view that the commercial and financial performance of Deutsche Post and TNT are better than that of La Poste.
S & P namreč v študiji o vplivu državne podpore na bonitetno oceno poštnih operaterjev meni, da sta Deutsche Post in TNT poslovno in finančno uspešnejša kot podjetje La Poste.
Yet the ratings of Deutsche Post and TNT, cited in the S & P study, are lower than La Poste’s rating.
Kljub temu pa sta bonitetni oceni Deutsche Post in TNT, navedeni v študiji S & P, nižji od ocene podjetja La Poste.
If La Poste were assessed on its own merits, it would therefore have a rating below its current rating, which is thanks to the ‘extremely strong’ state support that is illustrated by S & P by the existence of the ultimate statutory guarantee.
Če bi podjetje La Poste ocenili na podlagi njegovih odlik, bi torej imelo nižjo bonitetno oceno, kot jo ima zdaj zaradi „izjemno močne“ državne podpore, kar S & P ponazarja z obstojem skrajnega zakonskega poroštva.
Latest ratings
Zadnje bonitetne ocene
In its assessment of La Poste dated 3 April 2007, S & P refers to the change in capital structure involving a change in status and a loss of the guarantee as a factor taken into account in its rating.
S & P v oceni podjetja La Poste z dne 3. aprila 2007 spremembo kapitalske strukture, ki vključuje spremembo statusa in izgubo poroštva, navaja kot element, ki ga je upoštevala pri oceni.
S & P points out that it already takes into account the probable change in these three factors (capital structure, legal status and guarantee) in the long term.
S & P pojasnjuje, da že upošteva verjetno dolgoročno spremembo teh treh elementov (kapitalske strukture, pravnega statusa in poroštva).
Until the changes occurs, S & P continues to apply a top-down methodology.
V pričakovanju te spremembe še naprej uporablja metodologijo top-down.
The previous paragraph demonstrated that, thanks to this methodology, La Poste can and does obtain a better rating than it would have obtained on its own merits.
V prejšnjem odstavku pa je bilo dokazano, da podjetje La Poste zaradi te metodologije lahko dobi in je dobilo boljšo oceno, kot bi jo sicer na podlagi svojih odlik.
However, the Commission accepts that in the same analysis dated 3 April 2007, S & P stresses that La Poste’s rating was not affected by the Commission recommendation because S & P considers that a change in La Poste’s status would not necessarily reflect a decrease in the strong state support that underpins La Poste’s rating and that has been reaffirmed by recent government decisions.
Komisija vseeno priznava, da S & P v isti analizi z dne 3. aprila 2007 poudarja, da priporočilo Komisije ni vplivalo na oceno podjetja La Poste, ker po mnenju agencije S & P sprememba statusa podjetja La Poste ne bi nujno izražala zmanjšanja državne podpore, na kateri temelji ocena podjetja La Poste, in da je bilo to dokazano z nedavnimi vladnimi odločitvami.
The Commission would point out that there are factors other than the guarantee that are taken into account by S & P when it comes to the conclusion that La Poste receives strong state support justifying a top-down methodology.
Komisija poudarja, da obstajajo drugi elementi, kot je poroštvo, ki jih S & P upošteva pri ugotovitvi, da je podjetje La Poste upravičeno do močne državne podpore, ki upravičuje uporabo metodologije top-down.
These factors may offset the pressures that exist on La Poste’s status and which lead S & P to anticipate a change in the status and the removal of the guarantee in the long term.
S temi elementi se lahko izravnajo pritiski v zvezi s statusom podjetja La Poste, na podlagi katerih S & P napoveduje dolgoročno spremembo statusa in izginitev poroštva.
It remains true that S & P regards the guarantee as an essential component of state support, which influences the rating.
Vseeno pa ostaja dejstvo, da S & P poroštvo šteje za bistveni element državne podpore, kar vpliva na bonitetno oceno.
In its assessment dated 21 January 2009 that followed the announcement on 18 December 2008 by the President of the French Republic of a draft law converting La Poste into a public limited company, S & P lowered La Poste’s rating to A+ with a negative outlook.
S & P je v oceni z dne 21. januarja 2009, ki je sledila napovedi predsednika Francoske republike z dne 18. decembra 2008 o osnutku zakona, s katerim naj bi bilo podjetje La Poste preoblikovano v delniško družbo, znižala oceno podjetja La Poste na A + z negativnimi obeti.
The negative outlook was justified by the likely change in the company’s legal status and ownership the next two years.
Negativne obete je utemeljila z verjetno spremembo pravnega statusa in lastniške strukture podjetja v prihodnjih dveh letih.
According to S & P, these initiatives could limit the government’s ability to provide the postal operator with exceptional support where necessary.
Po mnenju S & P bi lahko ti pobudi omejili možnosti države, da operaterju v primeru potrebe zagotovi izredno podporo.
Once again, the company’s legal status, to which the guarantee is linked, is cited as an indication of the strong state support for La Poste.
Status, s katerim je poroštvo povezano, je znova naveden kot znak močne podpore države podjetju La Poste.
Fitch based the AAA rating, awarded to La Poste until 17 April 2008, on the fact that La Poste is a public group that enjoys a guarantee from the French Government.
Agencija Fitch je oceno AAA, ki je bila podjetju La Poste dodeljena do 17. aprila 2008, utemeljila z dejstvom, da je podjetje La Poste javna skupina, ki je upravičena do poroštva francoske države.
On 4 October 2006, the day the Commission recommended that France terminate the unlimited guarantee enjoyed by La Poste as a legal entity governed by public law, the rating agency Fitch lowered its rating (from AAA stable to AAA negative) on the grounds that ‘the European Commission’s recommendation’ had to be interpreted as ‘the first tangible sign of pressure on La Poste’s legal status and, therefore, on its rating’.
Bonitetna agencija Fitch je 4. oktobra 2006, na dan, ko je Komisija Franciji priporočila ukinitev neomejenega poroštva, ki ga ima podjetje La Poste kot pravna oseba javnega prava, znižala oceno (z AAA stabilna na AAA negativna) z obrazložitvijo, da je treba „priporočilo Evropske komisije razlagati kot prvi otipljivi znak pritiska na pravni status podjetja La Poste in torej njegove ocene“.
The rating downgrade, and the justification given by Fitch, illustrates the link between the legal status and the guarantee enjoyed by La Poste on the one hand and the rating by Fitch on the other.
To znižanje ocene in utemeljitev agencije Fitch ponazarjata povezavo med statusom in poroštvom, ki ga ima podjetje La Poste, na eni strani, in oceno, ki jo je dala agencija Fitch, na drugi strani.
On 17 April 2008, Fitch downgraded the rating to AA.
Agencija Fitch je 17. aprila 2008 oceno znižala na AA.
Fitch nonetheless continues to apply a top-down methodology, which it justifies by the fact that La Poste belongs to the public sector.
Vendar pa še naprej uporablja metodologijo top-down, ki jo utemeljuje z dejstvom, da podjetje La Poste spada v javni sektor.
Fitch now also uses the top-down methodology: La Poste’s rating is no longer the same as the sovereign rating but, having regard to the strong state support for La Poste, whose statutory obligation to take on La Poste’s commitments is an essential component, La Poste’s rating is derived from the sovereign rating and not only on the basis of the undertaking’s economic situation.
Fitch tudi zdaj uporablja metodologijo top-down: ocena podjetja La Poste ni več enaka oceni njegovega gospodarja, toda ob upoštevanju močne državne podpore za podjetje La Poste, pri čemer je zakonska obveznost prevzema obveznosti podjetja La Poste bistveni element, se ocena podjetja La Poste odšteje od ocene gospodarja in ne temelji samo na gospodarskem položaju podjetja.
This approach, and the rating, were confirmed by the assessment dated 4 September 2009.
Ta pristop in ocena sta bila potrjena z oceno z dne 4. septembra 2009.
The Commission concludes from the above analyses that the ultimate statutory guarantee in favour of La Poste was regarded by Fitch, at least until 2008, and by S & P as an essential component of the state support for La Poste.
Komisija na podlagi predhodnih analiz ugotavlja, da bonitetna agencija Fitch – vsaj do leta 2008 – in agencija S & P skrajno zakonsko poroštvo države v korist podjetja La Poste štejeta za bistveni element podpore, ki jo država zagotavlja podjetju La Poste.
It is because of that support that the rating agencies adopted a top-down methodology, which resulted in La Poste having a higher rating than it would have obtained on its own merits.
Zaradi te podpore sta agenciji sprejeli metodologijo top-down, na podlagi katere je podjetje La Poste dobilo višjo bonitetno oceno, kot bi jo samo na podlagi svojih odlik.
The Commission therefore regards the guarantee as constituting or having constituted an essential factor in La Poste’s rating, even though it is not the only factor.
Komisija torej meni, da poroštvo pomeni ali je pomenilo bistveni element bonitetne ocene podjetja La Poste, tudi če to ni edini element.
Given that Fitch and S & P are two leading rating agencies and it is established that the market takes their ratings into account for the purpose of assessing the credit to be granted to a given undertaking, a rating by these agencies (either or both) higher than would have been the case without the guarantee is likely to produce an advantage for La Poste that it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Ker sta Fitch in S & P pomembni bonitetni agenciji in ker je dokazano, da trg upošteva njune bonitetne ocene za oceno posojila, ki bo odobreno nekemu podjetju, lahko boljša ocena teh agencij (ene ali druge ali obeh), kot bi bila dana brez poroštva, ustvari prednost za podjetje La Poste, ki je ne bi pridobilo pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji.
Refutation of the arguments put forward by the French authorities
Zavrnitev trditev francoskih organov
The essential nature of the existence of an implied guarantee in the rating of entities governed by the Law of 1980 is not contradicted by the finding that their rating may be lower than the sovereign rating
Ugotovitev, da je bonitetna ocena subjektov, za katere veljajo določbe zakona iz leta 1980, lahko nižja od ocene gospodarja, ne more ovreči bistvene narave obstoja implicitnega poroštva v njihovi bonitetni oceni
The French authorities dispute the economic impact of the Law of 16 July 1980 by arguing that if that Law were interpreted by the rating agencies as establishing, for the benefit of the creditors of the legal persons concerned, a mechanism comparable to a state guarantee, it would be difficult to understand how regional and local authorities could be rated BBB+ or AA–.
Francoski organi izpodbijajo gospodarski vpliv določb zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 in trdijo, da če bi določbe zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 razlagali tako, da v korist upnikov zadevnih pravnih oseb vzpostavljajo mehanizem, ki ga je mogoče izenačiti z državnim poroštvom, bi težko razumeli, kako so lahko ozemeljske skupnosti ocenjene z BBB + ali AA–.
Moreover, the French authorities find it difficult to understand how La Poste could have a rating below the sovereign rating if it enjoyed a state guarantee.
Poleg tega francoski organi ne razumejo, kako bi lahko podjetje La Poste, če bi imelo državno poroštvo, imelo nižjo oceno od ocene države.
The fact that La Poste’s rating is lower than the sovereign rating can therefore be explained by the fact that S & P expects state support to fall in the years ahead, which clearly demonstrates that state support, of which the guarantee is an essential component, allows La Poste to obtain a better rating than would otherwise be the case.
Nižjo oceno podjetja La Poste v primerjavi z državo je torej mogoče pojasniti z dejstvom, da S & P pričakuje znižanje državne podpore v prihodnjih letih, kar dejansko kaže, da državna podpora, katere bistveni element je poroštvo, podjetju La Poste omogoča boljšo oceno, kot bi jo sicer dobilo.
S & P adds that in 1991 La Poste became an independent publicly owned entity with établissement public status, which ensures La Poste an ultimate state guarantee on its obligations, but not a timely and express guarantee, as reflected by the rating differentiation between La Poste and the Republic of France.
S & P dodaja, da je podjetje La Poste leta 1991 postalo samostojen javnopravni subjekt s statusom osebe javnega prava, kar mu zagotavlja skrajno poroštvo države za njegove obveznosti, ne pa takojšnjega in eksplicitnega poroštva, kot izhaja iz razlike v oceni med podjetjem La Poste in Francosko republiko.
Therefore, although S & P downgraded La Poste’s rating in relation to the sovereign rating, it certainly takes the view that La Poste enjoys an implied state guarantee by virtue of its status as an établissement public, which has a direct effect on the method used to determine the rating.
Čeprav mu je S & P znižala oceno v primerjavi z oceno države, tako dejansko meni, da je upravičeno do implicitnega državnega poroštva zaradi svojega statusa osebe javnega prava, in to neposredno vpliva na metodo, uporabljeno za določitev ocene.
The above reasons explain why S & P decided to differentiate La Poste’s rating from that of the State.
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov je jasno, zakaj se je agencija S & P odločila razlikovati oceno podjetja La Poste od ocene države.
However, the Commission is not obliged to take a view on the analysis of the reasons that explain the difference between the sovereign rating and the rating of regional and local authorities because that question is not the subject of this investigation.
Vendar pa Komisiji ni treba sprejeti stališča do analize razlogov, s katerimi je pojasnjena razlika v oceni med državo in ozemeljskimi skupnostmi, ker to vprašanje ni predmet te preiskave.
The French authorities draw incorrect conclusions because their argument is not based on the ceteris paribus assumption
Francoski organi so izpeljali napačne ugotovitve, ker njihovo sklepanje ne temelji na predpostavki, „da vse drugo sicer ostane nespremenjeno“
According to the French authorities, the analyses by the rating agencies are based not on an objective legal analysis but on a subjective assessment of what state support would be in the event that La Poste ran into difficulty.
Po mnenju francoskih organov naj analize bonitetnih agencij ne bi temeljile na pravni analizi, ampak naj bi temeljile na subjektivni presoji tega, kar naj bi bila državna podpora v primeru težav podjetja La Poste.
The Commission acknowledges that there are factors other than the guarantee that are taken into account by S & P when coming to the conclusion that La Poste receives strong state support justifying a top-down methodology.
Komisija priznava, da obstajajo drugi elementi, kot je poroštvo, ki jih S & P upošteva ob ugotovitvi, da je podjetje La Poste upravičeno do močne državne podpore, ki upravičuje uporabo metodologije top-down.