natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den økonomiske kompensation for RTP's forpligtelser i forbindelse med filmproduktion var allerede mulig under det generelle system for kompensationsbetalinger i overensstemmelse med lov nr. 21/92 [64].
Financial compensation for RTP's obligations in respect of cinematographic production was already possible under the general system of compensation payments in accordance with Law No 21/92 [64].
Protokollen kan således ikke betragtes som en særskilt foranstaltning ud over den punktuelle finansiering. Protokollen fører således i sig selv ikke til tab af statsmidler, idet staten ikke tildeler nogen yderligere finansielle midler til RTP på grundlag af protokollen.
Accordingly, the protocol cannot be seen as a separate ad hoc financing measure and, as such, does not lead to a loss of state resources, as no new financial measures are granted by the State to RTP on the basis of the protocol.
Omstruktureringsplanen for 1996-2000 udgjorde tilsyneladende blot en foreløbig undersøgelse gennemført af RTP uden lovning på nogen finansiering fra den portugisiske stats side.
The restructuring plan for the period 1996 to 2000 seems to have been simply a preliminary study carried out by RTP without any financial commitment by the Portuguese State.
Kommissionen mener derfor, at der ikke er tale om statsmidler.
Therefore, the Commission considers that no state resources are involved.
Tredjemand indgav ikke nye elementer om dette forhold.
No new elements were presented by any third parties on this aspect.
På grundlag af ovenfor beskrevne bemærkninger kan det derfor konkluderes, at protokollen om støtte til filmproduktion, omstruktureringsplanen for 1996-2000, de forsinkede betalinger for brugen af radiospredningsnettet og obligationsudstedelsen ikke udgør statsstøtte, da de ikke implicerer statsmidler.
Accordingly, it can therefore be concluded that the protocol on cinema promotion, the restructuring plan for the period 1996 to 2000, the late payments for the use of the broadcasting network and the bond issue do not constitute state aid as no state resources are involved.
Begunstigelse af visse virksomheder
Favouring of certain undertakings
For så vidt angår fritagelse fra notarial- og registreringsgebyrer, skal Kommissionen afgøre, om foranstaltningen indrømmede en generel fritagelse til RTP, og om den specifikt anvendes på RTP (og, subsidiært, kun på offentlige virksomheder) og ikke på private virksomheder.
As regards the exemption from registration charges, the Commission has to assess whether the measure conferred a general tax exemption on RTP and whether it applied specifically to RTP (and, alternatively, to only public companies) and not to private companies.
Herudover skal Kommissionen afgøre, om RTP opnår en fordel ved det forhold, at der ikke skal betales omkostninger i forbindelse med oprettelse for notar af dokumenter, og om RTP ligeledes var fritaget fra registreringsgebyrer for alle andre aktiver i henhold til artikel 11, stk. 2, i lov nr. 21/92.
Furthermore, it has to determine whether RTP received an additional advantage by not paying any cost linked to the publication of the deed and whether RTP was also exempted from the registration charges in respect of all other assets under Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92.
For det første mener Kommissionen, at formålet med nævnte artikel 11 var at fritage RTP fra registreringsgebyrer og andre gebyrer i direkte tilknytning til ændringen af vedtægterne.
Firstly, the Commission considers that the purpose of Article 11 was to exempt RTP from registration and similar charges directly linked to the change of its legal status.
Førstnævnte drejer sig om den grundlæggende pligt til at lade vedtægter registrere i Registro Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas, og sidstnævnte drejer sig om andre krav til registrering i direkte tilknytning til ændringen af virksomhedens juridiske status (dvs. f.eks. tinglysning eller værdipapirregistrering).
Whereas paragraph 1 relates to the basic requirement to register the legal document at the National Commercial Registry, paragraph 2 refers to other mandatory registration directly linked to the change in the legal nature of the company (e.g. registry of movable or immovable assets).
De portugisiske myndigheders oplysninger viser, at RTP ikke er omfattet af en generel fritagelse fra registergebyrer, da RTP ved forskellige lejligheder har betalt notarialgebyrer og registreringsgebyrer i tilknytning til ændringer af virksomheden efter omdannelsen til et aktieselskab [65].
Indeed, information from the Portuguese authorities shows that RTP does not enjoy a general exemption for registration charges as it has on several occasions paid notary and registration charges related to changes in the company after its conversion into a public limited company [65].
Kommissionen er således ikke enig i de direkte interesseredes bemærkninger om, at RTP nyder en generel fritagelse fra notarial- og registreringsgebyrer.
The Commission cannot, therefore, agree with comments from interested parties that RTP enjoyed a general exemption from registration charges.
For det andet er Kommissionen enig med de portugisiske myndigheder i, at artikel 11, stk. 1, i lov nr. 21/92, som er grundlaget for RTP's fritagelse fra betaling af notarial- og registergebyrer, ikke giver virksomheden nogen specifik fordel.
Secondly, the Commission agrees with the Portuguese authorities that Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92, on the basis of which RTP is exempt from payment of registration charges, does not confer a specific advantage.
Det skal blot igen nævnes, at lov nr. 84/88 kan anvendes på RTP's særlige tilfælde, hvorefter offentlige virksomheder gennem et lovdekret kan omdannes til aktieselskaber, hvormed lovdekretet om omdannelsen godkender aktieselskabets vedtægter og udgør tilstrækkeligt bevis for opfyldelsen af alle registreringskrav.
It merely reaffirms the applicability of Law No 84/88 in the specific case of RTP, under which public undertakings could be converted by decree-law into public limited companies, with the decree-law having to approve the statutes of the limited company and to constitute a sufficient document for all registration requirements.
Forskelsbehandling af offentlige virksomheder, hvis juridiske form ændres til et aktieselskab, bunder i systemets interne logik og giver dem ikke en specifik fordel, da de forhold, der danner grundlag for gebyrerne, ikke er tilstede.
The different treatment for public undertakings transforming their legal status into a public limited company arises from the internal logic of the system and does not confer on them a specific advantage since relevant chargeable events do not exist.
Det kræver oprettelse for notar for at få bekræftet dokumenter, der opretter eller ændrer en virksomhed, så oprettelsen eller ændringen får retsgyldighed.
The issuing of a notarial deed is necessary to certify the documents that create or alter a company in order to give them legal force.
Sådanne akter er imidlertid overflødige for virksomheder, hvis juridiske status er overgået til at være et aktieselskab på grundlag af en retsakt, da denne retsakt allerede besidder den nødvendige retsgyldighed.
However, such a deed seems superfluous for public undertakings whose legal status has been changed into that of a public limited company through a legislative act since such an act already has the necessary legal force.
Ræsonnementet vedrørende registreringsgebyrer gælder ligeledes i forhold til udgifter til notarialoprettelse.
The same reasoning is valid for registration charges as well as for publication costs.
Ifølge statens ansvar som offentlig myndighed skal staten offentliggøre ændringer indført gennem lovgivning i det portugisiske statstidende, Diário da República.
In its responsibility as a public authority, the State has to publish legislative amendments in the Diário de República.
Da lov nr. 21/92, som godkender RTP's nye vedtægter, allerede var offentliggjort af staten, var det ikke nødvendigt at pålægge RTP yderligere offentliggørelseskrav, som kunne være tilfældet for private virksomheder.
As Law No 21/92 approving the new statutes of RTP had already been published by the State, it would have been superfluous to impose on RTP any other publication requirements to which private companies may be subject.
Diário da República indeholder den fulde tekst af RTP's vedtægter, hvilket derfor svarer til registrering og den dermed forbundne oplysning af tredjemand.
The Diário de República contains the full text of RTP's statutes, thereby producing the same effects as registration, including the required effects regarding information for third parties.
For det tredje er Kommissionen enig med de portugisiske myndigheder i, at artikel 11, stk. 2, i lov nr. 21/92, som er grundlaget for RTP's fritagelse fra andre registreringsafgifter i direkte tilknytning til ændringen af virksomhedens juridiske status, ikke giver RTP nogen specifik fordel.
Thirdly, the Commission agrees with the Portuguese authorities that Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, under which RTP was exempted from the payment of other registration charges linked directly to the modification of the legal status of the company, does not confer a specific advantage to RTP.
Artikel 11, stk. 2, i lov nr. 21/92 begrænser sig til at bekræfte anvendelsen af artikel 1 i lovdekret nr. 404/90, hvorefter selskaber kan fritages fra skat på nødvendig overførsel af anlægsaktiver i forbindelse med fusion eller samarbejde, samt fra gebyrer og andre retsafgifter, som ellers skulle erlægges for sådanne akter.
Article 11(2) merely confirms the applicability of Article 1 of Decree-Law No 404/90, under which undertakings could be exempted from transfer tax and other legal charges payable on assets necessary for the concentration or cooperation in question.
Lovdekret nr. 404/90 finder anvendelse på samtlige virksomheder, der gennemfører samarbejde eller fusioner inden den 31. december 1993.
Decree-Law No 404/90 applied to all undertakings that carried out acts of concentration or cooperation before 31 December 1993.
RTP's fritagelse fra betaling af andre afgifter giver således ikke RTP en specifik fordel, da den finder anvendelse på alle virksomheder i samme situation.
The exemption from payment of other registration fees granted to RTP does not confer a specific advantage on RTP since it was applicable to all undertakings in the same situation.
Efter at have vurderet bemærkningerne fra tredjemand og kommentarerne fra de portugisiske myndigheder konkluderede Kommissionen, at den oprindelige aftale mellem socialsikringsmyndighederne og RTP ikke kan betragtes som en typisk adfærd for en privat operatør.
After considering the comments from third parties and the Portuguese authorities, the Commission concludes that the initial agreement between the social security scheme and RTP cannot be regarded as representing typical behaviour of a private operator.
Tvisten i forbindelse med spørgsmålet gik ud på, hvorvidt fortolkningen af bestemte regler i socialsikringen, som omhandlet i lovbekendtgørelse nr. 12/83, var juridisk korrekt.
The dispute was whether or not the interpretation of certain social security rules as laid down in Implementing Decree No 12/83 was legally correct.
Aftalen bekræftede RTP's fortolkning på området, hvilket blev støttet af en sagkyndig i fiskale forhold, der nåede til den konklusion, at lovbekendtgørelsen var forfatningsstridig.
The agreement confirmed RTP's interpretation, which was supported by the analysis of a tax expert who concluded that the Implementing Decree was unconstitutional.
Lovbekendtgørelsen blev dog ikke trukket tilbage efter aftalens indgåelse.
However, following the agreement, the Implementing Decree was not revoked.
Det skal derfor afgøres, om foranstaltningen anvendtes selektiv på RTP uden at ændre fortolkningen af de nævnte socialsikringsregler over for andre virksomheder.
Therefore, it has to be concluded that the measure was selectively applied to RTP without affecting the applicability of the social security scheme's interpretation to other companies.
Kommissionen kan endvidere ikke være enig med de portugisiske myndigheder i, at tilladelsen til omlægning af gælden og eftergivelsen af renterne fandt sted inden for rammerne af et generelt system, der anvendes på alle virksomheder under lignende omstændigheder på grundlag af lovdekret nr. 411/91, hvorfor dette ikke udgjorde en specifik fordel for RTP.
Furthermore, the Commission cannot agree with the Portuguese authorities that the authorisation for the debt rescheduling and for the waiver of fines and interest was given within the framework of a general system applicable to all undertakings in a similar situation on the basis of Decree-Law No 411/91 and therefore did not confer a specific advantage on RTP.
Formålet med nærværende beslutning er at afgøre, om anvendelsen af ordningen på RTP var selektiv uden i øvrigt at tage stilling til den generelle eller selektive karakter.
Without prejudging the selective or general nature of such a scheme, the purpose of the present decision is to determine whether the application of the scheme to RTP was selective.
For at afgøre om omlægningen var en forudsætning for at sikre virksomhedens rentabilitet, stiller lovdekret nr. 411/91 krav om udarbejdelse af en økonomisk-finansiel undersøgelse.
In order to prove that the rescheduling is indispensable to ensure the viability of the company, Decree-Law No 411/91 requires a financial/economic study to be carried out.
RTP udarbejdede aldrig en sådan rentabilitetsundersøgelse i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 3, i lovdekret nr. 411/91.
RTP never carried out such a study of its viability pursuant to Article 2(3) of Decree-Law No 411/91.
Desuden fandt betingelsen i artikel 2, stk. 1, litra d), ikke anvendelse på RTP, da gældsomlægningen ikke fandt sted som følge af statens indgriben.
Furthermore, the condition laid down in Article 2(1)(d) was not applicable to RTP as the debt regularisation did not follow state intervention.
Kommissionen er ikke enig med de portugisiske myndigheder, som hævder, at tidligere statslig indgriben påvirkede debitorvirksomhedens drift, og at RTP blev styret af lovregler på tidspunktet for den statslige indgriben.
The Commission does not agree with the Portuguese authorities, which claim that the history of state intervention affected the operation of the debtor enterprise and that RTP was governed by statutory rules at the time of the state intervention.
Selv om RTP var underlagt en særlig forvaltningsordning i 1977 [66], sluttede denne ordning med vedtagelsen af RTP's vedtægter i 1980, hvorimod til socialsikringsmyndighederne kumuleredes i perioden 1983-1989.
Although RTP was subject to a special management regime in 1977 [66], this regime came to an end with the adoption of the 1980 statutes, whereas the debt to the social security scheme was built up in the period 1983 to 1989.
Kommissionen mener, at RTP's tilladelse til gældsomlægning ikke kan anses for at have fundet sted inden for rammerne af en generel ordning i overensstemmelse med lovdekret nr. 411/91, da RTP ikke opfyldte kriterierne i loven til at få tilladelse til gældsomlægning.
The Commission considers that the debt regularisation for RTP cannot be considered part of a general regime under Law No 411/91 as RTP did not meet the criteria laid down in this Law for such authorisation.
Foranstaltningen blev således anvendt selektiv på RTP.
Therefore, the measure was applied in a selective manner to RTP.
Ved at tillade gældsomlægningen skulle staten endvidere have handlet som en offentlig eller privat kreditor, som søger at få tilbagebetalt skyldige beløb og derfor indgår gældsomlægningsaftaler med henblik på at lette tilbagebetalingen [67].
Furthermore, by granting the debt rescheduling, the State should have acted like a public or private creditor that seeks to recover sums due to it and, to that end, concludes debt rescheduling agreements to facilitate payment [67].
Statens morarentesats bør svare til den sats, som en privat kreditor ville anvende under identiske omstændigheder.
The rate of default interest applied by the State should be equal to the rate a private creditor would apply in similar circumstances.
Kommissionen mener, at en privat kreditor, der forsøger at indlede et søgsmål for at få tilbagebetalt de skyldige beløb, i det mindste vil opnå den officielle rentesats.
The Commission considers that a private creditor that pursued the recovery of the debt by legal means would obtain at least the statutory interest rate.
Ved ikke at kræve rentebetaling på trods af fuldbyrdelsesordninger handlede de portugisiske myndigheder derfor ikke i overensstemmelse med, hvad en privat kreditor ville have gjort for at maksimere rentesatsen.
Therefore, by not requiring any interest payments at all, despite available enforcement mechanisms, the Portuguese authorities did not act like a private creditor would have done in order to maximise the rate of interest.
Gælden til socialsikringsmyndighederne kumuleredes endvidere i tidsrummet 1983-1989 og omlægningen finder først sted i 1993.
Furthermore, the debt with the social security scheme built up in the period 1983 to 1989 and a rescheduling arrangement was agreed only in 1993.
En privat kreditor ville under sådanne omstændigheder ikke have tilladt en lignende gældskumulering gennem et så langt tidsrum uden at indlede en inddrivelsesprocedure.
Under the same conditions a private creditor would not have allowed a similar accumulation of outstanding debt over such a long period without initiating collection procedures.
En sådan foranstaltning synes derfor at give en specifik fordel til RTP.
Therefore, it seems that the measure conferred a specific advantage on RTP.
For så vidt angår betalingerne for overførslen af nettet til transport og udsendelse af tv-signaler, har Kommissionen ikke kunnet tage de bemærkninger fra tredjemand i betragtning, som stiller spørgsmålstegn ved beregningen af radiospredningsnettets værdi.
As regards the payments for the hiving-off of the television signals network, the Commission cannot take into account the comments of third parties that question the calculation of the value of the broadcasting network.
Kommissionen havde allerede i sin beslutning af 2. oktober 1996 om finansieringen af RTP konkluderet, at den pris, som staten betalte til RTP for nettet, svarede til markedsværdien og ikke udgjorde statsstøtte [68].
The Commission already concluded in its decision of 2 October 1996 on the financing of RTP that the price paid by the State to RTP for the network represented the market value and did not constitute state aid [68].
Denne konklusion blev ikke bestridt af SIC over for Førsteinstansretten [69].
This conclusion was not contested by SIC before the Court of First Instance [69].
Kommissionen er endvidere ikke enig med de bemærkninger, der hævder, at kompensationen ikke var berettiget grundet i det forhold, at nettet til transport og udsendelse af tv-signaler var opbygget med statslig finansiering.
Furthermore, the Commission does not agree with the comments to the effect that the compensation is not justified because the television network has been built with the help of state financing.
Kommissionen mener, at statens funktion som investor ikke bør forveksles med statens funktion som offentlig myndighed.
It considers that the function of the State as an investor should not be confused with its function as a public authority.
Selv om staten ejede RTP 100 % og havde besiddet 100 % af TDP, ville de to virksomheder af gennemsigtighedsårsager have været juridisk og økonomisk uafhængige.
Although the State is the sole owner of RTP and became the sole owner of TDP, the two companies should, for transparency reasons, be legally and financially independent.
Nettet var en del af RTP's aktiver.
The network was part of the assets of RTP.
Det følger heraf, at en kompensation fra staten til den offentlige virksomhed RTP for markedsværdien af nettet, som man havde besluttet at udskille fra RTP's aktiver, ikke giver nogen økonomisk fordel til sidstnævnte, da kompensationen svarede til aktivernes faktiske værdi.
Therefore, the compensation granted by the State to the public company RTP in respect of the market value of the network, which it had decided to split off from the assets of RTP, does not confer any financial advantage on RTP as the compensation matched the real value of those assets.
Foranstaltningen giver således ikke nogen fordel til RTP og udgør ikke statsstøtte som omhandlet i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
And so, the measure does not confer an advantage on RTP and does not, therefore, constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Efter at have vurderet bemærkningerne fra tredjemand og de portugisiske myndigheder konkluderede Kommissionen, at kapitalforhøjelserne i 1994-1997 gav RTP en økonomisk fordel.
After considering the comments from third parties and the Portuguese authorities, the Commission concludes that the capital increases in the period 1994 to 1997 provided a financial advantage for RTP.
Som det fremgår af tabel 3 ville ingen privat investor i betragtning af RTP's svage økonomiske situation på tidspunktet for kapitalforhøjelserne have tilført virksomheden kapital, idet det ikke kunne forventes, at virksomheden genfandt nogen form for normal rentabilitet inden for et rimeligt tidsrum.
As can be seen from Table 3, considering the weak financial position of RTP in the period when the capital increases were made, no private investor would have injected capital into the company as no normal return could be expected from the company within a reasonable time.
På trods af kapitaltilførslerne forværredes RTP's økonomiske situation sig også faktisk.
In fact, despite the capital injections, the financial position of RTP deteriorated.
Hverken de portugisiske myndigheder eller tredjemand hævdede, at den portugisiske stat handlede som en privat investor på tidspunktet for kapitaltilførslerne til virksomheden.
Neither the Portuguese authorities nor third parties alleged that the Portuguese State acted as a private investor when injecting capital into the company.
Kommissionen er ikke enig med de portugisiske myndigheder i det forhold, at lånet fra 1998 skulle være ydet på markedsvilkår.
The Commission does not agree with the Portuguese authorities that the loan granted in 1998 was in conformity with market conditions.
For ikke at udgøre statsstøtte skal betingelserne i forbindelse med et lån (den tilknyttede sikkerhedsstillelse og rentesatsen) afspejle den iboende risiko ved en lånetransaktion til en virksomhed [70].
For the loan not to constitute state aid, the conditions attached to it (the security sought and the interest rate) should reflect the inherent risk of lending to an undertaking [70].
Risikoen, og dermed rentesatsen, er højere, når virksomheden befinder sig i en økonomisk situation, hvor soliditeten er mindre end, hvad en finansieringsinstitution normalt kræver i forbindelse med sin långivning.
The risk and subsequently the interest rate are higher when a company is in an economic and financial situation the soundness of which is below the level at which a financial institution would lend to it.
Som det fremgår af tabel 3, befandt RTP sig på tidspunktet for indgåelsen af låneaftalen i alvorlige økonomiske vanskeligheder, da gælden oversteg værdien af virksomhedens aktiver og nettobalancen var negativ.
As can be seen from Table 3, at the time the loan was agreed, RTP was in severe financial difficulties to the extent that its debts exceeded the value of its assets and net equity was negative.
Virksomheden var således teknisk insolvent.
Technically, the company was bankrupt.
For det første skal det bemærkes, at lånet udgjorde ansvarlig lånekapital, dvs. uden nogen sikkerhed i aktiverne, hvorfor tilbagebetalingen i tilfælde af virksomhedens konkurs skulle prioriteres efter samtlige kreditorer, men før aktionærerne.
Firstly, it should be borne in mind that the loan was a subordinated loan, i.e. it had no asset-based security and, in the case of bankruptcy, it ranked for repayment purposes after all creditors but before shareholders.