natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, in the reports forwarded in accordance with decision C 51/2005, the French authorities have classified the projects carried out in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 into the two abovementioned categories defined in the 1996 R&D Framework, or alternatively into industrial research activities within the meaning of point 2.2(f) of the 2006 R&D&I Framework and technical feasibility studies preparatory to industrial research within the meaning of point 5.2 of that Framework.
Francoski organi so poleg tega v poročilih, predloženih v skladu z zgoraj navedeno odločbo C 51/2005, razvrstili projekte s področij izključnih dejavnosti družb Axens in Prosernat za leta 2007, 2008 in 2009 po obeh zgoraj navedenih kategorijah v smislu okvira R & R iz leta 1996 ali, kot alternativa, na dejavnosti industrijskih raziskav v smislu točke 2.2(f) in pripravljalnih študij tehnične izvedljivosti za dejavnosti industrijskih raziskav v smislu točke 5.2 okvira R & R & I iz leta 2006.
The work consisted in studying new synthesis routes or the improvement of synthesis routes, on a scale far from the industrial level.
Raziskave so vključevale študijo novih načinov sinteze ali njihove izpopolnitve na ravni, ki ni povezana z industrijsko ravnjo.
On the basis of the annual reports submitted by the French authorities, the Commission finds that this approach continued in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Komisija na podlagi letnih poročil francoskih organov ugotavlja, da se je taka logika nadaljevala v letih 2007, 2008 in 2009.
In these reports, the French authorities indicate, for each project, the incentive effect obtained as a result of the aid, notably in terms of scope of the project, its speed and the increase in the total amount allocated to R&D.
Francoski organi so v poročilih za vsak posamezni projekt navedli spodbujevalni učinek pomoči, zlasti v smislu področja uporabe projekta, njegove hitrosti in povečanja skupnega zneska, porabljenega za R & R.
For example, in 2007, in the exclusive field of Axens, the IFP group conducted flagship projects, […] (*) [253]. […] (*).
Leta 2007 je skupina IFP na izključnem področju dejavnosti družbe Axens na primer izvajala zlasti vodilne projekte, […] (*) [253] […] (*).
Article 4 From 1 January 2010 onward, and until the date of expiry of the exclusive agreements between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat referred to in Article 3(1) of decision C 51/2005, the cover provided by the State guarantee for the economic activities referred to in Article 1(4) of this decision constitutes aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with the conditions in Articles 5 and 6 of this decision.
Kritje gospodarskih dejavnosti z državnim poroštvom iz člena 1(4) tega sklepa od 1. januarja 2010 do izteka izključnih sporazumov med osebo javnega prava IFP ter njenima hčerinskima družbama Axens in Prosernat iz člena 3(1) Odločbe C 51/2005 pomeni pomoč, združljivo z notranjim trgom, če se upoštevajo pogoji iz členov 5 in 6 tega sklepa.
Before its conversion into a public limited company in 2010, the EPIC status of La Poste derived from a case-law classification: in a judgment of 18 January 2001, the Court of Cassation (Second Civil Division) found that La Poste was to be deemed equivalent to an EPIC, thereby upholding the findings of a judgment of the Douai Court of Appeal of 22 October 1998.
Status EPIC, ki ga je imelo podjetje La Poste, je pred njegovim preoblikovanjem v delniško družbo leta 2010 izhajal iz opredelitve v sodni praksi, saj je kasacijsko sodišče (drugi civilni senat) v sodbi z dne 18. januarja 2001 uporabilo načelo, da je podjetje La Poste enakovredno EPIC, s to sodbo pa je bilo potrjeno načelo, sprejeto v sodbi pritožbenega sodišča v Douaiju z dne 22. oktobra 1998.
Moreover, in a report submitted to the French Senate in 2003, the Senate Economic Affairs Committee stated that it was common knowledge that, since the reform of 1990, the parent, La Poste, had a legal form similar to that of an EPIC.
Poleg tega je Odbor za gospodarske zadeve v poročilu francoskemu senatu iz leta 2003 poudaril: „Vsakdo ve, da se lahko status matičnega podjetja La Poste od reforme leta 1990 šteje za enakovrednega statusu osebe javnega prava industrijske in komercialne narave.“
In France, in addition to the public authorities proper, such as the State and the local authorities, there are two main categories of legal entities governed by public law, namely publicly owned establishments and public interest groups, introduced by the Law of 15 July 1982.
V Franciji obstajata poleg organov javne uprave, kot so država in lokalne skupnosti, dve glavni kategoriji pravnih oseb javnega prava: osebe javnega prava in skupine javnega interesa, ki so bile ustanovljene z zakonom z dne 15. julija 1982.
Within publicly owned establishments, a distinction of principle can be drawn between publicly owned administrative establishments (EPAs), which perform traditional administrative tasks, and publicly owned industrial and commercial establishments (EPICs), which perform economic activities.
V okviru „oseb javnega prava“ je mogoče načelno razlikovati med osebami javnega prava upravne narave (établissements publics à caractère administratif – EPA), ki zagotavljajo tradicionalne naloge uprave, ter osebami javnega prava industrijske in komercialne narave (établissements publics à caractère industriel et commercial – EPIC), ki opravljajo dejavnosti gospodarske narave.
Where necessary, the procedure could result in the supervising authority stepping into the shoes of the executive of IFP to take the decisions needed for the payment of its debts using IFP’s resources.
Rezultat tega postopka bi lahko bil, da bi nadzorni organ nadomestil izvršilni organ osebe javnega prava IFP pri sprejemanju odločitev, potrebnih za plačilo njenih dolgov iz sredstev osebe javnega prava.
When the French authorities made their proposal, the implementing decree was Decree No 81-501 of 12 May 1981 implementing the Law of 16 July 1980 on penalties imposed in administrative cases and compliance with judgments by legal persons governed by public law and on the Reports and Studies Section of the Council of State.
Ko so francoski organi pripravili predlog, je bil odlok o izvajanju odlok št. 81-501 z dne 12. maja 1981, ki je bil sprejet za izvajanje zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 o denarnih kaznih, izrečenih na upravnem področju, in o izvrševanju sodb s strani pravnih oseb javnega prava ter se je nanašal na „oddelek za poročila in študije“ Conseil d'État.
The fact that the existence of this second category is outside the scope of Article 34 of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act explains why the rule established by the case-law on guarantees given by concessionaires has continued beyond 2001.
Dejstvo, da obstoj te druge kategorije ne spada na področje člena 34 LOLF, pojasnjuje, da se sodna praksa o poroštvu zaradi koncesionarjev nadaljuje še po letu 2001.
(Commission translation) ‘That is why no arrangements to soften the blow have been made under national law to confront a situation of default on the part of the commune The State cannot offload its obligation to implement judicial decisions by invoking the absence of funds or the autonomy of regional or local authorities – an autonomy that it has not been able to guarantee to date, since the commune is in no position to pay its debts. The applicants therefore denounce the State’s incapacity to adopt positive measures that would have enabled the commune to contribute in accordance with its obligation … The applicants note that, in its judgment of 18 November 2005, the Council of State held that the legislature intended to give the representative of the State, in the event of a local or regional authority’s not being able to implement a judicial decision, the power to take the place of that authority’s decision-making bodies in order to release or create the resources enabling the judicial decision concerned to be fully implemented. It is on the basis of these omissions on the part of the French State that the applicants demand both acknowledgement of Article 6-1’s having been breached and the resulting compensation – an initiative that no more contradicts the concept of legal personality than it does the concepts of independence and of a distinct set of assets’.
„Tako ni v notranjem pravu določeno nobeno zasilno sredstvo za spoprijem s položajem ustavitve plačil občine“; „država se ne more znebiti svoje obveznosti izvršitve sodnih odločb s sklicevanjem na neobstoj sredstev ali samostojnost lokalnih skupnosti, ki je do tega dne ni mogla zagotoviti, saj občina ni sposobna plačati svojih dolgov. Tožeči stranki zato kritizirata nezmožnost države, da sprejme pozitivne ukrepe, na podlagi katerih bi občina lahko izvršila prispevno obveznost“; „tožeči stranki ugotavljata, da je Conseil d'État v sodbi z dne 18. novembra 2005 razsodil, da je zakonodajalec nameraval predstavnika države pooblastiti, naj nadomesti organe ozemeljske skupnosti, če ta ne bi zagotovila izvršitve sodne odločbe, da bi zagotovil ali ustvaril sredstva, ki bi omogočala izvršitev te sodne odločbe v celoti. Tožeči stranki na podlagi teh neizpolnitev obveznosti francoske države predlagata, naj se ugotovi kršitev člena 6(1) in posledično določi nadomestilo, ker to ne vključuje nobenega protislovja s samim pojmom pravne osebe in tudi ne s pojmoma neodvisnosti in ločenega premoženja.“
Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction, Commissaire de la République du Loiret v TGI d’Orléans, 2 July 1984, Recueil, p. 449; AJDA 1984.562, concl. Lateboulle.
Sodišče za spore, 2. julij 1984, Commissaire de la République du Loiret proti TGI d'Orléans, Recueil, str. 449; AJDA 1984.562, predlogi: Lateboulle.
Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction, Préfet de la Loire v Tribunal de commerce de Saint-Étienne, 23 January 1989, Recueil, p. 291; D. 1989.367, concl. Ms F. Flipo; D. 1898.370, note P. Amselek and F. Derrida.
Sodišče za spore, 23. januar 1989, Préfet de la Loire proti Tribunal de commerce de Saint-Étienne, Recueil, str. 291; D. 1989.367, predlogi: F. Flipo; D. 1898.370, obvestilo: P. Amselek in F. Derrida.
Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction, Comité d’expansion de la Dordogne v Département de la Dordogne, 15 November 1999, Rec., p. 479; AJDA 1999.992, chron. Ms P. Fombeur and M. Guyomar.
Sodišče za spore, 15. november 1999, Comité d'expansion de la Dordogne proti Déparement de la Dordogne, Recueil, str. 479; AJDA 1999.992, kronika: P. Fombeur in M. Guyomar.
Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction, SEM Olympique d’Alès en Cévennes, 20 November 2006, Rec., concl. Stahl.
Sodišče za spore, 20. november 2006, SEM Olympique d'Alès en Cévennes, Recueil, predlogi: Stahl.
721, note B. Rolland and chron. 1274, comments P. Petel.
721, obvestilo: B. Rolland, in kronika 1274, stališča: P. Petel.
Com. 10 January 2006, Rev. sociétés 2006.
Com. 10. jan. 2006, Revue des sociétés 2006.
629, note P. Rousel Galle.
629, obvestilo: P. Rousel Galle.
626, § 137, note B. Saintourens.
626, § 137, obvestilo: B. Saintourens.
For each year, using the same calculation method, and taking account of the variations in turnover, the figures are as follows: EUR […] (*) in 2007, EUR […] (*) in 2008, and EUR […] (*) in 2009.
Za posamezno leto bi bili ob uporabi istega načina izračuna in ob upoštevanju gibanja prometa zneski naslednji: […] (*) EUR leta 2007, […] (*) EUR leta 2008, […] (*) EUR leta 2009.
For 2006, it would also be appropriate in theory to apply a rate of 48,5 % (= (365-188)/365) in proportion to the time involved, since the guarantee started only from 7 July 2006, the 188th day of the year 2006, which was the date of conversion of IFP’s legal form, i.e. a maximum of EUR […] (*).
Tudi za leto 2006 bi bilo treba teoretično uporabiti stopnjo 48,5 % (= (365 – 188)/365), in to zaradi upoštevanja časovne porazdelitve, ker je poroštvo začelo veljati šele 7. julija 2006, to je 188. dan leta 2006, ko se je spremenil status osebe javnega prava IFP, kar bi zneslo največ […] (*) EUR.
Com. 16 October 2001, Act. proc. coll.
Com. 16. okt. 2001, Act. proc. coll.
2001-20, No 256; Com. 8 January 2002, Act. proc. coll.
2001-20, št. 256; Com. 8. jan. 2002, Act. proc. coll.
(Commission translation) ‘The interested parties’ inability to have these judgments implemented constitutes interference with those parties’ property rights – interference such as is referred to in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No 1. The Government has provided no justification at all for such interference, and the Court considers that lack of resources cannot legitimise the omission concerned … In sum, the Court considers that the applicant companies have been, and are still, subject to a huge and special burden due to the non-payment of the sums from which they should have benefited in implementation of the aforesaid judgments dated 10 July 1992. There has therefore been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1’.
„Nezmožnost zadevnih strank, da bi dosegli izvršitev teh sodb, pomeni poseg v njuno lastninsko pravico, ki spada pod prvi stavek prvega odstavka člena 1 Protokola št. 1. Vlada ni predložila nobene utemeljitve za ta poseg, zato Sodišče meni, da pomanjkanje sredstev ne more biti veljaven razlog za tako opustitev.“„Sodišče na splošno meni, da sta tožeči stranki utrpeli ter še vedno nosita posebno in pretirano breme zaradi neizplačila zneskov, ki bi jih morali prejeti na podlagi izvršitve zgoraj navedenih sodb z dne 10. julija 1992. S tem je bil kršen člen 1 Protokola št. 1.“
As specified in Article L. 641-2 of the Commercial Code, this simplified procedure is applicable if the debtor’s assets include no immovable property, if the enterprise has employed no more than five employees during the six months prior to the commencement of the proceedings and if its turnover excluding tax is no more than EUR 750000.
Kot je določeno v členu L.641-2 trgovinskega zakonika, se ta poenostavljeni postopek namreč uporablja, če sredstva dolžnika ne zajemajo nepremičnin, če podjetje ni zaposlovalo več kot pet zaposlenih v šestih mesecih pred začetkom postopka in če je promet podjetja brez davkov enak 750000 EUR ali manjši.
In the case of compulsory winding up, these subsidiaries would therefore be subject to the ordinary-law procedure, which is summarised in recitals 143 and 144.
V primeru sodne likvidacije bi se za te hčerinske družbe torej uporabil postopek „občega prava“, ki je povzet v uvodnih izjavah 143 in 144.
In 2006, its turnover was EUR 49,9 million.
Leta 2006 je njen promet znašal 49,9 milijona EUR. Sporazum o omejeni licenci in pogodbo o industrijskih raziskavah sta oseba javnega prava IFP in družba Prosernat podpisali 18. avgusta 2003 z učinkom za nazaj od 1. januarja 2002 za obdobje desetih let, na njuni podlagi ima družba Prosernat izključno koncesijo za patente osebe javnega prava IFP, [ta pa ji ponuja rezultate svojih] […] (*) raziskav […] (*) na področju tehnoloških postopkov predelave plina in razžvepljevanja.
On 18 August 2003 IFP and Prosernat signed a framework licensing agreement and an industrial research agreement, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2002, for a period of 10 years. Under these agreements, Prosernat has an exclusive licence for the patents of IFP and [IFP offers it the results of its] (**) research […] (*) in the field of gas treatment and sulphur recovery technologies.
Družba Prosernat mora matični družbi plačevati licenčnino za postopke, in sicer od letnega prometa, ter licenčnino za opremo, določeno za vsak primer posebej.
The rules on overlapping aid measures, whether in point 5.12 of the 1996 R&D Framework or in point 8 of the R&D&I Framework, are complied with. The Commission has considered the total amount of public funding, irrespective of its origin, including the maximum impact of the unlimited guarantee for the years 2006 to 2009.
Upoštevane so določbe na področju kumulacije iz točke 5.12 okvira za R & R iz leta 1996 ali točke 8 okvira R & R & I. Komisija je namreč izračunala znesek skupnega javnega financiranja ne glede na izvor, vključno z največjim učinkom neomejenega poroštva za leta 2006 do 2009.
Court of Conflicts of Jurisdiction, 8 February 1873, Rec. 1er supplt 61, concl. David; GAJA, 15th edition, No 1.
Sodišče za spore, 8. februar 1873, Recueil 1, dodatek 61, predlogi: David; GAJA, 15. izdaja, št. 1.
This name change was made by Article 81 of Law No 2010-788 of 12 July 2010 on national commitment to the environment (loi portant engagement national pour l’environnement) (the ‘Grenelle 2 Law’). (IFP press release of 13 July 2010, available at Internet site http://www.ifpenergiesnouvelles.fr/actualites/communiques-de-presse/, site consulted on 28 June 2011).
Ta sprememba imena je bila izvedena s členom 81 zakona št. 2010-788 z dne 12. julija 2010 o nacionalni okoljski zavezi (imenovan „Loi Grenelle 2“) (Obvestilo za javnost osebe javnega prava IFP z dne 13. julija 2010, na voljo na spletnem mestu http://www.ifpenergiesnouvelles.fr/actualites/communiques-de-presse/ od 28. junija 2011).
Rives-Langes, ‘La notion de dirigeant de fait’, D. 1975. chron. 41; D. Tricot, ‘Les critères de la gestion de fait’, Dr. et patr. January 1996, p. 24, cited by B. Grimonprez, cited above, point 13.
Rives-Langes, La notion de dirigeant de fait (Pojem dejanskega upravitelja), D. 1975. kronika 41; D. Tricot, Les critères de la gestion de fait (Merila dejanskega upravljanja), Dr. et patr. jan. 1996, str. 24, citirano v B. Grimonprez, op. cit., točka 13.
The Commission concludes, as it did in recital 131 of decision C 56/2007, to which it refers mutatis mutandis, that the argument put forward by the French authorities on the basis of the Organic Law governing the Finance Act is not convincing, because the fact that it is not stated in any Finance Act that the State extends a guarantee to IFP by virtue of its legal form does not mean that there is no implied guarantee. The Commission 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 governing the Finance Act. The only relevant consideration is how the measure is to be described for purposes of Union law.
Komisija iz tega sklepa, kot je to storila v uvodni izjavi 131 Sklepa C 56/2007, na katero se smiselno sklicuje, da trditev francoskih organov, ki temelji na LOLF, ni prepričljiva, ker dejstvo, da v nobenem zakonu o financah ni določeno, da država zagotavlja poroštvo za osebo javnega prava IFP zaradi njenega statusa, ne izključuje obstoja implicitnega poroštva; da Komisije nikakor ne zavezuje niti opredelitev ukrepa kot poroštva v francoskem pravu niti dejstvo, da naj bi šlo za poroštvo, za katero velja LOLF; da je upoštevna samo opredelitev tega ukrepa na podlagi prava Evropske unije; da se v navedenem pravu priznava obstoj implicitnega poroštva, kadar je država članica pravno zavezana poplačati terjatev do druge osebe v primeru neizpolnitve obveznosti te osebe.
The principle is also spelt out in full in the document, in the following terms: ‘IFP does not guarantee Axens’s acts or omissions’. The French authorities say that this rule applies to any contract or project that Axens might possibly conclude or conduct with customers, with suppliers or on the financial markets.
To načelo je poleg tega v tem dokumentu v celoti navedeno: „IFP ne jamči za ravnanja ali opustitve družbe Axens.“ Francoski organi so pojasnili, da se to pravilo uporablja za vsako pogodbo, ki bi jo lahko družba Axens sklenila, ali projekt, ki bi ga lahko izvajala s strankami in dobavitelji ter na finančnih trgih.
The ECHR found that there had been a breach of Article 6-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’), and added that the judgments had to be implemented and that a State authority could not use lack of resources as a pretext for not honouring a debt based on a judicial decision. The ECHR also found that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention, the applicants having suffered interference with their property rights on account of a huge and special burden due to the non-payment of the sums which they should have received [96].
Komisija ugotavlja, da je ESČP nazadnje ugotovilo kršitev člena 6(1) Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Konvencija), zlasti ker: „[je] [t]e sodbe torej treba izvršiti, pri čemer Sodišče opozarja, da se državni organ ne more izgovarjati na pomanjkanje sredstev, da ne bi poplačal dolga, ki temelji na sodni odločbi […].“ ESČP je poleg tega ugotovilo kršitev člena 1 Protokola št. 1 k navedeni konvenciji, ker je bilo poseženo v lastninsko pravico tožečih strank zaradi posebnega in pretiranega bremena, povezanega z neizplačilom zneskov, ki so jima bili dolgovani [96].
In the event that the continuity of the public service has to be guaranteed, the French authorities admit that the representative of the State, when exercising the powers conferred by the Law of 16 July 1980, could decide not to sell certain assets needed to perform a public service task. This failure to sell certain assets would then be reflected, if the State did not pay compensation, in lower proceeds from the assets and a corresponding reduction in the amounts recoverable by creditors.
če bi bilo treba zagotoviti kontinuiteto javne službe, francoski organi priznavajo, da bi predstavnik države pri izvajanju pooblastil, dodeljenih z zakonom z dne 16. julija 1980, lahko odločil, da se nekatera sredstva, potrebna za izpolnjevanje naloge javne službe, ne prodajo, Če država ne bi poskrbela za nadomestilo, bi bila posledica neprodaje določenega premoženja manjše unovčenje sredstev in torej zmanjšanje zneskov, ki bi lahko bili povrnjeni upnikom.
As specified in recitals 94 to 96 of decision C 56/2007, to which the Commission refers mutatis mutandis, the French authorities propose clarifying the interpretation of the Law of 16 July 1980 by amending the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the Decree implementing the Law [48]. The proposed amendment is intended, they say, to dispel any misgivings concerning the scope of the expression ‘shall do so’ (y pourvoit) in the organisation of the supervisory power conferred on the prefect or on the supervising authority; the prefect or supervising authority would now have to release resources from the budget of the regional or local authority or the establishment concerned [49]. According to the French authorities, this proposal would prevent the representative of the State, when exercising his supervisory power, from increasing the resources of the authority or establishment concerned by means of a subsidy from the State or an injection of public resources.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah od 94 do 96 zgoraj navedenega sklepa C 56/2007, na katere se Komisija smiselno sklicuje, francoski organi predlagajo, da pojasnijo razlago zakona z dne 16. julija 1980 s spremembo četrtega odstavka člena 3-1 odloka o izvajanju zakona [48]: Predlagana sprememba naj bi po njihovem mnenju odpravila vse dvome o obsegu izraza „za to poskrbi“ pri urejanju pooblastila za nadzor, dodeljenega prefektu ali nadzornemu organu, ker morata ta odslej zagotoviti sredstva v okviru proračuna skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava [49]: Ta predlog naj bi po mnenju francoskih organov izključeval možnost, da predstavnik države pri izvajanju pooblastila za nadzor poveča sredstva skupnosti ali osebe javnega prava s subvencijo države ali vložkom javnih sredstev.
Although it is unlikely at present, it cannot be ruled out that IFP might experience such a shortage of assets in the longer term. In such circumstances, the fact that resources cannot be mobilised by selling assets means that use has to be made of other guarantee mechanisms (advances, efforts to establish a liability on the part of the State, etc.).
Čeprav tak finančni položaj nezadostnosti sredstev za osebo javnega prava IFP za zdaj ni verjeten, je to mogoče na daljši rok.