# Official Journal L 50/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.050.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 50 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5523 February 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.050.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 50

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5523 February 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 155/2012 of 21 February 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 156/2012 of 22 February 2012 amending Annexes I to IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters | 3 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2012 of 22 February 2012 amending and derogating from Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas | 11 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2012 of 22 February 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 14 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 159/2012 of 22 February 2012 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year | 16 |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Commission Directive 2012/4/EU of 22 February 2012 amending Directive 2008/43/EC setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses (
  1
  ) | 18 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2012/109/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 20 April 2011 concerning State aid C 19/09 (ex N 64/09) which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV2 Danmark A/S
  (notified under document C(2011) 2614)

   (
  1
  ) | 21 |
| | | 2012/110/EU |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision of 10 February 2012 concerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products
  (notified under document C(2012) 676)

   (
  1
  ) | 46 |
| | | 2012/111/EU |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision of 10 February 2012 amending Decision 2007/453/EC as regards the BSE status of Denmark and Panama
  (notified under document C(2012) 678)

   (
  1
  ) | 49 |
| | | 2012/112/EU |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision of 17 February 2012 amending Annex E to Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the model health certificates for animals from holdings and animals, semen, ova and embryos from approved bodies, institutes or centres
  (notified under document C(2012) 860)

   (
  1
  ) | 51 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 155/2012 of 21 February 2012 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 156/2012 of 22 February 2012 amending Annexes I to IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

3

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2012 of 22 February 2012 amending and derogating from Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas

11

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2012 of 22 February 2012 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

14

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 159/2012 of 22 February 2012 amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year

16

DIRECTIVES

*

Commission Directive 2012/4/EU of 22 February 2012 amending Directive 2008/43/EC setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses (
  1
  )

1

18

DECISIONS

2012/109/EU

*

Commission Decision of 20 April 2011 concerning State aid C 19/09 (ex N 64/09) which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV2 Danmark A/S
  (notified under document C(2011) 2614)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2011) 2614)

1

21

2012/110/EU

*

Commission Implementing Decision of 10 February 2012 concerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products
  (notified under document C(2012) 676)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2012) 676)

1

46

2012/111/EU

*

Commission Implementing Decision of 10 February 2012 amending Decision 2007/453/EC as regards the BSE status of Denmark and Panama
  (notified under document C(2012) 678)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2012) 678)

1

49

2012/112/EU

*

Commission Implementing Decision of 17 February 2012 amending Annex E to Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the model health certificates for animals from holdings and animals, semen, ova and embryos from approved bodies, institutes or centres
  (notified under document C(2012) 860)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2012) 860)

1

51

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigenda to Commission Implementing Decision 2011/252/EU of 26 April 2011 allowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances ascorbic acid, ipconazole, spiromesifen, topramezone, and Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 (OJ L 106, 27.4.2011) | 58 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigenda to Commission Implementing Decision 2011/252/EU of 26 April 2011 allowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances ascorbic acid, ipconazole, spiromesifen, topramezone, and Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 (OJ L 106, 27.4.2011)

Pseudomonas

(OJ L 106, 27.4.2011)

58

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.

---

II Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 155/2012

of 21 February 2012

amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 620/2011 (2) two new subheadings, 8528 71 15 and 8528 71 91, have been introduced in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87. Both cover apparatus with a microprocessor-based device incorporating a modem for gaining access to the Internet, and having a function of interactive information exchange, capable of receiving television signals, so-called ‘set-top boxes which have a communication function’. According to the wording of the subheadings the apparatus include apparatus incorporating a device performing a recording or reproducing function, provided that they retain the essential character of a set-top box which has a communication function. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 620/2011 (2) two new subheadings, 8528 71 15 and 8528 71 91, have been introduced in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87. Both cover apparatus with a microprocessor-based device incorporating a modem for gaining access to the Internet, and having a function of interactive information exchange, capable of receiving television signals, so-called ‘set-top boxes which have a communication function’. According to the wording of the subheadings the apparatus include apparatus incorporating a device performing a recording or reproducing function, provided that they retain the essential character of a set-top box which has a communication function.

| (2) | In the interest of legal certainty it is necessary to clarify the scope of those new subheadings with regard to the terms ‘modem’ and ‘interactive information exchange’. A new Additional Note should therefore be inserted in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature to ensure a uniform interpretation of those subheadings throughout the territory of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the interest of legal certainty it is necessary to clarify the scope of those new subheadings with regard to the terms ‘modem’ and ‘interactive information exchange’. A new Additional Note should therefore be inserted in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature to ensure a uniform interpretation of those subheadings throughout the territory of the Union.

| (3) | Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 (3), the following Additional Note 3 is inserted:

| ‘3. | For the purposes of subheadings 8528 71 15 and 8528 71 91 only, the term “modem” covers devices or equipment that modulate and demodulate incoming and outgoing signals, such as V.90 modems or cable modems, and other devices that utilise akin technologies for gaining access to the Internet, such as WLAN, ISDN and Ethernet. The extent of access to the Internet may be limited by the service provider.

  Apparatus of these subheadings must enable a two-way communication process or a two-way flow of information for the purposes of providing an interactive information exchange.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘3.

Apparatus of these subheadings must enable a two-way communication process or a two-way flow of information for the purposes of providing an interactive information exchange.’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 February 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Algirdas ŠEMETA

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 166, 25.6.2011, p. 16.

2

(3)  OJ L 282, 28.10.2011, p. 1.

3

---

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 156/2012

of 22 February 2012

amending Annexes I to IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1), and in particular Article 74(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 lists the rules of national jurisdiction referred to in Articles 3(2) and 4(2) of the Regulation. Annex II contains the lists of courts or competent authorities that have jurisdiction in the Member States to deal with applications for a declaration of enforceability. Annex III lists the courts with which appeals may be lodged against decisions on a declaration of enforceability, and Annex IV enumerates the final appeal procedures against such decisions. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 lists the rules of national jurisdiction referred to in Articles 3(2) and 4(2) of the Regulation. Annex II contains the lists of courts or competent authorities that have jurisdiction in the Member States to deal with applications for a declaration of enforceability. Annex III lists the courts with which appeals may be lodged against decisions on a declaration of enforceability, and Annex IV enumerates the final appeal procedures against such decisions.

| (2) | Annexes I, II and III to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 have been amended on several occasions, most recently by Commission Regulation (EU) No 416/2010 (2) so as to update the rules of national jurisdiction and the lists of courts or competent authorities. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annexes I, II and III to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 have been amended on several occasions, most recently by Commission Regulation (EU) No 416/2010 (2) so as to update the rules of national jurisdiction and the lists of courts or competent authorities.

| (3) | Member States have notified the Commission of additional amendments to the lists set out in Annexes I, II and IV. Furthermore, the entry referring to Iceland in Annexes III and IV should be deleted, since Iceland is not a Member State. It is therefore appropriate to publish consolidated versions of the lists contained in those Annexes. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Member States have notified the Commission of additional amendments to the lists set out in Annexes I, II and IV. Furthermore, the entry referring to Iceland in Annexes III and IV should be deleted, since Iceland is not a Member State. It is therefore appropriate to publish consolidated versions of the lists contained in those Annexes.

| (4) | Pursuant to Article 2 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (3), this Regulation should, under international law, apply to the relations between the European Union and Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Pursuant to Article 2 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (3), this Regulation should, under international law, apply to the relations between the European Union and Denmark.

| (5) | Pursuant to Article 2(2)(g)-(j) of that Agreement, the entries referring to Denmark should be reproduced in Annexes I to IV. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Pursuant to Article 2(2)(g)-(j) of that Agreement, the entries referring to Denmark should be reproduced in Annexes I to IV.

| (6) | Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annexes I to IV to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 are replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.

Done at Brussels, 22 February 2012.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 119, 13.5.2010, p. 7.

2

(3)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2005, p. 62.

3

---

ANNEX

ANNEX I

Rules of jurisdiction referred to in Articles 3(2) and 4(2)

—   in Belgium: Articles 5 through 14 of the Law of 16 July 2004 on private international law,

—   in Bulgaria: Article 4, paragraph 1, point 2, of the Private International Law Code,

—   in the Czech Republic: Article 86 of Act No 99/1963 Coll., the Code of Civil Procedure (‘občanský soudní řád’), as amended,

—   in Denmark: Article 246(2) and (3) of the Administration of Justice Act (‘lov om rettens pleje’),

—   in Germany: Article 23 of the code of civil procedure (‘Zivilprozeßordnung’),

—   in Estonia: Article 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik’),

—   in Ireland: the rules which enable jurisdiction to be founded on the document instituting the proceedings having been served on the defendant during his temporary presence in Ireland,

—   in Greece: Article 40 of the code of civil procedure (‘Κώδικας Πολιτικής Δικονομίας’),

—   in France: Articles 14 and 15 of the civil code (‘Code civil’),

—   in Italy: Articles 3 and 4 of Law 218 of 31 May 1995,

—   in Cyprus: Section 21(2) of the Courts of Justice Law No 14 of 1960, as amended,

—   in Latvia: Section 27 and paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 9 of Section 28 of the Civil Procedure Law (‘Civilprocesa likums’),

—   in Lithuania: Article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Civilinio proceso kodeksas’),

—   in Luxembourg: Articles 14 and 15 of the civil code (‘Code civil’),

—   in Hungary: Article 57 of Law Decree No 13 of 1979 on International Private Law (‘a nemzetközi magánjogról szóló 1979. évi 13. törvényerejű rendelet’),

—   in Malta: Articles 742, 743 and 744 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure – Chapter 12 (‘Kodiċi ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Proċedura Ċivili – Kap. 12’) and Article 549 of the Commercial Code – Chapter 13 (‘Kodiċi tal-kummerċ – Kap. 13’),

—   in Austria: Article 99 of the Law on Court Jurisdiction (‘Jurisdiktionsnorm’),

—   in Poland: Article 1103, paragraph 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego’),

—   in Portugal: Article 65(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Código de Processo Civil’) in so far as it may encompass exorbitant grounds of jurisdiction, such as the courts for the place in which the branch, agency or other establishment is situated (if situated in Portugal) when the central administration (if situated in a foreign State) is the party sued and Article 10 of the Code of Labour Procedure (‘Código de Processo do Trabalho’) in so far as it may encompass exorbitant grounds of jurisdiction, such as the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled in proceedings relating to individual contracts of employment brought by the employee against the employer,

—   in Romania: Articles 148-157 of Law No 105/1992 on Private International Law Relations,

—   in Slovenia: Article 48(2) of the Private International Law and Procedure Act (‘Zakon o medarodnem zasebnem pravu in postopku’) in relation to Article 47(2) of the Civil Procedure Act (‘Zakon o pravdnem postopku’) and Article 58 of the Private International Law and Procedure Act (‘Zakon o medarodnem zasebnem pravu in postopku’) in relation to Article 59 of the Civil Procedure Act (‘Zakon o pravdnem postopku’),

—   in Slovakia: Articles 37 to 37e of Act No 97/1963 on Private International Law and the Rules of Procedure relating thereto,

—   in Finland: paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 18(1) of Chapter 10 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (‘oikeudenkäymiskaari/rättegångsbalken’),

—   in Sweden: the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 3 of Chapter 10 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (‘rättegångsbalken’),

—   in the United Kingdom: the rules which enable jurisdiction to be founded on:

ANNEX II

The courts or competent authorities to which the application referred to in Article 39 may be submitted are the following:

| — | in Belgium, the ‘tribunal de première instance’ or ‘rechtbank van eerste aanleg’ or ‘erstinstanzliches Gericht’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Belgium, the ‘tribunal de première instance’ or ‘rechtbank van eerste aanleg’ or ‘erstinstanzliches Gericht’,

| — | in Bulgaria, the ‘окръжният съд’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Bulgaria, the ‘окръжният съд’,

| — | in the Czech Republic, the ‘okresní soud’ or ‘soudní exekutor’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Czech Republic, the ‘okresní soud’ or ‘soudní exekutor’,

| — | in Denmark, the ‘byret’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Denmark, the ‘byret’,

| — | in Germany:






  (a) | the presiding judge of a chamber of the ‘Landgericht’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in Germany:

(a)

the presiding judge of a chamber of the ‘Landgericht’;

| (b) | a notary in a procedure of declaration of enforceability of an authentic instrument, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a notary in a procedure of declaration of enforceability of an authentic instrument,

| — | in Estonia, the ‘maakohus’ (county court), |
| --- | --- |

—

in Estonia, the ‘maakohus’ (county court),

| — | in Ireland, the ‘High Court’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Ireland, the ‘High Court’,

| — | in Greece, the ‘Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Greece, the ‘Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο’,

| — | in Spain, the ‘Juzgado de Primera Instancia’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Spain, the ‘Juzgado de Primera Instancia’,

| — | in France:






  (a) | the ‘greffier en chef du tribunal de grande instance’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in France:

(a)

the ‘greffier en chef du tribunal de grande instance’;

| (b) | the ‘président de la chambre départementale des notaires’ in the case of application for a declaration of enforceability of a notarial authentic instrument, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the ‘président de la chambre départementale des notaires’ in the case of application for a declaration of enforceability of a notarial authentic instrument,

| — | in Italy, the ‘corte d’appello’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Italy, the ‘corte d’appello’,

| — | in Cyprus, the ‘Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο’ or in the case of a maintenance judgment the ‘Οικογενειακό Δικαστήριο’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Cyprus, the ‘Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο’ or in the case of a maintenance judgment the ‘Οικογενειακό Δικαστήριο’,

| — | in Latvia, the ‘rajona (pilsētas) tiesa’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Latvia, the ‘rajona (pilsētas) tiesa’,

| — | in Lithuania, the ‘Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Lithuania, the ‘Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas’,

| — | in Luxembourg, the presiding judge of the ‘tribunal d’arrondissement’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Luxembourg, the presiding judge of the ‘tribunal d’arrondissement’,

| — | in Hungary, the ‘megyei bíróság székhelyén működő helyi bíróság’, and in Budapest the ‘Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Hungary, the ‘megyei bíróság székhelyén működő helyi bíróság’, and in Budapest the ‘Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság’,

| — | in Malta, the ‘Prim’ Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili’ or ‘Qorti tal-Maġistrati ta’ Għawdex fil-ġurisdizzjoni superjuri tagħha’, or, in the case of a maintenance judgment, the ‘Reġistratur tal-Qorti’ on transmission by the ‘Ministru responsabbli għall-Ġustizzja’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Malta, the ‘Prim’ Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili’ or ‘Qorti tal-Maġistrati ta’ Għawdex fil-ġurisdizzjoni superjuri tagħha’, or, in the case of a maintenance judgment, the ‘Reġistratur tal-Qorti’ on transmission by the ‘Ministru responsabbli għall-Ġustizzja’,

| — | in the Netherlands, the ‘voorzieningenrechter van de rechtbank’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Netherlands, the ‘voorzieningenrechter van de rechtbank’,

| — | in Austria, the ‘Bezirksgericht’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Austria, the ‘Bezirksgericht’,

| — | in Poland, the ‘sąd okręgowy’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Poland, the ‘sąd okręgowy’,

| — | in Portugal, the ‘Tribunal de Comarca’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Portugal, the ‘Tribunal de Comarca’,

| — | in Romania, the ‘Tribunal’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Romania, the ‘Tribunal’,

| — | in Slovenia, the ‘okrožno sodišče’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Slovenia, the ‘okrožno sodišče’,

| — | in Slovakia, ‘okresný súd’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Slovakia, ‘okresný súd’,

| — | in Finland, the ‘käräjäoikeus/tingsrätt’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Finland, the ‘käräjäoikeus/tingsrätt’,

| — | in Sweden, the ‘Svea hovrätt’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Sweden, the ‘Svea hovrätt’,

| — | in the United Kingdom:






  (a) | in England and Wales, the High Court of Justice, or in the case of a maintenance judgment to the Magistrates’ Court on transmission by the Secretary of State; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the United Kingdom:

(a)

in England and Wales, the High Court of Justice, or in the case of a maintenance judgment to the Magistrates’ Court on transmission by the Secretary of State;

| (b) | in Scotland, the Court of Session, or in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Sheriff Court on transmission by the Scottish Ministers; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

in Scotland, the Court of Session, or in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Sheriff Court on transmission by the Scottish Ministers;

| (c) | in Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice, or in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Magistrates’ Court on transmission by the Department of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

in Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice, or in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Magistrates’ Court on transmission by the Department of Justice;

| (d) | in Gibraltar, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, or in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Magistrates’ Court on transmission by the Attorney General of Gibraltar. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

in Gibraltar, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, or in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Magistrates’ Court on transmission by the Attorney General of Gibraltar.

ANNEX III

The courts with which appeals referred to in Article 43(2) may be lodged are the following:

| — | in Belgium,






  (a) | as regards appeal by the defendant, the ‘tribunal de première instance’ or ‘rechtbank van eerste aanleg’ or ‘erstinstanzliches Gericht’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in Belgium,

(a)

as regards appeal by the defendant, the ‘tribunal de première instance’ or ‘rechtbank van eerste aanleg’ or ‘erstinstanzliches Gericht’;

| (b) | as regards appeal by the applicant: the ‘Cour d’appel’ or ‘hof van beroep’, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

as regards appeal by the applicant: the ‘Cour d’appel’ or ‘hof van beroep’,

| — | in Bulgaria, the ‘Апелативен съд – София’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Bulgaria, the ‘Апелативен съд – София’,

| — | in the Czech Republic, the court of appeal through the district court, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Czech Republic, the court of appeal through the district court,

| — | in Denmark, the ‘landsret’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Denmark, the ‘landsret’,

| — | in Germany, the ‘Oberlandesgericht’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Germany, the ‘Oberlandesgericht’,

| — | in Estonia, the ‘ringkonnakohus’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Estonia, the ‘ringkonnakohus’,

| — | in Ireland, the High Court, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Ireland, the High Court,

| — | in Greece, the ‘Εφετείο’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Greece, the ‘Εφετείο’,

| — | in Spain, the ‘Juzgado de Primera Instancia’ which issued the contested decision, with the appeal to be solved by the ‘Audiencia Provincial’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Spain, the ‘Juzgado de Primera Instancia’ which issued the contested decision, with the appeal to be solved by the ‘Audiencia Provincial’,

| — | in France:






  (a) | the ‘cour d’appel’ on decisions allowing the application; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in France:

(a)

the ‘cour d’appel’ on decisions allowing the application;

| (b) | the presiding judge of the ‘tribunal de grande instance’, on decisions rejecting the application, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the presiding judge of the ‘tribunal de grande instance’, on decisions rejecting the application,

| — | in Italy, the ‘corte d’appello’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Italy, the ‘corte d’appello’,

| — | in Cyprus, the ‘Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο’ or in the case of a maintenance judgment the ‘Οικογενειακό Δικαστήριο’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Cyprus, the ‘Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο’ or in the case of a maintenance judgment the ‘Οικογενειακό Δικαστήριο’,

| — | in Latvia, the ‘Apgabaltiesa’ via the ‘rajona (pilsētas) tiesa’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Latvia, the ‘Apgabaltiesa’ via the ‘rajona (pilsētas) tiesa’,

| — | in Lithuania, the ‘Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Lithuania, the ‘Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas’,

| — | in Luxembourg, the ‘Cour supérieure de justice’ sitting as a court of civil appeal, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Luxembourg, the ‘Cour supérieure de justice’ sitting as a court of civil appeal,

| — | in Hungary, the local court situated at the seat of the county court (in Budapest, the Central District Court of Buda); the appeal is adjudicated by the county court (in Budapest, the Capital Court), |
| --- | --- |

—

in Hungary, the local court situated at the seat of the county court (in Budapest, the Central District Court of Buda); the appeal is adjudicated by the county court (in Budapest, the Capital Court),

| — | in Malta, the ‘Qorti ta’ l-Appell’ in accordance with the procedure laid down for appeals in the ‘Kodiċi ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Proċedura Ċivili – Kap. 12’ or in the case of a maintenance judgment by ‘ċitazzjoni’ before the ‘Prim’ Awla tal-Qorti ivili jew il-Qorti tal-Maġistrati ta’ Għawdex fil-ġurisdizzjoni superjuri tagħha’’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Malta, the ‘Qorti ta’ l-Appell’ in accordance with the procedure laid down for appeals in the ‘Kodiċi ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Proċedura Ċivili – Kap. 12’ or in the case of a maintenance judgment by ‘ċitazzjoni’ before the ‘Prim’ Awla tal-Qorti ivili jew il-Qorti tal-Maġistrati ta’ Għawdex fil-ġurisdizzjoni superjuri tagħha’’,

| — | in the Netherlands, the ‘rechtbank’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Netherlands, the ‘rechtbank’,

| — | in Austria, the ‘Landesgericht’ via the ‘Bezirksgericht’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Austria, the ‘Landesgericht’ via the ‘Bezirksgericht’,

| — | in Poland, the ‘sąd apelacyjny’ via the ‘sąd okręgowy’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Poland, the ‘sąd apelacyjny’ via the ‘sąd okręgowy’,

| — | in Portugal, the ‘Tribunal da Relação’ is the competent court. The appeals are launched, in accordance with the national law in force, by way of a request addressed to the court which issued the contested decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Portugal, the ‘Tribunal da Relação’ is the competent court. The appeals are launched, in accordance with the national law in force, by way of a request addressed to the court which issued the contested decision,

| — | in Romania, the ‘Curte de Apel’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Romania, the ‘Curte de Apel’,

| — | in Slovenia, the ‘okrožno sodišče’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Slovenia, the ‘okrožno sodišče’,

| — | in Slovakia, the court of appeal through the district court whose decision is being appealed, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Slovakia, the court of appeal through the district court whose decision is being appealed,

| — | in Finland, the ‘hovioikeus/hovrätt’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Finland, the ‘hovioikeus/hovrätt’,

| — | in Sweden, the ‘Svea hovrätt’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Sweden, the ‘Svea hovrätt’,

| — | in the United Kingdom:






  (a) | in England and Wales, the High Court of Justice, or in the case of a maintenance judgment the Magistrates’ Court; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the United Kingdom:

(a)

in England and Wales, the High Court of Justice, or in the case of a maintenance judgment the Magistrates’ Court;

| (b) | in Scotland, the Court of Session, or in the case of a maintenance judgment the Sheriff Court; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

in Scotland, the Court of Session, or in the case of a maintenance judgment the Sheriff Court;

| (c) | in Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice, or in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Magistrates’ Court; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

in Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice, or in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Magistrates’ Court;

| (d) | in Gibraltar, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, of in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Magistrates’ Court. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

in Gibraltar, the Supreme Court of Gibraltar, of in the case of a maintenance judgment, the Magistrates’ Court.

ANNEX IV

The appeals which may be lodged pursuant to Article 44 are the following:

| — | in Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, an appeal in cassation, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, an appeal in cassation,

| — | in Bulgaria, ‘обжалване пред Върховния касационен съд’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Bulgaria, ‘обжалване пред Върховния касационен съд’,

| — | in the Czech Republic, a ‘dovolání’ and a ‘žaloba pro zmatečnost’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the Czech Republic, a ‘dovolání’ and a ‘žaloba pro zmatečnost’,

| — | in Denmark, an appeal to the ‘Højesteret’ with leave from the ‘Procesbevillingsnævnet’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Denmark, an appeal to the ‘Højesteret’ with leave from the ‘Procesbevillingsnævnet’,

| — | in Germany, a ‘Rechtsbeschwerde’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Germany, a ‘Rechtsbeschwerde’,

| — | in Estonia, a ‘kassatsioonikaebus’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Estonia, a ‘kassatsioonikaebus’,

| — | in Ireland, an appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Ireland, an appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court,

| — | in Cyprus, an appeal to the Supreme Court, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Cyprus, an appeal to the Supreme Court,

| — | in Latvia, by an appeal in cassation to the ‘Augstākās tiesas Senātā’ via the ‘Apgabaltiesā’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Latvia, by an appeal in cassation to the ‘Augstākās tiesas Senātā’ via the ‘Apgabaltiesā’,

| — | in Lithuania, an appeal in cassation to the ‘Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Lithuania, an appeal in cassation to the ‘Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas’,

| — | in Hungary, ‘felülvizsgálati kérelem’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Hungary, ‘felülvizsgálati kérelem’,

| — | in Malta, no further appeal lies to any other court; in the case of a maintenance judgment the ‘Qorti ta’ l-Appell’ in accordance with the procedure laid down for appeal in the ‘kodiċi ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Procedura Ċivili – Kap. 12’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Malta, no further appeal lies to any other court; in the case of a maintenance judgment the ‘Qorti ta’ l-Appell’ in accordance with the procedure laid down for appeal in the ‘kodiċi ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Procedura Ċivili – Kap. 12’,

| — | in Austria, a ‘Revisionsrekurs’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Austria, a ‘Revisionsrekurs’,

| — | in Poland, ‘skarga kasacyjna’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Poland, ‘skarga kasacyjna’,

| — | in Portugal, an appeal on a point of law, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Portugal, an appeal on a point of law,

| — | in Romania, a ‘contestatie in anulare’ or a ‘revizuire’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Romania, a ‘contestatie in anulare’ or a ‘revizuire’,

| — | in Slovenia, an appeal to the ‘Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Slovenia, an appeal to the ‘Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije’,

| — | in Slovakia, the ‘dovolanie’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Slovakia, the ‘dovolanie’,

| — | in Finland, an appeal to the ‘korkein oikeus/högsta domstolen’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Finland, an appeal to the ‘korkein oikeus/högsta domstolen’,

| — | in Sweden, an appeal to the ‘Högsta domstolen’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Sweden, an appeal to the ‘Högsta domstolen’,

| — | in the United Kingdom, a single further appeal on a point of law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the United Kingdom, a single further appeal on a point of law.

---

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/11

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 157/2012

of 22 February 2012

amending and derogating from Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 144(1) and Article 148(c), in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as approved by Council Decision 2011/818/EU (2), provides for an increase in the annual duty free tariff quota and an extension to all types of cheeses originating in Norway as from 1 January 2012. Those changes need to be reflected in Articles 5 and 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (3) and in Part H of Annex I to that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products reached on the basis of Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as approved by Council Decision 2011/818/EU (2), provides for an increase in the annual duty free tariff quota and an extension to all types of cheeses originating in Norway as from 1 January 2012. Those changes need to be reflected in Articles 5 and 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (3) and in Part H of Annex I to that Regulation.

| (2) | Whilst the current quota is managed on the basis of a yearly period running from July to June, the increased quota will be managed on a calendar year basis. By way of derogation from Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, which provides for division into two equal parts for 6-month periods, the available quantity for 2012 should take account of the quantity of 2 000 tonnes already made available in 2011 for the first half of 2012. Consequently, only a quantity of 1 600 tonnes should be available for the subperiod which, for organisational reasons, is to start on 1 March 2012. However, this Regulation should be without prejudice to the quantity of 2 000 tonnes already made available for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Whilst the current quota is managed on the basis of a yearly period running from July to June, the increased quota will be managed on a calendar year basis. By way of derogation from Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, which provides for division into two equal parts for 6-month periods, the available quantity for 2012 should take account of the quantity of 2 000 tonnes already made available in 2011 for the first half of 2012. Consequently, only a quantity of 1 600 tonnes should be available for the subperiod which, for organisational reasons, is to start on 1 March 2012. However, this Regulation should be without prejudice to the quantity of 2 000 tonnes already made available for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2012.

| (3) | Since the period for lodging import licence applications for the first half of 2012, as provided for in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, has expired, provision should be made for a new period for submitting import licence applications and for a derogation from that Article in relation to the quantity of 1 600 tonnes for the subperiod March-June 2012. In order to avoid that applicants who already lodged applications in November 2011 for the quantity of 2 000 tonnes would be excluded from the new submission period, it is appropriate to provide for a derogation from Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (4). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Since the period for lodging import licence applications for the first half of 2012, as provided for in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001, has expired, provision should be made for a new period for submitting import licence applications and for a derogation from that Article in relation to the quantity of 1 600 tonnes for the subperiod March-June 2012. In order to avoid that applicants who already lodged applications in November 2011 for the quantity of 2 000 tonnes would be excluded from the new submission period, it is appropriate to provide for a derogation from Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (4).

| (4) | Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides for the notification of the quantities covered by import licences within 2 months of expiry of the validity of the licences in question. However, for purposes of good management, it is necessary for the Commission to have this information at an earlier stage. An appropriate notification obligation should therefore be provided for in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 provides for the notification of the quantities covered by import licences within 2 months of expiry of the validity of the licences in question. However, for purposes of good management, it is necessary for the Commission to have this information at an earlier stage. An appropriate notification obligation should therefore be provided for in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001.

| (5) | Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (6) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001

Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 is amended as follows:

| (1) | in Article 5, point (h) is replaced by the following:






  ‘(h) | the quotas provided for in Annex V to the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway, approved by Council Decision 2011/818/EU (5), hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement with Norway”; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

in Article 5, point (h) is replaced by the following:

‘(h)

the quotas provided for in Annex V to the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway, approved by Council Decision 2011/818/EU (5), hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement with Norway”;

| (2) | in Article 16, the following paragraph 5 is added:
  ‘5.   By way of derogation from point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of that Article of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities, including nil returns, covered by import licences they have issued, within 10 working days following the end of the period for issuing those licences referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.’; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

in Article 16, the following paragraph 5 is added:

‘5.   By way of derogation from point (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of that Article of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, Member States shall notify the Commission of the quantities, including nil returns, covered by import licences they have issued, within 10 working days following the end of the period for issuing those licences referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.’;

| (3) | in Article 19(1), point (g) is replaced by the following:






  ‘(g) | Rules referred to in point 9 of the Agreement with Norway;’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(3)

in Article 19(1), point (g) is replaced by the following:

‘(g)

Rules referred to in point 9 of the Agreement with Norway;’;

| (4) | Part H of Annex I is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Part H of Annex I is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

Derogation from Regulations (EC) No 2535/2001 and (EC) No 1301/2006

1.   By way of derogation from Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006, for the quota for the period from 1 March to 30 June 2012 relating to a quantity of 1 600 tonnes, as set out in Part H of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 as amended by the Annex to this Regulation, applications for import licences may be lodged from 1 to 10 March 2012.

Those applications shall relate to not less than 10 tonnes.

2.   Import licences issued in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be valid until 30 June 2012.

Article 3

Entry into force and application

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 March 2012.

However, this Regulation shall be without prejudice to the quantity of 2 000 tonnes already made available for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2012.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 February 2012.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 327, 9.12.2011, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29.

3

(4)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

4

(5)  OJ L 327, 9.12.2011, p. 1.’;

5

---

ANNEX

‘I. H

TARIFF QUOTAS UNDER ANNEX I TO THE AGREEMENT WITH NORWAY

Quota from January to December

| Quota number | Combined Nomenclature code | Description | Customs duty | Quota from 1 March to 30 June 2012
  (in tonnes) | Quota from 1 July to 31 December 2012
  (in tonnes) | Quota as from 1 January 2013
  (in tonnes) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| annual | 6-monthly |
| 09.4179 | 0406 | Cheese and curd | exemption | 1 600 | 3 600 | 7 200 | 3 600’ |

Quota number

Combined Nomenclature code

Description

Customs duty

Quota from 1 March to 30 June 2012

(in tonnes)

Quota from 1 July to 31 December 2012

(in tonnes)

Quota as from 1 January 2013

(in tonnes)

annual

6-monthly

09.4179

0406

Cheese and curd

exemption

1 600

3 600

7 200

3 600’

---

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/14

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 158/2012

of 22 February 2012

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

| (2) | The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 February 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | IL | 107,2 |
| JO | 78,3 |
| MA | 83,6 |
| TN | 77,6 |
| TR | 125,6 |
| ZZ | 94,5 |
| 0707 00 05 | JO | 134,1 |
| MA | 94,2 |
| TR | 169,2 |
| ZZ | 132,5 |
| 0709 93 10 | MA | 63,8 |
| TR | 159,6 |
| ZZ | 111,7 |
| 0805 10 20 | EG | 47,8 |
| IL | 70,4 |
| MA | 50,5 |
| TN | 56,1 |
| TR | 74,1 |
| ZZ | 59,8 |
| 0805 20 10 | IL | 137,1 |
| MA | 89,6 |
| ZZ | 113,4 |
| 0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70, 0805 20 90 | EG | 83,5 |
| IL | 120,2 |
| MA | 97,2 |
| TR | 69,2 |
| ZZ | 92,5 |
| 0805 50 10 | EG | 74,4 |
| TR | 51,2 |
| ZZ | 62,8 |
| 0808 10 80 | CA | 136,5 |
| CL | 98,4 |
| CN | 98,3 |
| MK | 29,3 |
| US | 149,9 |
| ZZ | 102,5 |
| 0808 30 90 | AR | 108,8 |
| CL | 120,5 |
| CN | 56,7 |
| US | 127,1 |
| ZA | 87,3 |
| ZZ | 100,1 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

IL

107,2

JO

78,3

MA

83,6

TN

77,6

TR

125,6

ZZ

94,5

0707 00 05

JO

134,1

MA

94,2

TR

169,2

ZZ

132,5

0709 93 10

MA

63,8

TR

159,6

ZZ

111,7

0805 10 20

EG

47,8

IL

70,4

MA

50,5

TN

56,1

TR

74,1

ZZ

59,8

0805 20 10

IL

137,1

MA

89,6

ZZ

113,4

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70, 0805 20 90

EG

83,5

IL

120,2

MA

97,2

TR

69,2

ZZ

92,5

0805 50 10

EG

74,4

TR

51,2

ZZ

62,8

0808 10 80

CA

136,5

CL

98,4

CN

98,3

MK

29,3

US

149,9

ZZ

102,5

0808 30 90

AR

108,8

CL

120,5

CN

56,7

US

127,1

ZA

87,3

ZZ

100,1

---

(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘ZZ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/16

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 159/2012

of 22 February 2012

amending the representative prices and additional import duties for certain products in the sugar sector fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 36(2), second subparagraph, second sentence thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 142/2012 (4). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of white sugar, raw sugar and certain syrups for the 2011/12 marketing year are fixed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 (3). Those prices and duties were last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 142/2012 (4).

| (2) | The data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The data currently available to the Commission indicate that those amounts should be amended in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006.

| (3) | Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The representative prices and additional duties applicable to imports of the products referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, as fixed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 971/2011 for the 2011/12 marketing year, are hereby amended as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 February 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 178, 1.7.2006, p. 24.

2

(3)  OJ L 254, 30.9.2011, p. 12.

3

(4)  OJ L 47, 18.2.2012, p. 22.

4

---

ANNEX

Amended representative prices and additional import duties applicable to white sugar, raw sugar and products covered by CN code 1702 90 95 from 23 February 2012

| (EUR) |
| --- |
| CN code | Representative price per 100 kg net of the product concerned | Additional duty per 100 kg net of the product concerned |
| 1701 12 10 (1) | 44,16 | 0,00 |
| 1701 12 90 (1) | 44,16 | 1,36 |
| 1701 13 10 (1) | 44,16 | 0,00 |
| 1701 13 90 (1) | 44,16 | 1,66 |
| 1701 14 10 (1) | 44,16 | 0,00 |
| 1701 14 90 (1) | 44,16 | 1,66 |
| 1701 91 00 (2) | 48,40 | 2,95 |
| 1701 99 10 (2) | 48,40 | 0,00 |
| 1701 99 90 (2) | 48,40 | 0,00 |
| 1702 90 95 (3) | 0,48 | 0,23 |

(EUR)

CN code

Representative price per 100 kg net of the product concerned

Additional duty per 100 kg net of the product concerned

1701 12 10 (1)

44,16

0,00

1701 12 90 (1)

44,16

1,36

1701 13 10 (1)

44,16

0,00

1701 13 90 (1)

44,16

1,66

1701 14 10 (1)

44,16

0,00

1701 14 90 (1)

44,16

1,66

1701 91 00 (2)

48,40

2,95

1701 99 10 (2)

48,40

0,00

1701 99 90 (2)

48,40

0,00

1702 90 95 (3)

0,48

0,23

---

(1)  For the standard quality defined in point III of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

(2)  For the standard quality defined in point II of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

(3)  Per 1 % sucrose content.

---

DIRECTIVES

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/18

---

COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2012/4/EU

of 22 February 2012

amending Directive 2008/43/EC setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (1), and in particular the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 14 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Fuses, including safety fuses as well as cap-type primers, are subject to Directive 93/15/EEC, but they are used for pyrotechnic rather than for explosive purposes. The potential effects of their misuse are likely to be similar to the effects of misuse of pyrotechnic articles which present a low level of hazard and therefore those effects are much less severe in comparison with the other types of explosives. For reasons of proportionality, fuses, including safety fuses as well as cap-type primers, should be exempted from the system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil use. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Fuses, including safety fuses as well as cap-type primers, are subject to Directive 93/15/EEC, but they are used for pyrotechnic rather than for explosive purposes. The potential effects of their misuse are likely to be similar to the effects of misuse of pyrotechnic articles which present a low level of hazard and therefore those effects are much less severe in comparison with the other types of explosives. For reasons of proportionality, fuses, including safety fuses as well as cap-type primers, should be exempted from the system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil use.

| (2) | The development of the computerised systems needed to implement the system for the identification and traceability of explosives has taken longer than initially expected. A postponement of the application of Commission Directive 2008/43/EC (2) is necessary to provide the explosives industry with extra time to fully develop, test, validate and, thereby, to increase the security of the electronic systems required to implement Directive 2008/43/EC. In order to allow this, the obligation on manufacturers and importers to mark explosives should be postponed by 1 year to 5 April 2013. Additional time is necessary to have the requisite electronic tracking systems implemented by all actors along the supply chain. Furthermore, stocks of explosives with longer shelf-lives which were produced earlier and were not to be marked in accordance with Directive 2008/43/EC will still be in the supply chain and it is impractical to oblige companies to maintain different types of records. The obligations on data collection and record keeping should therefore be postponed by 3 years to 5 April 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The development of the computerised systems needed to implement the system for the identification and traceability of explosives has taken longer than initially expected. A postponement of the application of Commission Directive 2008/43/EC (2) is necessary to provide the explosives industry with extra time to fully develop, test, validate and, thereby, to increase the security of the electronic systems required to implement Directive 2008/43/EC. In order to allow this, the obligation on manufacturers and importers to mark explosives should be postponed by 1 year to 5 April 2013. Additional time is necessary to have the requisite electronic tracking systems implemented by all actors along the supply chain. Furthermore, stocks of explosives with longer shelf-lives which were produced earlier and were not to be marked in accordance with Directive 2008/43/EC will still be in the supply chain and it is impractical to oblige companies to maintain different types of records. The obligations on data collection and record keeping should therefore be postponed by 3 years to 5 April 2015.

| (3) | Certain articles are too small to affix the code of the manufacturing site and the electronically readable information. On certain other articles, affixing a unique identification is technically impossible due to their shape or design. In those cases, the required identification should be affixed on each smallest packaging unit. Future technical progress may make it possible to affix the code of the manufacturing site and the electronically readable information on those articles. The Commission should therefore carry out a review by the end of 2020 to assess whether the required information can be affixed on the articles themselves. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Certain articles are too small to affix the code of the manufacturing site and the electronically readable information. On certain other articles, affixing a unique identification is technically impossible due to their shape or design. In those cases, the required identification should be affixed on each smallest packaging unit. Future technical progress may make it possible to affix the code of the manufacturing site and the electronically readable information on those articles. The Commission should therefore carry out a review by the end of 2020 to assess whether the required information can be affixed on the articles themselves.

| (4) | Directive 2008/43/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Directive 2008/43/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (5) | The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 13(1) of Directive 93/15/EC, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 13(1) of Directive 93/15/EC,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Directive 2008/43/EC is amended as follows:

| (1) | in Article 2, the following points (d), (e) and (f) are added:






  ‘(d) | fuses, which are cord-like non-detonating igniting devices; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

in Article 2, the following points (d), (e) and (f) are added:

‘(d)

fuses, which are cord-like non-detonating igniting devices;

| (e) | safety fuses, which consist of a core of fine grained black powder surrounded by a flexible woven fabric with one or more protective outer coverings and which, when ignited, burn at a predetermined rate without any external explosive effect; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

safety fuses, which consist of a core of fine grained black powder surrounded by a flexible woven fabric with one or more protective outer coverings and which, when ignited, burn at a predetermined rate without any external explosive effect;

| (f) | cap-type primers, which consist of a metal or plastic cap containing a small amount of primary explosive mixture that is readily ignited by impact and which serve as igniting elements in small arms cartridges or in percussion primers for propelling charges.’; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

cap-type primers, which consist of a metal or plastic cap containing a small amount of primary explosive mixture that is readily ignited by impact and which serve as igniting elements in small arms cartridges or in percussion primers for propelling charges.’;

| (2) | Article 7 is replaced by the following:
  ‘Article 7
  Plain detonators
  For plain detonators the unique identification shall consist of an adhesive label or direct printing or stamping on the detonator shell. An associated label shall be placed on each case of detonators.
  In addition, undertakings may use a passive inert electronic tag attached to each detonator, and an associated tag for each case of detonators.’; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 7

Plain detonators

For plain detonators the unique identification shall consist of an adhesive label or direct printing or stamping on the detonator shell. An associated label shall be placed on each case of detonators.

In addition, undertakings may use a passive inert electronic tag attached to each detonator, and an associated tag for each case of detonators.’;

| (3) | Articles 9 and 10 are replaced by the following:
  ‘Article 9
  Primers and boosters
  For primers other than those referred to in Article 2 and for boosters the unique identification shall consist of an adhesive label or direct printing on such primers and boosters. An associated label shall be placed on each case of such primers and boosters.
  In addition, undertakings may use a passive inert electronic tag attached to each such primer and booster, and an associated tag for each case of such primers and boosters.
  Article 10
  Detonating cords
  For detonating cords the unique identification shall consist of an adhesive label or direct printing on the bobbin. The unique identification will be marked every 5 meters on either the external envelope of the cord or the plastic extruded inner layer immediately under the exterior fibre of the cord. An associated label shall be placed on each case of detonating cord.
  In addition, undertakings may use a passive inert electronic tag inserted within the cord, and an associated tag for each case of cord.’; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Articles 9 and 10 are replaced by the following:

‘Article 9

Primers and boosters

For primers other than those referred to in Article 2 and for boosters the unique identification shall consist of an adhesive label or direct printing on such primers and boosters. An associated label shall be placed on each case of such primers and boosters.

In addition, undertakings may use a passive inert electronic tag attached to each such primer and booster, and an associated tag for each case of such primers and boosters.

Article 10

Detonating cords

For detonating cords the unique identification shall consist of an adhesive label or direct printing on the bobbin. The unique identification will be marked every 5 meters on either the external envelope of the cord or the plastic extruded inner layer immediately under the exterior fibre of the cord. An associated label shall be placed on each case of detonating cord.

In addition, undertakings may use a passive inert electronic tag inserted within the cord, and an associated tag for each case of cord.’;

| (4) | the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) is replaced by the following:
  ‘They shall apply those provisions from 5 April 2013. However, they shall apply the provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(6) and Articles 13 and 14 from 5 April 2015.’; |
| --- | --- |

(4)

the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) is replaced by the following:

‘They shall apply those provisions from 5 April 2013. However, they shall apply the provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(6) and Articles 13 and 14 from 5 April 2015.’;

| (5) | the following Article 15a is inserted:
  ‘Article 15a
  By 31 December 2020, the Commission shall carry out a review to assess whether technical progress has made it possible to revoke the exemptions set out in point 3 of the Annex.’; |
| --- | --- |

(5)

the following Article 15a is inserted:

‘Article 15a

By 31 December 2020, the Commission shall carry out a review to assess whether technical progress has made it possible to revoke the exemptions set out in point 3 of the Annex.’;

| (6) | in point 3 of the Annex, the following paragraphs are added:
  ‘For articles too small to affix the information under point 1(b)(i) and (ii) and point 2 or where it is technically impossible due to their shape or design to affix a unique identification, a unique identification shall be affixed on each smallest packaging unit.
  Each smallest packaging unit shall be closed with a seal.
  Each plain detonator or booster falling under the exemption set out in the second paragraph shall be marked in a durable way so as to ensure that it is clearly legible with the information under point 1(b)(i) and (ii). The number of plain detonators and boosters contained shall be printed on the smallest packaging unit.
  Each detonating cord falling under the exemption set out in the second paragraph shall be marked with the unique identification on the reel or spool and, where applicable, on the smallest packaging unit.’. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

in point 3 of the Annex, the following paragraphs are added:

‘For articles too small to affix the information under point 1(b)(i) and (ii) and point 2 or where it is technically impossible due to their shape or design to affix a unique identification, a unique identification shall be affixed on each smallest packaging unit.

Each smallest packaging unit shall be closed with a seal.

Each plain detonator or booster falling under the exemption set out in the second paragraph shall be marked in a durable way so as to ensure that it is clearly legible with the information under point 1(b)(i) and (ii). The number of plain detonators and boosters contained shall be printed on the smallest packaging unit.

Each detonating cord falling under the exemption set out in the second paragraph shall be marked with the unique identification on the reel or spool and, where applicable, on the smallest packaging unit.’.

Article 2

1.   Member States shall adopt and publish, by 4 April 2012 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.

They shall apply those provisions from 5 April 2013.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

2.   Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 February 2012.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  OJ L 121, 15.5.1993, p. 20.

1

(2)  OJ L 94, 5.4.2008, p. 8.

2

---

DECISIONS

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/21

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 20 April 2011

concerning State aid C 19/09 (ex N 64/09) which Denmark intends to implement regarding the restructuring of TV2 Danmark A/S

(notified under document C(2011) 2614)

(Only the Danish text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2012/109/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to these provisions (2), and having regard to their comments,

Whereas:

I.   PROCEDURE

| (1) | On 4 August 2008, the Commission notified Denmark of its decision not to raise objections to the rescue aid to be granted to TV2 Danmark A/S in the form of a credit facility totalling DKK 1 000 million (hereinafter ‘the rescue aid decision’) (3). That decision found that the planned aid was compatible with Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, now Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and, in particular, with the rules laid down in the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (4) (hereinafter ‘the Guidelines’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 4 August 2008, the Commission notified Denmark of its decision not to raise objections to the rescue aid to be granted to TV2 Danmark A/S in the form of a credit facility totalling DKK 1 000 million (hereinafter ‘the rescue aid decision’) (3). That decision found that the planned aid was compatible with Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty, now Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and, in particular, with the rules laid down in the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (4) (hereinafter ‘the Guidelines’).

| (2) | Pursuant to the rescue aid decision and the Guidelines, the Commission had to be provided with a restructuring plan or a liquidation plan, or proof that the loan had been reimbursed in full not later than 6 months after authorisation of the rescue aid measure, i.e. by 4 February 2009 at the latest. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to the rescue aid decision and the Guidelines, the Commission had to be provided with a restructuring plan or a liquidation plan, or proof that the loan had been reimbursed in full not later than 6 months after authorisation of the rescue aid measure, i.e. by 4 February 2009 at the latest.

| (3) | On 4 February 2009, Denmark notified to the Commission, pursuant to Article 88(3) EC, now Article 108(3) TFEU, a restructuring plan regarding TV2 Danmark A/S. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 4 February 2009, Denmark notified to the Commission, pursuant to Article 88(3) EC, now Article 108(3) TFEU, a restructuring plan regarding TV2 Danmark A/S.

| (4) | By letter dated 2 July 2009, the Commission informed Denmark that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC, now Article 108(2) TFEU, in respect of the aid. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

By letter dated 2 July 2009, the Commission informed Denmark that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC, now Article 108(2) TFEU, in respect of the aid.

| (5) | The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (5). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (5). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments.

| (6) | The Commission received the following comments from interested parties.







  — | 1.10.2009 | TDC A/S and You see |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | 1.10.2009 | Canal Digital Danmark |
| — | 1.10.2009 | MTV Networks |
| — | 2.10.2009 | Niels Jorgen Langkilde |
| — | 2.10.2009 | Boxer TV |
| — | 2.10.2009 | Discovery Networks Nordic |
| — | 2.10.2009 | TV2 Danmark (aid beneficiary) |
| — | 2.10.2009 | MTG Viasat (which submitted further annexes by letter of 15 October 2009) |
| — | 2.10.2009 | Danish Cable Television Association |
| — | 2.10.2009 | SBS Broadcasting Networks Ltd and SBS TV A/S |
| — | 7.10.2009 | Telia Stofa A/S |

(6)

The Commission received the following comments from interested parties.

—

1.10.2009

TDC A/S and You see

—

1.10.2009

Canal Digital Danmark

—

1.10.2009

MTV Networks

—

2.10.2009

Niels Jorgen Langkilde

—

2.10.2009

Boxer TV

—

2.10.2009

Discovery Networks Nordic

—

2.10.2009

TV2 Danmark (aid beneficiary)

—

2.10.2009

MTG Viasat (which submitted further annexes by letter of 15 October 2009)

—

2.10.2009

Danish Cable Television Association

—

2.10.2009

SBS Broadcasting Networks Ltd and SBS TV A/S

—

7.10.2009

Telia Stofa A/S

| (7) | It forwarded them to Denmark on 27 October 2009. The late comment by Telia Stofa was forwarded to Denmark on 30 November 2009. Denmark was given the opportunity to respond and its comments were received by two letters dealing with different aspects of the third party comments: by letter from the Danish Government dated 29 January 2010, received via the Permanent Representation and registered as received on 23 February 2010, and by letter dated 29 March 2010 and registered as received on 30 March 2010, with the Annexes to that letter later being registered as received on 14 April 2010. On 8 June 2010, the Danish Government provided some further information on the adoption of a new Media Policy Agreement for 2011-2014. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

It forwarded them to Denmark on 27 October 2009. The late comment by Telia Stofa was forwarded to Denmark on 30 November 2009. Denmark was given the opportunity to respond and its comments were received by two letters dealing with different aspects of the third party comments: by letter from the Danish Government dated 29 January 2010, received via the Permanent Representation and registered as received on 23 February 2010, and by letter dated 29 March 2010 and registered as received on 30 March 2010, with the Annexes to that letter later being registered as received on 14 April 2010. On 8 June 2010, the Danish Government provided some further information on the adoption of a new Media Policy Agreement for 2011-2014.

| (8) | On 9 June 2010, TV2 Danmark A/S submitted an information memorandum on the sale of the TV2 broadcasting network. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

On 9 June 2010, TV2 Danmark A/S submitted an information memorandum on the sale of the TV2 broadcasting network.

| (9) | The Commission had a meeting with the aid beneficiary TV2 Danmark A/S on 8 June 2010. As a follow-up to the meeting, the Commission sent questions on 30 June 2010 to Denmark, to which Denmark submitted answers on 9 July 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Commission had a meeting with the aid beneficiary TV2 Danmark A/S on 8 June 2010. As a follow-up to the meeting, the Commission sent questions on 30 June 2010 to Denmark, to which Denmark submitted answers on 9 July 2010.

| (10) | Viasat submitted further information by e-mail of 26 May 2010 and by letters registered as received on 1 June 2010 and 6 July 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Viasat submitted further information by e-mail of 26 May 2010 and by letters registered as received on 1 June 2010 and 6 July 2010.

| (11) | Following additional questions by the Commission on 23 and 28 July 2010, Denmark submitted answers to these questions on 17 August 2010. The Commission had a meeting with Denmark on 14 September 2010, after which Denmark provided further comments in a submission dated 15 October 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Following additional questions by the Commission on 23 and 28 July 2010, Denmark submitted answers to these questions on 17 August 2010. The Commission had a meeting with Denmark on 14 September 2010, after which Denmark provided further comments in a submission dated 15 October 2010.

| (12) | Viasat submitted more information to the Commission on 22 December 2010 and SBS did so on 7 February 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Viasat submitted more information to the Commission on 22 December 2010 and SBS did so on 7 February 2011.

| (13) | On 14 January 2011, the Commission sent a request for information to Denmark, to which Denmark replied by letter of 3 February 2011. Denmark requested a further meeting by letter of 28 January 2011. This meeting took place on 7 February 2011. Further information was submitted on 24 February 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

On 14 January 2011, the Commission sent a request for information to Denmark, to which Denmark replied by letter of 3 February 2011. Denmark requested a further meeting by letter of 28 January 2011. This meeting took place on 7 February 2011. Further information was submitted on 24 February 2011.

| (14) | At the request of the Danish authorities, a further meeting took place on 4 March 2011. Denmark then submitted more information by letters registered as received on 11, 17 and 18 March 2011 and on 6 and 14 April 2011. In its letter of 11 March 2011, Denmark informed the Commission that parts of the restructuring plan (the ‘TV2 Alene card’, explained further below) would not be implemented. On 17 and 18 March and on 6 and 14 April 2011, Denmark provided amended financial data taking this amendment into account. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

At the request of the Danish authorities, a further meeting took place on 4 March 2011. Denmark then submitted more information by letters registered as received on 11, 17 and 18 March 2011 and on 6 and 14 April 2011. In its letter of 11 March 2011, Denmark informed the Commission that parts of the restructuring plan (the ‘TV2 Alene card’, explained further below) would not be implemented. On 17 and 18 March and on 6 and 14 April 2011, Denmark provided amended financial data taking this amendment into account.

| (15) | It should further be noted that on 24 March 2009, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd brought an application for annulment of the rescue aid decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (now the General Court) (6). Moreover, on 15 May 2009, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd requested that the Commission initiate proceedings under Article 108(2) TFEU with a view to revoking the rescue aid decision (7). These filings concern a different decision and do not prevent the Commission from taking a view on the restructuring plan. However, by order dated 17 May 2010, the proceedings in the court case were stayed until the Commission’s adoption of a final decision in the restructuring case (8). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

It should further be noted that on 24 March 2009, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd brought an application for annulment of the rescue aid decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (now the General Court) (6). Moreover, on 15 May 2009, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd requested that the Commission initiate proceedings under Article 108(2) TFEU with a view to revoking the rescue aid decision (7). These filings concern a different decision and do not prevent the Commission from taking a view on the restructuring plan. However, by order dated 17 May 2010, the proceedings in the court case were stayed until the Commission’s adoption of a final decision in the restructuring case (8).

| (16) | On 14 December 2009, MTG/Viasat submitted a complaint alleging that Denmark is infringing inter alia Articles 106 and 102 TFEU by the introduction of user charges for TV2. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

On 14 December 2009, MTG/Viasat submitted a complaint alleging that Denmark is infringing inter alia Articles 106 and 102 TFEU by the introduction of user charges for TV2.

II.   THE BENEFICIARY: TV2 DANMARK A/S

| (17) | TV2 Danmark A/S was incorporated in 2003 as a private limited liability company wholly owned by the Danish State. The company took over the activities of the autonomous public institution TV2, which was created in 1986. Danmark A/S has interests in several different companies, involving wholly-owned subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures and minority holdings. TV2 Danmark A/S (hereinafter ‘TV2’) is the parent company of the TV2 Group and operates the public service television channel TV2 (below also called the ‘main channel’). |
| --- | --- |

(17)

TV2 Danmark A/S was incorporated in 2003 as a private limited liability company wholly owned by the Danish State. The company took over the activities of the autonomous public institution TV2, which was created in 1986. Danmark A/S has interests in several different companies, involving wholly-owned subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures and minority holdings. TV2 Danmark A/S (hereinafter ‘TV2’) is the parent company of the TV2 Group and operates the public service television channel TV2 (below also called the ‘main channel’).

| (18) | Current business model: Historically, the TV2 main channel was funded by television licence fees and advertising revenues. However, although the regional channels are still partly funded this way, television licence funding for the main channel ended in July 2004 and only financing via advertising revenues remained. These advertising revenues are currently the only source of income for the main channel, apart from the profits from the commercial channels. TV2 is currently not allowed to charge subscription fees for its main channel. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Current business model: Historically, the TV2 main channel was funded by television licence fees and advertising revenues. However, although the regional channels are still partly funded this way, television licence funding for the main channel ended in July 2004 and only financing via advertising revenues remained. These advertising revenues are currently the only source of income for the main channel, apart from the profits from the commercial channels. TV2 is currently not allowed to charge subscription fees for its main channel.

| (19) | Public service obligations: Section 38a(1) of the Danish Broadcasting Act establishes a public service obligation for TV2 and states that ‘the public service programming activities shall be provided to the general public in accordance with the principles referred to in Section 10’. These overall obligations are supplemented by more detailed descriptions in the public service licence and addenda thereto. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Public service obligations: Section 38a(1) of the Danish Broadcasting Act establishes a public service obligation for TV2 and states that ‘the public service programming activities shall be provided to the general public in accordance with the principles referred to in Section 10’. These overall obligations are supplemented by more detailed descriptions in the public service licence and addenda thereto.

| (20) | The Commission accepted (9), and was upheld on this point by the General Court (10), that TV2’s main channel fulfils a public service obligation. TV 2’s public service activity accounts for more than [...] (11) of its costs (12). |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The Commission accepted (9), and was upheld on this point by the General Court (10), that TV2’s main channel fulfils a public service obligation. TV 2’s public service activity accounts for more than [...] (11) of its costs (12).

| (21) | The TV2 main channel is further under a public service obligation to broadcast regional programmes according to point 2.5 of the TV2 public service licence (13). The regional content is produced by TV2 regional stations. The eight regional stations are independent from TV2. They are governed by Sections 31 et seq. of the Danish Broadcasting Act (14). The eight regional TV 2 stations each have a Board of Representatives, the composition of which reflects a wide variety of aspects of the regional culture and community. TV2 may not sit on these Boards of Representatives. The regional operations are entrusted with public service activities under Sections 31 et seq. of the Danish Broadcasting Act and their programming must emphasise regional affiliation. Their activities are primarily financed by licence fees (15). TV2 is under an obligation to transmit these regional programmes in ‘windows’ in TV2’s normal programme flow (16). TV2 has no influence on the chosen TV format, e.g. to ensure coherence with general TV programming on the main channel. Between the national and regional programmes, TV2 transmits advertisements which are directed towards the regional market, and it retains the revenues from advertising. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The TV2 main channel is further under a public service obligation to broadcast regional programmes according to point 2.5 of the TV2 public service licence (13). The regional content is produced by TV2 regional stations. The eight regional stations are independent from TV2. They are governed by Sections 31 et seq. of the Danish Broadcasting Act (14). The eight regional TV 2 stations each have a Board of Representatives, the composition of which reflects a wide variety of aspects of the regional culture and community. TV2 may not sit on these Boards of Representatives. The regional operations are entrusted with public service activities under Sections 31 et seq. of the Danish Broadcasting Act and their programming must emphasise regional affiliation. Their activities are primarily financed by licence fees (15). TV2 is under an obligation to transmit these regional programmes in ‘windows’ in TV2’s normal programme flow (16). TV2 has no influence on the chosen TV format, e.g. to ensure coherence with general TV programming on the main channel. Between the national and regional programmes, TV2 transmits advertisements which are directed towards the regional market, and it retains the revenues from advertising.

| (22) | Must-carry obligation: Currently, the main channel is covered by a ‘must-carry’ obligation pursuant to Section 6 of the Danish Broadcasting Act, according to which SMATV distributors (including commercial cable distributors) must give access to the channels mentioned in the provision (i.e. TV2 and DR) in all their packages (17).
  TV distributors using satellite as a distribution platform were not obliged to include the TV2 main channel in the programme packages, but chose to do so, since the channel is very popular (18). |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Must-carry obligation: Currently, the main channel is covered by a ‘must-carry’ obligation pursuant to Section 6 of the Danish Broadcasting Act, according to which SMATV distributors (including commercial cable distributors) must give access to the channels mentioned in the provision (i.e. TV2 and DR) in all their packages (17).

TV distributors using satellite as a distribution platform were not obliged to include the TV2 main channel in the programme packages, but chose to do so, since the channel is very popular (18).

| (23) | Distribution of television in Denmark: Television in Denmark is distributed in five different ways, based on alternative means of receiving the TV signal. These are distribution by cable (distributors YouSee and Stofa), SMATV (local cable distribution), distribution via satellite dish (Viasat and Canal Digital), distribution by broadband (IPTV) and terrestrial distribution. As of 1 November 2009, the analogue terrestrial signal was switched off and Danish terrestrial TV signals were digitised. The company Boxer won the tender to act as the commercial gatekeeper and is responsible for the transmission of subscription-based channels through the terrestrial network. Currently, the TV2 main channel is broadcast ‘Free to air’ (FTA) without any subscription fees being charged for its viewing (19). |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Distribution of television in Denmark: Television in Denmark is distributed in five different ways, based on alternative means of receiving the TV signal. These are distribution by cable (distributors YouSee and Stofa), SMATV (local cable distribution), distribution via satellite dish (Viasat and Canal Digital), distribution by broadband (IPTV) and terrestrial distribution. As of 1 November 2009, the analogue terrestrial signal was switched off and Danish terrestrial TV signals were digitised. The company Boxer won the tender to act as the commercial gatekeeper and is responsible for the transmission of subscription-based channels through the terrestrial network. Currently, the TV2 main channel is broadcast ‘Free to air’ (FTA) without any subscription fees being charged for its viewing (19).

| (24) | TV2’s activities: TV2 is primarily active in broadcasting and in selling TV advertising. It also acquires and sells audiovisual rights on international markets (e.g. Euro 2008 or the Olympic Games) which it can broadcast itself or resell. TV2 operates almost exclusively on the TV broadcasting market and other media-related markets in Denmark. The TV2 main channel, along with Danmarks Radio (a public undertaking which is exclusively financed by a licence fee and operates two public service channels), is the biggest TV channel.
  The TV2 main channel currently competes on the TV advertising market with e.g. Viasat’s channels TV3 and TV3+. Viasat is owned by the Swedish Modern Times Group A/S (MTG), which is also active as a distributor in the satellite segment. TV2 also competes for advertising revenue with SBS A/S, which is owned by the German ProSiebenSat. TV2’s pay-TV channels, such as TV2 Zulu and TV2 Charlie, compete with other commercial channels on the wholesale market for distribution in pay-TV packages. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

TV2’s activities: TV2 is primarily active in broadcasting and in selling TV advertising. It also acquires and sells audiovisual rights on international markets (e.g. Euro 2008 or the Olympic Games) which it can broadcast itself or resell. TV2 operates almost exclusively on the TV broadcasting market and other media-related markets in Denmark. The TV2 main channel, along with Danmarks Radio (a public undertaking which is exclusively financed by a licence fee and operates two public service channels), is the biggest TV channel.

The TV2 main channel currently competes on the TV advertising market with e.g. Viasat’s channels TV3 and TV3+. Viasat is owned by the Swedish Modern Times Group A/S (MTG), which is also active as a distributor in the satellite segment. TV2 also competes for advertising revenue with SBS A/S, which is owned by the German ProSiebenSat. TV2’s pay-TV channels, such as TV2 Zulu and TV2 Charlie, compete with other commercial channels on the wholesale market for distribution in pay-TV packages.

| (25) | Commercial operations: TV2 operates a number of non-public-service commercial channels, including TV2 Zulu, TV2 Charlie, TV2 Film and TV2 News. It also owns 50 % of TV2 Sports. TV2 Zulu, TV2 Charlie and TV2 News are financed through subscriptions and advertising, whereas TV2 Film is exclusively financed through subscriptions. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Commercial operations: TV2 operates a number of non-public-service commercial channels, including TV2 Zulu, TV2 Charlie, TV2 Film and TV2 News. It also owns 50 % of TV2 Sports. TV2 Zulu, TV2 Charlie and TV2 News are financed through subscriptions and advertising, whereas TV2 Film is exclusively financed through subscriptions.

| (26) | As acknowledged by Denmark (20) and TV2 Danmark A/S and its competitor Viasat (21), operation of the main channel is vital for achieving the revenues generated by the commercial channels. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

As acknowledged by Denmark (20) and TV2 Danmark A/S and its competitor Viasat (21), operation of the main channel is vital for achieving the revenues generated by the commercial channels.

| (27) | TV2 has been obliged since 2001 to keep the accounts of its commercial and public service activities separate, see Order No 740 (22). The accounts are monitored by external auditors. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

TV2 has been obliged since 2001 to keep the accounts of its commercial and public service activities separate, see Order No 740 (22). The accounts are monitored by external auditors.

| (28) | Other business: In addition, TV2 Danmark A/S owns several subsidiaries or is part of a number of TV-related joint ventures in content and radio, and previously also had a broadcasting transmission network (Broadcast Service Denmark (BDS), DTT/Digi-TV, 4M and Fordelingsnet) with DR. According to information furnished by Denmark, Broadcast Service Denmark is the leading Danish broadcaster provider in relation to the planning, construction, operation and service of transmission networks. The transmission network was jointly owned by Danske Radio and TV2 directly or via co-owned partnerships (Fordelingsnet, 4M, Digi-TV). TV2, however, has sold its shares in this network as part of its restructuring. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Other business: In addition, TV2 Danmark A/S owns several subsidiaries or is part of a number of TV-related joint ventures in content and radio, and previously also had a broadcasting transmission network (Broadcast Service Denmark (BDS), DTT/Digi-TV, 4M and Fordelingsnet) with DR. According to information furnished by Denmark, Broadcast Service Denmark is the leading Danish broadcaster provider in relation to the planning, construction, operation and service of transmission networks. The transmission network was jointly owned by Danske Radio and TV2 directly or via co-owned partnerships (Fordelingsnet, 4M, Digi-TV). TV2, however, has sold its shares in this network as part of its restructuring.

| (29) | National antitrust cases concerning TV2: The Commission notes that TV2’s behaviour in the advertising market is under investigation by the Danish competition authorities. On 21 December 2005, a decision was taken by the Danish Competition Council that TV2 had infringed Article 102 TFEU, and the corresponding national legislative provisions, by using loyalty-enhancing rebates on the advertising market. This decision was annulled by the Competition Appeals Tribunal on 1 November 2006, but then upheld on appeal to the High Court of Eastern Denmark on 22 June 2009. An appeal against the latter judgment was lodged with the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court judgment on 18 March 2011. The case followed a previous case dating from 29 November 2000 in which the Danish Competition Council had found that TV2’s rebates in 2000 were an abuse of a dominant position. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

National antitrust cases concerning TV2: The Commission notes that TV2’s behaviour in the advertising market is under investigation by the Danish competition authorities. On 21 December 2005, a decision was taken by the Danish Competition Council that TV2 had infringed Article 102 TFEU, and the corresponding national legislative provisions, by using loyalty-enhancing rebates on the advertising market. This decision was annulled by the Competition Appeals Tribunal on 1 November 2006, but then upheld on appeal to the High Court of Eastern Denmark on 22 June 2009. An appeal against the latter judgment was lodged with the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court judgment on 18 March 2011. The case followed a previous case dating from 29 November 2000 in which the Danish Competition Council had found that TV2’s rebates in 2000 were an abuse of a dominant position.

III.   OTHER PENDING LEGAL CASES INVOLVING TV2

| (30) | Support for the operations of TV2 from public funds prior to its incorporation and subsequent recapitalisation was the subject of Commission decisions of 19 May 2004 and of 2 February 2005, respectively (23). In the first decision, the Commission ordered the recovery of incompatible aid to TV2 of an amount of DKK 628,1 million. Denmark ordered recovery from the aid beneficiary with interest, and recovered an amount of DKK 1 050 million from TV2. The second decision raised no objections to the recapitalisation, which consisted of a capital injection of DKK 440 million and a further debt-equity swap of DKK 394 million, in terms of its compatibility with the common market. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Support for the operations of TV2 from public funds prior to its incorporation and subsequent recapitalisation was the subject of Commission decisions of 19 May 2004 and of 2 February 2005, respectively (23). In the first decision, the Commission ordered the recovery of incompatible aid to TV2 of an amount of DKK 628,1 million. Denmark ordered recovery from the aid beneficiary with interest, and recovered an amount of DKK 1 050 million from TV2. The second decision raised no objections to the recapitalisation, which consisted of a capital injection of DKK 440 million and a further debt-equity swap of DKK 394 million, in terms of its compatibility with the common market.

| (31) | On 22 October 2008, the General Court annulled the Commission’s recovery decision (24). On 24 September 2009 (25) the General Court issued an order regarding the recapitalisation decision, declaring that there was no need to give a decision, since the recapitalisation decision — which was based on the recovery decision — was based on premises which no longer existed and was therefore deprived of any substance and meaning. The Court considered that the two decisions constituted two aspects of the same legal issue. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

On 22 October 2008, the General Court annulled the Commission’s recovery decision (24). On 24 September 2009 (25) the General Court issued an order regarding the recapitalisation decision, declaring that there was no need to give a decision, since the recapitalisation decision — which was based on the recovery decision — was based on premises which no longer existed and was therefore deprived of any substance and meaning. The Court considered that the two decisions constituted two aspects of the same legal issue.

| (32) | The Commission’s investigation with regard to the above case has been carried out in parallel with this procedure, and the Commission’s decision in the above case will be adopted at the same time as the present Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The Commission’s investigation with regard to the above case has been carried out in parallel with this procedure, and the Commission’s decision in the above case will be adopted at the same time as the present Decision.

IV.   THE RESTRUCTURING PLAN

1.   Context of the original restructuring plan

| (33) | As outlined in the Commission’s decision authorising the rescue aid of DKK 1 000 million during 2008, TV2 Danmark faced serious liquidity problems as a result of heavy investments, in particular in a radio operation, lower than expected advertising revenues and higher interest charges. These liquidity needs could not be met by securing loans from private creditors (banks). Following the rescue aid decision, Denmark notified a restructuring plan within the six-month limit stipulated in the Guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

As outlined in the Commission’s decision authorising the rescue aid of DKK 1 000 million during 2008, TV2 Danmark faced serious liquidity problems as a result of heavy investments, in particular in a radio operation, lower than expected advertising revenues and higher interest charges. These liquidity needs could not be met by securing loans from private creditors (banks). Following the rescue aid decision, Denmark notified a restructuring plan within the six-month limit stipulated in the Guidelines.

| (34) | The restructuring plan submitted to the Commission on 4 February 2009 followed an agreement among a large majority of Danish political parties on an addendum to the Media Policy Agreement for 2007-2010, which was made public on 9 January 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

The restructuring plan submitted to the Commission on 4 February 2009 followed an agreement among a large majority of Danish political parties on an addendum to the Media Policy Agreement for 2007-2010, which was made public on 9 January 2009.

| (35) | In its notification of 4 February 2009, Denmark notified various restructuring aid measures, because, according to Denmark, the short-term liquidity and indebtedness problems identified in the Commission rescue aid decision still existed. Those problems prompted the qualification of TV2 Danmark A/S as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines (26), which the Commission, in the opening decision, had no reason to deviate from and which, according to Denmark, remains valid even after TV2’s having received the rescue aid. This can be demonstrated by the data mentioned in the Commission’s decision opening the formal investigation procedure (27). |
| --- | --- |

(35)

In its notification of 4 February 2009, Denmark notified various restructuring aid measures, because, according to Denmark, the short-term liquidity and indebtedness problems identified in the Commission rescue aid decision still existed. Those problems prompted the qualification of TV2 Danmark A/S as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines (26), which the Commission, in the opening decision, had no reason to deviate from and which, according to Denmark, remains valid even after TV2’s having received the rescue aid. This can be demonstrated by the data mentioned in the Commission’s decision opening the formal investigation procedure (27).

| (36) | Later in the proceedings, and in particular as a reaction to the third-party comments, Denmark provided another updated PWC study on TV2’s financial situation. The updated data are summarised in the table below (28).

  Development of TV2 Danmark A/S


  Key figures










  (million DKK) |
| --- | --- |
| | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |
| Profit before tax | 142 | – 213 | 18 | –28 |
| Turnover | 1 980 | 2 251 | 2 206 | 2 029 |
| Net cash flow | 79 | – 550 | –73 | –60 |
| Net interest-bearing debt | 232 | 564 | 622 | 659 |
| Net interest charges | 10 | 19 | 41 | 31 |
| Net asset value | 815 | 598 | 616 | 601 |

(36)

Later in the proceedings, and in particular as a reaction to the third-party comments, Denmark provided another updated PWC study on TV2’s financial situation. The updated data are summarised in the table below (28).

Development of TV2 Danmark A/S

Key figures

(million DKK)

2006

2007

2008

2009

Profit before tax

142

– 213

18

–28

Turnover

1 980

2 251

2 206

2 029

Net cash flow

79

– 550

–73

–60

Net interest-bearing debt

232

564

622

659

Net interest charges

10

19

41

31

Net asset value

815

598

616

601

According to Denmark, the problems of TV2 result, inter alia, from an increasingly unprofitable public service channel (29) without a sustainable business model and some losses resulting from unsuccessful investments.

| (37) | Losses: Due to advertising revenues being lower than budgeted, in combination with a series of bad investments (most notably TV2 Radio), TV2 Danmark A/S realised a significant loss in 2007 (DKK 214 million, return on equity – 36 %). Furthermore, at the end of March 2008, the 2008 financial result projection was another pre-tax loss of up to DKK [...] million, albeit that the projection was deemed highly sensitive to advertising market developments. Likewise, the company made losses in 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

Losses: Due to advertising revenues being lower than budgeted, in combination with a series of bad investments (most notably TV2 Radio), TV2 Danmark A/S realised a significant loss in 2007 (DKK 214 million, return on equity – 36 %). Furthermore, at the end of March 2008, the 2008 financial result projection was another pre-tax loss of up to DKK [...] million, albeit that the projection was deemed highly sensitive to advertising market developments. Likewise, the company made losses in 2009.

| (38) | Turnover/market share: TV2’s main channel experienced a falling market share for years prior to the rescue aid, and continues to do so. The removal of TV2’s historical business advantage with the switch-off of analogue terrestrial TV and the introduction of DTT (digital terrestrial television) has led to more equal distribution of opportunities since November 2009. The removal of the must-carry obligation (see recital 52 below) is expected to lead to further market share losses. From 2003 to 2009, the TV2 main channel’s ‘commercial’ market share (21-50 year olds, which is the commercially most interesting viewer group) had already declined by 19 % from 56,2 % to 45,6 % (30). TV2’s commercial market share is expected to [...] % in 2013 (31). |
| --- | --- |

(38)

Turnover/market share: TV2’s main channel experienced a falling market share for years prior to the rescue aid, and continues to do so. The removal of TV2’s historical business advantage with the switch-off of analogue terrestrial TV and the introduction of DTT (digital terrestrial television) has led to more equal distribution of opportunities since November 2009. The removal of the must-carry obligation (see recital 52 below) is expected to lead to further market share losses. From 2003 to 2009, the TV2 main channel’s ‘commercial’ market share (21-50 year olds, which is the commercially most interesting viewer group) had already declined by 19 % from 56,2 % to 45,6 % (30). TV2’s commercial market share is expected to [...] % in 2013 (31).

| (39) | Mounting debt/cash flow/interest charges: As can be seen from the table, TV2 Danmark A/S’s net interest-bearing debt steadily increased from DKK 232 million in 2006 to DKK 622 million in 2008 (prior to the sale of the network and the repayment of most of the debt, the net interest-bearing debt was budgeted at DKK [...] million in 2010). The table further demonstrates that TV2 Danmark A/S had negative cash flows, mounting debts, increasing interest charges, and a falling net asset value over the period from 31 December 2006 to 31 December 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

Mounting debt/cash flow/interest charges: As can be seen from the table, TV2 Danmark A/S’s net interest-bearing debt steadily increased from DKK 232 million in 2006 to DKK 622 million in 2008 (prior to the sale of the network and the repayment of most of the debt, the net interest-bearing debt was budgeted at DKK [...] million in 2010). The table further demonstrates that TV2 Danmark A/S had negative cash flows, mounting debts, increasing interest charges, and a falling net asset value over the period from 31 December 2006 to 31 December 2009.

| (40) | Best case/worst case analysis: The original restructuring plan contains a base-case, worst-case and best-case scenario with sensitivity calculations. It draws upon market forecasts which are exogenous to the company (as compiled by PriceWaterhouseCoopers). The scenarios forecast real GDP growth, and from that derive an estimated growth (or decline) in the TV advertising market which, in combination with market share projections, yields TV2 advertisement revenue projections. In the base case, there is a modest increase in GDP ([...] % for 2009 and 2010, [...] % for 2011 and [...] % for 2012). The TV advertising market was forecast to [...] between 2009 and 2012 from DKK [...] million to DKK [...] million in that period ([...] %). The worst-case scenario saw a less positive growth in real GDP (zero in 2009 and 2010 and a [...] % and [...] % increase in 2011 and 2012 respectively), and [...] in advertising expenditure from DKK [...] million in 2009 to DKK [...] million in 2012 ([...] %). The best-case scenario forecast a slightly higher GDP growth than the base scenario and thus a slight increase in the TV advertising market from DKK [...] million in 2009 to DKK [...] million in 2012 ([...] %). In combination with a projected loss of market share, TV2’s advertisement revenues were projected to [...] by [...] %, [...] % and [...] % for the base, worst-case and best-case scenarios over the 2009-2012 period, equivalent to [...] of [...] %, [...] % and [...] %. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

Best case/worst case analysis: The original restructuring plan contains a base-case, worst-case and best-case scenario with sensitivity calculations. It draws upon market forecasts which are exogenous to the company (as compiled by PriceWaterhouseCoopers). The scenarios forecast real GDP growth, and from that derive an estimated growth (or decline) in the TV advertising market which, in combination with market share projections, yields TV2 advertisement revenue projections. In the base case, there is a modest increase in GDP ([...] % for 2009 and 2010, [...] % for 2011 and [...] % for 2012). The TV advertising market was forecast to [...] between 2009 and 2012 from DKK [...] million to DKK [...] million in that period ([...] %). The worst-case scenario saw a less positive growth in real GDP (zero in 2009 and 2010 and a [...] % and [...] % increase in 2011 and 2012 respectively), and [...] in advertising expenditure from DKK [...] million in 2009 to DKK [...] million in 2012 ([...] %). The best-case scenario forecast a slightly higher GDP growth than the base scenario and thus a slight increase in the TV advertising market from DKK [...] million in 2009 to DKK [...] million in 2012 ([...] %). In combination with a projected loss of market share, TV2’s advertisement revenues were projected to [...] by [...] %, [...] % and [...] % for the base, worst-case and best-case scenarios over the 2009-2012 period, equivalent to [...] of [...] %, [...] % and [...] %.

| (41) | TV2’s advertising revenues have grown at a 1,9 % (geometric) average rate over the period 1999-2009 with a 12 % standard deviation (32). Hence, given the business-cycle sensitivity of TV2’s advertising revenues and the general economic outlook at the time of the assessment, the PWC projections for the 2009-2012 period cannot be rejected as unreasonable. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

TV2’s advertising revenues have grown at a 1,9 % (geometric) average rate over the period 1999-2009 with a 12 % standard deviation (32). Hence, given the business-cycle sensitivity of TV2’s advertising revenues and the general economic outlook at the time of the assessment, the PWC projections for the 2009-2012 period cannot be rejected as unreasonable.

| (42) | The PWC report was updated in September 2009 to take account of more recent expectations regarding advertising revenues, and provided for a worse scenario than expected in the base scenario (33). The TV advertising market dropped in 2009 by 18,7 % compared with 2008 (34). TV2’s advertising revenues fell by 4 % in 2008 (DKK 1 667 million to DKK 1 597 million) and a further 24 % in 2009 (DKK 1 597 million to DKK 1 220 million) (35). |
| --- | --- |

(42)

The PWC report was updated in September 2009 to take account of more recent expectations regarding advertising revenues, and provided for a worse scenario than expected in the base scenario (33). The TV advertising market dropped in 2009 by 18,7 % compared with 2008 (34). TV2’s advertising revenues fell by 4 % in 2008 (DKK 1 667 million to DKK 1 597 million) and a further 24 % in 2009 (DKK 1 597 million to DKK 1 220 million) (35).

| (43) | Denmark submits that TV2’s difficulties are a result of debt caused by large investments in the preceding years, uncertainty as to the outcome of the pending State aid case concerning TV2 and, not least, a business model for the public service channel which is based on advertising revenue only. The radio operations in particular have caused significant losses since the start-up in 2007. In April 2008, it was decided to close down the radio operations. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

Denmark submits that TV2’s difficulties are a result of debt caused by large investments in the preceding years, uncertainty as to the outcome of the pending State aid case concerning TV2 and, not least, a business model for the public service channel which is based on advertising revenue only. The radio operations in particular have caused significant losses since the start-up in 2007. In April 2008, it was decided to close down the radio operations.

| (44) | Lack of external funding from banks: The restructuring plan takes into account the doubts TV2’s bankers have about the main channel’s current business model and about the possible outcome of ongoing legal cases regarding past aid to TV2. The restructuring plan limits the banks’ risk exposure to the company through further reductions of current loans or credit facilities. Denmark has provided evidence that on 22 April 2009, following the publication of the company accounts, the company’s main bank [...] asked to reduce its loan and credit facility vis-à-vis the company (36). |
| --- | --- |

(44)

Lack of external funding from banks: The restructuring plan takes into account the doubts TV2’s bankers have about the main channel’s current business model and about the possible outcome of ongoing legal cases regarding past aid to TV2. The restructuring plan limits the banks’ risk exposure to the company through further reductions of current loans or credit facilities. Denmark has provided evidence that on 22 April 2009, following the publication of the company accounts, the company’s main bank [...] asked to reduce its loan and credit facility vis-à-vis the company (36).

| (45) | TV2 experienced difficulties in mortgaging its premises in Odense and reported that not only the value of the buildings, but also the potential mortgage, had decreased (37). In the end, TV2 secured a loan of DKK 80 million from Nordea bank, which was less than expected. Denmark later provided updated information regarding the banks’ lack of interest in providing commercial loans. From this information it can be seen that none of the banks contacted ([...], [...], [...] and [...]) considered TV2 creditworthy. This was due to expectations regarding the development of the advertising market, which is TV2’s only source of income. TV2’s earning ability was questioned, and pending legal cases were considered a further risk factor (38). |
| --- | --- |

(45)

TV2 experienced difficulties in mortgaging its premises in Odense and reported that not only the value of the buildings, but also the potential mortgage, had decreased (37). In the end, TV2 secured a loan of DKK 80 million from Nordea bank, which was less than expected. Denmark later provided updated information regarding the banks’ lack of interest in providing commercial loans. From this information it can be seen that none of the banks contacted ([...], [...], [...] and [...]) considered TV2 creditworthy. This was due to expectations regarding the development of the advertising market, which is TV2’s only source of income. TV2’s earning ability was questioned, and pending legal cases were considered a further risk factor (38).

2.   Description of the originally notified restructuring plan and its amendments

| (46) | The restructuring plan as notified for TV2 runs between 4 February 2009 and 31 December 2012. It aimed to address TV2’s business weaknesses, notably an imbalance towards short-term debt in the balance sheet and a business model for the public service channel that is deemed unsustainable due to its reliance on funding via cycle-sensitive advertising revenues. The plan had the following five main components: (i) financial restructuring affecting the balance sheet, (ii) operational restructuring, (iii) new financing of the public service channel TV2 by introducing a new business model, (iv) aid measures and (v) compensatory measure(s). |
| --- | --- |

(46)

The restructuring plan as notified for TV2 runs between 4 February 2009 and 31 December 2012. It aimed to address TV2’s business weaknesses, notably an imbalance towards short-term debt in the balance sheet and a business model for the public service channel that is deemed unsustainable due to its reliance on funding via cycle-sensitive advertising revenues. The plan had the following five main components: (i) financial restructuring affecting the balance sheet, (ii) operational restructuring, (iii) new financing of the public service channel TV2 by introducing a new business model, (iv) aid measures and (v) compensatory measure(s).

| (47) | The financial restructuring measures were to consist primarily of the following four elements: sale of the 50 % ownership interest in the broadcast transmission network BSD (39), mortgaging of the business premises in Odense (Kvaegtorvet), which was expected to generate DKK [...] million, postponement and scaling down of planned capital investments and divestment of minority interests held in certain companies active in adjacent media sectors, [...], Momondo, [...] and [...]. Those measures were expected to bring proceeds in excess of DKK [...] million, part of which was to be used to reduce short-term borrowing. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

The financial restructuring measures were to consist primarily of the following four elements: sale of the 50 % ownership interest in the broadcast transmission network BSD (39), mortgaging of the business premises in Odense (Kvaegtorvet), which was expected to generate DKK [...] million, postponement and scaling down of planned capital investments and divestment of minority interests held in certain companies active in adjacent media sectors, [...], Momondo, [...] and [...]. Those measures were expected to bring proceeds in excess of DKK [...] million, part of which was to be used to reduce short-term borrowing.

| (48) | The operational restructuring measures expand on the cost-saving measures worth DKK 280 million already initiated in 2008, and include the closing down of East Production and its integration into TV2, the closing down or downsizing of TV2’s interest in [...] and further cost savings of an amount of DKK 40 million. Moreover, TV2 has, after the notification, managed to introduce further cost savings in a plan adopted on 30 March 2009, which includes reductions in capital investments for 2009 by DKK 30 million, as well as further recurrent cost reductions amounting to DKK 97 million (40). |
| --- | --- |

(48)

The operational restructuring measures expand on the cost-saving measures worth DKK 280 million already initiated in 2008, and include the closing down of East Production and its integration into TV2, the closing down or downsizing of TV2’s interest in [...] and further cost savings of an amount of DKK 40 million. Moreover, TV2 has, after the notification, managed to introduce further cost savings in a plan adopted on 30 March 2009, which includes reductions in capital investments for 2009 by DKK 30 million, as well as further recurrent cost reductions amounting to DKK 97 million (40).

| (49) | A new financing measure (the end-user charge) (41) is intended to broaden the sources of stable revenue for the public service channel TV2. The decision regarding this was adopted in an agreement of 9 January 2009 between the main political parties concerning an amendment to the Media Policy Agreement for 2007-2010. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

A new financing measure (the end-user charge) (41) is intended to broaden the sources of stable revenue for the public service channel TV2. The decision regarding this was adopted in an agreement of 9 January 2009 between the main political parties concerning an amendment to the Media Policy Agreement for 2007-2010.

| (50) | Levying of subscription fees: The business model for the main channel is to be rendered sustainable by allowing TV2 to introduce end-user charges, i.e. subscription fees, to fund the public service channel as from 1 January 2012. In addition, TV2 will continue to receive advertising revenues. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

Levying of subscription fees: The business model for the main channel is to be rendered sustainable by allowing TV2 to introduce end-user charges, i.e. subscription fees, to fund the public service channel as from 1 January 2012. In addition, TV2 will continue to receive advertising revenues.

| (51) | The fees will be charged by the distributors to the end users. The charge to be paid by the end user will not be set by the Government, but agreed upon through normal commercial negotiations between TV2 and the distributors (i.e. for DTT Boxer). TV2 expects the monthly price charged by TV2 to the distributor to be around DKK 10-12 (excl. VAT) per household (42). The introduction of user charges from 2012 aims to allow sufficient time for households currently equipped with MPEG 2 technology equipment capable of receiving ‘free-to-air’ digital terrestrial TV (DR1, DR2 and TV2) to switch to MPEG 4-format equipment. Denmark expects that the introduction of this element of the restructuring plan will restore the long-term viability of TV2. TV2 expects an estimated DKK [...] million net increase in revenues from the user charges in 2012 (43). |
| --- | --- |

(51)

The fees will be charged by the distributors to the end users. The charge to be paid by the end user will not be set by the Government, but agreed upon through normal commercial negotiations between TV2 and the distributors (i.e. for DTT Boxer). TV2 expects the monthly price charged by TV2 to the distributor to be around DKK 10-12 (excl. VAT) per household (42). The introduction of user charges from 2012 aims to allow sufficient time for households currently equipped with MPEG 2 technology equipment capable of receiving ‘free-to-air’ digital terrestrial TV (DR1, DR2 and TV2) to switch to MPEG 4-format equipment. Denmark expects that the introduction of this element of the restructuring plan will restore the long-term viability of TV2. TV2 expects an estimated DKK [...] million net increase in revenues from the user charges in 2012 (43).

| (52) | There will be no legislative act forcing distributors to include TV2 in their packages. On the contrary, the existing ‘must-carry’ obligation will be repealed upon the introduction of the user charges (44). This follows from the wording of Chapter 6, Section 38a(2) of the current Danish Broadcasting Act, which states that if the Minister of Culture allows TV 2 to charge user fees, the must-carry status shall cease to exist. In other words, the must-carry obligation ceases automatically with the introduction of user charges. It is expected that the TV2 main channel will de facto be distributed by the cable networks and antenna associations in the same way as today. The package structure might be altered by the distributors, with TV2 replacing an existing pay channel. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

There will be no legislative act forcing distributors to include TV2 in their packages. On the contrary, the existing ‘must-carry’ obligation will be repealed upon the introduction of the user charges (44). This follows from the wording of Chapter 6, Section 38a(2) of the current Danish Broadcasting Act, which states that if the Minister of Culture allows TV 2 to charge user fees, the must-carry status shall cease to exist. In other words, the must-carry obligation ceases automatically with the introduction of user charges. It is expected that the TV2 main channel will de facto be distributed by the cable networks and antenna associations in the same way as today. The package structure might be altered by the distributors, with TV2 replacing an existing pay channel.

| (53) | It was originally anticipated that exceptions would be made to the possibility of levying end-user charges and that TV2 would not charge end users who did not receive any other pay-TV channel (known as the TV2 Alone card system). This would have meant that end users who only receive free-to-air (FTA) channels could still view TV2 free of charge. This possibility, which was contained in a draft proposal by the Ministry of Culture of 18 November 2010, will not, however, be implemented. TV2 will consequently, as of 2012, charge all end users who wish to receive TV2 to view the public service channel. The possibility of charging end-user fees requires a change in TV2’s licence conditions, which will be carried out by the Ministry of Culture. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

It was originally anticipated that exceptions would be made to the possibility of levying end-user charges and that TV2 would not charge end users who did not receive any other pay-TV channel (known as the TV2 Alone card system). This would have meant that end users who only receive free-to-air (FTA) channels could still view TV2 free of charge. This possibility, which was contained in a draft proposal by the Ministry of Culture of 18 November 2010, will not, however, be implemented. TV2 will consequently, as of 2012, charge all end users who wish to receive TV2 to view the public service channel. The possibility of charging end-user fees requires a change in TV2’s licence conditions, which will be carried out by the Ministry of Culture.

| (54) | The originally notified aid measures: As originally notified, three aid measures totalling a maximum of DKK 1 375 million were envisaged to accompany the restructuring. These were:






  — | a DKK 300 million subordinated loan, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(54)

The originally notified aid measures: As originally notified, three aid measures totalling a maximum of DKK 1 375 million were envisaged to accompany the restructuring. These were:

—

a DKK 300 million subordinated loan,

| — | the issue of a guarantee for the sale of the broadcast transmission network for an expected sale amount of DKK 475 million, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the issue of a guarantee for the sale of the broadcast transmission network for an expected sale amount of DKK 475 million, and

| — | a temporary credit facility of an initial amount of DKK 600 million if TV2 is unable to secure external financing. |
| --- | --- |

—

a temporary credit facility of an initial amount of DKK 600 million if TV2 is unable to secure external financing.

| (55) | Denmark stated that interest rates and guarantee fees would be similar to those for healthy firms. These measures were never put into place. Further details can be found in the Commission’s decision opening the formal investigation procedure (45). |
| --- | --- |

(55)

Denmark stated that interest rates and guarantee fees would be similar to those for healthy firms. These measures were never put into place. Further details can be found in the Commission’s decision opening the formal investigation procedure (45).

| (56) | The rescue aid credit facility of DKK 1 000, as authorised by the Commission decision of 4 August 2008, remains in place. |
| --- | --- |

(56)

The rescue aid credit facility of DKK 1 000, as authorised by the Commission decision of 4 August 2008, remains in place.

| (57) | Denmark submitted information on the restructuring costs and offers two different calculation options in that regard. Firstly, it argues that the restructuring of TV2 is a financial restructuring in which the costs for filling the liquidity gap are in fact restructuring costs, i.e. the costs for ensuring long-term viability. Denmark considers that whatever these costs are, they will have been paid entirely by TV2 itself. The reason for this is that Denmark assumes that by the time of the Commission’s decision, all aid measures will either not have been implemented, or will have been repaid in full (46). Denmark also states that in the special case of the TV2 restructuring, cost savings should also be acceptable as restructuring costs, since the cost savings are intended not only to increase competitiveness, but also ensure TV2’s financial viability from a purely commercial point of view (47). In the alternative, a more traditional calculation of restructuring costs, in which cost savings are not included, would lead to focus on the one-off extraordinary costs incurred, which Denmark lists as DKK [...] million for transaction costs for the transmission network, the costs associated with the transfer to pay-TV (user charges) and legal and consultancy costs as well as costs for ending staff contracts (48). |
| --- | --- |

(57)

Denmark submitted information on the restructuring costs and offers two different calculation options in that regard. Firstly, it argues that the restructuring of TV2 is a financial restructuring in which the costs for filling the liquidity gap are in fact restructuring costs, i.e. the costs for ensuring long-term viability. Denmark considers that whatever these costs are, they will have been paid entirely by TV2 itself. The reason for this is that Denmark assumes that by the time of the Commission’s decision, all aid measures will either not have been implemented, or will have been repaid in full (46). Denmark also states that in the special case of the TV2 restructuring, cost savings should also be acceptable as restructuring costs, since the cost savings are intended not only to increase competitiveness, but also ensure TV2’s financial viability from a purely commercial point of view (47). In the alternative, a more traditional calculation of restructuring costs, in which cost savings are not included, would lead to focus on the one-off extraordinary costs incurred, which Denmark lists as DKK [...] million for transaction costs for the transmission network, the costs associated with the transfer to pay-TV (user charges) and legal and consultancy costs as well as costs for ending staff contracts (48).

| (58) | As a compensatory measure, TV2 originally undertook not to open new TV broadcasting channels throughout the restructuring period, i.e. until 31 December 2012. Denmark points out that this is a sacrifice by the company, as new channels would make TV2 less dependent on advertising revenues. In the digital world, viewers are more frequently addressed via specialised viewer channels, and TV2 points out that its competitors are opening new channels during this period. |
| --- | --- |

(58)

As a compensatory measure, TV2 originally undertook not to open new TV broadcasting channels throughout the restructuring period, i.e. until 31 December 2012. Denmark points out that this is a sacrifice by the company, as new channels would make TV2 less dependent on advertising revenues. In the digital world, viewers are more frequently addressed via specialised viewer channels, and TV2 points out that its competitors are opening new channels during this period.

| (59) | Regarding the duration of the restructuring plan, which was notified as being until 31 December 2012, the Danish authorities submitted that it is in TV2’s interest to replace all State aid at an earlier point in time, thus enabling the restructuring period to end at an earlier date if possible (49). |
| --- | --- |

(59)

Regarding the duration of the restructuring plan, which was notified as being until 31 December 2012, the Danish authorities submitted that it is in TV2’s interest to replace all State aid at an earlier point in time, thus enabling the restructuring period to end at an earlier date if possible (49).

3.   Further developments during the restructuring process

| (60) | As stipulated in the restructuring plan, TV2 sold its broadcasting network on 30 September 2010 to the Swedish company Teracom AB, the owner of Boxer. The sale proceeds for TV2 are approximately DKK 640 million before tax, which has been used to reduce TV2’s debt. |
| --- | --- |

(60)

As stipulated in the restructuring plan, TV2 sold its broadcasting network on 30 September 2010 to the Swedish company Teracom AB, the owner of Boxer. The sale proceeds for TV2 are approximately DKK 640 million before tax, which has been used to reduce TV2’s debt.

| (61) | TV2 was also able to mortgage its business premises in Odense, but at a lower rate than originally anticipated. Instead of [...] million DKK, it obtained a mortgage of only DKK 80 million. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

TV2 was also able to mortgage its business premises in Odense, but at a lower rate than originally anticipated. Instead of [...] million DKK, it obtained a mortgage of only DKK 80 million.

| (62) | On 4 October 2010, TV2 repaid all its withdrawals from the temporary credit facility, which was authorised in the Commission’s rescue aid decision. In total, TV2 had drawn DKK 223 million from the rescue aid facility. By the end of 2008, i.e. during the 6 months of the rescue aid period, TV2 had drawn 208 million (50). In light of the sale of the transmission network, which was more successful than estimated in the restructuring plan, Denmark sent the following amended figures on TV2’s financial situation (based on subscriptions to the main channel) (51).










  (million DKK) |
| --- | --- |
| | Realised
  2009 | Estimate
  2010 | Forecast
  2011 | Forecast
  2012 | Forecast
  2013 |
| Revenues | 2 029 | 2 147 | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Costs | –1 910 | –1 974 | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| EBIT | –2 | 25 | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Profit before tax, continuing activities | –28 | 42 | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Profit before tax, discontinuing activities | 1 | 397 | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Profit after tax | –14 | 353 | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Equity end of year | 601 | 952 | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Net interest-bearing debt end of year | 659 | –84 | [...] | [...] | [...] |

(62)

On 4 October 2010, TV2 repaid all its withdrawals from the temporary credit facility, which was authorised in the Commission’s rescue aid decision. In total, TV2 had drawn DKK 223 million from the rescue aid facility. By the end of 2008, i.e. during the 6 months of the rescue aid period, TV2 had drawn 208 million (50). In light of the sale of the transmission network, which was more successful than estimated in the restructuring plan, Denmark sent the following amended figures on TV2’s financial situation (based on subscriptions to the main channel) (51).

(million DKK)

Realised

2009

Estimate

2010

Forecast

2011

Forecast

2012

Forecast

2013

Revenues

2 029

2 147

[...]

[...]

[...]

Costs

–1 910

–1 974

[...]

[...]

[...]

EBIT

–2

25

[...]

[...]

[...]

Profit before tax, continuing activities

–28

42

[...]

[...]

[...]

Profit before tax, discontinuing activities

1

397

[...]

[...]

[...]

Profit after tax

–14

353

[...]

[...]

[...]

Equity end of year

601

952

[...]

[...]

[...]

Net interest-bearing debt end of year

659

–84

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (63) | On 13 October 2010, [...] offered to provide TV2 with additional credit facilities worth DKK [...] million. This would increase TV2’s long-term facilities at [...] from [...] million to DKK [...] million (52). The offer is however subject to the following two conditions:






  (a) | [...]; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(63)

On 13 October 2010, [...] offered to provide TV2 with additional credit facilities worth DKK [...] million. This would increase TV2’s long-term facilities at [...] from [...] million to DKK [...] million (52). The offer is however subject to the following two conditions:

(a)

[...];

| (b) | [...]. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

[...].

| (64) | On that basis, TV2 expects to have financial facilities in the range of around DKK [...]-[...] million until the end of 2012. This consists of DKK [...]-[...] million and the additional external credit facilities of DKK [...] million (53). |
| --- | --- |

(64)

On that basis, TV2 expects to have financial facilities in the range of around DKK [...]-[...] million until the end of 2012. This consists of DKK [...]-[...] million and the additional external credit facilities of DKK [...] million (53).

| (65) | Denmark also provided data on TV2’s capital structure. Due to problems in receiving external financing, in turn due to uncertainty surrounding the pending legal cases and TV2’s business model which is sensitive to advertising revenues, Denmark argued that TV2 should rely less on debt than on equity. The Commission also observes discrepancies between the degree of equity funding of TV2 compared with its peers. |
| --- | --- |

(65)

Denmark also provided data on TV2’s capital structure. Due to problems in receiving external financing, in turn due to uncertainty surrounding the pending legal cases and TV2’s business model which is sensitive to advertising revenues, Denmark argued that TV2 should rely less on debt than on equity. The Commission also observes discrepancies between the degree of equity funding of TV2 compared with its peers.

| (66) | More specifically, the capital structure can be assessed in terms of solvency ratio, i.e. the ratio of book equity to balance sheet total. PWC (Denmark’s financial consultancy firm) demonstrates that the average (median) solvency ratio of TV2’s peers is approximately [...] % ([...] % at the end of 2009) (54). The average solvency ratio of TV2’s peers is significantly lower than the solvency ratio that TV2 is expected to have at the end of the restructuring period. After the sale of the transmission network, the TV2 solvency ratio is [...] % at the end of 2010. It is projected to reach [...] % at the end of 2011 and [...] % at the end of 2012. According to the latest forecasts submitted by TV2, the net debt ratio (net interest-bearing debt over EBITDA) should be approximately [...] at the end of 2010, [...] at the end of 2011 and [...] in 2012. The average (median) net debt over equity ratio at the end of 2009 is [...] ([...]) for a sample of TV2’s peers (55). |
| --- | --- |

(66)

More specifically, the capital structure can be assessed in terms of solvency ratio, i.e. the ratio of book equity to balance sheet total. PWC (Denmark’s financial consultancy firm) demonstrates that the average (median) solvency ratio of TV2’s peers is approximately [...] % ([...] % at the end of 2009) (54). The average solvency ratio of TV2’s peers is significantly lower than the solvency ratio that TV2 is expected to have at the end of the restructuring period. After the sale of the transmission network, the TV2 solvency ratio is [...] % at the end of 2010. It is projected to reach [...] % at the end of 2011 and [...] % at the end of 2012. According to the latest forecasts submitted by TV2, the net debt ratio (net interest-bearing debt over EBITDA) should be approximately [...] at the end of 2010, [...] at the end of 2011 and [...] in 2012. The average (median) net debt over equity ratio at the end of 2009 is [...] ([...]) for a sample of TV2’s peers (55).

4.   Impact of the new financial parameters on the notified restructuring plan

| (67) | Denmark confirmed that none of the originally proposed three aid measures in the restructuring plan has ever been put into place, but that Denmark awaited the Commission’s decision in accordance with the standstill obligation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (56). In light of recent developments, however, only the loan and the credit facility under the restructuring plan as it currently stands are relevant (57). The notified aid measure of a proposed guarantee in relation to the sale of the broadcasting network has become irrelevant and inoperable (58), since the sale has been carried out successfully without a guarantee in place (59). In the meantime, only the temporary credit facility is in place.
  In view of the improved financial position of TV2 after the sale of the broadcasting network, Denmark stated that all aid measures can be abolished on the sole condition that the restructuring plan is approved (including the possibility of implementing end-user charges) and that the Commission adopts a decision in the ‘old’ State aid cases that does not involve any additional repayment of State aid to the Danish Government (60). In such a scenario, TV2 says it will have sufficient financing until 2012, when the subscription payments on the main channel will be implemented (61). The restructuring plan as such is not withdrawn. Regarding the rescue aid facility still in place, TV2 is currently unable to draw any money from it, because the conditions (certified liquidity need confirmed by an expert) are not met (62). |
| --- | --- |

(67)

Denmark confirmed that none of the originally proposed three aid measures in the restructuring plan has ever been put into place, but that Denmark awaited the Commission’s decision in accordance with the standstill obligation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (56). In light of recent developments, however, only the loan and the credit facility under the restructuring plan as it currently stands are relevant (57). The notified aid measure of a proposed guarantee in relation to the sale of the broadcasting network has become irrelevant and inoperable (58), since the sale has been carried out successfully without a guarantee in place (59). In the meantime, only the temporary credit facility is in place.

In view of the improved financial position of TV2 after the sale of the broadcasting network, Denmark stated that all aid measures can be abolished on the sole condition that the restructuring plan is approved (including the possibility of implementing end-user charges) and that the Commission adopts a decision in the ‘old’ State aid cases that does not involve any additional repayment of State aid to the Danish Government (60). In such a scenario, TV2 says it will have sufficient financing until 2012, when the subscription payments on the main channel will be implemented (61). The restructuring plan as such is not withdrawn. Regarding the rescue aid facility still in place, TV2 is currently unable to draw any money from it, because the conditions (certified liquidity need confirmed by an expert) are not met (62).

| (68) | In the original restructuring plan, Denmark had given a commitment that TV2 would not open any new TV broadcasting channels. That commitment was later clarified to also cover radio channels, but the Danish authorities take the view that this compensatory measure should end when all aid measures are repealed, as they consider this to be the end of the restructuring period (63). During the Commission’s investigation, the Danish Government decided to put a public service radio channel out to tender (64). The objective of this new radio channel is to establish competition on the Danish radio market for public service programming which, presently, is dominated by the public broadcaster DR with an almost 80 % audience share. TV2 originally intended to participate in such a tender, in which a bid could be submitted only after aid measures had come to an end. However, during the investigation Denmark confirmed that TV2 will not participate in this tender, due to the Commission’s ongoing investigation (65). |
| --- | --- |

(68)

In the original restructuring plan, Denmark had given a commitment that TV2 would not open any new TV broadcasting channels. That commitment was later clarified to also cover radio channels, but the Danish authorities take the view that this compensatory measure should end when all aid measures are repealed, as they consider this to be the end of the restructuring period (63). During the Commission’s investigation, the Danish Government decided to put a public service radio channel out to tender (64). The objective of this new radio channel is to establish competition on the Danish radio market for public service programming which, presently, is dominated by the public broadcaster DR with an almost 80 % audience share. TV2 originally intended to participate in such a tender, in which a bid could be submitted only after aid measures had come to an end. However, during the investigation Denmark confirmed that TV2 will not participate in this tender, due to the Commission’s ongoing investigation (65).

| (69) | TV2 states that as long as legal cases are pending, only earning ratios are an adequate benchmark for assessing TV2’s financial position in relation to its competitors. However, TV2 acknowledges that capital ratios (like the solvency ratio) will become meaningful only when the uncertainties of business model and the legal disputes have been resolved (66). The Danish Government expressed its intention that TV2 should not be overcapitalised and is willing to introduce measures to ensure that this objective will be achieved once the end-user charges are introduced in 2012. The Danish Government, as the owner of TV2, will ensure that once the user charge has been introduced and the financial situation normalised, TV2 will have a capital structure in line with normal market conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(69)

TV2 states that as long as legal cases are pending, only earning ratios are an adequate benchmark for assessing TV2’s financial position in relation to its competitors. However, TV2 acknowledges that capital ratios (like the solvency ratio) will become meaningful only when the uncertainties of business model and the legal disputes have been resolved (66). The Danish Government expressed its intention that TV2 should not be overcapitalised and is willing to introduce measures to ensure that this objective will be achieved once the end-user charges are introduced in 2012. The Danish Government, as the owner of TV2, will ensure that once the user charge has been introduced and the financial situation normalised, TV2 will have a capital structure in line with normal market conditions.

| (70) | To that end, Denmark has committed to instructing an independent financial expert at the end of 2012 or early 2013 to conduct an analysis of TV2’s capital structure, comparing it with the capital structure of other relevant media companies. If TV2’s capital structure deviates markedly from the median or average of the relevant peer group, the Danish Government has made a commitment to adjust the capital structure at the meeting of the General Assembly in April 2013, to rectify the situation. If there are substantial reasons not to adjust the capital structure, the Danish Government will notify the Commission of an amendment to the restructuring plan. The Danish Government undertakes to achieve restructuring of the capital base by dividend payments to be adopted at the General Assembly in April 2013, and not by increasing TV2’s debt, thereby expanding the balance sheet. |
| --- | --- |

(70)

To that end, Denmark has committed to instructing an independent financial expert at the end of 2012 or early 2013 to conduct an analysis of TV2’s capital structure, comparing it with the capital structure of other relevant media companies. If TV2’s capital structure deviates markedly from the median or average of the relevant peer group, the Danish Government has made a commitment to adjust the capital structure at the meeting of the General Assembly in April 2013, to rectify the situation. If there are substantial reasons not to adjust the capital structure, the Danish Government will notify the Commission of an amendment to the restructuring plan. The Danish Government undertakes to achieve restructuring of the capital base by dividend payments to be adopted at the General Assembly in April 2013, and not by increasing TV2’s debt, thereby expanding the balance sheet.

| (71) | Denmark has also undertaken to submit the analysis to the Commission, along with the Government’s plans for acting in accordance with the analysis, in good time before the April 2013 meeting. |
| --- | --- |

(71)

Denmark has also undertaken to submit the analysis to the Commission, along with the Government’s plans for acting in accordance with the analysis, in good time before the April 2013 meeting.

V.   SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION’S OPENING DECISION OF 2 JULY 2009

| (72) | In the decision to initiate the formal investigation, the Commission found that the notified loans and guarantee in the restructuring plan constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, now 107(1) TFEU, and examined the compatibility of the restructuring plan under Article 87(3)(c) EC, now 107(3)(c) TFEU, in conjunction with the Commission’s restructuring Guidelines (67). The Commission, however, invited comments on whether the application of Article 87 of the EC Treaty (107 TFEU) would obstruct the performance of the public service broadcasting task entrusted to TV2. |
| --- | --- |

(72)

In the decision to initiate the formal investigation, the Commission found that the notified loans and guarantee in the restructuring plan constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, now 107(1) TFEU, and examined the compatibility of the restructuring plan under Article 87(3)(c) EC, now 107(3)(c) TFEU, in conjunction with the Commission’s restructuring Guidelines (67). The Commission, however, invited comments on whether the application of Article 87 of the EC Treaty (107 TFEU) would obstruct the performance of the public service broadcasting task entrusted to TV2.

| (73) | The Commission raised doubts about the compatibility of the notified restructuring plan in the following respects:






  — | While accepting for the time being that TV2 Danmark A/S was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines, the Commission invited comments given that competitors of TV 2 had pointed out that the cash flow problems were self-inflicted, easily solved and without bearing on the fundamental viability of the company. Competitors also claimed that TV2 was profitable in 2008. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(73)

The Commission raised doubts about the compatibility of the notified restructuring plan in the following respects:

—

While accepting for the time being that TV2 Danmark A/S was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the Guidelines, the Commission invited comments given that competitors of TV 2 had pointed out that the cash flow problems were self-inflicted, easily solved and without bearing on the fundamental viability of the company. Competitors also claimed that TV2 was profitable in 2008.

| — | In addition, taking into account that a restructuring plan must involve the abandonment of activities which would remain structurally loss-making even after restructuring (68), the Commission questioned whether the measures in the restructuring plan were able to render TV2 profitable on a stand-alone basis. Nor was the Commission in a position to corroborate the validity of the general market assumptions underlying the plan (e.g. developments in the advertising market, GDP growth, TV2’s maintenance of audience shares). |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, taking into account that a restructuring plan must involve the abandonment of activities which would remain structurally loss-making even after restructuring (68), the Commission questioned whether the measures in the restructuring plan were able to render TV2 profitable on a stand-alone basis. Nor was the Commission in a position to corroborate the validity of the general market assumptions underlying the plan (e.g. developments in the advertising market, GDP growth, TV2’s maintenance of audience shares).

| — | Given the economic situation in which the restructuring plan is launched, its long duration was questioned. |
| --- | --- |

—

Given the economic situation in which the restructuring plan is launched, its long duration was questioned.

| — | Moreover, since a successful implementation of the financial and operational restructuring measures included in the restructuring plan by 2010-2011 could render the introduction of user charges on the TV2 channel unnecessary for ensuring the long-term viability of TV2 Danmark A/S, and because there was no assessment of the effects of these charges on competition, the question was raised as to whether the automatic phasing-in of these charges by 2012, which has already been decided, is appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Moreover, since a successful implementation of the financial and operational restructuring measures included in the restructuring plan by 2010-2011 could render the introduction of user charges on the TV2 channel unnecessary for ensuring the long-term viability of TV2 Danmark A/S, and because there was no assessment of the effects of these charges on competition, the question was raised as to whether the automatic phasing-in of these charges by 2012, which has already been decided, is appropriate.

| — | The Commission raised concerns as to whether the sole compensatory measure of a stand-still on launching new TV channels is proportionate to the aid, size and relative importance of TV2 Danmark A/S on the markets on which it is active (69). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission raised concerns as to whether the sole compensatory measure of a stand-still on launching new TV channels is proportionate to the aid, size and relative importance of TV2 Danmark A/S on the markets on which it is active (69).

| — | The Commission raised the issue of whether the aid, beyond the contribution to restructuring costs, could be used to finance aggressive market behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission raised the issue of whether the aid, beyond the contribution to restructuring costs, could be used to finance aggressive market behaviour.

VI.   SUMMARY OF THE VIEWS OF THE DANISH AUTHORITIES

| (74) | It should be noted that in the following summary of the comments of Denmark and third parties, no comments have been reproduced which relate to the operation of the TV2 Alene card system, as this part of the restructuring plan will not be implemented. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

It should be noted that in the following summary of the comments of Denmark and third parties, no comments have been reproduced which relate to the operation of the TV2 Alene card system, as this part of the restructuring plan will not be implemented.

| (75) | The Danish authorities claim that TV2 is a firm in difficulty, as shown by a PWC report (70), which was later updated (71). That view was also maintained in reaction to third-party comments (72). |
| --- | --- |

(75)

The Danish authorities claim that TV2 is a firm in difficulty, as shown by a PWC report (70), which was later updated (71). That view was also maintained in reaction to third-party comments (72).

| (76) | According to a PWC report carried out shortly before the restructuring notification, TV2 cannot recover through its own resources or by market financing. Denmark also claims that the restructuring plan submitted to the Commission is based on realistic assumptions and scenarios, while showing that the company’s long-term viability will be restored. The advertising market has deteriorated, however, relative to the base scenario of the restructuring plan. The advertising market dropped by 19 % in the first half of 2009 and TV2’s advertising revenues fell by 24 % in 2009. The restructuring measures will be implemented as soon as possible, except for the introduction of user charges, where operational and technical difficulties require postponement until 2012. Moreover, in a later submission, Denmark, again basing itself on PWC projections, claimed that the forecast had in fact deteriorated since the original restructuring plan and that TV2’s EBIT in 2009 was DKK [...] million lower than estimated in the restructuring plan (73). Denmark also points out that, as proven by statements from various banks, the company is not able to obtain external funds because the banks doubt the business model for the main channel, are critical of cyclical advertising revenues as a source of income and view the uncertainties stemming from pending legal cases as problematic. |
| --- | --- |

(76)

According to a PWC report carried out shortly before the restructuring notification, TV2 cannot recover through its own resources or by market financing. Denmark also claims that the restructuring plan submitted to the Commission is based on realistic assumptions and scenarios, while showing that the company’s long-term viability will be restored. The advertising market has deteriorated, however, relative to the base scenario of the restructuring plan. The advertising market dropped by 19 % in the first half of 2009 and TV2’s advertising revenues fell by 24 % in 2009. The restructuring measures will be implemented as soon as possible, except for the introduction of user charges, where operational and technical difficulties require postponement until 2012. Moreover, in a later submission, Denmark, again basing itself on PWC projections, claimed that the forecast had in fact deteriorated since the original restructuring plan and that TV2’s EBIT in 2009 was DKK [...] million lower than estimated in the restructuring plan (73). Denmark also points out that, as proven by statements from various banks, the company is not able to obtain external funds because the banks doubt the business model for the main channel, are critical of cyclical advertising revenues as a source of income and view the uncertainties stemming from pending legal cases as problematic.

| (77) | The operational and financial restructuring measures are analysed as being the maximum that can be undertaken without compromising the quality of programming in the public service channel TV2. The measures will force TV2 to better exploit its assets, thus reducing the aid to the minimum necessary. |
| --- | --- |

(77)

The operational and financial restructuring measures are analysed as being the maximum that can be undertaken without compromising the quality of programming in the public service channel TV2. The measures will force TV2 to better exploit its assets, thus reducing the aid to the minimum necessary.

| (78) | Since the sale of the broadcasting network had proven to be more successful than anticipated, the Government later gave assurances that all aid measures could be repealed and not implemented once the Commission approved the restructuring plan and the pending State aid case of 19 May 2004 has been settled without higher repayments (74). |
| --- | --- |

(78)

Since the sale of the broadcasting network had proven to be more successful than anticipated, the Government later gave assurances that all aid measures could be repealed and not implemented once the Commission approved the restructuring plan and the pending State aid case of 19 May 2004 has been settled without higher repayments (74).

| (79) | User charges, which do not qualify as State aid, provide a more stable operating income and will reassure banks as to TV2’s business model. As a result of the restructuring, the EBIT margin of the company as a whole would allegedly be between [...] and [...] %, which would allow it to manage on its own funds. |
| --- | --- |

(79)

User charges, which do not qualify as State aid, provide a more stable operating income and will reassure banks as to TV2’s business model. As a result of the restructuring, the EBIT margin of the company as a whole would allegedly be between [...] and [...] %, which would allow it to manage on its own funds.

| (80) | Although changes in the pricing and structure of the distributor packages are impossible to predict, the introduction of user charges for TV2 should not lead to indirect financing from, or capacity reduction for, TV2’s competitors. This new financing is regarded as a change in TV2’s baseline long-term financing conditions which will put TV2 on equal footing with its private competitors (75). |
| --- | --- |

(80)

Although changes in the pricing and structure of the distributor packages are impossible to predict, the introduction of user charges for TV2 should not lead to indirect financing from, or capacity reduction for, TV2’s competitors. This new financing is regarded as a change in TV2’s baseline long-term financing conditions which will put TV2 on equal footing with its private competitors (75).

| (81) | Finally, the Danish authorities claim that the proposed compensatory measure of a standstill on launching new TV broadcasting channels (now also radio channels) constitutes a real sacrifice for TV2 Danmark A/S, owing to its interest in a diversification strategy to maintain its overall market share, the loss of revenue incurred and the first-mover advantage that it will confer on competitors, which are currently launching new channels and will continue to do so. Denmark later took the view that the measure should end when all aid measures have been repealed, i.e. as of the date of this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(81)

Finally, the Danish authorities claim that the proposed compensatory measure of a standstill on launching new TV broadcasting channels (now also radio channels) constitutes a real sacrifice for TV2 Danmark A/S, owing to its interest in a diversification strategy to maintain its overall market share, the loss of revenue incurred and the first-mover advantage that it will confer on competitors, which are currently launching new channels and will continue to do so. Denmark later took the view that the measure should end when all aid measures have been repealed, i.e. as of the date of this Decision.

| (82) | As to the idea suggested in the opening decision — of amending TV2’s capacity to broadcast premium content — Denmark points out that TV2’s public service obligation covers sports, including major sporting events, and aid to film production. In addition, Denmark argues that the standard contracts preclude TV2 from assigning rights to third parties, which stands in the way of auctioning. |
| --- | --- |

(82)

As to the idea suggested in the opening decision — of amending TV2’s capacity to broadcast premium content — Denmark points out that TV2’s public service obligation covers sports, including major sporting events, and aid to film production. In addition, Denmark argues that the standard contracts preclude TV2 from assigning rights to third parties, which stands in the way of auctioning.

| (83) | Denmark considers that the restructuring process complies with the provisions of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. However, Denmark acknowledges that according to the PWC income projections, the main channel would still be loss-making after the end of the restructuring period (76). Denmark points out that TV2 is obliged to fulfil a public service mission, which it cannot fail to discharge. This special situation of TV2, due to its public service mission, should be taken into account when assessing the case under the rescue and restructuring Guidelines or Article 106(2) TFEU. It would be commercially pointless to close the public service channel, as it provides for significant synergies between the main and the niche channels. |
| --- | --- |

(83)

Denmark considers that the restructuring process complies with the provisions of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. However, Denmark acknowledges that according to the PWC income projections, the main channel would still be loss-making after the end of the restructuring period (76). Denmark points out that TV2 is obliged to fulfil a public service mission, which it cannot fail to discharge. This special situation of TV2, due to its public service mission, should be taken into account when assessing the case under the rescue and restructuring Guidelines or Article 106(2) TFEU. It would be commercially pointless to close the public service channel, as it provides for significant synergies between the main and the niche channels.

VII.   SUMMARY OF THE VIEWS OF INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES

| (84) | In its comments, TV2 first refers in general to what it considers to be key points in the assessment of the restructuring plan. |
| --- | --- |

(84)

In its comments, TV2 first refers in general to what it considers to be key points in the assessment of the restructuring plan.

| (85) | TV2 claims that its principal activity lies in extensive and expensive public service obligations that govern the enterprise’s main channel. TV2 states that such activity currently accounts for more than [...] % of the costs of the main channel. |
| --- | --- |

(85)

TV2 claims that its principal activity lies in extensive and expensive public service obligations that govern the enterprise’s main channel. TV2 states that such activity currently accounts for more than [...] % of the costs of the main channel.

| (86) | TV2 refers to the political decision that led to the current situation. The Danish Government and the parties that supported the current Media Policy Agreement agreed that under the restructuring plan, public compensation would not be reintroduced for expenses that TV2 bears in discharging its public service obligations. It was decided, on the other hand, to introduce a sustainable market-based business model for TV2 which would ensure that the enterprise could compete on the relevant markets despite its public service obligations, a decision welcomed by TV2. TV2 argues that the most important element in this context is the removal of the previous ban on the levying of user charges for the main public service channel, effective from 1 January 2012. TV2 claims that the aid does not entail operational or commercial advantages, but simply ensures that TV 2 will be able to use financing options open to its competitors. TV2 argues that its main channel cannot be seen in isolation, as both the main channel and the niche channels underpin the group’s financial result. TV2 cannot, in any case, fail to discharge its public service mission, which should be acknowledged when applying the Guidelines or Article 106(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(86)

TV2 refers to the political decision that led to the current situation. The Danish Government and the parties that supported the current Media Policy Agreement agreed that under the restructuring plan, public compensation would not be reintroduced for expenses that TV2 bears in discharging its public service obligations. It was decided, on the other hand, to introduce a sustainable market-based business model for TV2 which would ensure that the enterprise could compete on the relevant markets despite its public service obligations, a decision welcomed by TV2. TV2 argues that the most important element in this context is the removal of the previous ban on the levying of user charges for the main public service channel, effective from 1 January 2012. TV2 claims that the aid does not entail operational or commercial advantages, but simply ensures that TV 2 will be able to use financing options open to its competitors. TV2 argues that its main channel cannot be seen in isolation, as both the main channel and the niche channels underpin the group’s financial result. TV2 cannot, in any case, fail to discharge its public service mission, which should be acknowledged when applying the Guidelines or Article 106(2) TFEU.

| (87) | TV2 notes that despite the fact that it dominates the Danish television advertising market, competition in this market is strong and is characterised by the presence of financially robust multinational groups. TV2 also claims that its main competitors are not prevented from entering the market, since they have launched a number of new channels in the Danish television market (e.g. SBS 6 (Pro 7), TV3 Puls (MTG) and Canal 9 (Bonnier)). |
| --- | --- |

(87)

TV2 notes that despite the fact that it dominates the Danish television advertising market, competition in this market is strong and is characterised by the presence of financially robust multinational groups. TV2 also claims that its main competitors are not prevented from entering the market, since they have launched a number of new channels in the Danish television market (e.g. SBS 6 (Pro 7), TV3 Puls (MTG) and Canal 9 (Bonnier)).

| (88) | Moreover, in relation to the competition situation within the Danish television market, TV2 claims that it has experienced significant reductions in both market and audience shares (77), which [...], inter alia because of the switching-off of the analogue signal in November 2009. TV2 also argues that the ban on launching new television channels until 2012 will further reduce TV2’s competitiveness and thus weaken the enterprise. |
| --- | --- |

(88)

Moreover, in relation to the competition situation within the Danish television market, TV2 claims that it has experienced significant reductions in both market and audience shares (77), which [...], inter alia because of the switching-off of the analogue signal in November 2009. TV2 also argues that the ban on launching new television channels until 2012 will further reduce TV2’s competitiveness and thus weaken the enterprise.

| (89) | As regards the pay-TV market, TV2 points out that the group does not have a dominant position on this market, while also noting that the only major Danish commercial TV channel not operating on the market is TV2’s public service channel. Furthermore, TV2 estimates that the niche channels currently have a share of approximately [...] % of the pay-TV market, and expect the station’s total market share to rise to around [...]-[...] % once TV2 can start levying user charges for the main public service channel in 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(89)

As regards the pay-TV market, TV2 points out that the group does not have a dominant position on this market, while also noting that the only major Danish commercial TV channel not operating on the market is TV2’s public service channel. Furthermore, TV2 estimates that the niche channels currently have a share of approximately [...] % of the pay-TV market, and expect the station’s total market share to rise to around [...]-[...] % once TV2 can start levying user charges for the main public service channel in 2012.

| (90) | TV2 points out that it was not able to obtain any loans from banks and that it was not even easy to get a mortgage for its property in Kvaegtorvet. TV2 points out that the uncertainty resulting inter alia from the open State aid cases has deterred banks from providing the necessary financing. TV2 considers the duration of the restructuring plan to be appropriate and points out that any improvement in its financial situation will only affect its draws on the credit facility, and not its business model, which should ensure TV2’s profitability in the medium and long term. |
| --- | --- |

(90)

TV2 points out that it was not able to obtain any loans from banks and that it was not even easy to get a mortgage for its property in Kvaegtorvet. TV2 points out that the uncertainty resulting inter alia from the open State aid cases has deterred banks from providing the necessary financing. TV2 considers the duration of the restructuring plan to be appropriate and points out that any improvement in its financial situation will only affect its draws on the credit facility, and not its business model, which should ensure TV2’s profitability in the medium and long term.

| (91) | TV2 argues that the introduction of end-user charges for the main public service channel does not entail State aid, but merely gives the channel the same opportunities as its competitors to use the market’s most conventional means of operating on the market, namely charging users who choose to use its services. Distortion of competition could be remedied by applying Article 101 or 102 TFEU. According to TV2, the end-user charge, among other elements of the restructuring plan, does not entail any distortion of competition on the relevant markets. TV2 argues in this respect that the plan will ensure that the TV2 group, particularly the main public service channel, will have the necessary liquidity until the introduction of end-user charges. TV2 also states that an alternative re-introduction of non-market based funding as public service compensation would not be preferable to the introduction of end-user charges, in terms of State aid law. |
| --- | --- |

(91)

TV2 argues that the introduction of end-user charges for the main public service channel does not entail State aid, but merely gives the channel the same opportunities as its competitors to use the market’s most conventional means of operating on the market, namely charging users who choose to use its services. Distortion of competition could be remedied by applying Article 101 or 102 TFEU. According to TV2, the end-user charge, among other elements of the restructuring plan, does not entail any distortion of competition on the relevant markets. TV2 argues in this respect that the plan will ensure that the TV2 group, particularly the main public service channel, will have the necessary liquidity until the introduction of end-user charges. TV2 also states that an alternative re-introduction of non-market based funding as public service compensation would not be preferable to the introduction of end-user charges, in terms of State aid law.

| (92) | TV2 stresses that being prevented from launching new channels is a real sacrifice. It points out that with the digital switchover and sale of its network, it loses the advantage it has hitherto enjoyed via its co-ownership of the network. In response to the opening decision’s question of whether the sale of certain programmes to third parties or restrictions on broadcasting (e.g. sports) should be considered, TV2 responds that the standard contracts bar TV2 from assigning rights to third parties. Danish fiction and sports are part of TV2’s public service programming. |
| --- | --- |

(92)

TV2 stresses that being prevented from launching new channels is a real sacrifice. It points out that with the digital switchover and sale of its network, it loses the advantage it has hitherto enjoyed via its co-ownership of the network. In response to the opening decision’s question of whether the sale of certain programmes to third parties or restrictions on broadcasting (e.g. sports) should be considered, TV2 responds that the standard contracts bar TV2 from assigning rights to third parties. Danish fiction and sports are part of TV2’s public service programming.

| (93) | SBS sees no reason why a series of possibly bad management decisions should lead to a change in the financing model with significant distortive effects on competition. SBS asserts that leaving bad investment decisions aside, TV2 had positive results in the 2004-2008 period and enjoys a dominant position on the TV advertising market. It is furthermore of the opinion that the restructuring plan goes far beyond what is necessary. The net present value of the right to charge end-user fees is much greater than the estimated optimal equity as identified in the recapitalisation decision. SBS also raises the point that aid granted to the regional channels in the form of licence fees of some DKK 400 million annually should be included in the assessment of the impact of the restructuring plan. |
| --- | --- |

(93)

SBS sees no reason why a series of possibly bad management decisions should lead to a change in the financing model with significant distortive effects on competition. SBS asserts that leaving bad investment decisions aside, TV2 had positive results in the 2004-2008 period and enjoys a dominant position on the TV advertising market. It is furthermore of the opinion that the restructuring plan goes far beyond what is necessary. The net present value of the right to charge end-user fees is much greater than the estimated optimal equity as identified in the recapitalisation decision. SBS also raises the point that aid granted to the regional channels in the form of licence fees of some DKK 400 million annually should be included in the assessment of the impact of the restructuring plan.

| (94) | SBS claims that neither TV2, nor any of its subsidiaries, is eligible for aid under the restructuring guidelines. In this respect, SBS points out that TV2 Denmark, in its first half-yearly report for 2009, had a net equity of DKK 644,9 million, and that the company does not fulfil the criteria for insolvency proceedings. Any loss resulting from the public service obligation should be analysed under Article 106(2) TFEU, which has not been invoked by the Danish Government. |
| --- | --- |

(94)

SBS claims that neither TV2, nor any of its subsidiaries, is eligible for aid under the restructuring guidelines. In this respect, SBS points out that TV2 Denmark, in its first half-yearly report for 2009, had a net equity of DKK 644,9 million, and that the company does not fulfil the criteria for insolvency proceedings. Any loss resulting from the public service obligation should be analysed under Article 106(2) TFEU, which has not been invoked by the Danish Government.

| (95) | SBS argues that the cost allocation between the different parts of the TV2 group must be properly assessed, especially since the costs of the niche channels are very low compared to those of competitors. The main channel was regarded as a stand-alone operation which could be made profitable by proper pricing standards. |
| --- | --- |

(95)

SBS argues that the cost allocation between the different parts of the TV2 group must be properly assessed, especially since the costs of the niche channels are very low compared to those of competitors. The main channel was regarded as a stand-alone operation which could be made profitable by proper pricing standards.

| (96) | SBS asserts that the TV2 Group was profitable in the 2004-2008 period, if the now abandoned loss-making activities such as TV2 Radio and the impact of the Commission’s recovery decision are taken out of the equation. In any event, TV2 could become profitable, e.g. by reducing costs. |
| --- | --- |

(96)

SBS asserts that the TV2 Group was profitable in the 2004-2008 period, if the now abandoned loss-making activities such as TV2 Radio and the impact of the Commission’s recovery decision are taken out of the equation. In any event, TV2 could become profitable, e.g. by reducing costs.

| (97) | SBS furthermore takes issue with the market analysis supplied by Denmark. SBS particularly disagrees with the outlook for the advertising market, which it expects to grow from 2010 (78). |
| --- | --- |

(97)

SBS furthermore takes issue with the market analysis supplied by Denmark. SBS particularly disagrees with the outlook for the advertising market, which it expects to grow from 2010 (78).

| (98) | SBS states that the restructuring plan, if it is to be approved at all, should be limited to the time it would take to sell off assets to address liquidity issues. |
| --- | --- |

(98)

SBS states that the restructuring plan, if it is to be approved at all, should be limited to the time it would take to sell off assets to address liquidity issues.

| (99) | SBS states that the introduction of end-user charges will in practice have the same effect as an increase in licence fees, and should be classified as State aid in line with Case C-206/06 Essent Netwerk Noord BV. There are significant differences from Case C-345/02 (Pearle), because the measure was introduced on the sole initiative of Denmark and TV2, and because user fees are not earmarked for specific purposes chosen by the viewers. |
| --- | --- |

(99)

SBS states that the introduction of end-user charges will in practice have the same effect as an increase in licence fees, and should be classified as State aid in line with Case C-206/06 Essent Netwerk Noord BV. There are significant differences from Case C-345/02 (Pearle), because the measure was introduced on the sole initiative of Denmark and TV2, and because user fees are not earmarked for specific purposes chosen by the viewers.

| (100) | SBS stresses the importance of analysing end-user charges within the framework of the restructuring aid. An agreement to introduce end-user charges is likely to affect TV2’s market behaviour and that of relevant third parties such as banks, as of the date of approval of the restructuring plan rather than the date of implementation of the end-user charges. It further criticised the fact that there is no cap on the amount of end-user charges which TV2 is able to levy, nor any conditions regarding its use. End-user charges can also be used to finance commercial activities. |
| --- | --- |

(100)

SBS stresses the importance of analysing end-user charges within the framework of the restructuring aid. An agreement to introduce end-user charges is likely to affect TV2’s market behaviour and that of relevant third parties such as banks, as of the date of approval of the restructuring plan rather than the date of implementation of the end-user charges. It further criticised the fact that there is no cap on the amount of end-user charges which TV2 is able to levy, nor any conditions regarding its use. End-user charges can also be used to finance commercial activities.

| (101) | SBS states further that the introduction of end-user charges cannot be reconciled with the concept of public service. This means that the restructuring aid as such cannot be justified under Article 106(2) TFEU unless the plans for user charges are dropped. SBS also states that the anticompetitive effects of the user charges are clear, and particularly that it may lead to some operators having to leave the market and that it will also allow TV2 to invest even more aggressively in new content. This is a bad thing, particularly because TV2 is exceptional in that it holds a dominant position on the advertising market. |
| --- | --- |

(101)

SBS states further that the introduction of end-user charges cannot be reconciled with the concept of public service. This means that the restructuring aid as such cannot be justified under Article 106(2) TFEU unless the plans for user charges are dropped. SBS also states that the anticompetitive effects of the user charges are clear, and particularly that it may lead to some operators having to leave the market and that it will also allow TV2 to invest even more aggressively in new content. This is a bad thing, particularly because TV2 is exceptional in that it holds a dominant position on the advertising market.

| (102) | SBS claims that there is a need for sufficiently strict compensatory measures. It therefore suggests that TV2, firstly, should not be allowed to introduce user charges. Secondly, public tendering should be introduced to ensure more correct internal transfer pricing when programmes are sold from TV2 to its subsidiaries. Thirdly, TV2 regional channels could be transferred to Danmarks Radio, since the regional channels receive substantial amounts of State aid and because households paying a licence fee and also receiving pay-TV would be paying twice for the TV2 regional channels. Fourthly, TV2 should be required not only to not launch new commercial channels, but also to sell at least some of the existing channels. Lastly, TV2 should be obliged to allow advertising from competing operators on its network. |
| --- | --- |

(102)

SBS claims that there is a need for sufficiently strict compensatory measures. It therefore suggests that TV2, firstly, should not be allowed to introduce user charges. Secondly, public tendering should be introduced to ensure more correct internal transfer pricing when programmes are sold from TV2 to its subsidiaries. Thirdly, TV2 regional channels could be transferred to Danmarks Radio, since the regional channels receive substantial amounts of State aid and because households paying a licence fee and also receiving pay-TV would be paying twice for the TV2 regional channels. Fourthly, TV2 should be required not only to not launch new commercial channels, but also to sell at least some of the existing channels. Lastly, TV2 should be obliged to allow advertising from competing operators on its network.

| (103) | SBS also suggests that a number of safeguards should be put in place so as to ensure that TV2 does not use the aid and/or user charges to distort competition. Firstly, Denmark should not be allowed to apply discriminatory user charges. Secondly, TV2 should not be allowed to bundle the main channel with the other channels on the distribution market, and TV2 should be obliged to supply TV2 as a stand-alone channel. Thirdly, TV2 should be barred from using the aid or user charges for any activity other than the main channel, and from dumping prices in the advertising market. Fourthly, TV2 should be obliged to give an undertaking that it will not use non-transparent rebates. |
| --- | --- |

(103)

SBS also suggests that a number of safeguards should be put in place so as to ensure that TV2 does not use the aid and/or user charges to distort competition. Firstly, Denmark should not be allowed to apply discriminatory user charges. Secondly, TV2 should not be allowed to bundle the main channel with the other channels on the distribution market, and TV2 should be obliged to supply TV2 as a stand-alone channel. Thirdly, TV2 should be barred from using the aid or user charges for any activity other than the main channel, and from dumping prices in the advertising market. Fourthly, TV2 should be obliged to give an undertaking that it will not use non-transparent rebates.

| (104) | Viasat asserts that TV2 is not a firm in difficulty, pointing in particular to the profit in 2008. It claimed that TV2 would be profitable in the future, referring, inter alia, to TV2’s profit for the first half of 2009 (which forecast a profit of DKK 249 million before tax). In view of the later information that TV2 in fact made a loss for 2009, Viasat considers this minor loss to be associated with an overall drop in the advertising market of 18,7 % compared to 2008. It shows that TV2 has now managed to adjust its costs to the current commercial and financial environment. As concerns the losses in 2007, Viasat points out that these are mainly due to TV2 Radio, which has subsequently been sold off. TV2 did have a decrease in turnover in 2008, but so did most firms, and TV2 still managed to increase its pre-tax profits. |
| --- | --- |

(104)

Viasat asserts that TV2 is not a firm in difficulty, pointing in particular to the profit in 2008. It claimed that TV2 would be profitable in the future, referring, inter alia, to TV2’s profit for the first half of 2009 (which forecast a profit of DKK 249 million before tax). In view of the later information that TV2 in fact made a loss for 2009, Viasat considers this minor loss to be associated with an overall drop in the advertising market of 18,7 % compared to 2008. It shows that TV2 has now managed to adjust its costs to the current commercial and financial environment. As concerns the losses in 2007, Viasat points out that these are mainly due to TV2 Radio, which has subsequently been sold off. TV2 did have a decrease in turnover in 2008, but so did most firms, and TV2 still managed to increase its pre-tax profits.

| (105) | Viasat claims that there is no evidence of short-term cash flow needs. TV2 has, on the contrary, recently spent a considerable amount on new film acquisitions, and has also increased its costs, which according to Viasat is due to an increase in its programming stock, a cost increase in the area of general fiction and over-investment in expensive Danish fiction (79). |
| --- | --- |

(105)

Viasat claims that there is no evidence of short-term cash flow needs. TV2 has, on the contrary, recently spent a considerable amount on new film acquisitions, and has also increased its costs, which according to Viasat is due to an increase in its programming stock, a cost increase in the area of general fiction and over-investment in expensive Danish fiction (79).

| (106) | In more detail, Viasat stresses that even though a large part of TV2’s interest-bearing debt is still short-term, this is not a problem as long as TV2 can refinance it. TV2’s financial costs dropped in 2009 from DKK 49,2 million to DKK 19 million. TV2 has also spent substantial funds on new content acquisition. Furthermore, the negative cash flow in the 2006-2008 period was mainly due to unusually large investment activities, and not costs related to TV2’s operating activities. The negative cash flow could thus have been eliminated by postponing or reducing investments. In the same vein, the reason why TV2 had an increase in its debt was that TV2 invested heavily during 2006-2008. |
| --- | --- |

(106)

In more detail, Viasat stresses that even though a large part of TV2’s interest-bearing debt is still short-term, this is not a problem as long as TV2 can refinance it. TV2’s financial costs dropped in 2009 from DKK 49,2 million to DKK 19 million. TV2 has also spent substantial funds on new content acquisition. Furthermore, the negative cash flow in the 2006-2008 period was mainly due to unusually large investment activities, and not costs related to TV2’s operating activities. The negative cash flow could thus have been eliminated by postponing or reducing investments. In the same vein, the reason why TV2 had an increase in its debt was that TV2 invested heavily during 2006-2008.

| (107) | Viasat also points out that the interest burden seems to have decreased as of 2008. Viasat also questions whether TV2 has problems in obtaining loans, since it seems that TV2 sought to obtain loans from Danske Bank only. Moreover, this took place at a time when it was more difficult to obtain a loan than it is now. |
| --- | --- |

(107)

Viasat also points out that the interest burden seems to have decreased as of 2008. Viasat also questions whether TV2 has problems in obtaining loans, since it seems that TV2 sought to obtain loans from Danske Bank only. Moreover, this took place at a time when it was more difficult to obtain a loan than it is now.

| (108) | Regarding the exogenous factors, Viasat agrees with the assumption in the opening decision of a 1,02 % GDP growth per year. Viasat especially notes that the forecasts concerning the growth of the advertising market made by PWC, on which the Danish Government relies, are substantially more conservative than those by others, especially forecasts made by firms that are active on the market. In its comments on the opening decision, Viasat provides its own forecast for the TV2 group for the 2009-2019 period (report Audon Partners), which shows that TV2 will not be condemned to going out of business in the short or medium term. |
| --- | --- |

(108)

Regarding the exogenous factors, Viasat agrees with the assumption in the opening decision of a 1,02 % GDP growth per year. Viasat especially notes that the forecasts concerning the growth of the advertising market made by PWC, on which the Danish Government relies, are substantially more conservative than those by others, especially forecasts made by firms that are active on the market. In its comments on the opening decision, Viasat provides its own forecast for the TV2 group for the 2009-2019 period (report Audon Partners), which shows that TV2 will not be condemned to going out of business in the short or medium term.

| (109) | As regards the profitability of the public service channel, Viasat stresses that the TV2 Group consist of such synergies that it is impossible to consider the profitability of each activity in isolation. The main channel should thus not be assessed in a stand-alone perspective. Notwithstanding this, the transfer pricing between TV2 and the niche channels is flawed as the price is significantly less than cost. Viasat supplies calculations of profitability in which costs are split according to the channels’ turnover. Viasat also states that when compared to the performance of comparable media companies, the niche channels’ financial performance strongly suggests that the segmented reporting in the TV2 group should be disregarded. Viasat finally remarks that TV2 could auction the right to retransmit its most attractive programmes, excluding sporting events, e.g. drama, fiction and documentaries, to boost profits for the main channel. Viasat also fears that the aid could be used for aggressive market behaviour and states that TV2 in the past invested in drama series acquisitions by outbidding competitors, raised prices for TV2 news and granted rebates. |
| --- | --- |

(109)

As regards the profitability of the public service channel, Viasat stresses that the TV2 Group consist of such synergies that it is impossible to consider the profitability of each activity in isolation. The main channel should thus not be assessed in a stand-alone perspective. Notwithstanding this, the transfer pricing between TV2 and the niche channels is flawed as the price is significantly less than cost. Viasat supplies calculations of profitability in which costs are split according to the channels’ turnover. Viasat also states that when compared to the performance of comparable media companies, the niche channels’ financial performance strongly suggests that the segmented reporting in the TV2 group should be disregarded. Viasat finally remarks that TV2 could auction the right to retransmit its most attractive programmes, excluding sporting events, e.g. drama, fiction and documentaries, to boost profits for the main channel. Viasat also fears that the aid could be used for aggressive market behaviour and states that TV2 in the past invested in drama series acquisitions by outbidding competitors, raised prices for TV2 news and granted rebates.

| (110) | Should the Commission come to the conclusion that there is a need for aid, that aid should target the immediate problem, i.e. the cash flow, rather than operations. This means that TV2 should not be allowed to become a pay-TV channel, as it would be sufficient to supply it with a credit facility. Moreover, the introduction of user charges will supply TV2 with funds with which it will be able to continue abusive behaviour in the advertising market, and risk eliminating competitors from the market. Viasat also questions whether the scheme is in line with TV2’s universal public service obligation. |
| --- | --- |

(110)

Should the Commission come to the conclusion that there is a need for aid, that aid should target the immediate problem, i.e. the cash flow, rather than operations. This means that TV2 should not be allowed to become a pay-TV channel, as it would be sufficient to supply it with a credit facility. Moreover, the introduction of user charges will supply TV2 with funds with which it will be able to continue abusive behaviour in the advertising market, and risk eliminating competitors from the market. Viasat also questions whether the scheme is in line with TV2’s universal public service obligation.

| (111) | Viasat primarily emphasises the anticompetitive impact of user charges, because these will push other operators’ programmes towards more expensive programme packages, leading them to lose revenue from subscriptions and advertising. |
| --- | --- |

(111)

Viasat primarily emphasises the anticompetitive impact of user charges, because these will push other operators’ programmes towards more expensive programme packages, leading them to lose revenue from subscriptions and advertising.

| (112) | Viasat moreover claims that the compensatory measures suggested are in fact not a sacrifice, as there is no room for further channels anyway. As stated above, Viasat remarks that TV2 could auction the right to retransmit its most attractive programmes (excluding sporting events), e.g. drama, fiction and documentaries, to boost profits for the main channel. |
| --- | --- |

(112)

Viasat moreover claims that the compensatory measures suggested are in fact not a sacrifice, as there is no room for further channels anyway. As stated above, Viasat remarks that TV2 could auction the right to retransmit its most attractive programmes (excluding sporting events), e.g. drama, fiction and documentaries, to boost profits for the main channel.

| (113) | Finally, Viasat also states that it is unlikely that Article 106(2) could be invoked by the Danish Government. |
| --- | --- |

(113)

Finally, Viasat also states that it is unlikely that Article 106(2) could be invoked by the Danish Government.

| (114) | Boxer states that the introduction of the user charges will partly remedy the current anticompetitive situation in which Boxer, unlike any other platform provider, cannot commercially utilise the fact that it broadcasts TV2. Boxer suggests that the pricing of TV2 should be made subject to control, either political or by the competition authorities. |
| --- | --- |

(114)

Boxer states that the introduction of the user charges will partly remedy the current anticompetitive situation in which Boxer, unlike any other platform provider, cannot commercially utilise the fact that it broadcasts TV2. Boxer suggests that the pricing of TV2 should be made subject to control, either political or by the competition authorities.

| (115) | Regarding the restructuring aid, some parties question whether TV2 is in difficulty (ASK) and whether the compensatory measures in a saturated market are not too weak (FDA). Some state, however, that if the company is in difficulty, user charges could be considered (DI, TDC). Some consider the restructuring period to be too long (Discovery). Others state that if TV2 will be an economically stable company by 2012, it should not be allowed to introduce the user charges. |
| --- | --- |

(115)

Regarding the restructuring aid, some parties question whether TV2 is in difficulty (ASK) and whether the compensatory measures in a saturated market are not too weak (FDA). Some state, however, that if the company is in difficulty, user charges could be considered (DI, TDC). Some consider the restructuring period to be too long (Discovery). Others state that if TV2 will be an economically stable company by 2012, it should not be allowed to introduce the user charges.

| (116) | On the end-user charges: Some parties (Langkilde, MTV Networks AB, FDA, Discovery, Stofa) submit that the user charges will lead to small channels being pushed out of the existing pay-TV packages or to customers having to pay more. |
| --- | --- |

(116)

On the end-user charges: Some parties (Langkilde, MTV Networks AB, FDA, Discovery, Stofa) submit that the user charges will lead to small channels being pushed out of the existing pay-TV packages or to customers having to pay more.

| (117) | Some parties think that an end-user charge of DKK 25 is too high (FDA, TDC). FDA also thinks that the levy of such end-user charges is not compatible with TV2’s role as a public service broadcaster. |
| --- | --- |

(117)

Some parties think that an end-user charge of DKK 25 is too high (FDA, TDC). FDA also thinks that the levy of such end-user charges is not compatible with TV2’s role as a public service broadcaster.

VIII.   ASSESSMENT UNDER THE STATE AID RULES

1.   Scope of the assessment

| (118) | As can be seen from the submission of Denmark, the notified restructuring plan has not been withdrawn. Denmark states that there is no need for aid measures and that all aid measures will be repealed once the restructuring plan, including the end-user charges, has been approved and TV2 is not required to make additional payments resulting from the Commission’s two previous investigations involving TV2 (80). In other words, the Commission has not yet received unconditional confirmation from Denmark that these measures are no longer part of the restructuring plan and thus no longer within the scope of the Commission’s formal investigation. |
| --- | --- |

(118)

As can be seen from the submission of Denmark, the notified restructuring plan has not been withdrawn. Denmark states that there is no need for aid measures and that all aid measures will be repealed once the restructuring plan, including the end-user charges, has been approved and TV2 is not required to make additional payments resulting from the Commission’s two previous investigations involving TV2 (80). In other words, the Commission has not yet received unconditional confirmation from Denmark that these measures are no longer part of the restructuring plan and thus no longer within the scope of the Commission’s formal investigation.

| (119) | The only exception is the proposed guarantee of the broadcasting network sale, which will not materialise since this sale has already taken place and is therefore no longer relevant to the case. The Commission no longer considers this measure to be notified. |
| --- | --- |

(119)

The only exception is the proposed guarantee of the broadcasting network sale, which will not materialise since this sale has already taken place and is therefore no longer relevant to the case. The Commission no longer considers this measure to be notified.

| (120) | In the following, therefore, the Commission will still assess the remaining notified measures (loan and temporary and restructuring credit facilities) as well as the credit facility from the rescue aid authorisation, which remains in place. |
| --- | --- |

(120)

In the following, therefore, the Commission will still assess the remaining notified measures (loan and temporary and restructuring credit facilities) as well as the credit facility from the rescue aid authorisation, which remains in place.

2.   Presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

| (121) | Article 107(1) TFEU states:
  ‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’ |
| --- | --- |

(121)

Article 107(1) TFEU states:

‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’

| (122) | In order for Article 107(1) TFEU to be applicable, there needs to be an aid measure imputable to the State which is granted by state resources, affects trade between Member States and distorts competition in the common market by conferring a selective economic advantage to certain undertakings. The application of these conditions to the measures at hand is examined below. |
| --- | --- |

(122)

In order for Article 107(1) TFEU to be applicable, there needs to be an aid measure imputable to the State which is granted by state resources, affects trade between Member States and distorts competition in the common market by conferring a selective economic advantage to certain undertakings. The application of these conditions to the measures at hand is examined below.

2.1.   State resources

| (123) | The subordinated loan and the temporary credit facilities from the original rescue aid and under the restructuring plan (81) involve funds released by the Government with the agreement of the Folketinget from the general budget of Denmark, thus constituting state resources. |
| --- | --- |

(123)

The subordinated loan and the temporary credit facilities from the original rescue aid and under the restructuring plan (81) involve funds released by the Government with the agreement of the Folketinget from the general budget of Denmark, thus constituting state resources.

| (124) | Denmark submits that the interest rates and charges are those applied on the market for healthy firms. In applying the same conditions to a firm in difficulty such as TV2, Denmark is foregoing state resources. The reason is that a private creditor would take into account the financial difficulties of TV2 and would either not grant a loan or credit facility at all, or do so at rates which are higher than for healthy companies. |
| --- | --- |

(124)

Denmark submits that the interest rates and charges are those applied on the market for healthy firms. In applying the same conditions to a firm in difficulty such as TV2, Denmark is foregoing state resources. The reason is that a private creditor would take into account the financial difficulties of TV2 and would either not grant a loan or credit facility at all, or do so at rates which are higher than for healthy companies.

| (125) | The Commission finds that the right granted to TV2 to charge end-user charges as of 2012 does not constitute state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The end-user charges are of private origin (82) and are paid directly by consumers to the distributor as remuneration for viewing the TV2 channel. TV2 has to enter into normal commercial negotiations with the distributor to have its channel included in a digital package and to agree on an acceptable remuneration. There is no legal provision which forces the distributor to carry the TV2 main channel in its package, since the current must-carry obligation laid down in Article 6 of the Danish Broadcasting Act will be repealed upon the introduction of the end-user charges system. Nor are the end-user charges, or their amount, under the permanent control of the Government, or available to it (83). The Government is not involved in any price setting, which is a commercial decision by TV2, nor does it collect the charges for TV2 or control or dispose of them in any way. |
| --- | --- |

(125)

The Commission finds that the right granted to TV2 to charge end-user charges as of 2012 does not constitute state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The end-user charges are of private origin (82) and are paid directly by consumers to the distributor as remuneration for viewing the TV2 channel. TV2 has to enter into normal commercial negotiations with the distributor to have its channel included in a digital package and to agree on an acceptable remuneration. There is no legal provision which forces the distributor to carry the TV2 main channel in its package, since the current must-carry obligation laid down in Article 6 of the Danish Broadcasting Act will be repealed upon the introduction of the end-user charges system. Nor are the end-user charges, or their amount, under the permanent control of the Government, or available to it (83). The Government is not involved in any price setting, which is a commercial decision by TV2, nor does it collect the charges for TV2 or control or dispose of them in any way.

| (126) | The user charges cannot be equated with the charging of the licence fee, as claimed by SBS. SBS argues that the user charges will in practice have the same effect for households as an increase in the licence fee, since distributors’ operating packages will always include TV2 Danmark. This compulsory element, Together with the fact that user charges can only be amended through a legislative amendment (84), should qualify them as State aid (85). In this regard, SBS cites the Court’s case-law in Essent Netwerks (86). |
| --- | --- |

(126)

The user charges cannot be equated with the charging of the licence fee, as claimed by SBS. SBS argues that the user charges will in practice have the same effect for households as an increase in the licence fee, since distributors’ operating packages will always include TV2 Danmark. This compulsory element, Together with the fact that user charges can only be amended through a legislative amendment (84), should qualify them as State aid (85). In this regard, SBS cites the Court’s case-law in Essent Netwerks (86).

| (127) | However, contrary to the previous licence fee arrangement in Denmark, which the Commission indeed regarded as State aid (87), end users are not legally obliged to pay the charges, but pay the remuneration as part of a contractual arrangement into which they enter voluntarily. Nor are the charges collected by a public institution as was the case for the licence fee, but by the private operator Boxer and other private distributors on the other platforms. The State will not be involved in any enforcement action in cases where users do not pay the charges; the distributor would have to bring a civil action to obtain payment. |
| --- | --- |

(127)

However, contrary to the previous licence fee arrangement in Denmark, which the Commission indeed regarded as State aid (87), end users are not legally obliged to pay the charges, but pay the remuneration as part of a contractual arrangement into which they enter voluntarily. Nor are the charges collected by a public institution as was the case for the licence fee, but by the private operator Boxer and other private distributors on the other platforms. The State will not be involved in any enforcement action in cases where users do not pay the charges; the distributor would have to bring a civil action to obtain payment.

| (128) | The fact that TV2 is granted the right to charge subscription fees by a change in the licence granted by the Ministry of Culture is not sufficient to find that state resources are involved. It is not a case of state intervention leading to a loss of state resources. In that regard, the reference by SBS to the Essent Netwerks case is not relevant. Paragraph 73 of the quoted judgment establishes a distinction between the situation in Essent and that of the Pearle case (88), by stating that in the former, the charge in question was embedded in a policy determined by the authorities. In order to distinguish the cases, the Court refers in Essent to the introduction of the charge by legislature, but does not stipulate that any state intervention by legislation automatically leads to an involvement of state resources. This is clear from the cited Essent judgment itself, since paragraph 75 of that judgment further distinguishes the case from the Preussen Elektra case, which did involve a legislative act (and in which no State aid was found to be involved) obliging electricity suppliers to purchase electricity produced in their area of supply from renewable sources at a minimum price. The Court states that in Essent, the undertakings in question had been appointed to ‘manage a state resource’, contrary to the situation in Preussen Elektra (89). In the case in question, TV2 is not called upon by the State to manage a state resource. The change in the licence implements only an already existing right to an additional source of income (for the legislation, see Section 38a(2) of the Danish Broadcasting Act). |
| --- | --- |

(128)

The fact that TV2 is granted the right to charge subscription fees by a change in the licence granted by the Ministry of Culture is not sufficient to find that state resources are involved. It is not a case of state intervention leading to a loss of state resources. In that regard, the reference by SBS to the Essent Netwerks case is not relevant. Paragraph 73 of the quoted judgment establishes a distinction between the situation in Essent and that of the Pearle case (88), by stating that in the former, the charge in question was embedded in a policy determined by the authorities. In order to distinguish the cases, the Court refers in Essent to the introduction of the charge by legislature, but does not stipulate that any state intervention by legislation automatically leads to an involvement of state resources. This is clear from the cited Essent judgment itself, since paragraph 75 of that judgment further distinguishes the case from the Preussen Elektra case, which did involve a legislative act (and in which no State aid was found to be involved) obliging electricity suppliers to purchase electricity produced in their area of supply from renewable sources at a minimum price. The Court states that in Essent, the undertakings in question had been appointed to ‘manage a state resource’, contrary to the situation in Preussen Elektra (89). In the case in question, TV2 is not called upon by the State to manage a state resource. The change in the licence implements only an already existing right to an additional source of income (for the legislation, see Section 38a(2) of the Danish Broadcasting Act).

| (129) | The Commission therefore finds that the end-user charges do not involve state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(129)

The Commission therefore finds that the end-user charges do not involve state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

2.2.   Selective advantage

| (130) | The state resources involved confer an economic advantage on TV2 in that the same financial instruments at market conditions would attract a higher borrowing cost, or higher fees, if any market operators agreed to make further funds available to the beneficiary at the amount envisaged. According to the evidence submitted by Denmark, none were willing to do so. |
| --- | --- |

(130)

The state resources involved confer an economic advantage on TV2 in that the same financial instruments at market conditions would attract a higher borrowing cost, or higher fees, if any market operators agreed to make further funds available to the beneficiary at the amount envisaged. According to the evidence submitted by Denmark, none were willing to do so.

2.3.   Distortion of competition and effect on trade

| (131) | These resources will allow TV2 to continue operating on markets on which it is currently active. These markets include the market(s) for sale and purchase of broadcasting rights, the market(s) for pay-TV services and the market for TV advertising in Denmark. On those markets, TV2 competes with other broadcasters such as SBS or Viasat, among others. It follows that by favouring TV2, the aid in question distorts or threatens to distort competition on those markets. |
| --- | --- |

(131)

These resources will allow TV2 to continue operating on markets on which it is currently active. These markets include the market(s) for sale and purchase of broadcasting rights, the market(s) for pay-TV services and the market for TV advertising in Denmark. On those markets, TV2 competes with other broadcasters such as SBS or Viasat, among others. It follows that by favouring TV2, the aid in question distorts or threatens to distort competition on those markets.

| (132) | The affected markets, such as the purchase and sale of broadcasting rights and TV advertising for products from other Member States intended for sale in Denmark, are subject to trade between Member States (90). Moreover, some competitors of TV2 Danmark A/S broadcast their channels from the United Kingdom and/or are subsidiaries of groups incorporated in other Member States, whose decision to remain or increase their activity on the Danish market may be influenced by the planned aid. The State aid in question therefore affects, or risks affecting, patterns of trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(132)

The affected markets, such as the purchase and sale of broadcasting rights and TV advertising for products from other Member States intended for sale in Denmark, are subject to trade between Member States (90). Moreover, some competitors of TV2 Danmark A/S broadcast their channels from the United Kingdom and/or are subsidiaries of groups incorporated in other Member States, whose decision to remain or increase their activity on the Danish market may be influenced by the planned aid. The State aid in question therefore affects, or risks affecting, patterns of trade between Member States.

| (133) | Since Article 107(1) TFEU applies, the restructuring aid package needs to be assessed in terms of its compatibility with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

(133)

Since Article 107(1) TFEU applies, the restructuring aid package needs to be assessed in terms of its compatibility with the internal market.

3.   Standstill obligation

| (134) | Denmark has respected the standstill obligation mentioned in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (91), since it notified the aid measures under the restructuring plan and has to date not implemented them. Implementation of the rescue aid was authorised by the Commission decision of 4 August 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(134)

Denmark has respected the standstill obligation mentioned in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (91), since it notified the aid measures under the restructuring plan and has to date not implemented them. Implementation of the rescue aid was authorised by the Commission decision of 4 August 2008.

4.   Compatibility of the State aid with the internal market

4.1.   Legal basis

| (135) | The compatibility of the measures will be assessed under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in conjunction with the Guidelines. The application of Article 106(2) TFEU to the measures in question in relation to financing of public service broadcasting is not analysed. While the financial difficulties of TV2 mainly originate from the provision of the public service channel and the absence of a business model with stable revenue sources, the State aid measures are not limited to public service provision, but are directed at TV2 as a group, i.e. including its commercial activities. Furthermore, the Danish authorities have not argued in detail that the State aid measures were compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU and the Commission has not received sufficient information which would enable it to carry out the assessment under Article 106(2) TFEU in conjunction with the Broadcasting Communication (92). |
| --- | --- |

(135)

The compatibility of the measures will be assessed under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in conjunction with the Guidelines. The application of Article 106(2) TFEU to the measures in question in relation to financing of public service broadcasting is not analysed. While the financial difficulties of TV2 mainly originate from the provision of the public service channel and the absence of a business model with stable revenue sources, the State aid measures are not limited to public service provision, but are directed at TV2 as a group, i.e. including its commercial activities. Furthermore, the Danish authorities have not argued in detail that the State aid measures were compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU and the Commission has not received sufficient information which would enable it to carry out the assessment under Article 106(2) TFEU in conjunction with the Broadcasting Communication (92).

| (136) | The Guidelines provide for the possibility of granting rescue aid as a temporary assistance for firms in difficulty pending the preparation of a restructuring plan or to address an acute liquidity crisis. According to point 26 of the Guidelines, the deadline for putting an end to the aid is extended until the Commission has reached its decision on the plan. The fact that the rescue aid facility is still in place for TV2 is in line with that stipulation, as TV2 has submitted a restructuring plan within the deadline. |
| --- | --- |

(136)

The Guidelines provide for the possibility of granting rescue aid as a temporary assistance for firms in difficulty pending the preparation of a restructuring plan or to address an acute liquidity crisis. According to point 26 of the Guidelines, the deadline for putting an end to the aid is extended until the Commission has reached its decision on the plan. The fact that the rescue aid facility is still in place for TV2 is in line with that stipulation, as TV2 has submitted a restructuring plan within the deadline.

| (137) | Restructuring aid must be based on a feasible, coherent and far-reaching plan to restore the firm’s long term viability within a reasonable time frame. Restructuring usually involves the following elements: the restructuring of all aspects of the functioning of the company, the reorganisation and rationalisation of the firm’s activities, including the withdrawal from loss-making activities and financial restructuring. Restructuring operations, if benefiting from State aid, cannot be limited, however, to making good past losses without tackling the reasons. Furthermore, the restructuring has to be financed at least partially by the own resources of the company. Finally, compensatory measures must be adopted to minimise the distortive effects of the aid. The Commission will in the following examine whether these conditions are met. |
| --- | --- |

(137)

Restructuring aid must be based on a feasible, coherent and far-reaching plan to restore the firm’s long term viability within a reasonable time frame. Restructuring usually involves the following elements: the restructuring of all aspects of the functioning of the company, the reorganisation and rationalisation of the firm’s activities, including the withdrawal from loss-making activities and financial restructuring. Restructuring operations, if benefiting from State aid, cannot be limited, however, to making good past losses without tackling the reasons. Furthermore, the restructuring has to be financed at least partially by the own resources of the company. Finally, compensatory measures must be adopted to minimise the distortive effects of the aid. The Commission will in the following examine whether these conditions are met.

4.2.   Eligibility — Firm in difficulty

| (138) | According to point 9 of the Guidelines, a firm is in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with funds it is able to obtain from its owners/shareholders, to stem losses, which, without outside intervention by public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business. Point 11 of the Guidelines mentions certain criteria according to which a firm is in difficulty, even where none of the criteria of point 10 of the Guidelines are present. Point 11 stipulates that ‘in any event, a firm in difficulty is eligible only where, demonstrably, it cannot recover through its own resources or with the funds it obtains from its owners/shareholders or from market sources’. |
| --- | --- |

(138)

According to point 9 of the Guidelines, a firm is in difficulty where it is unable, whether through its own resources or with funds it is able to obtain from its owners/shareholders, to stem losses, which, without outside intervention by public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to going out of business. Point 11 of the Guidelines mentions certain criteria according to which a firm is in difficulty, even where none of the criteria of point 10 of the Guidelines are present. Point 11 stipulates that ‘in any event, a firm in difficulty is eligible only where, demonstrably, it cannot recover through its own resources or with the funds it obtains from its owners/shareholders or from market sources’.

| (139) | The Commission comes to the conclusion that at the time of the notification of the restructuring plan, TV2 constituted such a firm in difficulty. This can be seen from the figures in the Commission’s decision opening the formal investigation procedure, and more importantly from the figures produced in recitals 36-42 of this Decision, which were submitted at a later point in January 2010 and which describe a company with losses, declining market shares, mounting debt and in particular negative cash flows due to declining advertising revenues, bad investments and increasing interest charges. While it turned out later that the company had indeed, as competitors estimated, made a profit in 2008 (the estimate at the end of March 2008 still pointed to [...] of DKK [...] million), this profit was small, and does not in itself alter the finding that the company could not continue its operations without external financing. The private credit facilities at the company’s disposal were short term and could be withdrawn any time. The company had an acute liquidity need which it could not overcome by its own resources. |
| --- | --- |

(139)

The Commission comes to the conclusion that at the time of the notification of the restructuring plan, TV2 constituted such a firm in difficulty. This can be seen from the figures in the Commission’s decision opening the formal investigation procedure, and more importantly from the figures produced in recitals 36-42 of this Decision, which were submitted at a later point in January 2010 and which describe a company with losses, declining market shares, mounting debt and in particular negative cash flows due to declining advertising revenues, bad investments and increasing interest charges. While it turned out later that the company had indeed, as competitors estimated, made a profit in 2008 (the estimate at the end of March 2008 still pointed to [...] of DKK [...] million), this profit was small, and does not in itself alter the finding that the company could not continue its operations without external financing. The private credit facilities at the company’s disposal were short term and could be withdrawn any time. The company had an acute liquidity need which it could not overcome by its own resources.

| (140) | Nor could it obtain external financing. There was a danger that short-term credits would be withdrawn. As already stated in the opening decision, the main financing bank of TV2, [...], asked to reduce its loan and credit facilities in 2008. In addition to TV2’s problems, which even included mortgaging its own premises in Odense, Denmark produced evidence that other banks had also refused to provide TV2 with long-term loans (see recitals 44 et seq. of this Decision). The banks pointed to the weaknesses in TV2’s cyclical income stream based on advertising revenues, which as a business model was considered unsustainable. Pending legal cases added to the problems. As a result, TV2’s funding became increasingly tilted towards short-term liabilities, and thus fragile. In other words, TV2 was unable, within the meaning of point 11 of the Guidelines, to recover from the situation using funds obtainable from market sources. |
| --- | --- |

(140)

Nor could it obtain external financing. There was a danger that short-term credits would be withdrawn. As already stated in the opening decision, the main financing bank of TV2, [...], asked to reduce its loan and credit facilities in 2008. In addition to TV2’s problems, which even included mortgaging its own premises in Odense, Denmark produced evidence that other banks had also refused to provide TV2 with long-term loans (see recitals 44 et seq. of this Decision). The banks pointed to the weaknesses in TV2’s cyclical income stream based on advertising revenues, which as a business model was considered unsustainable. Pending legal cases added to the problems. As a result, TV2’s funding became increasingly tilted towards short-term liabilities, and thus fragile. In other words, TV2 was unable, within the meaning of point 11 of the Guidelines, to recover from the situation using funds obtainable from market sources.

| (141) | These findings are not called into question by the submissions from competitors. For completeness, it should be mentioned that the Guidelines do not require the company to be in actual insolvency proceedings. On the contrary, aid can be given — under strict conditions — to prevent precisely that. |
| --- | --- |

(141)

These findings are not called into question by the submissions from competitors. For completeness, it should be mentioned that the Guidelines do not require the company to be in actual insolvency proceedings. On the contrary, aid can be given — under strict conditions — to prevent precisely that.

| (142) | As to the arguments of the competitors that TV2 is a profitable company, or could become profitable, the above-mentioned results for TV2 show that the company realised a profit in 2008, but contrary to what Viasat had estimated, it incurred a loss for 2009 of DKK 27 million, which deviated significantly from the Viasat forecast of DKK 249 million in profit. The profit for 2010 is also estimated to be much smaller than that assumed by Viasat. The Commission has not found any errors in the methodologies used by TV2 and its consultant PWC (see also recital 41 of this Decision). |
| --- | --- |

(142)

As to the arguments of the competitors that TV2 is a profitable company, or could become profitable, the above-mentioned results for TV2 show that the company realised a profit in 2008, but contrary to what Viasat had estimated, it incurred a loss for 2009 of DKK 27 million, which deviated significantly from the Viasat forecast of DKK 249 million in profit. The profit for 2010 is also estimated to be much smaller than that assumed by Viasat. The Commission has not found any errors in the methodologies used by TV2 and its consultant PWC (see also recital 41 of this Decision).

| (143) | As to the study of TV2’s credit rating submitted by Viasat and carried out by Audon partners (93), according to which TV2 could have obtained credit, the reactions of banks show that the real picture is a different one. The analysis is furthermore based only on figures and assumptions which have not been checked with TV2. Some of the figures are divorced from reality, as can be seen from the figures for 2009 and 2010. The report itself stresses that this is not a full-scale analysis (because for obvious reasons no contact with TV2 was established) and the model used has its limitations for that reason (94). |
| --- | --- |

(143)

As to the study of TV2’s credit rating submitted by Viasat and carried out by Audon partners (93), according to which TV2 could have obtained credit, the reactions of banks show that the real picture is a different one. The analysis is furthermore based only on figures and assumptions which have not been checked with TV2. Some of the figures are divorced from reality, as can be seen from the figures for 2009 and 2010. The report itself stresses that this is not a full-scale analysis (because for obvious reasons no contact with TV2 was established) and the model used has its limitations for that reason (94).

| (144) | The fact that the company has drawn much less on the rescue aid credit facility than it could have does not mean that it cannot be regarded as a firm in difficulty. It would be an absurd finding to disqualify a beneficiary of rescue and restructuring aid from eligibility for the aid if cost-saving measures and other measures envisaged in the restructuring plan later prove to be successful, and help the company to deal with its financing problems largely using its own resources. This might, however, lead to the result that at a certain point in time ongoing State aid is no longer necessary, which will be discussed below (see recital 149). In any event, the credit facility was always constructed in such a way that the company could only get access to it in the event of a certified need. This was done in order to keep the aid to the minimum, and TV2’s behaviour in trying to achieve the restructuring process as much as possible using its own resources is in line with that requirement. |
| --- | --- |

(144)

The fact that the company has drawn much less on the rescue aid credit facility than it could have does not mean that it cannot be regarded as a firm in difficulty. It would be an absurd finding to disqualify a beneficiary of rescue and restructuring aid from eligibility for the aid if cost-saving measures and other measures envisaged in the restructuring plan later prove to be successful, and help the company to deal with its financing problems largely using its own resources. This might, however, lead to the result that at a certain point in time ongoing State aid is no longer necessary, which will be discussed below (see recital 149). In any event, the credit facility was always constructed in such a way that the company could only get access to it in the event of a certified need. This was done in order to keep the aid to the minimum, and TV2’s behaviour in trying to achieve the restructuring process as much as possible using its own resources is in line with that requirement.

| (145) | It should furthermore be underlined that the numerous allegations by Viasat and SBS that TV2’s weak financial situation is self-inflicted through poor management decisions or bad investments is irrelevant for its eligibility under the Guidelines, which do not ask for the cause of the financial problems of the aid beneficiary, but only seek to ascertain that the aid beneficiary is indeed a firm in difficulty. |
| --- | --- |

(145)

It should furthermore be underlined that the numerous allegations by Viasat and SBS that TV2’s weak financial situation is self-inflicted through poor management decisions or bad investments is irrelevant for its eligibility under the Guidelines, which do not ask for the cause of the financial problems of the aid beneficiary, but only seek to ascertain that the aid beneficiary is indeed a firm in difficulty.

| (146) | Competitors have also, in this respect, asserted that TV2’s problems largely stem from the public service channel and that internal cost and transfer pricing adjustments could remedy this situation. However, the Commission does not consider this argument relevant in a situation in which the aid goes to the group as such, including the commercial operations. The Commission notes, however, that TV2 has separate and audited accounts for the public service and other activities, and a fully documented and audited transfer pricing policy, which is relatively simple, transparent and aims to give an accurate picture of the different activities based on transfer prices on market terms. |
| --- | --- |

(146)

Competitors have also, in this respect, asserted that TV2’s problems largely stem from the public service channel and that internal cost and transfer pricing adjustments could remedy this situation. However, the Commission does not consider this argument relevant in a situation in which the aid goes to the group as such, including the commercial operations. The Commission notes, however, that TV2 has separate and audited accounts for the public service and other activities, and a fully documented and audited transfer pricing policy, which is relatively simple, transparent and aims to give an accurate picture of the different activities based on transfer prices on market terms.

| (147) | On the exogenous factors, Viasat agrees with the assumption of a GDP growth of 1,02 %. On the development of the advertising market, the parties agree that TV2’s advertising revenues decreased by 19 % in 2008. However, Viasat and SBS wrongly interpret Denmark’s forecast on the future development of the advertising market. Contrary to their understanding, Denmark did not forecast that the advertising market would drop by 10 % each year in the 2009-2013 period, but simply stated that [...]. |
| --- | --- |

(147)

On the exogenous factors, Viasat agrees with the assumption of a GDP growth of 1,02 %. On the development of the advertising market, the parties agree that TV2’s advertising revenues decreased by 19 % in 2008. However, Viasat and SBS wrongly interpret Denmark’s forecast on the future development of the advertising market. Contrary to their understanding, Denmark did not forecast that the advertising market would drop by 10 % each year in the 2009-2013 period, but simply stated that [...].

| (148) | Regarding the argument that licence fees granted to the regional broadcasting stations should have been included in the assessment of TV2’s financial situation, the Commission finds that the licence fees finance the programme production of regional broadcasters and are relevant only in relation to that. In this regard, the Commission notes that the regional TV2 stations are independent from TV2 and subject to their own public service obligations under the Danish Broadcasting Act, for which they receive licence financing. As to SBS’s argument that viewers will pay twice for the programme, it should be stressed that one of the payments — the subscription fees for TV2 main channel — result from the customer’s choice and have been found not to involve any State aid. In any event, it has been shown above that TV2 as a group was a firm in difficulty suffering from acute financing needs, since it could not obtain any external financing from banks. This included any potential benefits resulting from its obligation to broadcast these programmes. |
| --- | --- |

(148)

Regarding the argument that licence fees granted to the regional broadcasting stations should have been included in the assessment of TV2’s financial situation, the Commission finds that the licence fees finance the programme production of regional broadcasters and are relevant only in relation to that. In this regard, the Commission notes that the regional TV2 stations are independent from TV2 and subject to their own public service obligations under the Danish Broadcasting Act, for which they receive licence financing. As to SBS’s argument that viewers will pay twice for the programme, it should be stressed that one of the payments — the subscription fees for TV2 main channel — result from the customer’s choice and have been found not to involve any State aid. In any event, it has been shown above that TV2 as a group was a firm in difficulty suffering from acute financing needs, since it could not obtain any external financing from banks. This included any potential benefits resulting from its obligation to broadcast these programmes.

| (149) | TV2’s dire situation changed, however, with the sale of the broadcasting transmission network. Using the proceeds from the sale of the broadcasting network, TV2 was able to pay back part of its debt, and the financial outlook became much more positive, as can be seen from the figures in recitals 62-64 of this Decision. Trends in the advertising market are also more positive (95). TV2 was able to repay its state loan drawn from the rescue aid facility. Subject to the outcome of the pending State aid cases and the approval of the restructuring plan, TV2 expects to have sufficient financing until January 2012 when the subscription charges will be implemented (96). |
| --- | --- |

(149)

TV2’s dire situation changed, however, with the sale of the broadcasting transmission network. Using the proceeds from the sale of the broadcasting network, TV2 was able to pay back part of its debt, and the financial outlook became much more positive, as can be seen from the figures in recitals 62-64 of this Decision. Trends in the advertising market are also more positive (95). TV2 was able to repay its state loan drawn from the rescue aid facility. Subject to the outcome of the pending State aid cases and the approval of the restructuring plan, TV2 expects to have sufficient financing until January 2012 when the subscription charges will be implemented (96).

| (150) | Given that new situation, the Commission does not find that TV2 can still currently be classified as a firm in difficulty. There is therefore no need for any aid measure beyond the approval of this Decision, and the notified, non-implemented loan and credit facility contained in the restructuring plan should be repealed. For the same reason, the existing aid facility under the rescue aid decision should also come to an end. |
| --- | --- |

(150)

Given that new situation, the Commission does not find that TV2 can still currently be classified as a firm in difficulty. There is therefore no need for any aid measure beyond the approval of this Decision, and the notified, non-implemented loan and credit facility contained in the restructuring plan should be repealed. For the same reason, the existing aid facility under the rescue aid decision should also come to an end.

4.3.   Restoration of long-term viability

| (151) | Pursuant to point 34 of the Guidelines, the grant of the aid must be conditional on implementation of a restructuring plan which must restore viability to the company within a reasonable timescale. The restructuring plan describes the circumstances that led to the company’s difficulties as having been caused by new activities which did not turn out to be profitable, and the increasingly unprofitable public service channel. In the Commission’s view, the restructuring plan adequately addresses these issues. |
| --- | --- |

(151)

Pursuant to point 34 of the Guidelines, the grant of the aid must be conditional on implementation of a restructuring plan which must restore viability to the company within a reasonable timescale. The restructuring plan describes the circumstances that led to the company’s difficulties as having been caused by new activities which did not turn out to be profitable, and the increasingly unprofitable public service channel. In the Commission’s view, the restructuring plan adequately addresses these issues.

| (152) | The Commission notes that the restructuring plan provides for financial and operational restructuring measures which, together with an amended business model, will enable the company to stand on its own feet. In this regard, the Commission firstly notes that the requirement in the restructuring plan to sell assets resulted in the successful sale of the broadcasting network, which provided TV2 with sufficient funds to repay its debts. It also repaid the aid drawn from the rescue aid facility on 4 October 2010. The company itself states that it has now sufficient means to bridge the period until the end-user charges will be adopted (97). Other measures in the form of cost savings will also contribute to the long-term viability of the firm (see recitals 47 and 48 above). |
| --- | --- |

(152)

The Commission notes that the restructuring plan provides for financial and operational restructuring measures which, together with an amended business model, will enable the company to stand on its own feet. In this regard, the Commission firstly notes that the requirement in the restructuring plan to sell assets resulted in the successful sale of the broadcasting network, which provided TV2 with sufficient funds to repay its debts. It also repaid the aid drawn from the rescue aid facility on 4 October 2010. The company itself states that it has now sufficient means to bridge the period until the end-user charges will be adopted (97). Other measures in the form of cost savings will also contribute to the long-term viability of the firm (see recitals 47 and 48 above).

| (153) | The company is also giving up loss-making activities; in 2008, it sold its loss-making radio operation to the SBS group. |
| --- | --- |

(153)

The company is also giving up loss-making activities; in 2008, it sold its loss-making radio operation to the SBS group.

| (154) | The company is expected to solve the structural problems leading to its liquidity needs by being permitted to charge subscription fees as of January 2012. The lack of profitability of the public service channel is due to its reliance on one source of income in the form of advertising revenue, which is cyclical and sensitive to the economic climate. This is also demonstrated by the reactions of banks, which refused to provide funding due to their concerns about trends on the advertising market and doubts as to TV2’s earning ability. The new business model will provide TV2 with a more stable income base by charging subscription fees for the viewing of its main channel. TV2 has forecast additional income from the end-user charges of DKK [...] million in 2012. It also forecasts [...] for the group in 2012. The Commission notes that besides [...], the second source of revenue in the form of end-user charges will also make the company less vulnerable to downturns in cyclical activities. The Commission notes that the measures to achieve the turnaround originate in the restructuring plan itself and not from external factors. |
| --- | --- |

(154)

The company is expected to solve the structural problems leading to its liquidity needs by being permitted to charge subscription fees as of January 2012. The lack of profitability of the public service channel is due to its reliance on one source of income in the form of advertising revenue, which is cyclical and sensitive to the economic climate. This is also demonstrated by the reactions of banks, which refused to provide funding due to their concerns about trends on the advertising market and doubts as to TV2’s earning ability. The new business model will provide TV2 with a more stable income base by charging subscription fees for the viewing of its main channel. TV2 has forecast additional income from the end-user charges of DKK [...] million in 2012. It also forecasts [...] for the group in 2012. The Commission notes that besides [...], the second source of revenue in the form of end-user charges will also make the company less vulnerable to downturns in cyclical activities. The Commission notes that the measures to achieve the turnaround originate in the restructuring plan itself and not from external factors.

| (155) | The originally notified duration of the restructuring plan until 31 December 2012 spans a period of almost 4 years. This period was chosen because the Danish Government believed that with the introduction of a new business model and its first experiences in practice, banks would again be willing to lend money to TV2, i.e. the period was chosen to be long enough to amass this experience. However, given that all aid will be repealed with the adoption of this Decision (see above), the Danish Government now considers that the restructuring period should end on the repeal of all aid measures. |
| --- | --- |

(155)

The originally notified duration of the restructuring plan until 31 December 2012 spans a period of almost 4 years. This period was chosen because the Danish Government believed that with the introduction of a new business model and its first experiences in practice, banks would again be willing to lend money to TV2, i.e. the period was chosen to be long enough to amass this experience. However, given that all aid will be repealed with the adoption of this Decision (see above), the Danish Government now considers that the restructuring period should end on the repeal of all aid measures.

| (156) | The Commission takes a different view. According to the Guidelines, restructuring should result in the company’s return to long-term viability. The Commission considers that the restructuring period lasts until the moment when the company has implemented all restructuring measures, ensuring such long-term viability. While all State aid measures will cease immediately on adoption of this Decision, the restoration of long-term viability to TV2 is not guaranteed as of this moment as long as TV2 still lacks a sustainable business model. Such a business model will only be established with the introduction of the end-user charges. The introduction of end-user charges is also the main restructuring measure directly addressing the most serious cause of TV2’s financial difficulties. The Commission therefore concludes that the restructuring period comes to an end on 31 December 2012, or at the point in time when TV2 is able to charge subscription fees from the end user, should this event takes place before 31 December 2012. It currently seems that TV2 is legally entitled to charge user fees only when its licence has been changed (while the current Danish Broadcasting Act already provides a possibility for TV2 to charge end-user fees, it is not allowed in the current licence). |
| --- | --- |

(156)

The Commission takes a different view. According to the Guidelines, restructuring should result in the company’s return to long-term viability. The Commission considers that the restructuring period lasts until the moment when the company has implemented all restructuring measures, ensuring such long-term viability. While all State aid measures will cease immediately on adoption of this Decision, the restoration of long-term viability to TV2 is not guaranteed as of this moment as long as TV2 still lacks a sustainable business model. Such a business model will only be established with the introduction of the end-user charges. The introduction of end-user charges is also the main restructuring measure directly addressing the most serious cause of TV2’s financial difficulties. The Commission therefore concludes that the restructuring period comes to an end on 31 December 2012, or at the point in time when TV2 is able to charge subscription fees from the end user, should this event takes place before 31 December 2012. It currently seems that TV2 is legally entitled to charge user fees only when its licence has been changed (while the current Danish Broadcasting Act already provides a possibility for TV2 to charge end-user fees, it is not allowed in the current licence).

4.4.   Avoidance of undue distortions of competition

| (157) | According to point 38 of the Guidelines, in order to ensure that the adverse effects of the aid on trading conditions are minimised as much as possible, so that the positive effects pursued outweigh the adverse ones, compensatory measures must be taken. These measures may comprise divestment of assets or reductions in capacity or market presence. According to point 40 of the Guidelines, they must be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid and the relative importance of the firm on its markets. |
| --- | --- |

(157)

According to point 38 of the Guidelines, in order to ensure that the adverse effects of the aid on trading conditions are minimised as much as possible, so that the positive effects pursued outweigh the adverse ones, compensatory measures must be taken. These measures may comprise divestment of assets or reductions in capacity or market presence. According to point 40 of the Guidelines, they must be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid and the relative importance of the firm on its markets.

| (158) | In principle, the commitment not to open any new channels (i.e. limiting market presence), can be seen as a compensatory measure, as it excludes TV2 from competing for new customers and therefore benefits its competitors. The opening of new commercial channels would be beneficial to TV2 because the channels would be financed by a steady revenue source based on non-cyclical subscription fees, and because they would provide the necessary income to the group, partially counterbalancing the negative results from the public service channel. According to the market analysis provided in the restructuring plan, the pay-TV market is growing (98). TV2’s competitors, however, argue that the option of opening new commercial channels was not available to TV2 anyway, since the market was saturated. |
| --- | --- |

(158)

In principle, the commitment not to open any new channels (i.e. limiting market presence), can be seen as a compensatory measure, as it excludes TV2 from competing for new customers and therefore benefits its competitors. The opening of new commercial channels would be beneficial to TV2 because the channels would be financed by a steady revenue source based on non-cyclical subscription fees, and because they would provide the necessary income to the group, partially counterbalancing the negative results from the public service channel. According to the market analysis provided in the restructuring plan, the pay-TV market is growing (98). TV2’s competitors, however, argue that the option of opening new commercial channels was not available to TV2 anyway, since the market was saturated.

| (159) | In this regard, the Commission notes that TV2’s competitors themselves launched channels in 2009 (SBS launched 6erene, Canal Digital will launch a sports channel, Viasat launched a channel on 23 March 2009, and the TV4 group launched Canal 9 in July 2009). |
| --- | --- |

(159)

In this regard, the Commission notes that TV2’s competitors themselves launched channels in 2009 (SBS launched 6erene, Canal Digital will launch a sports channel, Viasat launched a channel on 23 March 2009, and the TV4 group launched Canal 9 in July 2009).

| (160) | Denmark has also confirmed that due to the restructuring, TV2 will also be prevented from launching radio channels (99). This commitment is highly relevant in that there is an upcoming tender procedure for the operating licence for the new FM 4 radio station. Denmark originally expressed an interest in TV2’s possible participation in this tender, but later confirmed that such a bid would not take place in view of the Commission’s ongoing investigation of the restructuring plan, despite the fact that plans for this had already been made. In other words, contrary to what the competitors claim, the commitment not to open new channels had proven to have a real meaning and constitutes a sacrifice for the company. The Commission considers this commitment to be important in light of point 46 of the Guidelines, according to which aid should not go to finance new investment that is not essential for restoring the firm’s viability. |
| --- | --- |

(160)

Denmark has also confirmed that due to the restructuring, TV2 will also be prevented from launching radio channels (99). This commitment is highly relevant in that there is an upcoming tender procedure for the operating licence for the new FM 4 radio station. Denmark originally expressed an interest in TV2’s possible participation in this tender, but later confirmed that such a bid would not take place in view of the Commission’s ongoing investigation of the restructuring plan, despite the fact that plans for this had already been made. In other words, contrary to what the competitors claim, the commitment not to open new channels had proven to have a real meaning and constitutes a sacrifice for the company. The Commission considers this commitment to be important in light of point 46 of the Guidelines, according to which aid should not go to finance new investment that is not essential for restoring the firm’s viability.

| (161) | The Commission also considers the proposed compensatory measures to be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid measures. It should be pointed out that these measures all end on the date of adoption of this Decision. In that regard, the Commission would point out that none of the notified restructuring aid measures has been, or will be, implemented. As can be seen from recitals 150 et seq. the rescue aid facility will also be repealed on adoption of this Decision. This means that the company will not receive any State aid. The actual payments made under the rescue aid facility were, however, limited (DKK 223 million drawn of DKK 1 000 million available). Most of the aid was actually drawn as rescue aid (DKK 208 out of 223 million were drawn until end 2008, i.e. within the six-month rescue period) and all the funds actually drawn from the credit facility have already been repaid to the State. Nor is the actual amount drawn from the credit facility — DKK 223 million — excessive in light of TV2’s 2008 turnover ([...] %). In light of this, the Commission does not consider it necessary to demand further compensatory measures from Denmark and the aid beneficiary. For that reason, the Commission does not see any need for further compensatory measures, as suggested by the competitors. |
| --- | --- |

(161)

The Commission also considers the proposed compensatory measures to be in proportion to the distortive effects of the aid measures. It should be pointed out that these measures all end on the date of adoption of this Decision. In that regard, the Commission would point out that none of the notified restructuring aid measures has been, or will be, implemented. As can be seen from recitals 150 et seq. the rescue aid facility will also be repealed on adoption of this Decision. This means that the company will not receive any State aid. The actual payments made under the rescue aid facility were, however, limited (DKK 223 million drawn of DKK 1 000 million available). Most of the aid was actually drawn as rescue aid (DKK 208 out of 223 million were drawn until end 2008, i.e. within the six-month rescue period) and all the funds actually drawn from the credit facility have already been repaid to the State. Nor is the actual amount drawn from the credit facility — DKK 223 million — excessive in light of TV2’s 2008 turnover ([...] %). In light of this, the Commission does not consider it necessary to demand further compensatory measures from Denmark and the aid beneficiary. For that reason, the Commission does not see any need for further compensatory measures, as suggested by the competitors.

| (162) | However, the Commission does not agree with the proposal by Denmark that the commitment should cease when all aid measures have come to an end (100). Firstly, Denmark itself had stipulated a longer restructuring period, until 31 December 2012. Secondly, the Guidelines nowhere stipulate that the length of the compensatory measure must be identical to the presence of ongoing aid measures. Thirdly, the restructuring plan is based on the premise that it is only when the end-user charges are introduced in 2012 that the company will have access to external financing; only then will long-term viability be restored. Denmark itself has argued that the aid measures, including the rescue aid facility which is still in place, would be needed to fill the liquidity gap until a more stable business model for the public service channel was in place. The rescue aid facility thus had the function of keeping the company afloat until a new business model had begun to apply. Against this background, the Commission does not find that the compensatory measure commitment can come to an end with the end of the aid or the date of this Decision. The Commission considers it feasible, however, that the obligation not to launch new channels may end at an earlier date than the end of the period of the restructuring plan (31 December 2012), namely when the end-user charges have been introduced (via the change in the licence) and TV2 will be able to levy them. |
| --- | --- |

(162)

However, the Commission does not agree with the proposal by Denmark that the commitment should cease when all aid measures have come to an end (100). Firstly, Denmark itself had stipulated a longer restructuring period, until 31 December 2012. Secondly, the Guidelines nowhere stipulate that the length of the compensatory measure must be identical to the presence of ongoing aid measures. Thirdly, the restructuring plan is based on the premise that it is only when the end-user charges are introduced in 2012 that the company will have access to external financing; only then will long-term viability be restored. Denmark itself has argued that the aid measures, including the rescue aid facility which is still in place, would be needed to fill the liquidity gap until a more stable business model for the public service channel was in place. The rescue aid facility thus had the function of keeping the company afloat until a new business model had begun to apply. Against this background, the Commission does not find that the compensatory measure commitment can come to an end with the end of the aid or the date of this Decision. The Commission considers it feasible, however, that the obligation not to launch new channels may end at an earlier date than the end of the period of the restructuring plan (31 December 2012), namely when the end-user charges have been introduced (via the change in the licence) and TV2 will be able to levy them.

4.5.   Aid limited to the minimum

| (163) | According to point 43 of the Guidelines, the amount and intensity of the aid must be limited to the strict minimum of the restructuring costs necessary to enable restructuring to be undertaken. The idea behind this provision is that the company, at the end of restructuring, is not equipped with surplus liquidity that it could use for aggressive market behaviour. Beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources, including the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm’s survival. Such a contribution must be real, and may not include expected future profits such as cash flow. It must be as high as possible, at least 50 % for large firms. The Commission considers TV2 to be a large firm in the meaning of the Guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

(163)

According to point 43 of the Guidelines, the amount and intensity of the aid must be limited to the strict minimum of the restructuring costs necessary to enable restructuring to be undertaken. The idea behind this provision is that the company, at the end of restructuring, is not equipped with surplus liquidity that it could use for aggressive market behaviour. Beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources, including the sale of assets that are not essential to the firm’s survival. Such a contribution must be real, and may not include expected future profits such as cash flow. It must be as high as possible, at least 50 % for large firms. The Commission considers TV2 to be a large firm in the meaning of the Guidelines.

| (164) | The Commission does not share the view of the Danish Government that any costs at all, in particular cost-saving measures, automatically qualify as restructuring measures. A company might incur expenditure in pursuing cost savings. Cost savings as described by Denmark in the present case do not, in themselves, represent a restructuring cost. Denmark provided a list of ‘classical’ restructuring costs, which consist of DKK [...] million and which cover transaction costs related to the sale of the transmission network (DKK [...] million), costs associated with the transfer to the new business model (DKK [...]-[...] million) and staff costs for termination of contracts, legal and consultancy fees (DKK [...] million). The Commission accepts these costs as restructuring costs. |
| --- | --- |

(164)

The Commission does not share the view of the Danish Government that any costs at all, in particular cost-saving measures, automatically qualify as restructuring measures. A company might incur expenditure in pursuing cost savings. Cost savings as described by Denmark in the present case do not, in themselves, represent a restructuring cost. Denmark provided a list of ‘classical’ restructuring costs, which consist of DKK [...] million and which cover transaction costs related to the sale of the transmission network (DKK [...] million), costs associated with the transfer to the new business model (DKK [...]-[...] million) and staff costs for termination of contracts, legal and consultancy fees (DKK [...] million). The Commission accepts these costs as restructuring costs.

| (165) | According to the Commission’s case practice, restructuring costs include all extraordinary costs incurred in order for the firm to return to viability, but not regular operating costs incurred in the restructuring period. However, the present case concerns a company’s need of liquidity to bridge a transitional period until a new sustainable business model is in place. As outlined above, TV2 had a genuine financing need, since it did not have access to external financing. In this special case involving purely financial restructuring until the company changes to a more stable business plan, the Commission can also accept this need of financing as constituting a restructuring cost. It was the credit facility of the rescue aid decision (DKK 1 000 million) which provided the necessary temporary buffer to cover the financial gap. However, this facility was only transitional and could only be accessed when TV2 could demonstrate a financing need as certified by an external auditor. In the end, TV2 did not draw much from the credit facility (only [...] % of it). In addition, most of the credit drawn (DKK [...] million) was drawn during the period covered by the Commission’s rescue aid decision, i.e. within the six-month rescue period before the restructuring plan was submitted. |
| --- | --- |

(165)

According to the Commission’s case practice, restructuring costs include all extraordinary costs incurred in order for the firm to return to viability, but not regular operating costs incurred in the restructuring period. However, the present case concerns a company’s need of liquidity to bridge a transitional period until a new sustainable business model is in place. As outlined above, TV2 had a genuine financing need, since it did not have access to external financing. In this special case involving purely financial restructuring until the company changes to a more stable business plan, the Commission can also accept this need of financing as constituting a restructuring cost. It was the credit facility of the rescue aid decision (DKK 1 000 million) which provided the necessary temporary buffer to cover the financial gap. However, this facility was only transitional and could only be accessed when TV2 could demonstrate a financing need as certified by an external auditor. In the end, TV2 did not draw much from the credit facility (only [...] % of it). In addition, most of the credit drawn (DKK [...] million) was drawn during the period covered by the Commission’s rescue aid decision, i.e. within the six-month rescue period before the restructuring plan was submitted.

| (166) | TV2 has contributed towards the above restructuring costs through the sale of assets, with the sale of the broadcasting network for the amount of DKK 640 million, and through external financing by mortgaging its premises in Odense at DKK 80 million. The contribution of DKK 720 million is well beyond the 50 % threshold for large firms. As stated above, TV2 used the proceeds from the sale of the network to reduce its debt. The money thus spent cannot be used for other purposes. In addition, as is clear from the above, all aid measures will end as of the date of this Decision and no new aid measures as notified under the restructuring plan will be introduced (see recital 150 of this Decision). There is therefore no danger, in terms of point 45 of the Guidelines, of any aid in excess of what was needed staying in the company. |
| --- | --- |

(166)

TV2 has contributed towards the above restructuring costs through the sale of assets, with the sale of the broadcasting network for the amount of DKK 640 million, and through external financing by mortgaging its premises in Odense at DKK 80 million. The contribution of DKK 720 million is well beyond the 50 % threshold for large firms. As stated above, TV2 used the proceeds from the sale of the network to reduce its debt. The money thus spent cannot be used for other purposes. In addition, as is clear from the above, all aid measures will end as of the date of this Decision and no new aid measures as notified under the restructuring plan will be introduced (see recital 150 of this Decision). There is therefore no danger, in terms of point 45 of the Guidelines, of any aid in excess of what was needed staying in the company.

4.6.   Other conditions

| (167) | According to point 46 of the Guidelines, the Commission may require additional measures from the Member State in order to ensure that the aid does not distort competition contrary to the common interest. |
| --- | --- |

(167)

According to point 46 of the Guidelines, the Commission may require additional measures from the Member State in order to ensure that the aid does not distort competition contrary to the common interest.

| (168) | The Commission takes note of the arguments put forward by Denmark throughout the formal investigation, and the intention expressed by the aid beneficiary in supporting documents that the restructuring plan should enable TV2 to use business opportunities in line with its peers and to charge subscription charges. Denmark and TV2 further point out that the currently high equity buffer of TV2 with solvency (and net interest-bearing debt) ratios which are significantly higher (lower) than those of competitors, is only necessary because of the uncertainties of the pending State aid cases and the business model. Both TV2 and Denmark express a general willingness to bring the capital structure back in line with TV2’s peers once the State aid investigations are closed. |
| --- | --- |

(168)

The Commission takes note of the arguments put forward by Denmark throughout the formal investigation, and the intention expressed by the aid beneficiary in supporting documents that the restructuring plan should enable TV2 to use business opportunities in line with its peers and to charge subscription charges. Denmark and TV2 further point out that the currently high equity buffer of TV2 with solvency (and net interest-bearing debt) ratios which are significantly higher (lower) than those of competitors, is only necessary because of the uncertainties of the pending State aid cases and the business model. Both TV2 and Denmark express a general willingness to bring the capital structure back in line with TV2’s peers once the State aid investigations are closed.

| (169) | The Commission does not, on its part, see any need for TV2 to have a capital structure that is different from that of its peers once the business model and the pending legal cases have been resolved. Capital structures based on (artificially) high equity are advantageous for the company, because it will be able to attract funding at relatively low rates. Equally important, TV2 should bring its capital structure back to a level that ensures that competition is not distorted. The Commission would like TV2 to revert back to a normal capital structure by making dividend payments to the State, rather than by aggressively expanding its balance sheet by debt financing. |
| --- | --- |

(169)

The Commission does not, on its part, see any need for TV2 to have a capital structure that is different from that of its peers once the business model and the pending legal cases have been resolved. Capital structures based on (artificially) high equity are advantageous for the company, because it will be able to attract funding at relatively low rates. Equally important, TV2 should bring its capital structure back to a level that ensures that competition is not distorted. The Commission would like TV2 to revert back to a normal capital structure by making dividend payments to the State, rather than by aggressively expanding its balance sheet by debt financing.

4.7.   Monitoring and annual report

| (170) | In line with points 49 and 50 of the Guidelines, Denmark has committed to submitting reports to the Commission no later than 6 months after the approval of the aid. |
| --- | --- |

(170)

In line with points 49 and 50 of the Guidelines, Denmark has committed to submitting reports to the Commission no later than 6 months after the approval of the aid.

4.8.   Antitrust issues

| (171) | The Commission notes that one of TV2’s competitors has filed an anti-trust complaint regarding the planned introduction of the end-user charges. The Commission is aware that aspects of an aid which contravene specific provisions of the Treaty other than the State aid provisions may be so indissolubly linked to the object of the aid that it is impossible to evaluate them separately (101). The Court has stressed that the obligation to ensure that the State aid rules are applied consistently with other provisions of the Treaty is all the more necessary where those provisions also pursue the objective of undistorted competition. However, the case-law of the Court acknowledges that the State aid and antitrust procedures are independent procedures governed by specific rules. The Court has stated that ‘when taking a decision on the compatibility of State aid with the common market, the Commission is not obliged to await the outcome of a parallel procedure initiated under Regulation No [1], once it has reached the conclusion, based on an economic analysis of the situation and without any manifest error in the assessment of the facts, that the recipient of the aid is not in breach of Articles [101 and 102 TFEU]’ (102). The antitrust case therefore does not have to be formally closed for the Commission to take a decision in the State aid case. |
| --- | --- |

(171)

The Commission notes that one of TV2’s competitors has filed an anti-trust complaint regarding the planned introduction of the end-user charges. The Commission is aware that aspects of an aid which contravene specific provisions of the Treaty other than the State aid provisions may be so indissolubly linked to the object of the aid that it is impossible to evaluate them separately (101). The Court has stressed that the obligation to ensure that the State aid rules are applied consistently with other provisions of the Treaty is all the more necessary where those provisions also pursue the objective of undistorted competition. However, the case-law of the Court acknowledges that the State aid and antitrust procedures are independent procedures governed by specific rules. The Court has stated that ‘when taking a decision on the compatibility of State aid with the common market, the Commission is not obliged to await the outcome of a parallel procedure initiated under Regulation No [1], once it has reached the conclusion, based on an economic analysis of the situation and without any manifest error in the assessment of the facts, that the recipient of the aid is not in breach of Articles [101 and 102 TFEU]’ (102). The antitrust case therefore does not have to be formally closed for the Commission to take a decision in the State aid case.

| (172) | The Commission would underline that in the current case it is not the aid itself (the rescue aid facility), but another element of the restructuring plan (the end-user charges), which is the cause of the antitrust complaint. The end-user charges will be introduced in early 2012, i.e. after the aid facility has been repealed, via an amendment in the terms of TV2’s licence. It should also be taken into consideration that most of the aid actually drawn was during the rescue period and was authorised in the Commission’s rescue aid decision of 4 August 2008, and that all aid will be repealed when this Decision comes into force. |
| --- | --- |

(172)

The Commission would underline that in the current case it is not the aid itself (the rescue aid facility), but another element of the restructuring plan (the end-user charges), which is the cause of the antitrust complaint. The end-user charges will be introduced in early 2012, i.e. after the aid facility has been repealed, via an amendment in the terms of TV2’s licence. It should also be taken into consideration that most of the aid actually drawn was during the rescue period and was authorised in the Commission’s rescue aid decision of 4 August 2008, and that all aid will be repealed when this Decision comes into force.

| (173) | If the antitrust complaint, or third party comments in this proceeding, is to be understood also as a complaint against TV2 becoming a pay-TV channel, suffice to say that the mere introduction of user charges for the main channel cannot constitute an infringement of antitrust legislation. When TV2’s main channel becomes a pay-TV channel, this will lead to the entry into the pay-TV market of that channel. The entry of TV2’s main channel will most likely affect only competitors active in that market, and e.g. lead to the exit of some players from that market (the respective pay-TV packages), or to their having to lower their prices. These effects, however, are normal effects of entry into the market of a viable competitor. The mere fact that user charges are introduced, and that this will bring about increased competition, does not, therefore, contravene Articles 102 and 106 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(173)

If the antitrust complaint, or third party comments in this proceeding, is to be understood also as a complaint against TV2 becoming a pay-TV channel, suffice to say that the mere introduction of user charges for the main channel cannot constitute an infringement of antitrust legislation. When TV2’s main channel becomes a pay-TV channel, this will lead to the entry into the pay-TV market of that channel. The entry of TV2’s main channel will most likely affect only competitors active in that market, and e.g. lead to the exit of some players from that market (the respective pay-TV packages), or to their having to lower their prices. These effects, however, are normal effects of entry into the market of a viable competitor. The mere fact that user charges are introduced, and that this will bring about increased competition, does not, therefore, contravene Articles 102 and 106 TFEU.

| (174) | The complainant, and some other competitors in the third party comments, argue that the planned introduction of the ‘TV2 Alene’ card would have anticompetitive effects, also favouring the distributor Boxer. In short, the TV2 Alene model meant that customers would receive TV2 free if the customer did not buy other pay-TV services. According to the complainant, the TV2 Alene card would thus have a disincentive effect on customers planning to buy pay-TV, to the detriment of TV2’s competitors. As Denmark has withdrawn the suggested TV2 Alene-card, arguments as to whether it would have infringed the antitrust rules are devoid of relevance and do not, therefore, have bearing on the legality of the restructuring plan. |
| --- | --- |

(174)

The complainant, and some other competitors in the third party comments, argue that the planned introduction of the ‘TV2 Alene’ card would have anticompetitive effects, also favouring the distributor Boxer. In short, the TV2 Alene model meant that customers would receive TV2 free if the customer did not buy other pay-TV services. According to the complainant, the TV2 Alene card would thus have a disincentive effect on customers planning to buy pay-TV, to the detriment of TV2’s competitors. As Denmark has withdrawn the suggested TV2 Alene-card, arguments as to whether it would have infringed the antitrust rules are devoid of relevance and do not, therefore, have bearing on the legality of the restructuring plan.

| (175) | As to the fears of some competitors that the aid as such might be used for aggressive market behaviour, the Commission would point out that there are no indications that the State aid itself entails a breach of other provisions of the TFEU or leads TV2 to automatically engage in anticompetitive behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

(175)

As to the fears of some competitors that the aid as such might be used for aggressive market behaviour, the Commission would point out that there are no indications that the State aid itself entails a breach of other provisions of the TFEU or leads TV2 to automatically engage in anticompetitive behaviour.

| (176) | The Commission finds that the notified restructuring plan complies with the internal market according to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in conjunction with the Commission’s rescue and restructuring Guidelines, subject to the following conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(176)

The Commission finds that the notified restructuring plan complies with the internal market according to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU in conjunction with the Commission’s rescue and restructuring Guidelines, subject to the following conditions.

| (177) | Since the company is in a better financial condition following the sale of the broadcasting network, the Commission finds that no aid measures from the restructuring plan (loan and credit facility) should be implemented and that the credit facility in place (as authorised in Commission Decision No 287/08 of 4 August 2008) should be repealed with immediate effect from the date of this Decision. The Commission notes that the originally notified guarantee for the sale of the broadcasting network is no longer relevant, due to the completed sale of the network without the guarantee. |
| --- | --- |

(177)

Since the company is in a better financial condition following the sale of the broadcasting network, the Commission finds that no aid measures from the restructuring plan (loan and credit facility) should be implemented and that the credit facility in place (as authorised in Commission Decision No 287/08 of 4 August 2008) should be repealed with immediate effect from the date of this Decision. The Commission notes that the originally notified guarantee for the sale of the broadcasting network is no longer relevant, due to the completed sale of the network without the guarantee.

| (178) | The Commission further takes note of the commitment by Denmark that the compensatory measure of not launching any new broadcasting channels covers both television and radio channels. This measure should remain in place until 31 December 2012 or, if the aid recipient is able to levy end-user charges before that date, until the introduction of the end-user charges. The introduction of the end-user charges is considered to be the point in time at which TV2 is legally entitled to ask for such remuneration. |
| --- | --- |

(178)

The Commission further takes note of the commitment by Denmark that the compensatory measure of not launching any new broadcasting channels covers both television and radio channels. This measure should remain in place until 31 December 2012 or, if the aid recipient is able to levy end-user charges before that date, until the introduction of the end-user charges. The introduction of the end-user charges is considered to be the point in time at which TV2 is legally entitled to ask for such remuneration.

| (179) | The Commission takes note of the commitment by Denmark to instruct an independent financial expert to compare TV2’s capital structure with those of other media companies and to adjust the capital structure if it deviates markedly from the median or average of the relevant peer group. If there are substantial reasons not to adjust the capital, the Danish Government may notify an alteration of the restructuring plan to the Commission, |
| --- | --- |

(179)

The Commission takes note of the commitment by Denmark to instruct an independent financial expert to compare TV2’s capital structure with those of other media companies and to adjust the capital structure if it deviates markedly from the median or average of the relevant peer group. If there are substantial reasons not to adjust the capital, the Danish Government may notify an alteration of the restructuring plan to the Commission,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Subject to full compliance with the restructuring plan as notified on 4 February 2009 and to the conditions set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4, the facility which Denmark granted to TV2 and which was authorised as rescue aid by the Commission in its decision of 4 August 2008 is compatible with the internal market.

Article 2

As of the date of this Decision, the rescue aid facility which Denmark granted to TV2 and which was authorised by the Commission in its decision of 4 August 2008 shall be repealed. None of the other aid measures notified by Denmark to the Commission on 4 February 2009 may be implemented.

Article 3

The compensatory measure proposed by Denmark that prohibits TV2 from opening new television or radio broadcasting channels shall remain in place until the notified end of the restructuring period, 31 December 2012. However, if TV2 is allowed to raise subscription fees (end-user charges) before that date, the obligation not to open new radio and television channels ceases to exist as of that date.

Article 4

The Danish Government shall instruct an independent financial expert at the end of 2012 or early in 2013 to conduct an analysis of TV2’s capital structure, comparing it with the capital structure of other relevant media companies. If TV2’s capital structure deviates markedly from the median or average of the relevant peer group, the Danish Government shall adjust the capital structure at the meeting of the General Assembly in April 2013, in order to rectify any such deviation.

Article 5

Denmark shall inform the Commission, within 2 months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.

Article 6

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Done at Brussels, 20 April 2011.

For the Commission

Joaquín ALMUNIA

Vice-President

---

(1)  With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 107 and 108, respectively, of the TFEU. The two sets of provisions are, in substance, identical. For the purposes of this Decision, references to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU should be understood as references to Article 87 and 88, respectively, of the EC Treaty when appropriate.

1

(2)  OJ C 207, 2.9.2009, p. 2.

2

(3)  OJ C 9, 14.1.2009, p. 2.

3

(4)  OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, p. 2.

4

(5)  See footnote 2.

5

(6)  Case T-114/09 Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities.

6

Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

Commission of the European Communities

(7)  This request deals largely with the question of whether TV2 is a firm in difficulty and to a far lesser degree with the question of whether it has used the aid for anticompetitive purposes.

7

(8)  Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the General Court of 17 May 2010 in Case T-114/09.

8

(9)  Commission Decision 2005/217/EC of 19 May 2004 on measures implemented by Denmark for TV2 Danmark.

9

(10)  Case T-309/04, TV2 Danmark v Commission [2008] ECR II-2935, paragraphs 101 et seq.

10

TV2 Danmark

Commission

(11)  Data omitted on grounds of confidentiality has been replaced by [...].

11

(12)  Letter from TV2 of 2 October 2009.

12

(13)  Authorisation of 17 December 2009, submitted as Annex 1 to the submission by Denmark of 9 September 2009.

13

(14)  Act No 477 of 6 May 2010.

14

(15)  According to the Media Agreement for 2007-2010, the annual licence fee revenues amounted to DKK 428,4 million in 2010.

15

(16)  Letter from Denmark of 29 January 2010, pp. 13 et seq. and Annex 8 thereto.

16

(17)  See Annex 5 to the notification from Denmark, p. 2, and letter from Denmark of 3 February 2011, p. 7. SMATV stands for Satellite Master Antenna Television, and refers to a system that uses multiple satellite and broadcast signals to create a single integrated cable signal for distribution to a cabling network.

17

(18)  ‘Information memorandum on Project MUX’ submitted by Denmark, p. 32.

18

(19)  Distributors do not pay a TV channel subscription for TV2 in the cable segment either (see Annex 5 to Denmark’s notification, p. 3). According to that document, distributors only charge distribution costs plus fees to copyright owners.

19

(20)  Letter from Denmark of 9 September 2009, pp. 10-11.

20

(21)  Letter from Viasat of 2 October 2009, paragraph 114.

21

(22)  Order No 740 of 21 August 2001 on keeping separate accounts for Danmark’s Radio’s and TV2’s public service activities and all other activities, adopted for the implementation of Commission Directive 2000/52/EC (OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75).

22

(23)  Commission Decision 2005/217/EC (OJ L 85, 23.3.2006, p. 1) and case N 313/04 (OJ C 172, 12.7.2005, p. 3).

23

(24)  Case T-309/04 of 22 October 2008, paragraphs 101 et seq.

24

(25)  Case T-12/05, Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2009.

25

(26)  Rescue aid decision, paragraphs 7, 8, 10 and 39.

26

(27)  See paragraphs 10-15 of the Commission decision of 2 July 2009, based on Annex 3 to the original notification.

27

(28)  Annex 2 to the letter from Denmark of 29 January 2010 providing an updated PWC analysis of 21 January 2010. The figures estimated at the time for 2009 are updated here using the actual outcomes supplied by TV2 as an annex to a letter from Denmark of 9 July 2010.

28

(29)  See the Commission decision of 2 July 2009, paragraph 11, which provides the figures on the contribution of TV2’s various activities and the public service channel’s losses over a period from 2008 (DKK [...] million) to 2013 (DKK [...] million).

29

(30)  Annex 1 to Denmark’s submission of 29 January 2010 and TV2’s submission ‘Status of TV2’s financial position and liquidity’, p. 1.

30

(31)  Comments by TV2 to the European Commission dated 25 August 2009.

31

(32)  Comments by TV2 to the European Commission dated 25 August 2009.

32

(33)  Letter from Denmark of 9 September 2009, Annex 2 — updated PWC report.

33

(34)  Letter from Viasat of 26 May 2010, p. 2 with reference in footnote 2 to the DRRB. The value of the advertising market was DKK 1 903 million in 2009, compared with DKK 2 341 million in 2008. See also the updated PWC report, letter from Denmark of 9 September 2009, Annex 2.

34

(35)  Comments from TV2 to the European Commission dated 25 August 2009 (p. 20) and Annex 1 to the submission of Denmark of 29 January 2010, ‘Status of TV2’s financial position and liquidity’, point 5, submitted by TV2.

35

(36)  This has been confirmed by [...] in writing in a letter dated 24 April 2009.

36

(37)  Letter from Denmark of 29 January 2010, Annex 1 ‘Status of TV2’s financial position and liquidity’, point 4.

37

(38)  Letter from Denmark of 29 January 2010, Annex 1, submission by TV2 ‘Status of TV2’s financial position and liquidity’, point 4.

38

(39)  TV2’s shares in Digi-TV will not be sold, only the direct participations and shares in Fordelingsnet and 4M. See information memorandum by Denmark, ‘Project MUX’.

39

(40)  These cuts include the cancellation of investment in a new channel in 2009/2010. See letter from Denmark of 20 May 2009.

40

(41)  Hereinafter also called ‘subscription fee’ or sometimes ‘short user fee’.

41

(42)  Letter from Denmark of 11 March 2011, Annex containing new media agreement. The Danish authorities indicate that TV2 is considering a lower subscription fee than the originally envisaged DKK 25. TV2 indicates a monthly charge in the range DKK 10-12.

42

(43)  Letter from Demark of 17 March 2011, p. 3. Based on an estimated monthly fee of DKK 12.

43

(44)  Notification from Denmark of 4 February 2009, p. 6.

44

(45)  Commission decision of 2 July 2009, paragraph 20.

45

(46)  Letter from Denmark of 3 February 2011, p. 2.

46

(47)  Denmark thus finds that all the costs listed in the Commission’s letter of 14 January 2010 to be relevant restructuring costs, i.e. DKK [...] million plus additional costs for the mortgage. The table in that letter by the Commission corrected a few positions from an earlier submission by Denmark as reproduced in the Commission decision opening the formal investigation procedure on 2 July 2009.

47

(48)  Letter from Denmark of 3 February 2011, p. 6 and Annex 1, which was later partially amended with regard to the cost of introduction of the end-user charges system by letter of 17 March 2011.

48

(49)  Notification from Denmark of 4 February 2009, p. 8.

49

(50)  Letter from Denmark of 29 January 2010, Annex 1 ‘Status of TV2’s financial position and liquidity’, end of point 3.

50

(51)  Letter from Denmark of 15 October 2010, later amended by figures submitted on 17 and 18 March 2011. The forecast for 2011 takes into account that the TV2 Alone card system was given up, which resulted in a lower household penetration rate. The figures also take into account the lower than originally forecast end-user charges of DKK 10-12 and higher than expected advertising revenues. The figures include the subscription revenues for the main channel as of 2012 as well as the cost of transition to pay-TV in 2011.

51

(52)  Letter from Denmark of 15 October 2010, pp. 2 et seq.

52

(53)  Letter from Denmark of 15 October 2010, Annex 1 TV2 restructuring plan, end of p. 2.

53

(54)  Letter from Denmark of 9 July 2010, Annex TV2 Financial questions.

54

(55)  Letter from Denmark of 15 October 2010, Annex I, TV2 restructuring plan, and update by e-mail from Denmark of 6 April 2011.

55

(56)  Letter from Denmark of 15 October 2010. In particular, no guarantee has been issued.

56

(57)  Letter from Denmark of 3 February 2011.

57

(58)  Letter from Denmark of 15 October 2010, p. 2.

58

(59)  Denmark had explained in the meeting with the Commission in September 2010 and reiterated in the letter of 15 October that TV2 had no legal claim under the guarantee, and that it was simply a proposal subject to the Commission’s approval, and did not involve state resources since it was not binding on the Danish Government.

59

(60)  Letters from Denmark of 28 January 2011 and 15 October 2010. The letter of 15 October refers only to the decision of 19 May 2004.

60

(61)  TV2 restructuring plan, Annex I to the letter of 15 October 2010. TV2 submits that the first two aid measures anticipated in the restructuring plan are no longer valid because of the sale of the transmission network. As to the credit facility, TV2 believes itself to have sufficient financing until 2012 when subscription payments on the main channel will be implemented. In referring to the credit facility of DKK [...] million, TV2 at the same time confirms that none of the aid measures in the restructuring plan have been implemented. It is therefore likely that TV2 is referring to the original rescue aid facility.

61

(62)  For a more detailed description, see N 287/08, paragraphs 13 et seq., in particular paragraph 17.

62

(63)  E-mail from Denmark of 24 February 2011.

63

(64)  The tender documents are available at: http://www.bibliotekogmedier.dk/medieomraadet/radio/fm-4/udbud See also the Commission decision of 24 March 2011 in SA.32019, Danish Radio channel FM4.

64

(65)  E-mail from Denmark of 24 February 2011.

65

(66)  Letter from Denmark of 9 July 2010, Annex, TV2 Financial questions.

66

(67)  See footnote 4.

67

(68)  Guidelines, points 34-36.

68

(69)  Guidelines, points 38-40.

69

(70)  Letter from Denmark of 9 September 2009, p. 10, referring to the notification dated 4 February 2009 and the arguments for the rescue aid notification.

70

(71)  Annex II to Denmark’s letter of 9 September 2009.

71

(72)  Letter from Denmark of 29 January 2010.

72

(73)  Letter from Denmark of 9 September 2009, p. 14.

73

(74)  Letter from Denmark of 15 October 2010.

74

(75)  Letter from Denmark of 9 September 2009, p. 16.

75

(76)  Letter from Denmark of 9 September 2009, pp. 10 and 11.

76

(77)  See recital 38.

77

(78)  SBS, on page 13 of its letter of 2 October 2009, says that a fall in advertising revenues of 10 % per year is highly unlikely. However, as this will be seen later, this seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the PWC report, which does not indicate a 10 % annual decrease.

78

(79)  Letter from Viasat on 26 May 2010, p. 4.

79

(80)  Letters from Denmark of 15 October 2010 and 28 January 2011.

80

(81)  This has already been assessed in Commission Decision N 287/08 of 4 August 2008.

81

(82)  For payments between private undertakings see Case C-379/98, Preussen Elektra [2001] ECR I-2009. In this case, the State imposed the charging of a certain minimum price, while in the case at hand the Danish Government is enabling TV2 to charge user fees in the same manner as its competitors.

82

Preussen Elektra

(83)  Case C-83/98 P France v Commission [2000] ECR I-3271, paragraphs 48 and 50, Case T-358/94, Air France v Commission [1996] ECR II-2109.

83

France

Commission

Air France

Commission

(84)  SBS is referring to the legislative change which was the model anticipated at the time when SBS submitted its comments. However, the Danish Government no longer envisages an amendment to the Broadcasting Act, but simply an alteration of the licence. It thereby exploits a possibility which is already anticipated in the current Section 38a(2) of the Danish Broadcasting Act, namely that the company is entitled to charge subscription fees if the Ministry of Culture so decides and alters the licence accordingly.

84

(85)  Letter from SBS of 2 October 2009, pp. 19-22.

85

(86)  Case C-206/06 Essent Netwerk Noord BV a.o. v Aluminium Delfzijl BV [2008] ECR II-5497.

86

Essent Netwerk Noord BV a.o

Aluminium Delfzijl BV

(87)  Commission Decision 2005/217/EC (OJ L 85, 23.3.2006, p. 1), as per paragraph 57, upheld on this point by Cases T-309/04, T-317/04, T-329/04 and T-336/04, TV2 Danmark a.o. v Commission, paragraphs 158 et seq.

87

TV2 Danmark a.o

Commission

(88)  C-345/02, Pearle and others [2004] ECR I -7139.

88

Pearle and others

(89)  In C-206/06 (see footnote 85 above), the Court establishes in paragraphs 66 and 47 that the surcharge in question is a real charge, whose excess has to be paid by the recipient to the Minister (see paragraph 67 and description of the law in paragraph 19 of the judgment).

89

(90)  Regarding the effects on trade between Member States, the Danish authorities seem to share the same view, see Danish Competition Authority (Konkurrencestyrelsen) Decision of 21.12.2005, Journal No 3/1120-0301-0095/SEK/SCL.

90

Konkurrencestyrelsen

(91)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

91

(92)  Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (OJ C 257, 27.10.2009, p. 1).

92

(93)  Letter from Viasat of 2 October 2009, Annex 14, ‘Findings concerning a credit rating analysis of TV2 Denmark’.

93

(94)  Letter from Viasat of 2 October 2009, Annex 14, p. 13.

94

(95)  According to the letter from Denmark 9 July 2010, Annex ‘TV2 Financial questions’, p. 7, a 5 % fall in the advertising market was forecast for 2010, but now the Zenith Optimedia forecast predicts a 1 % increase.

95

(96)  Letter from Denmark of 9 July 2010, ‘TV2 Financial questions’, p. 4.

96

(97)  Letter from Denmark of 15 October 2010, Annex 1, TV2 documents, at the end of point 2.

97

(98)  Notification of 4 February 2009.

98

(99)  E-mail from Denmark of 24 February 2011.

99

(100)  Letter from Denmark of 28 January 2011 and e-mail from Denmark of 15 October 2010.

100

(101)  See Case C-225/91 Matra [1993] ECR I-3203, paragraph 41, referring to Case 74/76 Iannelli v Meroni [1977] ECR I-557.

101

Matra

Iannelli

Meroni

(102)  Case C-225/91 Matra, op. cit., paragraphs 44 and 45. The judgment refers to Regulation 17, which has now been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1), and to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

102

Matra

op. cit.

---

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/46

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

of 10 February 2012

concerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products

(notified under document C(2012) 676)

(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2012/110/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (1), and in particular Article 57(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Directive 2005/94/EC sets out certain preventive measures relating to the surveillance and the early detection of avian influenza and increasing the level of the competent authorities’ and the farming community’s awareness of, and preparation for, the risks of that disease. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Directive 2005/94/EC sets out certain preventive measures relating to the surveillance and the early detection of avian influenza and increasing the level of the competent authorities’ and the farming community’s awareness of, and preparation for, the risks of that disease.

| (2) | Following outbreaks of low pathogenic avian influenza in 2007 and 2008 in certain poultry holdings in central and western Portugal, in particular in holdings that keep poultry intended for re-stocking supplies of game, an emergency vaccination plan was carried out pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/285/EC of 19 March 2008 concerning emergency vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products (2) and that disease was successfully eradicated. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following outbreaks of low pathogenic avian influenza in 2007 and 2008 in certain poultry holdings in central and western Portugal, in particular in holdings that keep poultry intended for re-stocking supplies of game, an emergency vaccination plan was carried out pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/285/EC of 19 March 2008 concerning emergency vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products (2) and that disease was successfully eradicated.

| (3) | However, based on a risk assessment it was decided that high value mallard breeding ducks kept on one holding located in the region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, Ribatejo Norte, Vila Nova da Barquinha continued to be exposed to the potential risk of avian influenza infection, in particular by possible indirect contact with wild birds (‘the holding’). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

However, based on a risk assessment it was decided that high value mallard breeding ducks kept on one holding located in the region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, Ribatejo Norte, Vila Nova da Barquinha continued to be exposed to the potential risk of avian influenza infection, in particular by possible indirect contact with wild birds (‘the holding’).

| (4) | Portugal therefore submitted a preventive vaccination plan against avian influenza to be carried out as a long term measure until 31 July 2009 which was approved by Commission Decision 2008/838/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products (3). A further preventive vaccination plan approved by Commission Decision 2010/189/EU of 29 March 2010 concerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products (4) was implemented by Portugal until 31 July 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Portugal therefore submitted a preventive vaccination plan against avian influenza to be carried out as a long term measure until 31 July 2009 which was approved by Commission Decision 2008/838/EC of 3 November 2008 concerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products (3). A further preventive vaccination plan approved by Commission Decision 2010/189/EU of 29 March 2010 concerning preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in mallard ducks in Portugal and certain measures restricting the movements of such poultry and their products (4) was implemented by Portugal until 31 July 2011.

| (5) | In accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2010/189/EU Portugal has submitted a report on the implementation of the preventive vaccination plan to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

In accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2010/189/EU Portugal has submitted a report on the implementation of the preventive vaccination plan to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.

| (6) | On 28 November 2011, Portugal submitted a new preventive vaccination plan to the Commission for approval which is to be applied until 31 July 2013 (‘the preventive vaccination plan’). |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 28 November 2011, Portugal submitted a new preventive vaccination plan to the Commission for approval which is to be applied until 31 July 2013 (‘the preventive vaccination plan’).

| (7) | In its scientific opinions on the use of vaccination to control avian influenza issued by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005 (5), 2007 (6) and 2008 (7), the Animal Health and Welfare Panel stated that emergency and preventive vaccination against avian influenza is a valuable tool to complement the control measures for that disease. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In its scientific opinions on the use of vaccination to control avian influenza issued by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005 (5), 2007 (6) and 2008 (7), the Animal Health and Welfare Panel stated that emergency and preventive vaccination against avian influenza is a valuable tool to complement the control measures for that disease.

| (8) | In addition, the Commission has examined the preventive vaccination plan submitted by Portugal which concerns the holding mentioned above, and is satisfied that the plan conforms to the relevant Union legislation. In view of the epidemiological situation as regards low pathogenic avian influenza in Portugal, the type of holding to be vaccinated and the limited scope of the preventive vaccination plan, it should be approved. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In addition, the Commission has examined the preventive vaccination plan submitted by Portugal which concerns the holding mentioned above, and is satisfied that the plan conforms to the relevant Union legislation. In view of the epidemiological situation as regards low pathogenic avian influenza in Portugal, the type of holding to be vaccinated and the limited scope of the preventive vaccination plan, it should be approved.

| (9) | For the purposes of the preventive vaccination plan to be carried out by Portugal, only vaccines authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (8) or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (9) should be used. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

For the purposes of the preventive vaccination plan to be carried out by Portugal, only vaccines authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (8) or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (9) should be used.

| (10) | In addition, surveillance and laboratory testing in the holding keeping the vaccinated mallard ducks and unvaccinated sentinel birds should be carried out as set out in the preventive vaccination plan. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

In addition, surveillance and laboratory testing in the holding keeping the vaccinated mallard ducks and unvaccinated sentinel birds should be carried out as set out in the preventive vaccination plan.

| (11) | It is also appropriate to introduce certain restrictions on the movement of vaccinated mallard ducks, their hatching eggs and mallard ducks derived from such ducks in accordance with the preventive vaccination plan. Due to the small number of mallard ducks present on the holding where preventive vaccination is to be carried out, as well as for reasons of traceability and logistics, vaccinated mallard ducks should not be moved from that holding, but killed after the end of their reproductive cycle in accordance with the requirements of Article 10(1) of Council Directive 93/119/EEC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. (10) |
| --- | --- |

(11)

It is also appropriate to introduce certain restrictions on the movement of vaccinated mallard ducks, their hatching eggs and mallard ducks derived from such ducks in accordance with the preventive vaccination plan. Due to the small number of mallard ducks present on the holding where preventive vaccination is to be carried out, as well as for reasons of traceability and logistics, vaccinated mallard ducks should not be moved from that holding, but killed after the end of their reproductive cycle in accordance with the requirements of Article 10(1) of Council Directive 93/119/EEC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. (10)

| (12) | In relation to trade in poultry intended for re-stocking supplies of game, additional measures have been taken by Portugal pursuant to Commission Decision 2006/605/EC of 6 September 2006 on certain protection measures in relation to intra-Community trade in poultry intended for re-stocking of wild game supplies (11). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In relation to trade in poultry intended for re-stocking supplies of game, additional measures have been taken by Portugal pursuant to Commission Decision 2006/605/EC of 6 September 2006 on certain protection measures in relation to intra-Community trade in poultry intended for re-stocking of wild game supplies (11).

| (13) | In order to reduce the economic impact on the holding concerned, certain derogations from movement restrictions for mallard ducks derived from vaccinated mallard ducks should be provided for, since such movements do not pose a specific risk for the spread of disease and provided that official surveillance is carried out and that the specific animal health requirements for trade within the Union are complied with. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

In order to reduce the economic impact on the holding concerned, certain derogations from movement restrictions for mallard ducks derived from vaccinated mallard ducks should be provided for, since such movements do not pose a specific risk for the spread of disease and provided that official surveillance is carried out and that the specific animal health requirements for trade within the Union are complied with.

| (14) | The preventive vaccination plan should be approved so that it can be implemented until 31 July 2013. Accordingly, this Decision should apply until that date. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The preventive vaccination plan should be approved so that it can be implemented until 31 July 2013. Accordingly, this Decision should apply until that date.

| (15) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Subject matter and scope

1.   This Decision lays down certain measures to be applied in Portugal where preventive vaccination of mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) intended for re-stocking supplies of game (‘mallard ducks’) is carried out in a holding, which is exposed to the risk of avian influenza.

Those measures include certain restrictions on the movement within and dispatch from Portugal of the vaccinated mallard ducks, their hatching eggs and mallard ducks derived thereof.

2.   This Decision shall apply without prejudice to the protection measures to be taken by Portugal in accordance with Directive 2005/94/EC and Decision 2006/605/EC.

Article 2

Approval of the preventive vaccination plan

1.   The plan for preventive vaccination against low pathogenic avian influenza in Portugal, as submitted by Portugal to the Commission on 28 November 2011, to be implemented on a holding in the region of Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, Ribatejo Norte, Vila Nova da Barquinha until 31 July 2013 (‘the preventive vaccination plan’) is approved.

2.   The Commission shall publish the preventive vaccination plan.

Article 3

Conditions for implementing the preventive vaccination plan

1.   Portugal shall ensure that the mallard ducks are vaccinated, in accordance with the preventive vaccination plan, with a monovalent inactivated vaccine containing the avian influenza subtype H5 authorised by that Member State in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

2.   Portugal shall ensure that surveillance and laboratory testing of the holding keeping the vaccinated mallard ducks and unvaccinated sentinel ducks, as set out in the preventive vaccination plan, is carried out.

3.   Portugal shall ensure that the preventive vaccination plan is implemented efficiently.

Article 4

Marking and restrictions on the movement and dispatch and disposal of vaccinated mallard ducks

The competent authority shall ensure that vaccinated mallard ducks on the holding referred to in Article 2(1) are:

| (a) | marked individually; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

marked individually;

| (b) | not moved to other poultry holdings within Portugal; or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

not moved to other poultry holdings within Portugal; or

| (c) | dispatched from Portugal. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

dispatched from Portugal.

After their reproductive period, such ducks shall be killed on the holding referred to in Article 2(1) of this Decision, in accordance with the requirements in Article 10(1) of Directive 93/119/EEC, and their carcases safely disposed of.

Article 5

Restrictions on the movement and dispatch of hatching eggs derived from mallard ducks on the holding referred to in Article 2(1)

The competent authority shall ensure that hatching eggs derived from mallard ducks on the holding referred to in Article 2(1) may only be moved to a hatchery within Portugal and not dispatched from Portugal.

Article 6

Restrictions on the movement and dispatch of mallard ducks derived from vaccinated mallard ducks

1.   The competent authority shall ensure that mallard ducks derived from the vaccinated mallard ducks may only be moved after hatching to a holding located in a surrounding area established by Portugal in relation to the holding referred to in Article 2(1) as set out in the preventive vaccination plan.

2.   By way of derogation from paragraph 1, and provided that the mallard ducks derived from the vaccinated mallard ducks are more than four month old, they may be:

| (a) | released into the wild in Portugal; or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

released into the wild in Portugal; or

| (b) | dispatched from Portugal provided that:






  (i) | the results of the surveillance and laboratory tests as set out in the preventive vaccination plan, are favourable; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

dispatched from Portugal provided that:

(i)

the results of the surveillance and laboratory tests as set out in the preventive vaccination plan, are favourable; and

| (ii) | the conditions for dispatch of poultry for re-stocking supplies of wild game laid down in Decision 2006/605/EC are met. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the conditions for dispatch of poultry for re-stocking supplies of wild game laid down in Decision 2006/605/EC are met.

Article 7

Health certification for trade within the Union in mallard ducks derived from vaccinated mallard ducks

Portugal shall ensure that health certificates for trade within the Union in poultry intended for re-stocking supplies of game referred to in Article 6(2)(b) include the following sentence:

‘The animal health conditions of this consignment are in accordance with Commission Implementing Decision 2012/110/EU (12).

Article 8

Reports

Portugal shall submit to the Commission a report on the implementation of the preventive vaccination plan within one month from the date of application of this Decision and report every six months thereafter at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health thereafter.

Article 9

Applicability

This Decision shall apply until 31 July 2013.

Article 10

Addressee

This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Done at Brussels, 10 February 2012.

For the Commission

John DALLI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 10, 14.1.2006, p. 16.

1

(2)  OJ L 92, 3.4.2008, p. 37.

2

(3)  OJ L 299, 8.11.2008, p. 40.

3

(4)  OJ L 83, 30.3.2010, p. 62.

4

(5)  EFSA Journal (2005) 266, 1-21; Scientific opinion on animal health and welfare aspects of avian influenza.

5

EFSA Journal

(6)  EFSA Journal (2007) 489, Scientific opinion on vaccination against avian influenza of H5 and H7 subtypes in domestic poultry and captive birds.

6

EFSA Journal

(7)  EFSA Journal (2008) 715, 1-161, Scientific opinion on animal health and welfare aspects of avian influenza and the risks of its introduction into the EU poultry holdings.

7

EFSA Journal

(8)  OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 1.

8

(9)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

9

(10)  OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

10

(11)  OJ L 246, 8.9.2006, p. 12.

11

(12)  OJ L 50, 23.2.2012, p. 46.’.

12

---

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/49

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

of 10 February 2012

amending Decision 2007/453/EC as regards the BSE status of Denmark and Panama

(notified under document C(2012) 678)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2012/111/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. For that purpose, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof (‘countries or regions’) is according to Article 5(1) and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 to be determined by classification into one of three categories depending on the BSE risk involved, namely a negligible BSE risk, a controlled BSE risk and an undetermined BSE risk. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in animals. For that purpose, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof (‘countries or regions’) is according to Article 5(1) and Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 to be determined by classification into one of three categories depending on the BSE risk involved, namely a negligible BSE risk, a controlled BSE risk and an undetermined BSE risk.

| (2) | The Annex to Commission Decision 2007/453/EC of 29 June 2007 establishing the BSE status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof according to their BSE risk (2) lists countries or regions according to their BSE risk status. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Annex to Commission Decision 2007/453/EC of 29 June 2007 establishing the BSE status of Member States or third countries or regions thereof according to their BSE risk (2) lists countries or regions according to their BSE risk status.

| (3) | The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) plays a leading role in the categorisation of countries or regions according to their BSE risk and employs criteria equivalent to those established in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC takes account of Resolution No 18 – Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Members – adopted by the OIE in May 2010 regarding the BSE status of Member States and third countries (3). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) plays a leading role in the categorisation of countries or regions according to their BSE risk and employs criteria equivalent to those established in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC takes account of Resolution No 18 – Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Members – adopted by the OIE in May 2010 regarding the BSE status of Member States and third countries (3).

| (4) | In May 2011, the OIE adopted Resolution No 17 – Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Members. That Resolution recognised Denmark and Panama as having a negligible BSE risk. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended to be brought into line with that Resolution as regards those countries (4). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In May 2011, the OIE adopted Resolution No 17 – Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Members. That Resolution recognised Denmark and Panama as having a negligible BSE risk. The list in the Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended to be brought into line with that Resolution as regards those countries (4).

| (5) | Decision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Decision 2007/453/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (6) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2007/453/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 February 2012.

For the Commission

John DALLI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 172, 30.6.2007, p. 84.

2

(3)  See pp. 40 and 158 of Report of the General Session 23-28 May 2010 at http://www.oie.int/eng/session2011/A_FR_2010PUB.pdf

3

(4)  See pp. 49 and 149 of Report of the General Session 22-27 May 2011 at http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/About_us/docs/pdf/A_FR_2011_PUB.pdf

4

---

ANNEX

‘ANNEX

LIST OF COUNTRIES OR REGIONS

A.   Countries or regions with a negligible BSE risk

Member States

| — | Denmark |
| --- | --- |

—

Denmark

| — | Finland |
| --- | --- |

—

Finland

| — | Sweden |
| --- | --- |

—

Sweden

EFTA countries

| — | Iceland |
| --- | --- |

—

Iceland

| — | Norway |
| --- | --- |

—

Norway

Third countries

| — | Argentina |
| --- | --- |

—

Argentina

| — | Australia |
| --- | --- |

—

Australia

| — | Chile |
| --- | --- |

—

Chile

| — | India |
| --- | --- |

—

India

| — | New Zealand |
| --- | --- |

—

New Zealand

| — | Panama |
| --- | --- |

—

Panama

| — | Paraguay |
| --- | --- |

—

Paraguay

| — | Peru |
| --- | --- |

—

Peru

| — | Singapore |
| --- | --- |

—

Singapore

| — | Uruguay |
| --- | --- |

—

Uruguay

B.   Countries or regions with a controlled BSE risk

Member States

| — | Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom |
| --- | --- |

—

Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom

EFTA countries

| — | Liechtenstein |
| --- | --- |

—

Liechtenstein

| — | Switzerland |
| --- | --- |

—

Switzerland

Third countries

| — | Brazil |
| --- | --- |

—

Brazil

| — | Canada |
| --- | --- |

—

Canada

| — | Colombia |
| --- | --- |

—

Colombia

| — | Japan |
| --- | --- |

—

Japan

| — | Mexico |
| --- | --- |

—

Mexico

| — | South Korea |
| --- | --- |

—

South Korea

| — | Taiwan |
| --- | --- |

—

Taiwan

| — | United States |
| --- | --- |

—

United States

C.   Countries or regions with an undetermined BSE risk

| — | Countries or regions not listed in point A or B of this Annex.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

Countries or regions not listed in point A or B of this Annex.’

---

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/51

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

of 17 February 2012

amending Annex E to Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the model health certificates for animals from holdings and animals, semen, ova and embryos from approved bodies, institutes or centres

(notified under document C(2012) 860)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2012/112/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 22 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in the Union in animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to the animal health requirements laid down in certain specific Union acts. In addition, Part 1 of Annex E to that Directive sets out the specimen health certificate for trade in animals from holdings (ungulates, birds, lagomorphs, dogs, cats and ferrets), while Part 3 of that Annex sets out the specimen health certificate for trade in animals, semen, embryos and ova from approved bodies, institutes or centres. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in the Union in animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to the animal health requirements laid down in certain specific Union acts. In addition, Part 1 of Annex E to that Directive sets out the specimen health certificate for trade in animals from holdings (ungulates, birds, lagomorphs, dogs, cats and ferrets), while Part 3 of that Annex sets out the specimen health certificate for trade in animals, semen, embryos and ova from approved bodies, institutes or centres.

| (2) | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in suidae other than those covered by Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (2). It provides, inter alia, that where suidae do not come from a brucellosis-free herd in accordance with Directive 64/432/EEC, they must, in the 30 days prior to their dispatch, have undergone with negative results a test designed to show the absence of antibodies to brucellosis. In the interests of consistency of Union legislation, the specimen health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended to include a specific reference to that requirement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in suidae other than those covered by Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (2). It provides, inter alia, that where suidae do not come from a brucellosis-free herd in accordance with Directive 64/432/EEC, they must, in the 30 days prior to their dispatch, have undergone with negative results a test designed to show the absence of antibodies to brucellosis. In the interests of consistency of Union legislation, the specimen health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended to include a specific reference to that requirement.

| (3) | Commission Decision 2007/598/EC of 28 August 2007 concerning measures to prevent the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza to other captive birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes or centres in the Member States (3) approves preventive vaccination plans against that disease in certain Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Commission Decision 2007/598/EC of 28 August 2007 concerning measures to prevent the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza to other captive birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes or centres in the Member States (3) approves preventive vaccination plans against that disease in certain Member States.

| (4) | Point 4(b) of Annex II to Decision 2007/598/EC provides that birds vaccinated against avian influenza kept in zoos that are not approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC may be moved to other Member States, after authorisation by the Member State of destination, provided that they meet the requirements set out in that Decision and they are accompanied by a health certificate, as laid down in Part 1 of Annex E to that Directive, specifying that they are conform to Decision 2007/598/EC and are vaccinated against avian influenza on a specified date. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Point 4(b) of Annex II to Decision 2007/598/EC provides that birds vaccinated against avian influenza kept in zoos that are not approved in accordance with Directive 92/65/EEC may be moved to other Member States, after authorisation by the Member State of destination, provided that they meet the requirements set out in that Decision and they are accompanied by a health certificate, as laid down in Part 1 of Annex E to that Directive, specifying that they are conform to Decision 2007/598/EC and are vaccinated against avian influenza on a specified date.

| (5) | However, birds as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 92/65/EEC are not required to be accompanied by a health certificate, as set out in Part 1 of Annex E thereto when traded within the Union, but must be accompanied by a self-certification by the operator in accordance with Article 4 of that Directive, or in the case of psittacidae by a commercial document signed by the official veterinarian or by the veterinarian responsible for the holding. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

However, birds as referred to in Article 7 of Directive 92/65/EEC are not required to be accompanied by a health certificate, as set out in Part 1 of Annex E thereto when traded within the Union, but must be accompanied by a self-certification by the operator in accordance with Article 4 of that Directive, or in the case of psittacidae by a commercial document signed by the official veterinarian or by the veterinarian responsible for the holding.

| (6) | It should be therefore clarified that the health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC is only required to accompany birds that are vaccinated against avian influenza and come from a holding on which vaccination against avian influenza was carried out during the past 12 months. Therefore, the specimen health certificate set out in Part 1 of that Annex should be amended to include a reference to such vaccination. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

It should be therefore clarified that the health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC is only required to accompany birds that are vaccinated against avian influenza and come from a holding on which vaccination against avian influenza was carried out during the past 12 months. Therefore, the specimen health certificate set out in Part 1 of that Annex should be amended to include a reference to such vaccination.

| (7) | Article 10 of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in dogs, cats and ferrets. It provides, inter alia, that they must satisfy the relevant requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (4). |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Article 10 of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in dogs, cats and ferrets. It provides, inter alia, that they must satisfy the relevant requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (4).

| (8) | Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that until 31 December 2011, dogs and cats entering Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom from other Member States are to be vaccinated and subject to a pre-entry rabies blood testing in accordance with national rules. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 provides that until 31 December 2011, dogs and cats entering Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom from other Member States are to be vaccinated and subject to a pre-entry rabies blood testing in accordance with national rules.

| (9) | In addition, Article 16 of that Regulation provides that until 31 December 2011, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as regards echinococcosis, and Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom as regards ticks, may make the entry of pet animals into their territory subject to compliance with certain additional national requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In addition, Article 16 of that Regulation provides that until 31 December 2011, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom, as regards echinococcosis, and Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom as regards ticks, may make the entry of pet animals into their territory subject to compliance with certain additional national requirements.

| (10) | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 of 14 July 2011 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs (5) was adopted in order to ensure the continuous health protection of Ireland, Malta, Finland and the United Kingdom from Echinococcus multilocularis. It is to apply from 1 January 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 of 14 July 2011 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs (5) was adopted in order to ensure the continuous health protection of Ireland, Malta, Finland and the United Kingdom from Echinococcus multilocularis. It is to apply from 1 January 2012.

| (11) | The reference to Articles 6 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 included in the specimen health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be deleted and replaced, as regards dogs, by a reference to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The reference to Articles 6 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 included in the specimen health certificate set out in Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be deleted and replaced, as regards dogs, by a reference to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011.

| (12) | Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Part 1 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (13) | Article 13 of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in animals of species susceptible to the diseases listed in Annexes A and B thereto and in semen, ova and embryos of such animals consigned to and from bodies, institutes or centres approved in accordance with Annex C thereto. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Article 13 of Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in animals of species susceptible to the diseases listed in Annexes A and B thereto and in semen, ova and embryos of such animals consigned to and from bodies, institutes or centres approved in accordance with Annex C thereto.

| (14) | Semen, ova and embryos of certain animal species can be frozen and stored for a long time and therefore donor animal might no longer be available on the day the health certificate is issued. It is therefore necessary to amend the specimen health certificate set out in Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC to state that the donor animal was found to be healthy and free from clinical disease either on day of collection or the date of issuing of the health certificate. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Semen, ova and embryos of certain animal species can be frozen and stored for a long time and therefore donor animal might no longer be available on the day the health certificate is issued. It is therefore necessary to amend the specimen health certificate set out in Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC to state that the donor animal was found to be healthy and free from clinical disease either on day of collection or the date of issuing of the health certificate.

| (15) | Point 4(a) of Annex II to Decision 2007/598/EC provides that birds vaccinated against avian influenza kept in approved bodies, institutes or centres including zoos may only be moved to approved bodies, institutes or centres including zoos in other Member States provided that they meet the requirements set out in that Decision and they are accompanied by a health certificate as laid down in Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC stating that the birds have been vaccinated against avian influenza in conformity to Commission Decision 2006/474/EC (6). As that Decision has since been repealed and replaced by Decision 2007/598/EC, that reference should be replaced by a reference to Decision 2007/598/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Point 4(a) of Annex II to Decision 2007/598/EC provides that birds vaccinated against avian influenza kept in approved bodies, institutes or centres including zoos may only be moved to approved bodies, institutes or centres including zoos in other Member States provided that they meet the requirements set out in that Decision and they are accompanied by a health certificate as laid down in Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC stating that the birds have been vaccinated against avian influenza in conformity to Commission Decision 2006/474/EC (6). As that Decision has since been repealed and replaced by Decision 2007/598/EC, that reference should be replaced by a reference to Decision 2007/598/EC.

| (16) | Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (17) | Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Directive 92/65/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (18) | To avoid any disruption of trade, the use of health certificates issued in accordance with Part 1 and Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC, before the amendments introduced by this Decision, should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

To avoid any disruption of trade, the use of health certificates issued in accordance with Part 1 and Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC, before the amendments introduced by this Decision, should be authorised during a transitional period subject to certain conditions.

| (19) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

For a transitional period until 30 June 2012, Member States may authorise trade in animals from holdings and animals, semen, ova and embryos from approved bodies, institutes or centres accompanied by a health certificate issued not later than 29 February 2012 in accordance with the models set out in Part 1 and Part 3 of Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC in its version prior to the amendments introduced by this Decision.

Article 3

This Decision shall apply from 1 March 2012.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 February 2012.

For the Commission

John DALLI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.

1

(2)  OJ 121, 29.7.1964, p. 1977/64.

2

(3)  OJ L 230, 1.9.2007, p. 20.

3

(4)  OJ L 146, 13.6.2003, p. 1.

4

(5)  OJ L 296, 15.11.2011, p. 6.

5

(6)  OJ L 187, 8.7.2006, p. 37.

6

---

ANNEX

Annex E to Directive 92/65/EEC is amended as follows:

| (1) | Part 1 is replaced by the following:
  ‘Part 1 —   Health certificate for trade in animals from holdings (ungulates, birds vaccinated against avian influenza, lagomorphs, dogs, cats and ferrets) 92/65 EI |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Part 1 is replaced by the following:

‘Part 1 —   Health certificate for trade in animals from holdings (ungulates, birds vaccinated against avian influenza, lagomorphs, dogs, cats and ferrets) 92/65 EI

Image

Image

Image

| (2) | Part 3 is replaced by the following:
  ‘Part 3 —   Health certificate for trade in animals, semen, ova and embryos from approved bodies, institutes or centres 92/65 EIII |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Part 3 is replaced by the following:

‘Part 3 —   Health certificate for trade in animals, semen, ova and embryos from approved bodies, institutes or centres 92/65 EIII

Image

Image

---

Corrigenda

| 23.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/58

---

Corrigenda to Commission Implementing Decision 2011/252/EU of 26 April 2011 allowing Member States to extend provisional authorisations granted for the new active substances ascorbic acid, ipconazole, spiromesifen, topramezone, and Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 106 of 27 April 2011
  )

On page 12, in Article 1,

for:

‘30 April 2012’,

read:

‘30 April 2013’;

on page 12, in Article 2,

for:

‘30 April 2012’,

read:

‘30 April 2013’.

---