natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Derudover findes der en række andre rabatter (for nye annoncører, mindre attraktive reklameblokke, yderligere volumenrabatter osv.).
In addition, there are a number of other discounts (for new advertisers, less attractive advertising slots, additional volume rebates etc.).
Det er såkaldte mediebureauer, der står for forhandlingen og formidlingen af disse aftaler.
The agreements are negotiated and facilitated by so-called media agencies.
I 1997 traf TV2 den strategiske beslutning, at TV2 ikke skulle øge sin kapacitetsudnyttelse, men derimod forhøje sine priser i 1998.
In 1997, TV2 took the strategic decision not to expand capacity utilisation but to increase its prices in 1998.
En yderligere prisforhøjelse blev foretaget i 1999.
Another price increase was made in 1999.
De danske myndigheder hævder, at konkurrencen i 1999 var blevet så intens, at TV2 havde problemer som følge af prisforhøjelsen, og TV2's reklameindtægter faldt således med ca. 10 % i forhold til året før.
The Danish authorities contend that by 1999 the competitive situation had become so intense that TV2 suffered as a result of the price increase and its advertising revenue fell by around 10 % from the previous year.
På trods af de stigende priser faldt TV2's reklameindtægter og kapacitetsudnyttelse tilbage til niveauet fra 1999.
Despite the price increase, its advertising revenue and capacity utilisation dropped back to the 1999 level.
I 2002 foretog TV2 en ny prisnedsættelse og fik en mindre tilbagegang i den samlede omsætning.
In 2002, TV2 cut prices yet again and experienced a slight drop in total turnover.
Som følge af den tætte forbindelse på grund af tilbagesøgningsspørgsmålet bør den rekapitalisering af TV2, der blev foretaget i 2004, ses i sammenhæng med den statsstøtte, der blev ydet i årene mellem 1995 og 2002, således at det sikres, at der ikke er nogen risiko for en overkompensering af TV2.
Because of their close link due to the recovery issue, the 2004 recapitalisation measures in favour of TV2 should be seen in conjunction with the State aid granted between 1995 and 2002 so as to ensure that there is no risk of TV2 receiving overcompensation.
I den forbindelse bemærker Kommissionen følgende.
In this connection, the Commission notes the following.
Ved brev af 5. april 2000 modtog Kommissionen en klage fra det kommercielle danske tv-selskab SBS Broadcasting SA/TvDanmark (herefter benævnt »SBS/TvDanmark«) over den statslige finansiering af det danske public service tv-selskab TV2/Danmark (herefter benævnt »TV2 [3]«). Et møde med klageren fandt sted den 3. maj 2000. Ved breve af 28. februar 2001, 3. maj 2001 og 11. december 2001 fremsendte klageren yderligere oplysninger.
By letter of 5 April 2000, the Commission received a complaint from the Danish commercial television company SBS Broadcasting SA/TVDanmark (hereinafter ‘SBS/TVDanmark’) regarding the State financing of the Danish public service television broadcaster TV2/Danmark (hereinafter ‘TV2’ [3]. A meeting took place with the complainant on 3 May 2000. By letters of 28 February 2001, 3 May 2001 and 11 December 2001, the complainant submitted additional information.
Den 22. oktober 2008 [9] annullerede Førsteinstansretten (nu »Retten«) Kommissionens tilbagesøgningsbeslutning, men stadfæstede rækkevidden af TV2's public service-opgave (»dommen«). Denne dom blev ikke appelleret.
On 22 October 2008 [9], while confirming the scope of TV2’s public service mission, the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) annulled the Commission’s recovery decision (the ‘judgment’). No appeal was lodged.
Desuden afsagde Retten under retssagen i rekapitaliseringssagen [10] den 24. september 2009 en kendelse (»kendelsen«), hvori den statuerede, at det var ufornødent at træffe afgørelse i sagen. For ifølge præmis 35 i Rettens kendelse er der en snæver sammenhæng mellem tilbagesøgningsbeslutningen og rekapitaliseringsbeslutningen. Retten fandt, at rekapitaliseringsbeslutningen på grund af annullationen af tilbagesøgningsbeslutningen var blevet meningsløs og overflødig. Den udtalte, at »skønt de særlige omstændigheder i denne sag fik Kommissionen til at vedtage to beslutninger, er det klart, at disse to beslutninger omhandlede to aspekter ved den samme sag, der drejede sig om, hvorvidt de foranstaltninger, Kongeriget Danmark havde iværksat for TV2, sidenhen TV2 A/S, udgjorde statsstøtte efter EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, og i så fald, om denne statsstøtte var forenelig med fællesmarkedet [11]«. Som følge af annullationen af tilbagesøgningsbeslutningen måtte der derfor foretages en »fornyet undersøgelse af alle de foranstaltninger, Kongeriget Danmark iværksatte for TV2«. Denne kendelse blev ikke appelleret.
In addition the Court issued an order [10] (the ‘order’) in the recapitalisation case, stating that there was no need to take a decision. In paragraph 35 of the grounds, the Court found there was a close link between the recovery and the recapitalisation decisions. The Court held that the annulment of the recovery decision rendered the recapitalisation decision devoid of any substance and meaning. It stated that ‘[a]lthough the specific circumstances of the present case prompted the Commission to adopt two decisions, it is apparent that those decisions constitute two aspects of the same legal issue relating to the classification as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and, if so, to the determination of their compatibility with the common market, of the measures implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark for TV2 and subsequently TV2 A/S’ [11]. The annulment of the recovery decision therefore called for a ‘fresh examination of all the measures implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark for TV2’. The order was not appealed.
Eftersom TV3, 3+ og TvDanmarks kanal 1 sendes på britisk sendetilladelse, gælder disse regler kun for TvDanmark2.
Under those orders, network stations that obtain a local television broadcasting licence must transmit local programmes for at least 1 hour a day and produce a significant share of their programming in Danish or for a Danish audience. As TV3, 3 + and TVDanmark’s first channel are broadcast under a British licence, these rules only apply to TVDanmark2.
I beretningen sammenlignes der desuden med andre public service-stationer, og det drejer sig altså ikke om en »typisk« tv-station. Det er f.eks. ikke godtgjort, at omkostningerne i DR, som ikke kan skaffe sig indtægter ved hjælp af reklamer, og hvis kompensation fastlægges på grundlag af den samme medieaftale som TV2's, svarer til en »typisk« tv-stations.
Furthermore, the report made a comparison with other public service broadcasters and therefore did not deal with the costs of a ‘typical’ broadcaster. For example, it did not establish that the costs of DR, which is not allowed to generate income through advertising and whose level of compensation was determined under the same media agreement as TV2, were those of a typical undertaking.
F.eks. hedder det i punkt 51 i beretningen, at »BBC og SVT har i den undersøgte periode haft en nogenlunde ens omkostningsudvikling, nemlig en stigning på ca. 50 % målt i faste priser, mens omkostningerne målt i faste priser steg med ca. 60 % for NRK's vedkommende.
For example, paragraph 51 of the report states that ‘During the period in question, the BBC and SVT saw an almost identical rise in costs, an increase of approximately 50 % in real terms, while NRK’s costs increased by approximately 60 % in real terms.
Som tidligere nævnt steg omkostningerne målt i faste priser med 23 % i DR og med 63 % i TV2.
As mentioned above, DR’s costs increased by 23 % in real terms, and TV2’s by 63 %.
Da antallet af sendetimer i SVT og BBC som nævnt ikke er steget i samme udstrækning som i de øvrige stationer, har omkostningsudviklingen betydet, at produktiviteten i BBC og SVT ikke er blevet forbedret på samme vis som i de 3 øvrige public service-stationer«.
Since, as already stated, SVT’s and the BBC’s broadcasting time did not grow as much as that of the other broadcasters, this cost increase meant that SVT and the BBC did not improve their productivity in the same manner as the other three public service broadcasters’.
Kommissionen hæfter sig også ved, at det i punkt 50 i beretningen anføres, at »Rigsre-visionen har ikke gennemgået regnskaberne for de udenlandske tv-stationer i detaljer, hvorfor der kan være forskelle i stationernes aktiviteter samt forskelle i opgørelsesmetoden for de enkelte regnskabsposter.
The Commission also notes that paragraph 50 of the report states that ‘As the National Audit Office has not examined the foreign public service broadcasters’ accounts in any greater detail, there may be differences between those broadcasters’ activities and between the calculation methods used for individual accounting items. What this means is that the costs used, and the unit costs derived from these, do not necessarily pertain to identical activities and that they have not necessarily been calculated according to identical accounting principles.
Det betyder, at de anvendte omkostninger og dermed de beregnede enhedsomkostninger ikke nødvendigvis omfatter helt samme aktiviteter og ikke nødvendigvis er opgjort efter helt samme regnskabsprincipper, hvorfor niveauet for enhedsomkostningerne ikke er umiddelbart sammenligneligt.
As a result, unit cost levels do not lend themselves to ready comparison. Because the purpose of including the foreign broadcasters is to compare productivity “development”, rather than the level of productivity as such, the National Audit Office has taken the view that the data pertaining to the foreign television broadcasters may nevertheless, in its current form, serve as a reasonable indicator of development’.
Da formålet med at inddrage de udenlandske stationer er at sammenligne produktivitetsudviklingen — og ikke niveauet herfor — er det Rigsrevisionens opfattelse, at data for de udenlandske tv-stationer i den foreliggende form dog giver en rimelig indikator for udviklingen«. Og i punkt 53 i beretningen hedder det, at »Rigsrevisionen har ikke undersøgt årsagerne til ovennævnte udvikling nærmere.
Paragraph 53 of the report also points out that ‘The National Audit Office has not examined the causes of the above developments in any greater detail because, as stated above, the development of the stated unit costs is dependent on the content of the broadcasters’ programme offering and because the analysis presupposes, at any rate, that the quality has remained unchanged.
Som det tidligere er fremgået, er udviklingen i de konstaterede enhedsomkostninger afhængig af sammensætningen af stationernes programudbud. Derudover er det i analysen forudsat, at kvaliteten er uændret.
As this presents an immediate difficulty in terms of drawing comparisons between the public service broadcasters concerned, the findings of the analysis should be interpreted with some caution.
Det betyder, at det umiddelbart er vanskeligt at sammenligne de pågældende public service-stationer og dermed, at analysens resultater skal tolkes varsomt. Kulturministeriet har anført, at ministeriet er enig i, at den beskrevne udvikling i enhedsomkostninger og sammenligningen heraf mellem DR, TV2 og de udenlandske public service-stationer skal tolkes varsomt«.
In this respect, the Ministry of Culture has stated that it agrees with the described unit cost developments and that the comparison of DR’s, TV2’s and the foreign public service broadcasters’ unit costs should be interpreted with some caution’.
I den foreliggende sag bemærker Kommissionen, at TV2 er aktiv på det internationale marked og udveksler tv-programmer [55].
In this case, the Commission notes that TV2 is active on the international market and exchanges television programmes [55]. It is in direct competition with commercial broadcasters that are active on the international broadcasting market and that have an international ownership structure.
For det første må Kommissionen vurdere, om TvDanmark befinder sig i en situation svarende til TV2's.
First, the Commission has to assess whether TVDanmark is in a similar situation to TV2. The Commission notes the following.
§ 29 i radio- og fjernsynsloven (1994-loven); se også Beretning 4/94, punkt 4: »Kulturministeren fastsætter med tilslutning fra Finansudvalget den andel af reklameselskabets overskud og den andel af licensafgiften, der årligt skal indbetales til TV2-fonden.
Section 29 of the Broadcasting Act (1994 version); see also the 4/94 report, paragraph 4: ‘The Minister of Culture decides in agreement with the Finance Committee [of Parliament] what share of the advertisement company’s profit and what share of the license fees should be paid annually into the TV2 Fund.
Indgår der ikke tilstrækkelige midler til TV2-fonden kan fonden med ministerens godkendelse optage statsgaranterede driftslån.
If insufficient funds go into the TV2 Fund, the Fund can — with the Minister’s approval — take out State guaranteed operating loans.
Størrelsen på statsgarantien fastsættes af ministeren med tilslutning fra Finansudvalget.
The size of the guarantee is determined by the Minister in agreement with the Finance Committee.
Fra TV2-fonden overføres i overensstemmelse med rammebudgetter fastsat af Kulturministeren beløb til finansiering af sendevirksomheden, der er opbygget med en landsdækkende tv-station — TV2/Danmark — og otte regionale tv-stationer.«
In line with the framework budgets set by the Minister of Culture, funds are transferred from the TV2 Fund to finance the broadcasting enterprise constituted by a nation-wide television station — TV2/Danmark — and 8 regional stations.’
CPP står for Cost per Point, dvs. reklameprisen pr. ratingpoint (enten pr. GRP eller pr. TRP).
CPP = cost per point. The cost per point expresses the costs of advertising per rating point, i.e. either per GRP or per TRP.
Rådets afgørelse 2011/845/FUSP
Council Decision 2011/845/CFSP
af 16. december 2011
of 16 December 2011
under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Union, særlig artikel 29 og artikel 31, stk. 1, og
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 and Article 31(1) thereof,
Den 17. november 2010 vedtog Rådet afgørelse 2010/694/FUSP om EU-medlemsstaternes midlertidige modtagelse af visse palæstinensere [1], hvorved gyldigheden af deres nationale tilladelser til indrejse i og ophold på de medlemsstaters område, der er nævnt i fælles holdning 2002/400/FUSP af 21. maj 2002 om EU-medlemsstaternes midlertidige modtagelse af visse palæstinensere [2], blev forlænget med 12 måneder.
On 17 November 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/694/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians [1], which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP of 21 May 2002 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians [2] for a further period of 12 months.
Rådet foretager en evaluering af anvendelsen af fælles holdning 2002/400/FUSP senest 6 måneder efter vedtagelsen af nærværende afgørelse.
The Council shall evaluate the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP within six months of the adoption of this Decision.
Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 16. december 2011.
Done at Brussels, 16 December 2011.
EUT L 303 af 19.11.2010, s. 13.
OJ L 303, 19.11.2010, p. 13.
Den Udenrigs- og Sikkerhedspolitiske Komités afgørelse ATALANTA/5/2011
Political and Security Committee Decision ATALANTA/5/2011
om ændring af Den Udenrigs- og Sikkerhedspolitiske Komités afgørelse ATALANTA/2/2009 om accept af bidrag fra tredjelande til Den Europæiske Unions militæroperation med henblik på at bidrage til at afskrække fra, forebygge og bekæmpe piratvirksomhed og væbnede røverier ud for Somalias kyster (Atalanta) og af Den Udenrigs- og Sikkerhedspolitiske Komités afgørelse ATALANTA/3/2009 om nedsættelse af bidragyderkomitéen for Den Europæiske Unions militæroperation med henblik på at bidrage til at afskrække fra, forebygge og bekæmpe piratvirksomhed og væbnede røverier ud for Somalias kyster (Atalanta)
amending Political and Security Committee Decision ATALANTA/2/2009 on the acceptance of third States’ contributions to the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta) and Political and Security Committee Decision ATALANTA/3/2009 on the setting up of the Committee of Contributors for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)
(2011/846/FUSP)
(2011/846/CFSP)
Den øverstbefalende for EU-operationen afholdt en styrkegenereringskonference den 16. december 2008.
The EU Operation Commander held a Force Generation Conference on 16 December 2008.
Som følge af tilbuddet fra Serbien om at bidrage til operation Atalanta, henstillingen fra EU-operationens øverstbefalende og rådgivningen fra Den Europæiske Unions Militærkomité (EUMC) bør Serbiens bidrag accepteres.
Following the offer by Serbia to contribute to operation Atalanta, the recommendation by the EU Operation Commander and the advice by the European Union Military Committee (EUMC), the contribution from Serbia should be accepted.
I medfør af artikel 5 i protokol (nr. 22) om Danmarks stilling, der er knyttet som bilag til traktaten om Den Europæiske Union og til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde, deltager Danmark ikke i udarbejdelsen og gennemførelsen af de af Unionens afgørelser og aktioner, som har indvirkning på forsvarsområdet —
In accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,
På baggrund af styrkegenererings- og bemandingskonferencerne og henstillingerne fra EU-operationens øverstbefalende og Den Europæiske Unions Militærkomité accepteres bidragene fra Norge, Kroatien, Montenegro, Ukraine og Serbien til EU's militæroperation med henblik på at bidrage til at afskrække fra, forebygge og bekæmpe piratvirksomhed og væbnede røverier ud for Somalias kyster (»Atalanta«)«.
Following the Force Generation and Manning Conferences and the recommendations by the EU Operation Commander and the European Union Military Committee, the contributions from Norway, Croatia, Montenegro, Ukraine and Serbia shall be accepted for the EU military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta).’.
Bilaget til Den Udenrigs- og Sikkerhedspolitiske Komités afgørelse Atalanta/3/2009 erstattes af teksten i bilaget til denne afgørelse.
The Annex to Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/3/2009 is replaced by the text appearing in the Annex to this Decision.
Montenegro
Montenegro,
Ukraine
Ukraine,
Serbien«.
Serbia.’
Rådets gennemførelsesafgørelse 2011/847/FUSP
Council Implementing Decision 2011/847/CFSP
om gennemførelse af afgørelse 2010/639/FUSP om restriktive foranstaltninger over for Belarus
implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus
under henvisning til Rådets afgørelse 2010/639/FUSP af 25. oktober 2010 om restriktive foranstaltninger over for visse embedsmænd i Belarus [1], særlig artikel 4, stk. 1, og
Having regard to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus [1], and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,
Rådet vedtog den 25. oktober 2010 afgørelse 2010/639/FUSP om restriktive foranstaltninger over for Belarus.
On 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.
I betragtning af den alvorlige situation i Belarus bør der opføres flere personer på listen over personer og enheder, der er omfattet af restriktive foranstaltninger, som findes i bilag IIIA til afgørelse 2010/639/FUSP.
In view of the gravity of the situation in Belarus, additional persons should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP.
Bilag IIIA til afgørelse 2010/639/FUSP bør ændres i overensstemmelse hermed —
Annex IIIA to Decision 2010/639/CFSP should be amended accordingly,
Adresse: Department of law of administration of Pervomaysky district Chornogo K. 5 office 417
Address: Department of law of administration of Pervomaysky district Chornogo K. 5 office 417
Tlf.: +375 17 2800264
Tel.: +375 17 2800264
Dommer ved Pervomaiski distriktsret i Minsk.
Judge of the Pervomaiski District Court of Minsk.
Den 24. november 2011 dømte han Ales Byalyatski, en af de mest fremtrædende menneskerettighedsfor-kæmpere, chef for det hviderussiske menneskerettighedscenter "Vyasna" og næstformand for FIDH.
On 24 November 2011 he sentenced Ales Byalyatski, one of the most prominent human rights defenders, Chief of the Belarusian HR Centre “Vyasna”, Vice President of FIDH.
Sagen foregik på en måde, der var i klar strid med strafferetsplejeloven.
The trial was conducted in a way that was a clear violation of the Code of Penal Procedure.
Byalyatski var aktiv i forsvaret af og bistanden til dem, der blev undertrykt i forbindelse med valget den 19. december 2010 og overgrebene mod civilsamfundet og den demokratiske opposition.
Byalyatski was active in defending and providing assistance to those who suffered from repression in relation with the 19 December 2010 elections and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition.
Offentlig anklager i Pervomaiski distriktsret i Minsk.
Public Prosecutor of the Pervomaiski District Court of Minsk.
Han medvirkede i sagen om Ales Byalyatski, en af de mest fremtrædende menneskerettighedsfor-kæmpere, chef for det hviderussiske menneskerettighedscenter "Vyasna" og næstformand for FIDH.
He dealt with the trial of Ales Byalyatski, one of the most prominent human rights defenders, Chief of the Belarusian HR Centre “Vyasna”, Vice President of FIDH.
Sagen foregik på en måde, der var i klar strid med strafferetsplejeloven.
The accusation presented by the prosecutor in the trial had a clear and imminent political motivation and was a clear violation of the Code of Penal Procedure.
Byalyatski var aktiv i forsvaret af og bistanden til dem, der blev undertrykt i forbindelse med valget den 19. december 2010 og overgrebene mod civilsamfundet og den demokratiske opposition.«
Byalyatski was active in defending and providing assistance to those who suffered from repression in relation with the 19 December 2010 elections and the crackdown on civil society and democratic opposition.’
Rådets gennemførelsesafgørelse 2011/848/FUSP
Council Implementing Decision 2011/848/CFSP
under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Union, særlig artikel 31, stk. 2, og
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,
under henvisning til Rådets afgørelse 2010/788/FUSP af 20. december 2010 om restriktive foranstaltninger over for Den Demokratiske Republik Congo [1], særlig artikel 6, og
Having regard to Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo [1], and in particular Article 6 thereof,
Rådet vedtog den 20. december 2010 afgørelse 2010/788/FUSP om restriktive foranstaltninger over for Den Demokratiske Republik Congo.
On 20 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Den 12. oktober og den 28. november 2011 ajourførte den komité under Sikkerhedsrådet, der er nedsat ved De Forenede Nationers Sikkerhedsråds resolution 1533 (2004) om Den Demokratiske Republik Congo, listen over personer og enheder, der er omfattet af restriktive foranstaltninger.
On 12 October and 28 November 2011, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1533 (2004) concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo updated the list of individuals and entities subject to restrictive measures.