(83) Kommissionen mener især, at overtagelsen af personalet på uændrede vilkår med hensyn til kvalifikationer, aflønning og anciennitet samt overtagelse af en række sociale forpligtelser (skyldig feriebetaling, "asbestafgang") blot var en følge af den franske sociallovgivning [15] (som på dette punkt svarer til lovgivningen i mange andre lande), som investor var bekendt med. Med andre ord var der her tale om en forudsætning for, at virksomheden kunne overtage aktiverne.
(83) More specifically, the Commission considers that the takeover of the workforce (with no changes in the conditions regarding skills, pay and seniority) and some social security obligations (outstanding payments for holidays, "asbestos departures") was merely a legal requirement of French social security legislation (similar to that in many other countries), which had been known to the investor [15]. In other words, this takeover of the workforce was a condition without which the takeover of the assets could not have taken place.