natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
STER's priser er beregnet på basis af prognoser fra reklamebureauer, konkurrenters priser og på basis af prishistorien.
The rates charged by the STER are calculated on the basis of forecasts from advertising agencies, competitors' rates and price history.
Tabel 1 viser udviklingen i seerandel for de public service radio/tv-selskaber, for hvilke STER står for salg af reklamer.
Table 1 below shows the evolution of the audience share of the public service broadcasters for which STER manages the sale of advertising.
Seerandelen (seere fra 13 år) er faldet i de seneste år fra 38,8 % i 1997 til 35,4 % i 2005.
The audience share of viewers aged 13+ has declined in recent years from 38,8 in 1997 to 35,4 % in 2005.
For segmentet 20-49 år er seerandelen endda lavere, nemlig 27,2 %.
For the 20-49 category, the audience share is even lower, at 27,2 %.
Seerandel fra 13 år og 20-49 år (18.00-24.00), 1997-2005
Audience share 13+ and 20-49 years old (18.00h - 24.00h), 1997 - 2005
Brev fra de nederlandske myndigheder af 24. februar 2006.
Letter of 24.2.2006 from Dutch authorities.
I 1994 oversteg de kommercielle radio/tv-selskabers brutto- (baseret på listepriser) og netto- (under hensyntagen til rabatter) indtægter fra reklamer de offentlige radio/tv-selskabers indtægter.
Since 1994, the gross revenue (based on list prices) and net revenue (taking into account discounts granted) generated by the commercial broadcasters on the advertising market have exceeded the revenue generated by the public broadcasters.
Bruttoindtægter fra tv-reklamer 1994-2005 (beløb × 1 mio. EUR)
Gross revenues from TV advertising 1994 - 2005 (amounts x €1 million)
Kommercielle radio/tv-selskaber
Commercial broadcasters
Nettoindtægter fra tv-reklamer 1994-2005 (beløb × 1 mio. EUR)
Net revenues from TV advertising, 1994 - 2005 (amounts x €1 million)
Som det fremgår af ovenstående tabeller, er der forskel på bruttoindtægterne fra tv-reklamer og indtægterne efter fradrag af rabatter.
As can be inferred from Tables 1, 2 and 3, there is a difference between gross revenues from TV advertising and revenues net of discounts.
Ifølge de nederlandske myndigheder er public service radio/tv-selskabernes priser ikke blot højere, de rabatter, de yder, er også lavere sammenlignet med de kommercielle radio/tv-selskaber.
According to the Dutch authorities, not only are the published tariffs of the public service broadcasters higher, but also the discounts that they grant are lower in comparison with commercial broadcasters.
NOS RTV's erhvervelse af fodboldrettigheder
Acquisition of football rights by the NOS RTV
I undersøgelsesperioden erhvervede NOS RTV senderettigheder til flere store fodboldbegivenheder.
During the period under investigation the NOS RTV obtained broadcasting rights for several important football events.
Det kommercielle radio/tv-selskab Canal+ (betalings-tv) erhvervede rettigheder til direkte transmission af kampe i den nederlandske første division (eredivisie).
The commercial broadcaster Canal+ (pay-TV) obtained the rights for the live matches of the Dutch premier league.
NOS RTV gav også delvist rettighederne til Champions League i underlicens til Canal+.
The rights for the Champions League were also partly sublicensed to Canal+ by the NOS RTV.
Det kommercielle radio/tv-selskab SBS erhvervede senderettigheder til to nationale fodbold cup-kampe.
The commercial broadcaster SBS obtained the broadcasting rights of two national football cups.
Det fik også rettigheder til de nederlandske kampe i første division og kvalifikationskampene for det nederlandske EM-hold i 2004.
It also obtained the rights to the Dutch first division matches and the qualification matches of the Dutch team for the European Championship 2004.
Senderettighederne til forskellige udenlandske fodboldturneringer ejes af CLT-UFA, der er Europas største tv-foretagende (moderselskab for f.eks. RTL).
The broadcasting rights for various foreign football competitions are held by CLT-UFA, Europe's largest broadcasting group (the parent company of e.g. RTL).
Forholdet mellem radio/tv-selskaber og kabeloperatører
Relation between broadcasters and cable operators
I nederlandsk lovgivning betragtes traditionel kabeltransmission som en separat offentlig fremførelse ud fra et ophavsretligt synspunkt.
Traditional cable transmission is seen as a separate publication for the purpose of copyright under Dutch law.
I princippet kræves alle rettighedshavernes tilladelse, og rettighedshaveren kan kræve betaling hos kabeloperatøren for den offentlige fremførelse.
In principle, the permission of all copyright holders is required, and the copyright holder may claim a payment from the cable operator for the publication.
Siden 1985 har der været en aftale mellem VECAI (der repræsenterer kabeloperatørerne) og NOS RTV (der repræsenterer public service-radio/tv-selskaberne), ifølge hvilken kabeloperatørerne er fritaget for at betale et ophavsretligt vederlag til public service-radio/tv-selskaberne (rettighedshaverne), når deres programmer sendes via kabel.
Since 1985 there has been an agreement between the VECAI (representing the cable operators) and the NOS RTV (representing the public broadcasters) under which the cable operators are exempted from making copyright payments to the public broadcasters (the copyright holders) when their programmes are transmitted via cable.
Denne aftale blev indgået efter anmodning fra den nederlandske regering med den begrundelse, at borgerne allerede betalte en afgift for public service-tv.
This agreement was made at the request of the Dutch Government, on the grounds that citizens already paid a contribution for public broadcasting.
Man mente, at hvis kabeloperatørerne skulle betale et ophavsretligt vederlag, ville det medføre højere kabelafgifter, og det ville ikke være ønskeligt.
It was considered that a copyright payment from cable operators, which could result in higher cable subscription fees, would be undesirable.
De kommercielle radio/tv-selskaber har heller ikke opkrævet et ophavsretligt vederlag hos kabeloperatørerne.
Commercial broadcasters have not asked for copyright payments from the cable operators either.
Det har imidlertid intet at gøre med ovennævnte aftale med public service-radio/tv-selskaberne.
However, this is not related to the aforementioned agreement with the public service broadcasters.
Det skal bemærkes, at kabeloperatørerne er retligt forpligtet til at sende alle public service-radio/tv-selskabers radio- og tv-programmer (»must carry«-forpligtelse), og de kan ikke pålægge radio/tv-selskaberne sendeomkostningerne.
It should be noted that cable operators are legally obliged to transmit all the public broadcasters' radio and TV programmes (‘must carry’ obligation) and cannot charge broadcasters for the transmission costs.
Foranstaltninger, der er omfattet af denne beslutning
The measures subject to this Decision
Som det fremgår af beslutningen om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, er følgende foranstaltninger omfattet af denne beslutning:
As set out in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the following measures are the subject of this Decision:
Betalinger som nævnt i artikel 106a og 170c i medieloven til radio/tv-selskaber, som Kommissionen har betegnet som ad hoc-betalinger.
The payments to the broadcasters, referred to in Article 106a and 170c of the Media Act, which are categorized by the Commission as ad hoc payments. These are:
Betalinger fra fonden for koproduktion (CoBo).
payments from the Co-production Fund (CoBo).
CoBo består af to specifikke delfonde, filmfonden og telefilm-projektet.
The CoBo Fund consists of two specific sub-funds, the Film Fund and the Telefilm project.
Staten ydede 31,7 mio. EUR i tilskud til public service-radio/tv-selskaberne i perioden 1994-2005 via CoBo-fonden.
In the period 1994-2005 the State granted €31,7 million to the public broadcasters via the CoBo Fund.
Garanteret adgang til kabel eller den såkaldte »must-carry«-forpligtelse (som nævnt i artikel 82i i medieloven).
Ensured access to the cable, known as the ‘must carry’ obligation, laid down in Article 82i of the Media Act.
NOB's gratis tilvejebringelse af tekniske faciliteter (som nævnt i artikel 89 og 90 i medieloven).
Provision of technical facilities by NOB free of charge, provided for in Articles 89 and 90 of the Media Act.
BEGRUNDELSE FOR AT INDLEDE PROCEDUREN OG PARTERNES ARGUMENTER
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
RESUME AF BEGRUNDELSEN FOR AT INDLEDE PROCEDUREN
3 SUMMARY OF THE GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Efter den indledende undersøgelse mente Kommissionen, at nogle af foranstaltningerne, eventuelt med undtagelse af »must carry«-forpligtelsen, udgjorde statsstøtte efter EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
After its initial investigation, the Commission concluded that certain measures, with the possible exception of the ‘must carry’ obligation, constituted state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Kommissionen udtrykte endvidere tvivl om, hvorvidt en sådan statsstøtte var forenelig ifølge EF-traktatens artikel 86, stk. 2.
The Commission also expressed doubts about the compatibility of such state aid under Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty.
Hvad angår støttens proportionalitet, gav Kommissionen udtryk for tvivl om, hvorvidt omkostninger og indtægter er fordelt på grundlag af klart fastsatte omkostningsregnskabsprincipper.
Regarding the proportionality of the funding, the Commission doubted whether costs and revenues were allocated according to clearly established cost accounting principles.
Kommissionen rejste også tvivl om, hvorvidt der fuldt ud var taget højde for public service-indtægter ved beregningen af behovet for statsstøtte, hvilket kan betyde, at støtten overstiger nettoomkostningerne ved public service-forpligtelsen.
The Commission doubted whether non-public service revenues were fully taken into account when calculating the need for state funding, leading to a risk of funding going beyond the net costs of the public service.
Endvidere vurderede Kommissionen, at midlerne i FOR og programreserverne kunne tyde på en strukturel overkompensation.
Furthermore, the Commission considered that the level of funds in the FOR and the programme reserves was an indication of structural over-compensation.
Kommissionen bemærkede, at ud af de samlede ad hoc-betalinger var et beløb på 110 mio. EUR (baseret på tal fra 2001) ikke blevet brugt.
The Commission noted that, of the total ad hoc payments, an amount of €110 million (based on figures of 2001) had not been used.
Endvidere meddelte Kommissionen, at den havde til hensigt at undersøge, om der ikke var tale om ulovlig konkurrenceforvridning på de kommercielle markeder.
Moreover, the Commission expressed its intention to investigate whether competition in commercial markets had been unlawfully distorted.
Kommissionen understregede, at en sådan konkurrenceforvridning kunne forekomme på markedet for reklame, intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder til kabeltransmission og rettigheder til fodboldtransmissioner.
The Commission stressed that such distortion of competition could occur in the markets for advertising, intellectual property rights for cable transmission and football transmission rights.
Endelig har NOB ikke ret til at fakturere public service radio/tv-selskaber for levering af tjenester, men selskabet modtager betaling for denne opgave direkte fra staten.
Finally, the NOB is not allowed to charge the public broadcasters for the services it provides, but receives payments for this task directly from the State.
Kommissionen bemærkede, at den gratis tilvejebringelse af tekniske faciliteter kan udgøre støtte til public service-radio/tv-selskaberne.
The Commission noted that the provision of technical facilities free of charge could constitute aid to the public broadcasters.
Der er indkommet følgende kommentarer vedrørende denne beslutning.
The following comments relevant for this Decision were provided.
De nederlandske radio/tv-selskaber hævdede, at de omhandlede foranstaltninger skulle betragtes som eksisterende støtte, da de udgør en del af det generelle finansieringssystem for public service-radio/tv-virksomhed.
The Dutch public broadcasters argued that the measures in question should be considered existing aid because they constitute part of the general financing system for public broadcasting.
Endvidere bemærkede de, at Kommissionen kun skulle vurdere finansieringen af public service-radio/tv-virksomhed i lyset af Amsterdam-protokollen og ikke anvende kriterierne i Altmark-dommen eller EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, eller artikel 86, stk. 2.
Moreover, they remarked that the Commission should assess the financing of public broadcasting only in the light of the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States, annexed to the EC Treaty (hereinafter ‘Amsterdam Protocol’), and should not apply the criteria of the Altmark judgment or Article 87(1) or 86(2) of the EC Treaty.
CLT-UFA bemærkede, at først efter 2002 kunne public service-radio/tv-selskabernes regnskaber revideres og godkendes af en uafhængig revisor.
CLT-UFA noted that it was not until 2002 that the accounts of the public service broadcasting system could be verified and approved by an independent accountant.
Public service-radio/tv-selskaberne bemærkede, at der ikke er tale om en overkompensation på 110 mio. EUR som anført af Kommissionen.
The public broadcasters commented that there is no over-compensation of €110 million as stated by the Commission.
For det første arbejder public service-radio/tv-selskaber og den offentlige forvaltning med forskellige regnskabssystemer.
First of all, the public broadcasters and the government work with different accounting systems.
Den offentlige forvaltning arbejder med indbetalingstidspunktet som regnskabsprincip, og public service-radio/tv-selskaberne med transaktionstidspunktet som regnskabsprincip.
The government works on a cash receipts basis of accounting and the public broadcasters work on the basis of costs and revenues which are entered in the accounts at the moment of the transaction.
Det giver for forskellige situationer.
This causes discrepancies.
Endvidere er FOR's indtægter ifølge public service-radio/tv-selskaberne øremærket til specifikke fremtidige mål.
In addition, the revenues of the FOR are, according to the public broadcasters, earmarked for specific future goals.
De anførte også, at overskydende finansiering ikke kan føre til forvridning på andre markeder, da finansieringen kun kan bruges til public service-aktiviteter.
Moreover, they commented that the excess financing cannot lead to distortions in other markets, as this financing can only be used for the public service activities.
ACT anførte, at STER optræder konkurrenceforvridende ved at underbyde priserne på reklamemarkedet.
ACT stated that STER behaves in an anti-competitive manner by undercutting prices in the advertising market.
ACT anførte, at da public service-radio/tv-selskabers samlede årlige reklametid er mere begrænset end de kommercielle radio/tv-selskabers, burde STER's priser være højere end kommercielle operatørers.
It argues that since the total annual advertising time of public broadcasters is more limited than that of commercial broadcasters, the STER should charge higher prices than commercial operators.
SBS Broadcasting bekræftede, at priserne på det nederlandske marked for tv-reklamer er fastsat for GRP (Gross Rating Point), kategori 20-49.
SBS Broadcasting confirmed that prices in the Dutch television advertising market are set for GRP (Gross Rating Point) category 20-49.
Da public service-radio/tv-selskaberne imidlertid tiltrækker flere seere end kommercielle radio/tv-selskaber uden for denne seergruppe, vil annoncører være villige til at betale et tillæg for GRP 20-49.
However, as the public broadcasters attract more viewers than commercial broadcasters outside this viewer group, advertisers would be willing to pay a premium on the GRP 20-49.
Derfor vil en sammenligning af GRP 20-49 ikke afspejle den økonomiske virkelighed for produktet.
Therefore, a comparison of the GRP 20-49 would not convey the economic reality of the product.
Endvidere bemærkede SBS, at for GRP 13+ opererer public service-radio/tv-selskaberne med lavere priser end de kommercielle radio/tv-selskaber.
Moreover, SBS remarked that for GRP 13+ public broadcasters set lower prices than commercial broadcasters.
Til støtte for kommentarerne fremsendte SBS oversigter over de gennemsnitlige priser for GRP 13+ for de forskellige kanaler i prime time i tidsrummet 1995-2004 og pr. måned i 2003 og 2004, der viser, at public service-radio/tv-selskabernes priser er lavere end de kommercielle operatørers priser.
To support its comments SBS submitted overviews of the average gross GRP 13+ prices for the different channels during prime time in 1995-2004 and per month in 2003 and 2004, which show that those of public broadcasters are lower than those of most commercial operators.
Ifølge CLT-UFA har NOS RTV betalt overdrevent høje priser for fodboldrettigheder.
According to CLT-UFA the NOS RTV has paid excessive prices for football rights.
Priserne skulle være langt over markedspriserne.
The prices were far above market prices.
CLT-UFA har fremsendt beregningsmodeller for at vise, hvordan de beregner priserne for fodboldrettigheder, på basis af hvilke CLT-UFA konkluderede, at NOS RTV's bud på rettighederne til Champions League kampene i 2002 var betydeligt højere end CLT-UFA's.
CLT-UFA submitted calculation models to show how they calculate the prices for football rights and concluded on this basis that the bid made by the NOS RTV for the rights for the Champions League matches of 2002 was significantly higher than that made by CLT-UFA.
ACT og CLT-UFA mente endvidere, at Kommissionen ikke kunne nå til den konklusion, at der er utilstrækkeligt bevis for overbetaling af fodboldrettigheder på grundlag af et eksempel, hvor en kommerciel operatør kan have budt over.
ACT and CLT-UFA considered, moreover, that the Commission should not reach the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of overpayment of football rights on the basis of one example where a commercial operator may have overbid.
VECAI (sammenslutningen af kabeloperatører) rejser to spørgsmål.
The association of cable operators, VECAI, raises two issues.
For det første mener VECAI, at de kabeloperatører, der er underkastet »must-carry«-forpligtelsen burde kunne opkræve betaling hos de relevante radio/tv-selskaber.
First of all, it considers that the cable operators who are subject to the ‘must carry’ obligation should be able to ask for a payment from the relevant broadcasters.
På grund af »must carry«-forpligtelsen har public service-radio/tv-selskaberne ikke betalt en afgift for transmission af signalet via kabelnetværk.
Due to the ‘must carry’ obligation, the public broadcasters have not paid a fee for the transmission of the signal over the cable networks.
For det andet anførte VECAI, at kabeloperatørerne faktisk betaler en afgift til de organisationer, der forvalter rettigheder på vegne af NOS RTV, men NOS RTV og den nederlandske regering betragter dette som et administrationsgebyr.
Secondly, VECAI argued that the cable operators actually do pay a fee to the organisations which manage rights on behalf of the NOS RTV, but the NOS RTV and the Dutch Government regard this as a management fee.
Ifølge VECAI er det et skjult vederlag for intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder.
According to the VECAI it is a fee for intellectual property rights in disguise.
De nederlandske myndigheder anfører, at Kommissionens formodning om, at de omhandlede foranstaltninger ikke er en del af den regelmæssige årlige finansiering af public service-radio/tv-selskaberne er forkert.
The Dutch authorities state that the Commission's assumption that the relevant measures are not part of the regular, annual financing of the public broadcasters as part of the state funding is erroneous.
Den finansiering, der behandles i denne undersøgelse, stammer fra den regelmæssige finansieringsmekanisme og indgik fuldt ud i den budgetplanlægning, der har ført til betalingerne til public service-radio/tv-selskaber.
The financing which is the subject of the investigation stems from the regular financing mechanism and was an integral part of the budget planning which led to the payments to the public broadcasters.
Ifølge myndighederne indgår FOR, udligningsmidlerne, CoBo og betalingerne til NOB i den regelmæssige årlige finansieringsmekanisme.
According to the authorities, the FOR, the matching funds, the CoBo Fund and the payments to the NOB are part of the regular, annual financing mechanism.
Om nødvendigt bør den sag, som denne procedure omhandler, betragtes som forenelig støtte efter EF-traktatens artikel 86, stk. 2, som følge af principperne i Amsterdam-protokollen.
If necessary, the subject of the present procedure should be qualified as compatible aid within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, within the context of the principles laid down in the Amsterdam Protocol.
Det beløb, som Kommissionen indledningsvis angav som mulig overkompensation, er forkert.
The amount provisionally indicated by the Commission as possible over-compensation is erroneous.
Det er beregnet på basis af midler, der fejlagtigt er blevet kvalificeret som reserver.
This was inferred from the resources of funds which were wrongly qualified as reserves.
Da brugen af disse midler er fastsat på forhånd og underlagt kontrol, kan der ikke være tale om overkompensation.
Since the use of these funds is pre-determined and is subject to control there cannot be over-compensation.
Endvidere anfører myndighederne, at hvis de omhandlede foranstaltninger skal karakteriseres som statsstøtte, bør støtten betragtes som eksisterende statsstøtte i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 88.
Moreover, the authorities argue that if the measures concerned are deemed to be state aid, the aid should be considered to be existing state aid within the meaning of Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty.
De nederlandske myndigheder understreger, at regnskaberne for de individuelle offentlige radio/tv-selskaber altid har været underlagt en uafhængig revisors godkendelse.
The Dutch authorities point out that the accounts of the individual public broadcasting associations have always been subject to approval by an independent accountant.
De nederlandske myndigheder mener, at sportstransmissioner af populære og mindre populære sportsbegivenheder falder inden for definitionen af public service-radio/tv-selskabers hovedopgaver.
The Dutch authorities consider that broadcasts of popular and less popular sports fall within the definition of the main task of the public broadcasters.
De nederlandske myndigheder mener ikke, at offentlige radio/tv-selskaber ved fastsættelsen af deres bud betalte mere, end hvad der var nødvendigt for at sikre sig erhvervelsen af vigtige rettigheder i relation til deres public service-opgaver og overordnede programlægning.
The Dutch authorities consider that, when determining their bid for transmission rights, public broadcasters did not pay more than was necessary to secure the acquisition of important rights in relation to their public service mission and overall programming.
Myndighederne gentager, at NOB's public service-opgave er en integreret del af public service-systemet.
The authorities reiterate that the public service mission of the NOB is part of the public broadcasting system.
Det forhold, at de offentlige radio/tv-selskaber ikke skal betale for NOB's tjenester, betyder ikke, at støtten ydes som tilskud til public service-radio/tv-selskaber.
The fact that NOB does not charge the public broadcasters for the service it provides does not imply that aid is granted to the public service broadcasters.
De nederlandske myndigheder anfører, at eftersom de kommercielle operatører heller ikke opkræver et ophavsretligt vederlag hos kabeloperatører, må NOS RTV siges at optræde som en normal markedsøkonomisk operatør på dette særlige marked.
The Dutch authorities state that, given that the commercial operators do not demand copyright payments from cable operators either, the NOS RTV could be said to be acting as a normal market operator in the circumstances of this particular market.