natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the other hand, should Sernam sell its assets en bloc, the Commission recalls that the above two conditions concerning the company’s restructuring will not apply as Sernam will no longer operate in its current legal form and will cede its market shares to the independent acquiring party (which will de facto continue its activities with Sernam’s assets).’
Če bi po drugi strani Sernam moral prodati svoja sredstva ‚v svežnju‘, Komisija ponavlja, da se ta dva zgoraj omenjena pogoja v zvezi s prestrukturiranjem družbe ne bosta uporabila ob predvidevanju, da Sernam ne bo več deloval pod svojo trenutno pravno obliko in bo sprostil svoje tržne deleže v korist neodvisnega kupca (ki bo lahko de facto nadaljeval svoje aktivnosti […] s sredstvi Sernama).“
The Sernam 2 Decision therefore considers two different sale scenarios for Sernam SA: sale of the whole of Sernam SA (assets and liabilities), and sale of the assets only.
V odločbi Sernam 2 sta torej predvidena dva scenarija prodaje družbe Sernam SA: prodaja te družbe v celoti (njenih sredstev in obveznosti) in le prodaja sredstev.
Under the first hypothesis, the company acquiring the assets and liabilities is subject to the conditions set out in Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision; under the second, these conditions do not apply.
V prvem primeru za družbo, ki kupi sredstva in obveznosti, veljajo pogoji iz člena 3(1) odločbe Sernam 2, v drugem primeru pa se ti pogoji ne uporabljajo.
Furthermore, the broader context of the Commission’s Sernam 1 and Sernam 2 Decisions should be recalled.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti še na širši okvir, v katerem je Komisija sprejela odločbi Sernam 1 in Sernam 2.
Sernam SA, a constantly loss-making company, was the beneficiary of State operating aid, which was paid to it by its parent company, SNCF, and was necessary for the survival of the undertaking.
Družba Sernam SA, ki je nenehno poslovala s primanjkljajem, je od matične družbe, to je skupine SNCF, prejemala državne pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, ki so bile potrebne za preživetje podjetja.
It was necessary to put an end to the artificial survival of a company which was unduly occupying market shares when it was not competitive.
Treba je bilo končati umetno zagotavljanje preživetja družbe, ki je neupravičeno zasedala tržne deleže, čeprav ni bila konkurenčna.
This resulted, on the one hand, in the process of regular replenishment of the company Sernam by the State being brought to an end, and, on the other hand in the distortions of competition created by this replenishment having to either disappear or give rise to compensatory measures.
Iz tega izhaja, da je bilo treba po eni strani končati postopek, v katerem je država redno „oživljala“ družbo Sernam, po drugi strani pa je bilo treba odpraviti izkrivljanja konkurence, nastala zaradi zadevnih „oživljanj“, ali v zvezi s tem sprejeti izravnalne ukrepe.
In this way, the EUR 41 million of unlawful, incompatible aid granted to the company Sernam between 2001 and 2004 was to be recovered and compensatory measures were to be adopted releasing market shares in exchange for the EUR 503 million in restructuring aid.
Zato je bilo treba izterjati 41 milijonov EUR nezdružljivih nezakonitih pomoči, ki so bile podeljene družbi Sernam med letoma 2001 in 2004, ter določiti izravnalne ukrepe, s katerimi bi se sprostili tržni deleži, v zameno za 503 milijone EUR pomoči za prestrukturiranje.
However, the Commission observes straight away that the way in which France intended to implement the 2004 decision is directly counter to the objectives thus pursued.
Vendar Komisija že na samem začetku ugotavlja, da je način, na kakršnega je Francija nameravala izvesti odločbo iz leta 2004, popolnoma v nasprotju s tako postavljenimi cilji.
In fact, the French authorities continued to grant operating aid, under cover of implementing this decision, and endeavoured to preserve the economic continuity of the undertaking without releasing market share and on the contrary trying to strengthen its competitive position.
Francoski organi so namreč pod krinko izvajanja te odločbe še naprej podeljevali pomoči za tekoče poslovanje ter so si hkrati prizadevali za gospodarsko kontinuiteto podjetja, pri čemer niso sprostili tržnih deležev, temveč so si, nasprotno, prizadevali za okrepitev konkurenčnega položaja zadevnega podjetja.
At this stage, it is appropriate to carry out a methodical examination of the means implemented by the French authorities to achieve their objectives.
V tej fazi je treba metodično preučiti sredstva, s katerimi so želeli francoski organi uresničiti svoje cilje.
MISUSE OF THE AID AUTHORISED BY THE SERNAM 2 DECISION
ZLORABA POMOČI, ODOBRENE Z ODLOČBO SERNAM 2
The French authorities confirm non-compliance with the conditions set out in Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Francoski organi potrjujejo, da pogoji iz člena 3(1) odločbe Sernam 2 niso bili izpolnjeni.
Consequently, the Commission can confine itself to verifying whether France complied with the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Zato lahko Komisija preveri le, ali je Francija izpolnila pogoje iz člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2.
As a reminder, this paragraph is worded as follows:
Naj še enkrat navedemo vsebino tega odstavka:
‘In the event that Sernam sells its assets en bloc by 30 June 2005, at market price through a transparent and open procedure to a company that has no legal link with SNCF, the conditions of paragraph 1 shall not be applicable.’
„V primeru, da Sernam svoja sredstva proda v svežnju do 30. junija 2005 po tržni ceni ter družbi, ki nima pravne povezave s SNCF, s pomočjo preglednega in odprtega postopka, se pogoji iz odstavka 1 ne uporabljajo.“
As will be shown below, France failed to comply with these conditions.
Kot bo pokazano v nadaljevanju, Francija ni izpolnila teh pogojev.
The transfer of the activities was not completed by 30 June 2005
Dejavnosti niso bile prenesene 30. junija 2005.
The observations of the French authorities and the first complainant show that, on 30 June 2005, the SNCF management only accepted the firm offer of Financière Sernam in principle.
Iz pripomb francoskih organov in prve pritožnice izhaja, da je uprava skupine SNCF 30. junija 2005 le načeloma sprejela zavezujočo ponudbo družbe Financière Sernam.
However, the memorandum of understanding which is binding on all the parties to the transaction was not signed until 21 July 2005 and the various transfer operations were carried out only on 17 October 2005.
Vendar je bil memorandum o soglasju, ki je zavezujoč za vse strani, podpisan šele 21. julija 2005, transakcije prenosa pa so bile izvedene šele 17. oktobra 2005.
The Commission concludes from this that the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financière Sernam did not take place by 30 June 2005 at the latest, even though this was a requirement under the Sernam 2 Decision.
Komisija zato meni, da prenos dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA na družbo Financière Sernam ni bil izveden najpozneje 30. junija 2005, kot je bilo določeno s pogojem iz odločbe Sernam 2.
This reason alone would already suffice to conclude that France misused the aid authorised conditionally by the Sernam 2 Decision.
Že na podlagi tega bi lahko sklepali, da je Francija zlorabila pomoč, pogojno odobreno z odločbo Sernam 2.
The transfer of activities does not constitute a sale [27]
Prenos dejavnosti ni prodaja. [27]
A contract of sale under the legal systems of the Member States of the Union is based on principles developed in Roman law (emptio venditio).
Kupoprodajna pogodba v pravnih redih držav članic Unije temelji na načelih, razvitih v rimskem pravu (emptio venditio).
The sale consists in the transfer of ownership of a good against the payment of a price.
Prodaja je prenos lastništva nad dobrino v zameno za plačilo določene cene.
This price, as the French Government emphasises in respect of French law, must be a positive price.
Kot poudarja francoska vlada v zvezi s francoskim pravom, mora biti ta cena pozitivna.
A transaction by which the person wishing to transfer ownership of one or more goods offers money to the person who acquires them is not a sale, but a different type of contract.
Transakcija, v kateri oseba, ki želi prenesti lastništvo nad eno ali več dobrinami, osebi, ki zadevne dobrine prevzame, ponudi denar, ni prodaja, temveč jo je treba opredeliti kot drugačno vrsto pogodbe.
In the present case, SNCF paid EUR 59 million, by undertaking the recapitalisation of Sernam SA for EUR 57 million and of Sernam Xpress for EUR 2 million respectively, and granted various guarantees to Financière Sernam.
V obravnavanem primeru je skupina SNCF z dokapitalizacijo družbe Sernam SA v višini 57 milijonov EUR in družbe Sernam Xpress v višini 2 milijona EUR plačala 59 milijonov EUR ter družbi Financière Sernam podelila še različna poroštva.
The payment of EUR 2 million by Financière Sernam in favour of SNCF and Sernam SA neutralises the recapitalisation of Sernam Xpress, but not the other components of the transaction.
Družba Financière Sernam je s plačilom 2 milijonov EUR skupini SNCF in družbi Sernam SA izničila dokapitalizacijo družbe Sernam Xpress, ne pa tudi drugih elementov transakcije.
Consequently, the contract concluded between SNCF and Financière Sernam cannot be termed a sales contract.
Zato pogodbe, ki sta jo sklenili skupina SNCF in družba Financière Sernam, ni mogoče opredeliti kot kupoprodajno pogodbo.
For that matter, this is not disputed by the French authorities, which explain that the various operations for the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financière Sernam do not constitute a sale as French law does not permit them to carry out a sale which would have led to this result.
Tega francoski organi niti ne izpodbijajo, saj pojasnjujejo, da različne transakcije prenosa dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA na družbo Financière Sernam niso prodaja, ker po francoskem pravu ne morejo izvesti prodaje s takim rezultatom.
The Commission concludes that the contract concluded between SNCF and Financière Sernam is not a sale.
Komisija zato meni, da pogodba, ki sta jo sklenili skupina SNCF in družba Financière Sernam, ni prodaja.
For this reason too, Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision has not been observed as there was no sale.
Ker ni bilo prodaje, se ni upošteval niti člen 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2.
Consequently, France has misused the aid authorised conditionally by the Sernam 2 Decision.
Zato je Francija zlorabila pomoč, pogojno odobreno z odločbo Sernam 2.
The transfer of the activities is not a sale of assts but a transfer of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities)
Prenos dejavnosti ni prodaja sredstev, temveč prenos družbe Sernam SA v celoti (njenih sredstev in obveznosti).
Even if the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financière Sernam did constitute a sale, compliance with Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision presupposes that this sale relates solely to the assets, and not to Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities).
Čeprav bi predpostavili, da je bil prenos dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA na družbo Financière Sernam prodaja, bi morala na podlagi člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2 ta prodaja zadevati le sredstva in se ne bi smela nanašati na družbo Sernam SA v celoti (na njena sredstva in obveznosti).
This results from recital 217 of the Sernam 2 Decision, cited at recital 89 of the present decision.
To izhaja iz uvodne izjave 217 odločbe Sernam 2, navedene v uvodni izjavi 89 tega sklepa.
As stated in section 2.4, the transfer of Sernam SA’s activities by SNCF to Financière Sernam is based on the use by Sernam SA of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sernam Xpress, to which Sernam SA’s assets were transferred together with its liabilities, with the exception of some of its debts to its parent company, SNCF.
Kot je bilo navedeno v oddelku 2.4, je skupina SNCF prenesla dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA na družbo Financière Sernam tako, da je družba Sernam SA uporabila svojo 100-odstotno podružnico Sernam Xpress, na katero je prenesla svoja sredstva in obveznosti (razen nekaterih dolgov do matične družbe, to je skupine SNCF).
Before this transfer, Sernam SA had been recapitalised by SNCF to the amount of EUR 57 million and this new capital was included in the assets transferred.
Pred prenosom je skupina SNCF dokapitalizirala družbo Sernam SA s 57 milijoni EUR, ta sveži kapital pa je bil vključen v prenesena sredstva.
As indicated in section 2.7.1.3, the French authorities justify this operation by the two-fold constraint of French law and the Sernam 2 Decision.
Kot je bilo navedeno v oddelku 2.7.1.3, francoski organi to transakcijo utemeljujejo z zahtevama, postavljenima s francoskim pravom in odločbo Sernam 2.
They point out that the overall result of the operation is identical to that of the sale of the assets.
V zvezi s tem trdijo, da je končni izid transakcije enak, kot če bi bila sredstva prodana.
It should therefore be assimilated to a sale of Sernam SA’s assets en bloc within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Torej bi jo bilo treba izenačiti s prodajo sredstev družbe Sernam SA v svežnju v smislu člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2.
The Commission comes to a different conclusion, for two reasons.
Komisija iz dveh razlogov meni drugače.
The transfer consists in an intra-group transfer en bloc of the assets and liabilities, followed by a sale of shares (share deal) of the subsidiary which received them
Prenos vključuje prenos sredstev in obveznosti v svežnju znotraj skupine ter nato še prodajo delnic („share deal“) podružnice, ki jih je prejela
The operation carried out by SNCF enabled Financière Sernam to acquire the shares of Sernam Xpress and therefore to undertake a sale of shares (‘share deal’).
Transakcija, ki jo je izvedla skupina SNCF, je družbi Financière Sernam omogočila nakup delnic družbe Sernam Xpress, torej izvedbo prodaje delnic („share deal“).
First, it is true that SNCF undertook an operation termed under French law, according to the French authorities, a ‘partial contribution of assets’ (in reality of assets and liabilities).
Sprva je skupina SNCF sicer res izvedla transakcijo, ki se po francoskem pravu po trditvah francoskih organov opredeljuje kot „delni prenos sredstev“ (dejansko sredstev in obveznosti).
However, even analysed in isolation, this operation could not be termed a ‘sale of assets to a third party’.
Vendar te transakcije niti ločeno ni mogoče opredeliti kot „prodajo sredstev tretji osebi“.
It took place for a negative price of EUR 57 million and does not therefore constitute a sale (see section 3.2.2).
Izvedena je bila po negativni ceni 57 milijonov EUR in torej ni prodaja (glej oddelek 3.2.2).
In addition, it relates not only to the assets, but also to the entire liabilities, with the exception of certain debts of Sernam SA to its parent company, SNCF.
Poleg tega ne vključuje le sredstev, temveč zadeva tudi vse obveznosti razen nekaterih dolgov družbe Sernam SA do matične družbe, to je skupine SNCF.
It was therefore a transfer of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities) and not a sale of the assets only (also see section 3.2.3.2).
Torej je šlo za prenos družbe Sernam SA v celoti (njenih sredstev in obveznosti) in ne le za prodajo sredstev (glej tudi oddelek 3.2.3.2).
Finally, this transfer was made to a wholly-owned subsidiary, i.e. Sernam Xpress, an ad hoc entity intended to receive Sernam SA’s assets and liabilities for the sole purposes of itself being sold to Financière Sernam.
Nazadnje, navedeno je bilo preneseno na 100-odstotno podružnico, to je družbo Sernam Xpress, ki je bila ustanovljena kot ad hoc gospodarski subjekt za prejem sredstev in obveznosti družbe Sernam SA samo zato, da je bilo mogoče nato ta gospodarski subjekt prodati družbi Financière Sernam.
Therefore this contribution was not made to a third-party undertaking independent of SNCF.
Torej zadevni prenos ni bil izveden v korist tretjega podjetja, neodvisnega od skupine SNCF.
Secondly, the Sernam Xpress shares were sold to Financière Sernam, which does not constitute a sale of assets to a third party either, but a transfer of shares or share deal (and therefore a transfer of the undertaking in its entirety).
Nato so bile delnice družbe Sernam Xpress prodane družbi Financière Sernam, kar prav tako ni bila prodaja sredstev tretji osebi, temveč prenos delnic ali „share deal“ (in torej prenos podjetja v celoti).
Consequently, none of the operations carried out by SNCF constitutes a sale of Sernam SA’s assets en bloc to a company that has no legal link with SNCF and the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision were not observed.
Torej nobena od transakcij, ki jih je izvedla skupina SNCF, ni prodaja sredstev družbe Sernam SA v svežnju družbi brez pravne povezave s skupino SNCF, zato pogoji iz člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2 niso bili izpolnjeni.
The transfer is not limited to the assets, but comprises Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities)
Prenos ni omejen le na sredstva, temveč vključuje družbo Sernam SA v celoti (njena sredstva in obveznosti)
Recital 217 of the Sernam 2 Decision, cited at recital 89 of the present decision, establishes a clear distinction between a sale of assets, on the one hand, and a sale of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities), on the other.
V uvodni izjavi 217 odločbe Sernam 2, navedeni v uvodni izjavi 89 tega sklepa, je jasno opredeljena razlika med prodajo sredstev na eni strani in prodajo družbe Sernam SA v celoti (njenih sredstev in obveznosti) na drugi strani.
This recital clearly shows that if the French authorities were to undertake a sale of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities), as they intended at the time of the adoption of the Sernam 2 Decision, they were obliged to comply with the conditions set out in Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Iz te uvodne izjave jasno izhaja, da bi morali francoski organi, če naj bi prodali družbo Sernam SA v celoti (njena sredstva in obveznosti), kot so to nameravali storiti ob sprejetju odločbe Sernam 2, upoštevati člen 3(1) odločbe Sernam 2.
The result of the various transfer operations is that Financière Sernam, through its acquisition of Sernam Xpress, acquires Sernam SA’s assets and liabilities in their entirety at the time of the adoption of the Sernam 2 Decision, apart from the following exceptions: on the one hand, the assets were boosted by the injections of EUR 57 million in favour of Sernam SA and EUR 2 million in favour of Sernam Xpress (also see section 3.2.4 of the present decision) and, on the other hand, the liabilities were reduced by the amount of the equity loan contracted by the company Sernam SA with the SNCF group, a liability relating to the cancellation of the ‘IBM-GPS’ contract, and the amount of the obligation to repay the incompatible aid amounting to EUR 41 million.
Rezultat različnih transakcij prenosa je bil, da je družba Financière Sernam ob sprejetju odločbe Sernam 2 z nakupom družbe Sernam Xpress pridobila vsa sredstva in obveznosti družbe Sernam SA razen spodaj navedenega: po eni strani so bila sredstva povečana z dokapitalizacijama v višini 57 milijonov EUR v korist družbe Sernam SA oziroma v višini 2 milijona EUR v korist družbe Sernam Xpress (glej tudi oddelek 3.2.4 tega sklepa), po drugi strani pa so bile obveznosti zmanjšane za znesek delničarskega posojila, ki ga je družba Sernam SA pridobila od skupine SNCF, za obveznosti v zvezi z odpovedjo pogodbe IBM – GPS ter za znesek v višini 41 milijonov EUR, ki se ujema z obveznostjo vračila nezdružljive pomoči.
However, these marginal adjustments cannot hide the fact that the bulk of Sernam SA’s assets and liabilities were indeed transferred first to Sernam Xpress and then to Financière Sernam.
Vendar s temi obrobnimi prilagoditvami ni mogoče prikriti dejstva, da je bila velika večina sredstev in obveznosti družbe Sernam SA prenesena najprej na družbo Sernam Xpress in nato na družbo Financière Sernam.
The transfer of the business is not therefore a sale of assets, but a sale of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities), barring a few exceptions.
Prenos dejavnosti torej ni prodaja sredstev, temveč – z nekaj izjemami – prenos družbe Sernam SA v celoti (njenih sredstev in obveznosti).
Consequently, and for this reason too, the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision were not observed.
Zato in tudi iz tega razloga pogoji iz člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2 niso bili izpolnjeni.
The transfer is not limited to the assets owned by Sernam SA at the time of the Sernam 2 Decision, but were increased by EUR 59 million
Prenos ni vključeval le sredstev v lasti družbe Sernam SA ob sprejetju odločbe Sernam 2, temveč so bila sredstva povečana za 59 milijonov EUR.
On the assets side, the Commission also notes that the sum of EUR 59 million was added by the recapitalisations of Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress and that, at economic level, taking account of the payment of EUR 2 million by Financière Sernam, this addition comes to EUR 57 million. Such an addition to the assets is not authorised by Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Komisija na strani sredstev ugotavlja še, da so bila ta z dokapitalizacijama družb Sernam SA in Sernam Xpress povečana za 59 milijonov EUR ter da to povečanje na gospodarski ravni – ob upoštevanju 2 milijonov EUR, ki jih je plačala družba Financière Sernam – znaša 57 milijonov EUR. Tako povečanje sredstev na podlagi člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2 ni dovoljeno.
The transfer of the business did not take place through a transparent and open procedure
Dejavnosti niso bile prenesene v preglednem in odprtem postopku.
The French authorities at first organised a transparent and open procedure.
Francoski organi so najprej pripravili pregleden in odprt postopek.
However, at the end of this procedure, SNCF had not received any binding offer.
Vendar skupina SNCF ob koncu tega postopka ni prejela nobene zavezujoče ponudbe.
Following the failure of the transparent and open procedure, the contract concerning the various operations for the transfer of Sernam SA’s business was concluded with Financière Sernam.
Po neuspehu preglednega in odprtega postopka je bila pogodba v zvezi z različnimi transakcijami prenosa dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA sklenjena z družbo Financière Sernam.
Since the latter did not participate as such and in an autonomous manner in the transparent and open procedure, the transfer of the business finally did not take place through a transparent and open procedure.
Ker slednja kot taka ni samostojno sodelovala v preglednem in odprtem postopku, prenos dejavnosti nazadnje ni bil izveden v takem postopku.
For this reason too, the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision were not observed.
To je tudi razlog, zakaj niso bili izpolnjeni pogoji iz člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2.
The ultimate purpose of a sale of assets was not observed
Namen prodaje sredstev ni bil upoštevan.
Recital 217 of the Sernam 2 Decision explains the ultimate purpose of a sale of assets as follows:
V uvodni izjavi 217 odločbe Sernam 2 je namen prodaje sredstev pojasnjen tako:
‘Sernam […] will cede its market shares to the independent acquiring party (which will de facto continue its activities with Sernam’s assets).’
„Sernam […] bo sprostil svoje tržne deleže v korist neodvisnega kupca (ki bo lahko de facto nadaljeval svoje aktivnosti […] s sredstvi Sernama).“
The ultimate purpose of a sale of assets was therefore to cede market shares and Sernam SA’s assets, and to allow a third party to use these assets.
Namen prodaje je bil torej sprostiti tržne deleže in sredstva družbe Sernam SA ter tretji osebi omogočiti uporabo teh sredstev.
The sale of the assets therefore aimed to break off Sernam SA’s economic activity.
Tako naj bi s prodajo sredstev prenehala gospodarska dejavnost družbe Sernam SA.
However, in the present case, Sernam SA was acquired in its entirety by its management, regrouped in the future Financière Sernam.
Vendar je v obravnavanem primeru družbo Sernam SA v celoti kupilo njeno vodstvo, zbrano v prihodnji družbi Financière Sernam.