natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Støtten er beregnet således, at de to tv-koncerner skal betale den samme afgift til netværksoperatøren for et multipleks som tidligere for en analog kanal.
It is calculated in such a way that the two broadcasting groups have to pay the same fee to the network operator for a multiplex as they previously did for an analogue channel.
Støtten svarende til en tredjedel af udgifterne ved digital transmission afspejler således den omstændighed, at transmissionen af et multipleks er ca. 50 % dyrere end transmissionen af en analog kanal.
Assistance equivalent to one third of the digital transmission costs thus reflects the fact that the transmission of a multiplex is some 50 % more expensive than that of an analogue channel.
Kommissionen gør imidlertid allerede i den henseende opmærksom på, at det i denne forbindelse skal tages i betragtning, at et multipleks har en fire gange så stor transmissionskapacitet som en analog kanal, dvs. fire programkanaler i stedet for kun én.
However, the Commission notes already at this stage that it must be borne in mind here that a multiplex has four times the transmission capacity of an analogue channel, i.e. four programme channels instead of only one.
Mabb indgik kontrakter med lignende indhold med FAB og BBC World, som inden overgangen ligeledes blev distribueret via analog jordbaseret transmission og således havde krav på en programkanal i DVB-T-nettet [35].
Mabb concluded similar agreements with FAB and BBC World, which, before the switch-over, were also broadcast via analogue terrestrial transmission (‘ATT’) and thus had a claim to a programme channel on the DVB-T network [35].
Også i forbindelse med disse tv-selskaber yder Mabb et tilskud til transmissionsudgifterne for en periode på fem år.
For these broadcasters too, Mabb provides a grant towards transmission costs for a period of five years.
Tilskuddet svarer til en tredjedel af den afgift, der skal betales til netværksoperatøren.
The grant is equal to one third of the fees payable by the network operator.
Grundlaget for beregningen af støttebeløbet er fakturaen fra netværksoperatøren.
Calculation of the amount of assistance is based on the operator's invoice.
Støttebeløbet udgør imidlertid højst 68167 EUR pr. år.
However, the level of assistance amounts to at most EUR 68167 per year.
I forbindelse med de tv-selskaber, der inden overgangen ikke blev distribueret via jordbaseret transmission, dvs. Eurosport, Viva plus og DSF, indgik Mabb en tredje form for kontrakt [36].
As for the broadcasters that were not broadcast terrestrially before the switch-over, i.e. Eurosport, Viva Plus and DSF, Mabb concluded a third type of agreement [36].
Disse tv-selskaber fik tildelt programkanaler for en periode på kun ét år fra den 1. august 2003.
Programme channels were allocated to these broadcasters for a period of only one year beginning on 1 August 2003.
I denne periode ydede Mabb hvert af dem et tilskud på 65000 EUR. Såfremt netværksoperatørens sendeudgifter og dermed de udgifter, som tv-selskaberne skal betale til operatøren, falder, reduceres støttebeløbet tilsvarende.
During that period Mabb provided them with a grant of EUR 65000 each. If the broadcasting costs of the network operator and thus the costs payable by the broadcasters to the operator fall, the amount of funding is reduced accordingly.
Der er ikke fastsat bestemmelser om en forhøjelse af tilskuddet.
There is no provision for the grant to be increased.
Efter at programkanalerne endnu en gang blev udbudt af Mabb den 16. april 2004, blev DVB-T-sendelicenserne og støtten forlænget til fem år.
Following a second invitation to tender by Mabb on 16 April 2004, the DVB-T broadcasting licences and the public funding have been extended to five years.
I sine bemærkninger til beslutningen om at indlede procedure har forbundsregeringen anført, at de nævnte private radio-/tv-selskabers programkanaler på nuværende tidspunkt hver især modtager et årligt tilskud på ca. 60000 EUR. Med hensyn til de to tv-koncerner RTL og ProSiebenSat.1 svarer dette til en årlig samlet støtte på ca. 240000 EUR pr. koncern.
In its response to the decision to initiate the procedure, Germany stated that the programme channels of the abovementioned commercial broadcasters were currently receiving annual funding of some EUR 60000 each. In the case of RTL Group and ProSiebenSat.1, this represents total public funding per year of some EUR 240000 per group.
I svaret på en senere begæring om oplysninger har forbundsregeringen imidlertid korrigeret disse oplysninger.
In response to a subsequent request for information, Germany has corrected this information.
Den offentlige støtte svarer i realiteten til de beløb, der fremgår af kontrakterne med de enkelte selskaber.
The public funding corresponds in fact to the amounts specified in the Agreements with the individual broadcasters.
Som det fremgår af aftalerne mellem Mabb og de enkelte radio-/tv-selskaber, betaler disse en afgift til netværksoperatøren for transmissionen af deres programkanaler via DVB-T-nettet.
As can be seen from the Agreements between Mabb and the individual broadcasters, the latter pay a fee to the network operator for the broadcasting of their programme channels over the DVB-T network.
I henhold til Mabbs oprindelige udbud (A.6.) af programkanalerne skal disse afgifter reguleres af RegTP [37].
According to the original invitations to tender (A.6) for the programme channels launched by Mabb, these fees were supposed to be regulated by RegTP [37].
I henhold til den tyske lov om telekommunikation (Telekommunikationsgesetz, herefter benævnt »TKG«) af 22. juni 2004 skal det imidlertid konstateres, at netværksoperatøren har en stærk markedsposition, inden RegTP kan træffe foranstaltninger til prisregulering (§§ 10-13 i TKG).
In accordance with the Federal Telecommunications Law (‘TKG’) of 22 June 2004, the network operator must, however, be found to possess significant market power before measures regulating the fee payable can be imposed by RegTP (Sections 10 to 13 TKG).
Med hensyn til DVB-T-nettet har RegTP imidlertid ikke hidtil foretaget nogen markedsafgrænsning og derfor endnu ikke konstateret, at der er tale om en stærk markedsposition, som er en betingelse for prisreguleringen.
As far as the DVB-T network is concerned, RegTP has not yet, however, defined the relevant markets, with the result that the existence of significant market power, which is necessary for the fees to be regulated, has still not been established.
Hvis det konstateres, at en netværksoperatør har en stærk markedsposition, skal en prisregulering i henhold til §§ 30-33 i TKG være i overensstemmelse med princippet om overholdelse af omkostningerne i forbindelse med et effektivt udbud af ydelser.
If the existence of significant market power on the part of a network operator is established in accordance with Sections 30 to 33 TKG, the fees would have to be regulated according to the principle of the costs of efficient service provision.
T-Systems har anført, at selskabet har underlagt sin prissætning dette princip, selv om der ikke på nuværende tidspunkt er nogen retlig forpligtelse hertil.
T-Systems has maintained that it applies this principle to the fees it sets even though there is as yet no legal obligation to do so.
Mabb finansierer tilskuddene til de private radio-/tv-selskabers transmissionsudgifter over sit eget budget, som i det væsentlige er finansieret af en andel på to procent af de licensafgifter, der tilkommer Berlin og Brandenburg (i henhold til § 40 i Rundfunkstaatsvertrag og § 15 Medienstaatsvertrag).
Mabb finances the grants towards commercial broadcasters’ transmission costs from its own budget, which essentially receives 2 % of the licence fee income accruing to Berlin and Brandenburg (in accordance with Section 40 of the State Broadcasting Treaty and Section 15 of the State Media Treaty).
Mabb yder kun den beskrevne støtte til de private radio-/tv-selskaber.
Mabb grants the funding described above only to the commercial broadcasters.
Public service-selskaberne finansierer udgifterne til DVB-T-transmissionen ved hjælp af deres andel af licensafgifterne.
The PSBs finance the costs of DVB-T transmission out of the licence fee income accruing to them.
Ifølge KEF-rapporter betalte ARD i perioden 2001–2004 i hele Tyskland i alt 43,9 mio. EUR for DVB-T og ZDF i alt 35,6 mio. EUR [38].
According to KEF reports, ARD paid a total of EUR 43,9 million country-wide for DVB-T in the period 2001-04, the corresponding figure for ZDF being EUR 35,6 million [38].
En regional fordeling fremgår ikke af KEF-rapporterne.
The KEF reports do not provide any regional breakdown.
Det må imidlertid antages, at en væsentlig del af disse midler har stået til rådighed for DVB-T-transmissionen i Berlin-Brandenburg, da dette var det første og det længstvarende DVB-T-projekt i Tyskland i den pågældende periode.
It must, however, be assumed that a substantial amount of these resources have been available for DVB-T transmission in Berlin-Brandenburg since this was the first and the longest-running DVB-T project in Germany during the period concerned.
Efter indførelse af DVB-T-transmission i Berlin-Brandenburg den 1. november 2002 fulgte indførelsen heraf først den 24. maj 2004 i Nordrhein-Westfalen samt i andet halvår af 2004 i Rhein-Main-området og i Nordtyskland.
The launch of DVB-T transmission in Berlin-Brandenburg on 1 November 2002 was followed by the launch in North Rhine-Westphalia (but not until 24 May 2004) and then in the Rhine-Maine area and in Northern Germany in the second half of 2004.
BEGRUNDELSE FOR AT INDLEDE DEN FORMELLE UNDERSØGELSESPROCEDURE
REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
I beslutningen om at indlede procedure konstaterede Kommissionen indledningsvis, at den beskrevne foranstaltning syntes at opfylde alle kriterier i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, og derfor kunne betragtes som statsstøtte.
In the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission noted first that the measure described seemed to meet all the criteria of Article 87(1) and could, therefore, be regarded as State Aid.
Kommissionen sondrede navnlig mellem to grupper af potentielle støttemodtagere, dvs. de private radio-/tv-selskaber som direkte modtagere og netværksoperatøren T-Systems som indirekte modtager.
In particular, it differentiated between two types of potential beneficiary, namely the commercial broadcasters as direct beneficiaries and the network operator T-Systems as the indirect beneficiary.
Kommissionen nærede desuden tvivl om, hvorvidt støtten var forenelig med EF-traktaten.
The Commission also expressed doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the EC Treaty.
Hverken undtagelserne fra det generelle støtteforbud efter EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 2, eller undtagelsen i artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c), syntes at være opfyldt.
Neither the derogations from the general prohibition on Aid listed in Article 87(2) nor the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) seemed to be met.
Som særligt problematisk fremhævede Kommissionen, at støtten syntes at tilsidesætte princippet om teknologineutralitet.
What was particularly problematic according to the Commission was the fact that the aid appeared to infringe the requirement of technological neutrality.
Endvidere rejste Kommissionen det spørgsmål, om støtten kunne betragtes som kompensation for en tjenesteydelse af almindelig økonomisk interesse.
In addition, the Commission wondered whether the aid could be regarded as compensation for a service of general economic interest.
Endelig indledte Kommissionen den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure for at give Tyskland og de interesserede parter lejlighed til at fremsætte bemærkninger til Kommissionens foreløbige vurdering af den beskrevne foranstaltning og fremsende relevante oplysninger til Kommissionen.
Lastly, the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure in order to give Germany and interested parties the opportunity to submit their comments on its provisional assessment of the measure described and to make available to the Commission any relevant information.
NSAB fremsendte to bemærkninger, hvori Kommissionens vurderinger i beslutningen om at indlede procedure generelt blev støttet.
NSAB submitted two sets of comments in which it generally supported the views expressed by the Commission in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Konkret var NSAB enig i den opfattelse, at foranstaltningen udgjorde statsstøtte, hvor der desuden ikke kunne gøres nogen undtagelsesbestemmelse gældende.
In practice, it took the view that the measure constituted State Aid for which, moreover, no exemption could be claimed.
NSAB understregede navnlig foranstaltningens ikke-teknologineutrale karakter samt de negative konkurrencevirkninger af den indirekte begunstigelse af T-Systems for operatører af kabel- og satellitnetværk.
In particular, it stressed the non-technologically neutral nature of the measure and the adverse competitive effects of the indirect funding for T-Systems on operators of cable and satellite networks.
I bemærkningerne fra ProSiebenSat.1 understregedes støttens betydning for, at den digitale overgang blev vellykket ud fra et kommercielt perspektiv.
ProSiebenSat.1 stressed the importance of the funding, from a commercial viewpoint, for the success of the digital switch-over.
Uden støtte havde ville ProSiebenSat.1 have overvejet at afvikle den jordbaserede transmission i Berlin-Brandenburg uden at sætte andet i stedet.
Without any assistance, it would have considered switching off terrestrial transmission in Berlin-Brandenburg without any replacement.
Endvidere var overgangen forbundet med den risiko, at den jordbaserede dækning pludselig ville ophøre og dermed påvirke de kommercielle radio-/tv-selskabers finansiering ved hjælp af reklameindtægter negativt.
There was also the risk with the switch-over that terrestrial coverage would suddenly cease, with the financing of commercial broadcasters out of advertising revenue being adversely affected.
ProSiebenSat.1 gjorde endvidere opmærksom på, at det var nødvendigt, at de store private tv-koncerner deltog i overgangen ved siden af public service-selskaberne for at opnå en tilstrækkelig forbrugeraccept.
ProSiebenSat.1 also made the point that the participation of the large commercial broadcasting groups in the switch-over alongside the PSBs was necessary in order to secure a sufficient degree of consumer acceptance.
I bemærkningerne fra ECCA støttedes generelt den vurdering, som Kommissionen havde givet udtryk for i beslutningen om at indlede procedure.
The comments by ECCA generally supported the views expressed by the Commission in its decision to initiate the procedure.
ECCA har navnlig henvist til, at operatørerne af andre transmissionsplatforme, som udelukkende blev finansieret via kapitalmarkederne, blev stillet ringere som følge af den beskrevne foranstaltning.
ECCA points out in particular that the measure described placed at a disadvantage the operators of other transmission platforms, which relied exclusively on capital markets to obtain finance.
I bemærkningerne fra ESOA støttedes ligeledes den vurdering, som Kommissionen havde givet udtryk for i beslutningen om at indlede procedure med hensyn til, at den beskrevne foranstaltning udgjorde statsstøtte, som var uforenelig med EF-traktaten.
Similarly, the comments by ESOA supported the view expressed by the Commission in the decision to initiate the procedure to the effect that the measure described constituted state aid that was incompatible with the EC Treaty.
ESOA fremhævede endvidere, at satellitter i mange henseender var en billigere og mere markedsorienteret transmissionsplatform end digital jordbaseret transmission.
ESOA also pointed out that, in many respects, satellites were a cheaper and more market-oriented form of transmission than digital terrestrial transmission.
DTAG fremsendte bemærkninger, hvori der blev rejst tvivl om, hvorvidt støtten fra Mabb udgjorde statsmidler og dermed en støtteforanstaltning.
In its comments, DTAG doubted that the assistance granted by Mabb constituted State resources and thus Aid.
Derudover anførte DTAG, at T-Systems ikke kunne betragtes som indirekte modtager.
It went on to say that T-Systems could not be regarded as an indirect beneficiary.
T-Systems modtog en afgift for DVB-T-transmissionen, der svarede til forholdene på markedet, og havde desuden fået tildelt frekvenserne i en åben og gennemsigtig udbudsprocedure.
T-Systems received appropriate market remuneration for the DVB-T transmission and had also been allocated the frequencies in an open and transparent tender procedure.
Støtten skulle desuden betragtes som kompensation for, at private radio-/tv-selskaber udførte offentlig tjeneste. Disse havde givet afkald på analog jordbaseret transmission og var gået over til DVB-T-transmission.
In addition, the assistance had to be seen as compensation for the provision of public-interest services by the commercial broadcasters, which had decided to dispense with analogue terrestrial transmission and had switched to DVB-T transmission.
Dermed var det også udelukket, at der var tale om en indirekte støtte til fordel for T-Systems.
This also ruled out the existence of indirect assistance for T-Systems.
Endelig bestred DTAG, at der var opstået en konkurrencefordrejning mellem jordbaseret, kabel- og satellittransmission, da de tre transmissionsplatforme ikke var indbyrdes substituerbare fra forbrugernes synsvinkel.
Lastly, DTAG disputed that there had been any distortion of competition between terrestrial, cable and satellite transmission since the three modes of transmission were not substitutable from the point of view of the consumer.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at de øvrige bemærkninger blev modtaget efter den fastsatte frist på en måned, og at de interesserede parter ikke havde anmodet om en forlængelse af fristen.
The Commission notes that the other comments were received after the planned one month deadline and that the interested parties had not asked for any extension.
Da disse bemærkninger imidlertid har bidraget til give et fuldstændigt billede af den foreliggende foranstaltnings form og virkning, gengives de nedenfor ud fra hensynet til den størst mulige gennemsigtighed.
Since these comments have helped, however, to provide a full picture of the form and effect of the measure, they are reproduced below with a view to ensuring a maximum degree of transparency.
Alle bemærkninger og oplysninger er endvidere videresendt til Tyskland med anmodning om eventuelle kommentarer.
In addition, all comments and information have been passed on to Germany so that it has had the opportunity to comment on them in turn.
Deutscher Kabelverband gav i sine bemærkninger udtryk for den opfattelse, at foranstaltningen udgjorde en ensidig støtte til DVB-T ved hjælp af offentlige midler, som medførte en alvorlig konkurrencefordrejning blandt de indbyrdes konkurrerende netinfrastrukturer.
In its comments, the German Cable Association stated that the measure constituted unilateral assistance for DVB-T from public monies that seriously distorted competition among the competing network infrastructures.
Etableringen af DVB-T-nettet skete uden økonomisk risiko for netværksoperatøren, da de private radio-/tv-selskabers deltagelse var sikret gennem betaling af støtten.
The DVB-T network was developed without any financial risk for the network operator since the participation of the commercial broadcasters was guaranteed by providing them with financial assistance.
Endvidere anførte Deutscher Kabelverband, at hverken RegTP's udbud af DVB-T-nettet eller Mabbs udbud af radio-/tv-spredningslicenserne kunne betegnes som åbent og gennemsigtigt.
Furthermore, the German Cable Association noted that neither the tender procedure for DVB-T launched by RegTP nor the tender procedure for broadcasting licences launched by Mabb could be described as open and transparent.
Deutscher Kabelverband satte derudover spørgsmålstegn ved, om støtten var nødvendig, da markedsaktørerne selv havde en interesse i overgangen, og da der var alternativer til støtten.
It also doubted that the assistance was necessary since the market participants had a vested interest in the switch-over and since alternatives to the assistance provided had existed.
Endelig anførte Deutscher Kabelverband, at støtten ikke var passende, da midlerne ikke var beregnet på grundlag af radio-/tv-selskabernes faktiske udgifter.
The assistance was not appropriate since it had not been calculated on the basis of the costs actually incurred by the broadcasters.
Lignende bemærkninger gav ANGA udtryk for, som også henviste til den manglende åbenhed omkring resultaterne af udbudsprocedurerne i forbindelse med driften af sendenettet og radio-/tv-spredningslicenserne.
A similar line was taken by ANGA, which also pointed to the lack of transparency in respect of the result of the tender procedures at the level of the network operation and the broadcasting licences.
ANGA henviste også til, at netværksoperatøren og radio-/tv-selskaberne selv havde en interesse i den digitale jordbaserede overgang.
It also referred to the vested interest of the network operator and of the broadcasters in the digital terrestrial switch-over.
ANGA understregede endvidere, at DVB-T var målrettet mod at konkurrere med kabel, og imødegik argumenter om, at DVB-T kunne begrundes med henblik på at sikre meningspluralismen eller af socialpolitiske årsager.
Furthermore, it stressed that DVB-T was specifically designed to compete with cable and refuted arguments to the effect that DVB-T would have to be justified as a means of securing plurality of opinion and for socio-political reasons.
Endelig gjorde ANGA gældende, at opkrævning af afgifter hos kunderne kunne have været et alternativ til den offentlige støtte.
Lastly, ANGA argued that the collection of customer fees would have been an alternative to public funding.
Det fremgik af bemærkningerne fra Kabel BW, at Mabbs støtte til DVB-T havde medført en konkurrencefordrejning til skade for satellit- og kabeltjenesterne.
Kabel BW observed that the assistance granted by Mabb for DVB-T had led to distortion of competition detrimental to satellite and cable services.
Ved hjælp at en analytisk omkostningsmodel forsøgte Kabel BW desuden at dokumentere, at det ikke var nødvendigt at støtte DVB-T-nettet i Berlin-Brandenburg, da netværksoperatørens afgifter var tilstrækkelige til at dække udgifterne ved digital jordbaseret transmission.
Applying an analytical model, it also endeavoured to show that assistance for the DVB-T network in Berlin-Brandenburg would not be necessary since the fees accruing to the network operator would be sufficient to cover the costs of digital terrestrial transmission.
Kabel BW konkluderede på grundlag heraf, at en kompensation i form af støtte fra Mabb ikke var nødvendig, selv hvis etableringen af DVB-T-nettet blev betragtet som en tjenesteydelse af almindelig økonomisk interesse.
It concluded from this that compensation in the form of assistance from Mabb was not necessary even if development of the DVB-T network were regarded as a service of general economic interest.
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA FORBUNDSREPUBLIKKEN TYSKLAND
COMMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Tyskland har i sine bemærkninger til beslutningen om at indlede procedure givet udtryk for den opfattelse, at den af Mabb ydede støtte ikke udgør statsstøtte efter EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
In its response to the decision to initiate the procedure, Germany takes the view that the assistance granted by Mabb does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
For det første var disse midler ikke statsmidler, da de ikke var undergivet statens kontrol, men Mabb selvstændigt traf beslutning om anvendelsen heraf.
Firstly, the assistance did not come from State resources since the funds were not under State control, and Mabb was free to decide how they were to be used.
For det andet opfyldte støtten ikke den betingelse, at den skulle være ydet til specifikke modtagere.
Secondly, the assistance was not granted to specific beneficiaries.