natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
[candidate 4] (second-round offer): EUR -65,2 million;
(ponudnik 4) (ponudba iz drugega kroga): –65,2 milijona EUR;
[candidate 5] (second-round offer): EUR -56,4 million.
(ponudnik 5) (ponudba iz drugega kroga): –56,4 milijona EUR.
In view of the absence of a firm offer, the Sernam SA management team, through a company still to be set up and initially called Bidco, then Financière Sernam, made a takeover offer.
Ker ni bila predložena nobena zavezujoča ponudba, je upravna ekipa družbe Sernam SA predložila prevzemno ponudbo prek še neustanovljene družbe, ki je bila najprej poimenovana Bidco, nato pa preimenovana v Financière Sernam.
Effective date of the operations for the transfer of Sernam’s activities to Financière Sernam
Datum začetka veljavnosti transakcij prenosa dejavnosti družbe Sernam na družbo Financière Sernam
This offer was forwarded to SNCF on 30 June 2005 and accepted in principle by the SNCF General Management on the same day.
Ta ponudba je bila skupini SNCF predložena 30. junija 2005 in jo je generalna uprava zadevne skupine načeloma sprejela istega dne.
However, formalities were necessary for the formal conclusion of the memorandum of understanding between all the parties involved.
Vendar je bilo za formalno sklenitev memoranduma o soglasju med zadevnimi stranmi potrebnih še nekaj formalnosti.
The memorandum of understanding between SNCF, Sernam SA, Sernam Xpress (one of the 10 wholly-owned subsidiaries of Sernam SA, set up in 2002) and the managers of the future company Financière Sernam, was signed on 21 July 2005 (hereinafter: the ‘memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005’).
Memorandum o soglasju med skupino SNCF, družbama Sernam SA in Sernam Xpress (ena od desetih podružnic v 100-odstotni lasti družbe Sernam SA, ki je bila ustanovljena leta 2002) ter vodilnimi uslužbenci prihodnje družbe Financière Sernam je bil podpisan 21. julija 2005 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: memorandum o soglasju z dne 21. julija 2005).
The various operations for the transfer of Sernam’s activities to Financière Sernam
Datum začetka veljavnosti različnih transakcij prenosa dejavnosti družbe Sernam na družbo Financière Sernam
The French authorities indicated that the transfer of Sernam’s activities to Financière Sernam took place in four stages:
Francoski organi so navedli, da je bil prenos dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA na družbo Financière Sernam izveden v štirih fazah:
SNCF recapitalised its wholly-owned subsidiary Sernam SA to the amount of EUR 57 million;
skupina SNCF je svojo 100-odstotno podružnico Sernam SA dokapitalizirala z zneskom v višini 57 milijonov EUR;
Sernam SA made a contribution to its wholly-owned subsidiary Sernam Xpress of all the assets, including the EUR 57 million from the recapitalisation described in point (a), and the liabilities of Sernam with the sole exception of the ‘financial’ liabilities (equity loan contracted by Sernam SA with the SNCF group, liability relating to the cancellation of the ‘IBM-GPS’ contract) amounting to EUR 38,5 million [12]. In return for this contribution, Sernam SA received a share in Sernam Xpress with a nominal value of EUR 100;
družba Sernam SA je v korist svoje 100-odstotne podružnice Sernam Xpress izvedla prenos, ki se je nanašal na vse elemente sredstev, vključno s 57 milijoni EUR iz dokapitalizacije, opisane v točki (a), in obveznostmi družbe Sernam, pri čemer so bile izključene le tako imenovane „finančne“ obveznosti (delničarsko posojilo, ki ga je družba Sernam SA pridobila od skupine SNCF, in obveznosti v zvezi z odpovedjo pogodbe IBM – GPS) v višini 38,5 milijona EUR. [12] Družba Sernam SA je kot nadomestilo za ta prenos prejela delež v družbi Sernam Xpress v nominalni vrednosti 100 EUR;
Sernam Xpress then undertook a capital increase of EUR 2 million which was underwritten in full by SNCF; following this operation, SNCF held the majority of the shares in Sernam Xpress;
nato je bil kapital družbe Sernam Xpress povečan za 2 milijona EUR, kar je v celoti financirala skupina SNCF, ki je tako pridobila večinski delež v družbi Sernam Xpress;
Sernam SA and SNCF assigned to Financière Sernam, for a price of EUR 2 million, all their shares in Sernam Xpress, which represented the entire capital of the latter.
družba Sernam SA in skupina SNCF sta za ceno 2 milijona EUR vse svoje deleže v družbi Sernam Xpress, to je celoten kapital slednje, prepustili družbi Financière Sernam.
The operations are shown in the following table:
Navedene transakcije so prikazane v spodnji preglednici:
Recapitalisation EUR 2 million
Dokapitalizacija v višini 2 milijonov EUR
Recapitalisation EUR 57 million
Dokapitalizacija v višini 57 milijonov EUR
EUR 57 million
57 milijonov EUR
Non-financial liabilities
Nefinančne obveznosti
EUR 2 million: price paid by Financière Sernam to SNCF and Sernam SA for the acquisition of Sernam Xpress
2 milijona EUR: cena, ki jo je družba Financière Sernam plačala skupini SNCF in družbi Sernam SA za nakup družbe Sernam Xpress
(wholly-owned by the former staff of Sernam SA)
(v 100-odstotni lasti nekdanjih uslužbencev družbe Sernam SA)
The memorandum of understanding of 21 July 2005, besides the recapitalisation by SNCF, of Sernam SA by EUR 57 million and of Sernam Xpress by EUR 2 million, provided for guarantees granted by SNCF to Financière Sernam (described in detail in recitals 72 to 85 of the opening decision) and a cancellation clause in the case of a negative decision by the Commission within five years following the conclusion of the memorandum of understanding (described in detail in recital 117 of the opening decision).
Memorandumu o soglasju z dne 21. julija 2005 je poleg dokapitalizacij družbe Sernam SA v višini 57 milijonov EUR in družbe Sernam Xpress v višini 2 milijona EUR, ki ju je izvedla skupina SNCF, vključeval še poroštva, ki jih je skupina SNCF podelila družbi Financière Sernam (podroben opis v uvodnih izjavah od 72 do 85 odločitve o začetku postopka), in razveljavitveno klavzulo v primeru negativne odločitve Komisije v petih letih po sklenitvi memoranduma o soglasju (podroben opis v uvodni izjavi 117 odločitve o začetku postopka).
REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
RAZLOGI ZA ZAČETEK POSTOPKA
In its decision of 16 July 2008, the Commission wished to verify whether France had in fact, as it claims, complied with Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision and whether the procedure for the recovery of the incompatible aid amounting to EUR 41 million chosen by France, i.e. entering the debt to the State in the liabilities of the liquidation account of Sernam SA, in fact enabled the distortion of competition caused by this aid to be eliminated.
Komisija je želela na podlagi odločitve z dne 16. julija 2008 preveriti, ali držijo trditve Francije, da je upoštevala člen 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2, in ali je bilo mogoče s postopkom izterjave nezdružljive pomoči v višini 41 milijonov EUR, ki ga je izbrala Francija – to je z evidentiranjem državne terjatve v stečajnem postopku v zvezi z družbo Sernam SA –, res odpraviti izkrivljanje konkurence, nastalo zaradi zadevne pomoči.
In addition, the Commission wished to check whether the operation transferring the assets of Sernam SA did not give rise to new State aid to be regarded as incompatible with the internal market.
Poleg tega je želela Komisija še preveriti, ali s transakcijo prenosa sredstev družbe Sernam SA niso bile podeljene nove državne pomoči, nezdružljive z notranjim trgom.
Comments by the complainants
Pripombe pritožnic
Firstly, the first complainant considers that the conditions laid down in the Sernam 2 Decision for the sale of Sernam SA’s assets were not complied with.
Prva pritožnica najprej meni, da niso bili izpolnjeni pogoji, ki so bili v odločbi Sernam 2 postavljeni za prodajo sredstev družbe Sernam SA.
To start with, it was alleged that the deadline imposed by the Sernam 2 Decision, i.e. 30 June 2005, to make the sale was not respected, as the transfer operations were approved only on 17 October 2005 and the sale of the shares should have occurred on the same day.
Najprej, skrajni rok za prodajo, postavljen z odločbo Sernam 2, to je 30. junij 2005, naj se ne bi upošteval, saj naj bi bile transakcije prenosa odobrene šele 17. oktobra 2005, prodaja delnic pa naj bi bila izvedena še istega dne.
Then, regarding the price of the transfer, the first complainant considers that it was set solely by reference to the offer made by Financière Sernam.
Dalje, prva pritožnica v zvezi s ceno prenosa meni, da je bila določena le na podlagi ponudbe družbe Financière Sernam.
This offer was purportedly unlawful as it implied the granting of new aid, and in particular the recapitalisation of Sernam SA.
Ta ponudba naj bi bila že kot taka nezakonita, saj naj bi vsebovala nove pomoči, zlasti dokapitalizacijo družbe Sernam SA.
Finally, the first complainant emphasises that Sernam Xpress was not a company independent of Sernam SA, as shown by the Commission in its opening decision.
Prva pritožnica nazadnje še poudarja, da družba Sernam Xpress – kot je pokazala Komisija v odločitvi o začetku postopka – ni bila neodvisna od družbe Sernam SA.
Moreover, it is alleged that the transfer operations in reality constitute a share deal, i.e. the beneficiary entity is kept on the market with a mere change of owner.
Poleg tega naj bi bile transakcije prenosa dejansko odkup deležev („share deal“), to je ohranjanje subjekta prejemnika na trgu s preprosto spremembo njegovega lastnika.
It also criticises the infringement of the condition of organising the sale through a transparent and open procedure.
Prva pritožnica opozarja še na kršitev pogoja o organizaciji prodaje v preglednem in odprtem postopku.
In its opinion, the sale of Sernam Xpress should have been subject to public consultation and invitation to tender after the dual recapitalisation of Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress, rather than that of Sernam SA.
Meni, da bi bila javno posvetovanje in poziv k predložitvi ponudb bolj kot v zvezi s prodajo družbe Sernam SA potrebna pri prodaji družbe Sernam Xpress po dvojni dokapitalizaciji družb Sernam SA in Sernam Xpress.
Second, the first complainant criticises manipulations in the valuation of the assets and liabilities transferred and the undervaluation of the entity sold.
Drugič, prva pritožnica opozarja na manipulacije ob oceni prenesenih sredstev in obveznosti ter na prenizko vrednotenje prodanega gospodarskega subjekta.
Third, the first complainant lists a series of measures which, in its opinion, constitute new aid: the recapitalisation of EUR 57 million, the non-recovery of the EUR 41 million in unlawful aid, the write-off of Sernam SA’s financial debts to SNCF.
Tretjič, prva pritožnica navaja niz ukrepov, za katere meni, da vključujejo nove pomoči, in sicer dokapitalizacijo v višini 57 milijonov EUR, nevračilo 41 milijonov EUR nezakonite pomoči in opustitev finančnih terjatev skupine SNCF do družbe Sernam SA.
All these measures, in its opinion, constitute aid which is incompatible with the internal market.
Vsi ti ukrepi naj bi bili pomoči, nezdružljive z notranjim trgom.
Fourth, the first complainant emphasises that Sernam SA should have been wound up rather than sold.
Četrtič, prva pritožnica poudarja, da bi bilo družbo Sernam SA bolje likvidirati kot prodati.
It shares the Commission’s doubts that certain costs were taken into account in the calculation of the liquidation and considers that it is not shown at any time that the real cost of restructuring Sernam was less than that of liquidation.
Podobno kot Komisija tudi sama dvomi o upoštevanju nekaterih stroškov pri izračunu v zvezi z likvidacijo ter meni, da ni nikjer izkazano, da bi bili dejanski stroški prestrukturiranja družbe Sernam nižji od stroškov likvidacije.
The first complainant concludes from this that the French authorities have not only eluded the obligation to recover EUR 41 million in aid declared to be incompatible, but have also granted new aid amounting to at least EUR 95 million, to which should be added various aid measures granted in the form of guarantees.
Prva pritožnica zato meni, da francoski organi niso izpolnili obveznosti izterjave pomoči v višini 41 milijonov EUR, ki je bila razglašena za nezdružljivo, ampak so poleg tega podelili še nove pomoči v višini vsaj 95 milijonov EUR, h katerim je treba prišteti še več pomoči v obliki poroštev.
The second complainant, for its part, did not submit comments on the opening decision.
Druga pritožnica ni predložila pripomb k odločitvi o začetku postopka.
Comments by interested parties considering that the Sernam 2 Decision was duly complied with
Pripombe zainteresiranih strani, ki so menile, da je bila odločba Sernam 2 ustrezno upoštevana
Comments by SNCF
Pripombe skupine SNCF
SNCF considers that it respected the condition provided for in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Skupina SNCF meni, da je izpolnila pogoj iz člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2.
It claims to have sold all of Sernam’s assets en bloc, before 30 June 2005, at market price, to a company that has no legal link, through a transparent and open procedure.
V zvezi s tem trdi, da je sredstva družbe Sernam prodala po tržni ceni v enem svežnju pred 30. junijem 2005, in sicer družbi, ki z njo ni bila pravno povezana, ter v preglednem in odprtem postopku.
According to SNCF, the transfer operations were indissociable and simultaneous.
Po trditvah skupine SNCF naj bi bile transakcije prenosa nerazdružljive in sočasne.
The Commission could not therefore break them down artificially.
Komisija naj jih torej ne bi mogla umetno razdružiti.
It considers that in the case of a negative price, the principle of the private investor in a market economy would be respected if the cost of the transfer is lower than the cost of winding up, which the State would have borne as shareholder, and submits detailed observations to prove this.
Pri tem meni, da se v primeru negativne cene upošteva načelo zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, če so stroški prodaje nižji od stroškov likvidacije, ki bi jih nosila država delničarka, to trditev pa je podprla tudi s podrobnimi pripombami.
Finally, it emphasises that the obligation relating to the recovery of the aid amounting to EUR 41 million has been entered in the liabilities of the liquidation account of Sernam SA.
Nazadnje še poudarja, da je bila obveznost v zvezi z vračilom pomoči v višini 41 milijonov EUR v postopku likvidacije družbe Sernam SA zabeležena na strani obveznosti.
Comments by Butler Capital Partners
Pripombe sklada Butler Capital Partners
Firstly, BCP provides details of its involvement in the capital of Sernam Xpress.
Prvič, sklad BCP najprej pojasnjuje svoj poseg v kapital družbe Sernam Xpress.
Secondly, BCP specifies the objective pursued by the takeover of the company Coulonge.
Drugič, sklad BCP pojasnjuje namen odkupa družbe Coulonge.
Fourthly, BCP disputes that the benefit of the aid of EUR 41 million was transferred to Sernam Xpress.
Četrtič, sklad BCP izpodbija trditev, da so bile koristi pomoči v višini 41 milijonov EUR prenesene na družbo Sernam Xpress.
BCP considers that such a situation would be conceivable only if it were proved that the transfer of Sernam SA’s activities was not made at market price.
To bi bilo po njegovem mnenju mogoče le, če bi bilo dokazano, da dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA niso bile prenesene po tržni ceni.
However, according to BCP, the transfer was made following an open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure.
Vendar sklad BCP meni, da je bil prenos izveden v odprtem, preglednem in nediskriminacijskem postopku.
BCP recalls too that the transfer process was accompanied by an expert valuation.
V zvezi s tem še opozarja, da je bilo v postopku prenosa predloženo izvedensko mnenje.
Finally, regarding the consequences of its takeover of Sernam, BCP analyses the capital increase as a sale and considers that, in accordance with the Banks [14] and SMI [15] case-law, the recovery of hypothetical aid cannot be imposed on Financière Sernam or its subsidiary Sernam Xpress.
Nazadnje, sklad BCP v zvezi s posledicami prevzema nadzora nad družbo Sernam še analizira povečanje kapitala kot prodajo, pri čemer meni, da iz sodb v zadevah Banks [14] in SMI [15] izhaja, da vračilo hipotetične pomoči ne bi smelo bremeniti družbe Financière Sernam ali njene podružnice Sernam Xpress.
Concerning compliance with the Sernam 2 Decision
Upoštevanje odločbe Sernam 2
Concerning observance of the deadline for the sale
Upoštevanje skrajnega roka za prodajo
The French authorities consider that the firm takeover offer, which is legally binding on the purchaser, was submitted on 30 June 2005 and accepted on the same day by SNCF, which made the agreement irrevocable under French contract law.
Francoski organi menijo, da je bila ponudba za prevzem, ki je bila za kupca pravno zavezujoča, predložena 30. junija 2005, skupina SNCF pa jo je sprejela še istega dne, zato je postal sporazum po francoskem pogodbenem pravu nepreklicen.
Concerning the selling price
Prodajna cena
The French authorities consider that the Sernam 2 Decision did not prohibit sale at a negative price and that case-law recognises that this can constitute a market price.
Francoski organi menijo, da z odločbo Sernam 2 ni prepovedana prodaja po negativni ceni in da je lahko v skladu s sodno prakso taka cena tudi tržna cena.
The assets were apparently sold at the negative price of EUR 57 million, corresponding to the amount of the recapitalisation of Sernam SA by SNCF.
Sredstva naj bi bila prodana po negativni ceni 57 milijonov EUR, kar naj bi se ujemalo z zneskom, s katerim je skupina SNCF dokapitalizirala družbo Sernam SA.
This price was allegedly better than the indicative offers initially presented and constituted the only firm offer proposed by the market to SNCF.
Ta cena naj bi bila boljša od prvotno predloženih okvirnih ponudb in naj bi bila edina zavezujoča ponudba, ki jo je skupina SNCF prejela na trgu.
It was purportedly endorsed by several independent valuations (ABN Amro, Oddo Corporate Finance/Paul Hastings and the French Privatisations Board).
To naj bi potrjevalo več neodvisnih izvedenskih mnenj (ki so jih pripravile banka ABN Amro, investicijska banka Oddo Corporate Finance skupaj s pravniško družbo Paul Hastings in komisija Commission des Participations et Transferts).
According to the French authorities, the prior recapitalisation undertaken by SNCF is merely an implementation arrangement.
Francoski organi menijo, da je predhodna dokapitalizacija, ki jo je izvedla skupina SNCF, le izvedbeno pravilo.
The Commission could not therefore refer to this recapitalisation to challenge the market value of the Sernam assets, since the existence of a market price precluded any categorisation as aid for the entire negative price.
Komisija naj zato tržne vrednosti sredstev družbe Sernam ne bi mogla izpodbijati na podlagi te dokapitalizacije, saj naj bi bila že z obstojem tržne cene izključena vsaka možnost, da se celotna negativna cena opredeli kot pomoč.
Concerning the sale of assets
Prodaja sredstev
The French authorities consider the Commission’s analysis, according to which the transfer of Sernam SA’s activities to Financière Sernam comprises two successive operations, i.e.: (1) an intra-group transfer of assets en bloc from Sernam SA to Sernam Xpress (at this stage a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sernam SA), then (2) a sale of Sernam Xpress to Financière Sernam, corresponding to a share deal and not to a sale of assets, to be artificial and unjustified.
Francoski organi v odgovor na analizo Komisije, po kateri naj bi se prenos sredstev družbe Sernam SA na družbo Financière Sernam delil na dve zaporedni transakciji – to je na (1) prenos sredstev v svežnju znotraj skupine, in sicer z družbe Sernam SA na družbo Sernam Xpress (ki je bila v tej fazi 100-odstotna podružnica družbe Sernam SA), ter nato še na (2) prodajo družbe Sernam Xpress družbi Financière Sernam, ki naj ne bi bila prodaja sredstev, temveč odkup deležev –, navajajo, da je taka razčlemba umetna in neutemeljena.
Firstly, the transfer operations were considered to correspond to a ‘contribution and disposal operation’ implemented through recapitalisation, i.e. an operation which is inextricably linked and undertaken for two reasons: (1) French law did not permit a sale of assets to be undertaken at a negative price, and (2) it was appropriate to ensure that the acquiring party has no legal link with SNCF.
Prvič, transakcije prenosa naj bi bile dejansko „transakcija prenosa in prodaje“, izvedena z dokapitalizacijo, kar naj bi bila nerazdružljiva transakcija, izvedena iz dveh razlogov: (1) francosko pravo naj ne bi dovoljevalo prodaje sredstev po negativni ceni in (2) zagotoviti naj bi bilo treba, da prevzemnik ni pravno povezan s skupino SNCF.
Since its economic situation continued to be in deficit (the cumulated losses of the four financial years prior to the disposal amounted to EUR 309,2 million), the total value of Sernam SA’s assets would have been negative.
Sredstva družbe Sernam SA naj bi imela glede na trajno deficitni gospodarski položaj (nakopičena izguba v štirih poslovnih letih pred prodajo je znašala 309,2 milijona EUR) negativno skupno vrednost.
To comply with the prohibition of a sale at a negative price under French law and to ensure the economic neutrality of the disposal operation, it is customary for practitioners in the case of negative value of assets to be transferred (1) to provide that the price paid by the purchaser is symbolic and (2) to set up an arrangement intended to compensate the purchaser (either participation by the seller in a capital increase prior to the disposal or write-off by the seller of debts owed to it by the transferred company).
Da bi upoštevali prepoved prodaje po negativni ceni v francoskem pravu in zagotovili ekonomsko nevtralnost prodajne transakcije, naj bi se po ustaljeni praksi v primeru negativne vrednosti sredstev, ki se prodajajo, določilo, (1) da je cena, ki jo plača kupec, simbolična in (2) da se vzpostavi mehanizem za izplačilo odškodnine kupcu (prodajalec ali sodeluje pri povečanju kapitala pred prodajo ali pa opusti svoje terjatve do prodane družbe).
In addition, in order to avoid Sernam SA’s creditors calling into question the validity of the operation or exercising their right to oppose it, it was appropriate for the assets en bloc to be accompanied by the liabilities necessary to continue Sernam’s business.
Da bi se poleg tega izognili možnosti, da bi upniki družbe Sernam SA izpodbijali veljavnost transakcije ali uveljavljali svojo pravico do ugovora, je bilo treba sredstvom v svežnju pripojiti obveznosti, potrebne za nadaljevanje dejavnosti družbe Sernam.
Merely selling the assets would not have allowed inclusion of these liabilities.
Samo s prodajo sredstev ne bi bilo mogoče prevzeti teh obveznosti.
It was therefore appropriate to undertake a partial contribution of assets subject to the regulations on divisions under Articles L.236-16 to L.236-21 of the French Commercial Code.
Torej je bilo treba izvesti delni prenos sredstev, za katera se uporablja sistem razdružitev iz členov od L.236-16 do L.236-21 francoskega trgovinskega zakonika.
In this respect, the French authorities specify that the contribution is equivalent to a sale in that it also entails a transfer of ownership, through remuneration by shares issued by the company in receipt of the contribution.
V zvezi s tem francoski organi pojasnjujejo, da je treba prenos izenačiti s prodajo, saj vključuje tudi prenos lastništva, ker je bil poplačan z vrednostnimi papirji, ki jih je izdala družba, prejemnica prenosa.
As, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision, the acquiring party could have no legal link with SNCF, it was not possible to carry out the contribution of assets en bloc directly to Financière Sernam as, in this case, Sernam SA would automatically have become shareholder of Financière Sernam through the contribution.
Ker člen 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2 določa, da kupec ne sme biti pravno povezan s skupino SNCF, ni bilo mogoče izvesti prenosa sredstev v svežnju neposredno na družbo Financière Sernam, saj bi v tem primeru družba Sernam SA zaradi zadevnega prenosa samodejno postala delničarka družbe Financière Sernam.