natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The economic continuity is total; furthermore, the undertaking has been released from a significant part of its debt and received new capital amounting to EUR 59 million, of which EUR 57 million remains the economic responsibility of SNCF.
Gospodarska kontinuiteta je popolna, hkrati pa je bila družba razbremenjena velikega dela dolga in je ob tem prejela še 59 milijonov EUR svežega kapitala, pri čemer 57 milijonov EUR tega zneska z gospodarskega vidika še vedno bremeni skupino SNCF.
Consequently, apart from the fact that the operation put in place does not comply with the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision, it does not allow the objectives pursued by this decision to be attained either.
Torej z izvedeno transakcijo – poleg tega, da z njo niso izpolnjeni pogoji iz člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2 – ni mogoče doseči niti ciljev, postavljenih s to odločbo.
On the contrary, it leads to strengthening of the economic entity which is liable to increase the distortions of competition that the measures imposed by the decision aimed precisely to allay.
Nasprotno, z njo se je zadevni gospodarski subjekt še okrepil, kar bi lahko povzročilo še hujše izkrivljanje konkurence, ki ga je želela Komisija omiliti z ukrepi, naloženimi z odločbo.
The arguments presented by France do not allow compliance with Article 3(2) of the Sernam 2 Decision to be shown
S trditvami Francije ni mogoče dokazati upoštevanja člena 3(2) odločbe Sernam 2.
France’s argument that the operations taken as a whole are equivalent to a sale of assets en bloc cannot be accepted.
Trditve Francije, da je mogoče transakcije kot celoto izenačiti s prodajo sredstev v svežnju, ni mogoče sprejeti.
In fact, through its nature, the first characteristic of a sale of assets en bloc is that it is not based on a sale of shares.
Za prodajo sredstev v svežnju je namreč že po naravi najprej značilno, da ne temelji na prodaji delnic.
Consequently, the Commission cannot accept the argument that several different legal instruments (partial contribution of assets and liabilities, then share deal) are equivalent to a given legal instrument (sale of assets) since one of the legal instruments actually implemented is the negation of the legal instrument sought.
Zato Komisija ne more sprejeti trditve, da se več različnih pravnih dejanj (delni prenos sredstev in obveznosti ter nato odkup deležev) ujema z nekim določenim pravnim dejanjem (prodajo sredstev), saj je eno od dejansko izvedenih pravnih dejanj nasprotje želenega pravnega dejanja.
Likewise, the argument that a direct sale of Sernam SA’s assets to Financière Sernam is not possible under French law cannot be accepted.
Prav tako ni mogoče sprejeti niti trditve, da po francoskem pravu ni mogoča neposredna prodaja sredstev družbe Sernam SA družbi Financière Sernam.
Firstly, it should be recalled that the Sernam 2 Decision left France two alternative means of implementing this decision.
Prvič, treba je opozoriti, da sta bili z odločbo Sernam 2 Franciji dani na voljo dve alternativni sredstvi za izvedbo te odločbe.
Assuming that the sale of the assets proved inapplicable, the French authorities could always implement the decision by following the possibility provided for by Article 3(1) of the Sernam 2 Decision (confining of Sernam SA’s own activities to carrying mail by railway, with the road transport subcontracted).
Čeprav bi se izkazalo, da prodaja sredstev ni mogoča, bi lahko francoski organi odločbo Sernam 2 kljub temu izvedli z uporabo možnosti iz člena 3(1) te odločbe (omejitev dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA le na prevoz pošte po železnici in zagotavljanje cestnega prevoza s podizvajalci).
Secondly, if the third-party creditors were really opposed to a sale at a negative price, Sernam SA could have been the subject of a collective procedure, which means that the sale of assets could have taken place under this procedure.
Drugič, če bi zunanji upniki dejansko nasprotovali prodaji po negativni ceni, bi lahko bil v zvezi z družbo Sernam SA kljub temu izpeljan kolektivni postopek, v katerem bi lahko bila prodana sredstva.
Finally, if the French authorities were experiencing difficulties in implementing the Sernam 2 Decision, they should have recontacted the Commission to find a solution, in agreement with it, concerning other arrangements pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation provided for in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
Nazadnje, če so francoski organi pri izvajanju odločbe Sernam 2 naleteli na težave, bi se morali v skladu z načelom lojalnega sodelovanja iz člena 4(3) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji (PEU) v zvezi s tem obrniti na Komisijo, da bi v soglasju z njo našli rešitev, ki bi vključevala drugačno shemo.
Although the French authorities did visit the Commission on 24 November 2004 and wrote to it officially on 21 December 2004 to inform it of the choice to sell the assets en bloc, without describing the key components, it should be stressed that at no time did France notify the Commission of any changes to the restructuring plan conditionally approved by the latter in the Sernam 2 Decision.
Francoski organi so sicer 24. novembra 2004 obiskali Komisijo, 21. decembra 2004 pa so ji poslali še uradni dopis, s katerim so jo obvestili o odločitvi za prodajo sredstev v svežnju, ne da bi ob tem opisali bistvene elemente zadevne prodaje, vendar je treba hkrati poudariti, da Francija Komisije ni nikoli uradno obvestila o spremembi načrta prestrukturiranja, pogojno odobrenega z odločbo Sernam 2.
On the other hand, section 3.2.3 of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [28] confirms that a Member State may not deviate from the restructuring plan without notifying and obtaining the prior approval of the Commission.
V oddelku 3.2.3 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah [28] je potrjeno, da lahko država članica načrt prestrukturiranja spremeni le, če o tem predhodno uradno obvesti Komisijo in ta zadevno spremembo odobri.
The Commission never gave its approval to the transfer of Sernam SA’s activities to Financière Sernam, implemented by France.
Komisija ni nikoli soglašala s prenosom dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA na družbo Financière Sernam, ki ga je izvedla Francija.
Conclusion: France failed to comply with Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision and misused the aid of EUR 503 million
Sklepna ugotovitev: Francija ni upoštevala člena 3 odločbe Sernam 2 in je zlorabila pomoč v višini 503 milijone EUR
In conclusion, in the Commission’s opinion, Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision was not respected.
Komisija ob upoštevanju navedenega meni, da člen 3 odločbe Sernam 2 ni bil upoštevan.
Consequently, the restructuring aid of EUR 503 million conditionally authorised by the Sernam 2 Decision was improperly used.
Zato je bila pomoč za prestrukturiranje v višini 503 milijone EUR, ki je bila pogojno odobrena z odločbo Sernam 2, zlorabljena.
The aid of EUR 503 million is incompatible with the internal market
Pomoč v višini 503 milijone EUR ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
Since the aid of EUR 503 million was used by the recipient in breach of the Sernam 2 Decision, it is not compatible with the internal market on the basis of this decision.
Ker je prejemnik pomoč v višini 503 milijone EUR uporabil v nasprotju z odločbo Sernam 2, ta na podlagi navedene odločbe ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
According to the Court of Justice case-law, it is for the Member State to invoke the reasons for compatibility of aid.
Iz sodne prakse Sodišča izhaja, da mora država članica navesti razloge za združljivost pomoči.
Since France has not invoked any reason for compatibility, the Commission concludes that the aid of EUR 503 million is incompatible with the internal market and must be recovered, together with interest from the date on which it was made available.
Ker Francija ni navedla nobenega razloga za združljivost, Komisija meni, da pomoč v višini 503 milijone EUR ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, zato jo je treba izterjati skupaj z obrestmi od datuma, ko je bila dana na voljo.
This recovery must be made from Financière Sernam and its subsidiaries, and notably Sernam Services and Aster, which are currently continuing the economic activity which received the aid, previously engaged in by Sernam SA (now wound up) and then by Sernam Xpress (the assets and liabilities of which were absorbed by Financière Sernam following a transfer of all assets and liabilities).
Navedeni znesek morajo vrniti družba Financière Sernam in njene podružnice, zlasti družbi Sernam Services in Aster, ki danes nadaljujejo gospodarsko dejavnost, za katero je bila podeljena pomoč ter sta jo včasih opravljali družbi Sernam SA (danes likvidirana) in Sernam Xpress (katere premoženje je prevzela družba Financière Sernam v postopku prenosa vsega premoženja).
In fact, it is appropriate to consider, firstly, that Sernam Xpress took over all the assets and a portion of the liabilities from Sernam SA following a transaction which took place within the group.
Najprej je treba namreč šteti, da je družba Sernam Xpress po transakciji v okviru skupine prevzela vse elemente sredstev in del obveznosti družbe Sernam SA.
Sernam Xpress therefore continued the economic activity of Sernam SA (also see the detailed account in section 3.3).
Družba Sernam Xpress je tako nadaljevala gospodarsko dejavnost družbe Sernam SA (glej tudi podroben opis v oddelku 3.3).
Then, on account of the transfer of all assets and liabilities, Financière Sernam is the legal successor to Sernam Xpress.
Dalje, družba Financière Sernam je zaradi prenosa vsega premoženja pravna naslednica družbe Sernam Xpress.
Finally, Financière Sernam and its subsidiaries, and notably Sernam Service and Aster, are continuing the business of Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress and therefore continuing to benefit from the aid of EUR 503 million initially granted to Sernam SA.
Nazadnje, družba Financière Sernam in njene podružnice, zlasti družbi Sernam Services in Aster, nadaljujejo dejavnost družb Sernam SA in Sernam Xpress ter imajo tako še naprej korist od pomoči v višini 503 milijone EUR, ki je bila prvotno podeljena družbi Sernam SA.
THE RECOVERY OF THE AID OF EUR 41 MILLION
VRAČILO POMOČI V VIŠINI 41 MILIJONOV EUR
The State aid of EUR 41 million which was to be recovered by France from its recipient under the Sernam 2 Decision has been entered in the liabilities of the liquidation account of the company Sernam SA.
Državna pomoč v višini 41 milijonov EUR, ki jo je morala Francija izterjati od prejemnika na podlagi odločbe Sernam 2, je bila v postopku likvidacije družbe Sernam SA knjižena na strani obveznosti.
The French authorities consider that pursuant to Article 4 of the Sernam 2 Decision, the transfer of the activities of Sernam SA to Financière Sernam through a procedure that they term transparent and open has the consequence of confining the recovery obligation to the company Sernam SA only.
Francoski organi menijo, da iz člena 4 odločbe Sernam 2 izhaja, da je bila zaradi prenosa dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA na družbo Financière Sernam v postopku, ki ga opredeljujejo kot preglednega in odprtega, obveznost vračila omejena le na družbo Sernam SA.
Article 4 of the Sernam 2 Decision is worded as follows:
Člen 4 odločbe Sernam 2 določa:
‘Any partial or full sale of Sernam shall be effected at market price and through a transparent procedure that is open to all its competitors. Under these conditions, the Sernam company shall, if it continues to exist, be responsible for paying back the aid of EUR 41 million.’
„Vsaka delna ali celotna prodaja Sernama mora biti izvedena po tržni ceni ter s pomočjo preglednega postopka[,] odprtega za vse njegove [konkurente]. Pod temi pogoji bo za vračilo pomoči v višini 41 [milijonov] EUR odgovorna družba Sernam, če bo [ta] še naprej obstajala.“
Article 4 draws a distinction according to whether or not there has been an interruption of Sernam’s economic activity.
S členom 4 je uvedeno razlikovanje glede na to, ali gospodarska dejavnost družbe Sernam preneha ali ne.
In the case of the disappearance of this activity, recovery is not necessary from the parties who have acquired the assets at market price through a transparent and open procedure.
Če ta dejavnost ne bi več obstajala, pomoči ne bi bilo treba izterjati od oseb, ki bi sredstva kupile po tržni ceni v okviru preglednega in odprtega postopka.
The Commission notes moreover that in their case-law, the Court of Justice and the General Court attach decisive importance to these same factors.
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da sta Sodišče in Splošno sodišče v svoji sodni praksi kot odločilna opredelila prav ta dejavnika.
The SMI judgment [29] draws a distinction between two hypotheses in the case of the sale of the activities for which aid has been received, i.e. the sale of the shares of the undertaking, following which the undertaking that has benefited from aid retains its legal personality (share deal), and the sale of all or part of the assets of the undertaking to another undertaking, following which the assisted economic activity is no longer carried out by the same legal person (asset deal).
V sodbi SMI [29] sta postavljeni dve ločeni domnevi v primeru prodaje dejavnosti, za katere je bila dodeljena pomoč, in sicer prodaja deležev družbe, po kateri podjetje, ki so mu bile podeljene pomoči, ohrani pravno osebnost (odkup deležev ali „share deal“), in prodaja vseh ali dela sredstev podjetja drugemu podjetju, po kateri gospodarske dejavnosti, za katero je bila podeljena pomoč, ne izvaja več ista pravna oseba (odkup sredstev ali „asset deal“).
As regards the share deal, the Court of Justice ruled that [30]:
Sodišče je v zvezi z odkupom deležev odločilo: [30]
‘[…] where an undertaking that has benefited from unlawful State aid is bought at the market price, that is to say at the highest price which a private investor acting under normal competitive conditions was ready to pay for that company in the situation it was in, in particular after having enjoyed State aid, the aid element was assessed at the market price and included in the purchase price.
„[Č]e je podjetje, ki je prejelo nezakonito državno pomoč, kupljeno po tržni ceni, torej po najvišji ceni, ki jo je bil za to družbo v položaju, v katerem se je znašla zlasti po tem, ko je bila deležna državnih pomoči, v običajnih konkurenčnih pogojih pripravljen plačati zasebni vlagatelj, je element pomoči ocenjen na podlagi tržne cene in je bil vključen v nakupno ceno.
In such circumstances, the buyer cannot be regarded as having benefited from an advantage in relation to other market operators (see, to that effect, Case 305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 40).
V takih okoliščinah kupca ni mogoče obravnavati, kot da je dobil prednost glede na druge subjekte na trgu (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Banks, C-390/98, Recueil, str. I-6117, točka 77).
In the present case, the undertaking to which unlawful State aid was granted retains its legal personality and continues to carry out, for its own account, the activities subsidised by the State aid.
V obravnavanem primeru je podjetje, ki so mu bile podeljene nezakonite državne pomoči, ohranilo svojo pravno osebnost in še naprej za svoj račun izvaja dejavnosti, subvencionirane z državnimi pomočmi.
As regards the asset deal, the Court of Justice continues as follows [31]:
Sodišče je v zvezi z odkupom sredstev nadaljevalo: [31]
‘It is certainly possible that, in the event that hive-off companies are created in order to continue some of the activities of the undertaking that received the aid, where that undertaking has gone bankrupt, those companies may also, if necessary, be required to repay the aid in question, where it is established that they actually continue to benefit from the competitive advantage linked with the receipt of the aid. This could be the case, inter alia, where those hive-off companies acquire the assets of the company in liquidation without paying the market price in return or where it is established that the creation of such companies evades the obligation to repay that aid.’
„Gotovo je mogoče, da se v primeru ustanovitve odcepljenih družb, nastalih zaradi nadaljevanja dela dejavnosti podjetja, ki je prejelo pomoč, če je [šlo] takšno podjetje v stečaj, od teh družb ravno tako lahko po potrebi zahteva povrnitev zadevne pomoči, če se ugotovi, da imajo dejansko še naprej korist zaradi konkurenčne prednosti, povezane s prejetjem pomoči. To bi namreč zlasti lahko veljalo, če odcepljene družbe kupijo sredstva družbe v postopku likvidacije, ne da bi za to plačale ceno v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, ali če se ugotovi, da je bil učinek ustanovitve takih družb izogibanje obveznosti vračila zadevnih pomoči.“
The same distinction is to be found in the Seleco judgment [32].
Enako razlikovanje zasledimo v sodbi v zadevi Seleco.
In this judgment, the Court of Justice confirms that the Commission may be compelled to require that the recovery is not restricted to the original firm but is extended to the firm which continues the activity, using the transferred means of production, in cases where certain elements of the transfer point to economic continuity between the two firms.
Sodišče v tej sodbi potrjuje, da sme Komisija zahtevati, da se izterjava ne omeji na prvotno podjetje, ampak da se razširi na podjetje, ki zagotavlja njegov nadaljnji obstoj s proizvodnimi sredstvi, prenesenimi nanj, kadar nekateri elementi prenosa omogočajo, da se ugotovi gospodarska kontinuiteta med obema stranema.
The Court also accepted the relevance of the following indicators to establish economic continuity: the purpose of the transfer (assets and liabilities, continuity of the workforce, bundled assets), the transfer price, the identity of the shareholders or owners of the acquiring firm and of the original firm, the moment at which the transfer was carried out (after the start of the investigation, the initiation of the procedure or the final decision) and, lastly, the economic logic of the transaction [33].
Sodišče je hkrati menilo, da se lahko pri ugotavljanju gospodarske kontinuitete upoštevajo naslednji dejavniki: predmet prenosa (sredstva in obveznosti, kontinuiteta delovne sile, sredstva v paketu), cena prenosa, identiteta delničarjev ali lastnikov prevzemnega podjetja in prvotnega podjetja, čas izvedbe prenosa (po začetku preiskave, začetku postopka ali dokončnem sklepu) in nazadnje ekonomski razlogi za transakcijo. [33]
It seems appropriate also to emphasise that the sales of assets in the SMI and Seleco cases were undertaken under collective proceedings, under the supervision of a court.
Zdi se primerno poudariti tudi, da je bila prodaja sredstev v zadevah SMI in Seleco izvedena v kolektivnem postopku in pod nadzorom sodišča.
They concerned only part of the assets of the undertakings subject to the collective proceedings.
Nanašala se je le na del sredstev podjetij v kolektivnem postopku.
In addition, according to the Court, it was not established that they did not correspond to market conditions.
Poleg tega po mnenju Sodišča ni bilo dokazano, da prodaja v teh zadevah ni bila izvedena pod tržnimi pogoji.
The General Court analysed an asset deal in the CDA judgment [34] and in particular checked whether in the case in point there was evidence permitting the conclusion that the recovery order was being evaded through a partial sale of assets.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi CDA [34] analiziralo odkup sredstev in pri tem zlasti preverilo, ali je obravnavani primer vseboval indice na željo po izogibanju nalogu za vračilo tako, da je zadevna družba prodala del sredstev.
The General Court considered that such an intention had not been established by the Commission in this case and that CDA did not retain the actual benefit of the competitive advantage connected with the receipt of the aid granted.
Sodišče prve stopnje je menilo, da Komisija v obravnavanem primeru ni dokazala take želje in da družba CDA ni imela še naprej dejanske koristi zaradi konkurenčne prednosti, povezane s prejetjem pomoči.
The General Court based this finding on two matters of fact: the sale was confined to part of the assets, sold en bloc and proceeding in that way (i.e. sale en bloc) made it possible to obtain a higher sum than would have been obtained by selling the assets in question separately.
To ugotovitev je utemeljilo z dvema dejanskima elementoma, in sicer: prodaja je bila omejena le na del sredstev, ki so bila prodana v svežnju, s tem (s prodajo v svežnju) pa je bilo mogoče dobiti večji znesek kot v primeru ločene prodaje posameznih elementov zadevnih sredstev.
It is therefore appropriate to examine the transfer of Sernam SA’s activities to Financière Sernam in the light of the criteria developed by the Court of Justice and General Court in order to establish whether it is appropriate to extend the recovery to Financière Sernam and its subsidiaries, Sernam Services and Aster.
Da bi opredelili, ali je treba izterjavo razširiti na družbo Financière Sernam ter njeni podružnici Sernam Services in Aster, je treba torej preučiti prenos dejavnosti družbe Sernam SA na družbo Financière Sernam ob upoštevanju meril, ki sta jih razvili Sodišče in Sodišče prve stopnje.
As regards firstly the transfer of all the assets and liabilities, with the exception of the three financial liabilities (equity loan contracted by the company Sernam SA with the SNCF group, liability relating to the cancellation of the ‘IBM-GPS’ contract; obligation to repay the incompatible aid of EUR 41 million), from Sernam SA to Sernam Xpress, the Commission points out that this transfer covered the undertaking in its entirety (see section 3.2.3).
Najprej, kar zadeva prenos vseh sredstev in obveznosti razen treh finančnih obveznosti (delničarskega posojila, ki ga je družba Sernam SA pridobila od skupine SNCF, obveznosti v zvezi z odpovedjo pogodbe IBM – GPS in obveznosti vračila nezdružljive pomoči v višini 41 milijonov EUR) z družbe Sernam SA na družbo Sernam Xpress, Komisija ugotavlja, da se ta nanaša na podjetje v celoti (glej oddelek 3.2.3).
There is therefore economic continuity between Sernam SA and Sernam Xpress.
Torej družbi Sernam SA in Sernam Xpress povezuje gospodarska kontinuiteta.
This distinguishes the present case from the facts which gave rise to the SMI, Seleco and CDA judgments, which concerned the sale of only part of the assets.
V tem je razlika med obravnavanim primerom in dejstvi, na podlagi katerih so bile izrečene sodbe SMI, Seleco in CDA, saj je bil v teh zadevah prodan le del sredstev.
In addition, the transfer took place within a group.
Poleg tega je bil prenos izveden v okviru skupine.
It took place after a final decision by the Commission ordering the recovery of the aid and its only economic logic is to allow the continuation of the Sernam SA’s activities, without having to comply with the conditions imposed by Article 3 of the Sernam 2 Decision.
Izveden je bil po sprejetju dokončne odločbe Komisije, s katero je bilo naloženo vračilo pomoči, edini gospodarski razlog zanj pa je bil omogočiti nadaljevanje dejavnosti družbe Sernam brez upoštevanja pogojev iz člena 3 odločbe Sernam 2.
All the criteria evidencing economic continuity within the meaning of the decision and the Seleco judgment are therefore met.
Torej so izpolnjena vsa merila za to, da se dokaže gospodarska kontinuiteta v smislu zadevne odločbe in sodbe Seleco.
The Commission points out incidentally that the transfer to Sernam Xpress does not correspond to market conditions.
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da prenos na družbo Sernam Xpress ni bil izveden pod tržnimi pogoji.
The transfer to Sernam Xpress was made at a negative price and is not the result of a transparent and open procedure (see section 3.2.5).
Ta prenos je bil izveden po negativni ceni in o njem ni bilo odločeno v preglednem in odprtem postopku (glej oddelek 3.2.5).