natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De danske myndigheder og TV2 har også fremført juridiske og faktiske argumenter i relation til den fjerde Altmark-betingelse.
The Danish authorities and TV2 also put forward legal and factual arguments in relation to the fourth Altmark condition.
Danmark henviste for det første til BUPA-sagen og gjorde gældende, at den fjerde Altmark-betingelse ikke nødvendigvis fandt anvendelse, eller i det mindste at Kommissionen i lyset af Rettens dom kun burde tage stilling til, om den i det væsentlige var opfyldt.
Firstly, Denmark cited the BUPA case, arguing that the fourth Altmark condition did not necessarily apply, or at least that the Commission, in light of the Court’s judgment, should only assess whether it was met in essence.
Kommissionen finder, at der i BUPA-sagen var tale om en ganske særlig situation, i den forstand at den pågældende ordning, som drejede sig om sundhedsydelser, ikke var omkostningsrelateret, idet den i modsætning til, hvad der er tilfældet i andre offentlige sektorer, var baseret på kundernes risikoprofiler.
The Commission takes the view that the situation in the BUPA case was rather special in that the scheme in question, which concerned the provision of health services, was not cost-related but was based on customers’ risk profiles, unlike in other public service sectors.
I en sådan situation havde virksomheden derfor ingen mulighed for at øge sin effektivitet via sine omkostninger.
In that instance there was thus no possibility for the operator to improve efficiency by way of its costs.
For public service tv-stationer er det derimod muligt at beregne kompensationen på basis af omkostninger og indtægter.
However, for public service broadcasters, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the basis of costs and revenue.
For det andet fremførte Danmark under henvisning til Chronopost-sagen [49], at en public service-station som TV2 ikke kunne sammenlignes med en privat virksomhed.
Secondly, with reference to the Chronopost [49] case, Denmark argued that a public service provider like TV2 could not be compared to a private operator.
Kommissionen finder imidlertid, at i modsætning til det spørgsmål om omkostningsallokering inden for rammerne af en forenelighedsvurdering, som det drejede sig om i Chronopost-sagen, drejer den fjerde Altmark-betingelse sig netop om, at hvis der ikke er foretaget offentligt udbud, skal der foretages en sammenligning mellem public service-virksomhedens omkostninger og en typisk veldrevet og veludstyret virksomheds omkostninger.
However, the Commission takes the view that unlike the issue at stake in the Chronopost case, which was cost allocation in the context of a compatibility assessment, the essence of the fourth Altmark criterion is precisely that, in the absence of a tender, the costs of the public service provided should be compared with those of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production.
Danmark gør desuden gældende, at Rigsrevisionen som led i sine løbende undersøgelser af TV2 gennemførte økonomisk revision og forvaltningsrevision af TV2's regnskaber, og at der løbende blev foretaget kontrol, der også omfattede effektivitetaspekter.
In addition, Denmark argued that the National Audit Office (Rigsrevision) carried out financial and management audits of TV2’s accounts as part of its routine appraisals of TV2 and that routine checks were made, including on efficiency.
Kommissionen finder imidlertid ikke, at det forhold, at TV2's regnskaber blev forelagt kulturministeren til godkendelse, er tilstrækkeligt belæg for, at TV2's omkostninger svarer til omkostningerne i en typisk veldrevet virksomhed.
However, the Commission does not consider that the fact that TV2’s accounts were submitted for approval by the Ministry of Culture is sufficient proof that TV2’s costs were those of a typical well-run undertaking.
Det er desuden tvivlsomt, om ex post-kontrol kan have nogen relevans for opfyldelsen af den fjerde betingelse, hvis der ikke blev foretaget nogen analyse af omkostningerne, før kompensationen blev fastlagt.
In addition, it is doubtful whether ex post controls can be relevant for fulfilment of the fourth criterion if no analysis of the costs was made before compensation was set.
De danske myndigheder har specielt fremdraget Rigsrevisionens 2000-beretning, hvori udviklingen i TV2's produktivitet til en vis grad blev sammenlignet med produktiviteten i DR og udenlandske public service-stationer (British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Sveriges Television (SVT) and Norsk Riksringkastning (NRK)).
The Danish authorities pointed in particular to the 2000 report from the Danish National Audit Office, in which the change in TV2’s productivity was to some extent compared with that of DR and certain foreign public service broadcasters (British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Sveriges Television ‘SVT’ and Norsk Riksringkastning ‘NRK’).
DR's omkostninger pr. sendetime lå i 1999 ca. 29 % over TV2's.
DR’s overall hourly broadcasting costs in 1999 were approximately 29 % higher than TV2’s.
Rigsrevisionen fandt også, at produktivitetsudviklingen i DR og TV2 var bedre eller svarende til produktivitetsudviklingen i de tre andre public service-tv-stationer.
The National Audit Office also found that DR’s and TV2’s productivity improvements were better than or equal to the productivity increase of the other three public service broadcasters.
Denne beretning er imidlertid ikke tilstrækkelig til at godtgøre, at den fjerde betingelse var opfyldt.
However, that report is not sufficient proof that the fourth condition was fulfilled.
For beretningen er udarbejdet efter medieaftalerne, der fastsatte kompensationens størrelse, og viser derfor ikke, at kompensationen blev fastlagt på grundlag af de omkostninger, som en typisk virksomhed ville have haft ved at varetage sin public service-opgaver.
Indeed, the report was produced after the media agreements that set the amount of compensation and therefore did not show that the compensation was determined on the basis of the costs that a typical undertaking would have incurred in fulfilling its public service mission.
I relation til den fjerde Altmark-betingelse kan der derfor ikke drages nogen konklusion ud fra en sammenligning med DR's omkostninger.
For the purposes of the fourth Altmark criterion, it is therefore impossible to draw any conclusions from the comparison with DR’s costs.
Med hensyn til sammenligningen med de udenlandske public service-stationer sammenligner Rigsrevisionens beretning kun udviklingen i TV2's produktivitet med den ene af de andre public service-stationer, men tager ikke stilling til effektivitetsniveauet som sådant og derfor heller ikke til selve omkostningerne.
As regards the comparison with foreign public service broadcasters, the report only compared the development of TV2’s productivity with one of the other public service broadcasters, but was silent on the level of efficiency as such, and hence on the costs themselves.
Specielt kan en lavere produktivitetsudvikling bero på mange faktorer, bl.a. at effektiviteten som sådan var højere i periodens begyndelse, eller at stationen ikke var i stand til at udvide sin sendetid.
In particular, a lower productivity increase could be due to many factors, for instance because efficiency was higher at the beginning of the period or because the broadcaster was not able to increase its broadcasting time.
Af de ovennævnte grunde finder Kommissionen derfor ikke, at det af beretningen fremgår, at TV2's omkostninger svarede til de omkostninger, som en typisk veldrevet virksomhed ville have haft ved at varetage public service-opgaven.
For the above reasons, the Commission takes the view that the report does not show that TV2’s costs were those which a typical well-run undertaking would have incurred in performing the public service missions.
På grundlag af det ovenstående må Kommissionen konkludere, at den fjerde Altmark-betingelse ikke er opfyldt, og — eftersom disse betingelser er kumulative — at kompensationen til TV2 ikke opfyldte de betingelser, Domstolen opstillede i Altmark-dommen.
To conclude, in view of the foregoing the Commission considers that the fourth Altmark criterion is not met, and because these criteria are cumulative, the compensation granted to TV2 does not satisfy the conditions set by the Court in the Altmark judgment.
Som det vil fremgå af det nedenstående, finder Kommissionen dog under alle omstændigheder, at kompensationen kan anses for at være forenelig med det indre marked.
In any event, as will be shown below, the Commission considers that the compensation can be considered as compatible with the internal market.
Kommissionen skulle også vurdere, om de her omhandlede foranstaltninger kunne stemme overens med princippet om den markedsøkonomiske investor.
The Commission also has to assess whether the measures at issue could meet the ‘market economy investor test’ (‘MEIP test’).
De danske myndigheder og TV2 har gjort gældende, at foranstaltningerne ikke er at betragte som statsstøtte, fordi det markedsøkonomiske investorkriterium er opfyldt.
The Danish authorities and TV2 argued that the measures do not qualify as State aid because the conditions of the MEIP test are fulfilled.
De mener specielt, at det i overensstemmelse med det markedsøkonomiske investorkriterium var helt berettiget at lade TV2 beholde overskuddet med henblik på at opbygge kapitalen.
In particular, they held that it was perfectly justified under the MEIP test to leave the surplus in TV2 so as to build up capital.
I den forbindelse bemærkes indledningsvis, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt foranstaltningerne opfyldte det markedsøkonomiske investorkriterium, ikke er det samme som spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt foranstaltningerne kunne anses for at være nødvendige for varetagelsen af public service-opgaverne (se forenelighedsvurderingen nedenfor), for den omstændighed, at TV2 nødvendigvis måtte have visse reserver og en vis kapital for at kunne udføre sine public service-opgaver, er ikke ensbetydende med, at en privat investor ville have sat penge i selskabet og ikke forlangt et udbytte.
In this respect, it should first be noted that the question of whether the measures were justified under the MEIP test is not the same as the question of whether they could be considered necessary in order to fulfil public service tasks (see the compatibility assessment below), since the fact that TV2 necessarily had to have a certain level of reserves and capital to perform its public service tasks does not mean that a private investor would have put money into the company and not have sought a return.
I overensstemmelse med fast retspraksis skal Kommissionen afgøre, hvorvidt en privat investor af en tilsvarende størrelse som forvaltningsorganerne i den offentlige sektor kunne forventes at ville foretage kapitaltilførsler af samme størrelsesorden [50].
The Commission, in accordance with settled case-law, must determine whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a size comparable to bodies managing the public sector could be expected to be willing to make capital injections of the same order of magnitude [50].
Selv om den adfærd, der følges af en privat investor, som den offentlige investors adfærd sammenlignes med, ikke behøver at være adfærden hos en almindelig investor, der investerer med det formål at opnå et afkast på relativt kort sigt, må det i det mindste være en normal adfærd hos et privat holdingselskab eller en privat virksomhedskoncern, der følger en strukturpolitik og lader sig lede af udsigter til afkast på længere sigt.
Although the behaviour of a private investor that is being compared with the public investor’s behaviour need not be the conduct of an ordinary investor laying out capital with a view to realising a profit in the relatively short term, it must at least be the behaviour of a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural policy and guided by prospects of profitability in the longer term.
Ifølge fast retspraksis skal vurderingen af, om kriteriet er opfyldt, desuden baseres på det tidspunkt, hvor beslutningen blev truffet, og ikke et senere tidspunkt [51].
Furthermore, according to settled case-law, the MEIP test must be applied at the moment the decision is taken and not ex post [51].
I den foreliggende sag er Danmark eneaktionær i TV2 og er derfor både den første og den sidste kreditor, der bliver fyldestgjort i tilfælde af en konkurs.
In the present case, as Denmark is the only stakeholder in TV2, it is both the first and the last creditor to be reimbursed in the event of the company’s failure.
Set ud fra et investorsynspunkt kunne den danske stat således søge at sikre sig et afkast af sin investering ved enten at forlange rente på et lån eller udbytte af en aktiepost.
So, from the point of an investor, the Danish State could seek a return on its investment either by asking for remuneration in the form of interest on a loan or a return on a capital stake.
I den forbindelse bemærker Kommissionen, at Danmark i den undersøgte periode gav afkald på renter og lod lånene være afdragsfrie.
The Commission notes that during the period in question, Denmark waived its claim to interest on the loans and allowed a moratorium on repayments.
Den danske stat har desuden ikke forlangt nogen forrentning af den kapital, der blev oparbejdet i TV2.
Moreover, the Danish State did not ask for any remuneration on the capital that was built up in TV2.
Den danske stat forlangte altså ikke et normalt afkast af sin investering, hvilket en kreditor eller virksomhedsejer normalt ville have gjort.
Therefore, the Danish State did not ask for a normal return on its investment as any creditor or owner of a company normally would.
Desuden har de danske myndigheder ikke givet nogen gyldig begrundelse for, at det rent strategisk ville være fornuftigt at reinvestere overskuddet i TV2 i stedet for at forlange et afkast i form af renter eller udbytte.
Furthermore, the Danish authorities have not advanced any valid arguments to justify why it would make sense strategically to reinvest the surplus in TV2 instead of asking for remuneration in the form of interest or dividends.
En sådan beslutning vil normalt kun blive truffet af en investor, hvis han mener, at reinvesteringen vil øge værdien af hans oprindelige investering.
Such a decision would normally be taken by an investor only if he thought that reinvestment would increase the value of his initial investment.
I den foreliggende sag er det ikke godtgjort, at der forelå en forretningsplan eller en klar, færdig forretningsstrategi, som kunne vise, at det var tilfældet.
In the present instance, it has not been established that there was a business plan or a clear overall business strategy suggesting that this was the case.
Der ses heller ikke andre indikationer på, at TV2 havde planer om at udvikle sine aktiviteter med henblik på at skabe en sådan værdiforøgelse.
Nor have there been any other indications that TV2 was planning to develop its activities to produce such added value.
Kommissionen søger ikke hermed at tilbagevise de danske myndigheders argumenter angående det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip med formalistiske argumenter, men den må blot vurdere, om en markedsøkonomisk investor ville have ladet pengene stå i TV2 ud fra de oplysninger, han rådede over på det tidspunkt, hvor beslutningen herom blev truffet.
In saying this, the Commission is not trying to use formalistic arguments in order to refute the Danish authorities’ argument on the MEIP test but is merely attempting to assesses whether a market economy investor would have decided to leave the funds in TV2 on the basis of the information available to him at the time when he took the decision.
Men ud fra de oplysninger, der forelå på det tidspunkt, forblev midlerne i TV2 [52], og uafhængigt af de hensyn i relation til TV2's public service-opgaver, som en privat investor ikke ville have taget, finder Kommissionen, at der ikke var nogen forretningsplan og intet investeringsprojekt eller noget andet element, som kunne bevirke, at en fornuftig privat investor kunne tro på, at en reinvestering ville øge værdien af hans oprindelige investering, og derfor beslutte at lade pengene stå i TV2 i stedet for at forlange et afkast.
However, taking into account the information available at the time when the funds were left in TV2 [52] and leaving aside any considerations regarding TV2’s public service tasks, which a private investor would not have been taken into account, the Commission considers that there was no business plan and no investment project or any other element on the basis of which a rational private investor would have thought that the reinvestment would increase the value of his initial investment and would therefore have decided to leave the money in TV2 instead of asking for some sort of remuneration.
Desuden har de danske myndigheder som benchmark benyttet afkastet på omsætningen som belæg for, at de handlede som en privat investor, da de reinvesterede pengene i TV2.
In addition, the Danish authorities have used the return on turnover as a benchmark in order to show that they acted as a private investor when reinvesting money into TV2.
I den foreliggende sag må det imidlertid understreges, at den danske regering i forvejen handler som financier for TV2, idet den stiller betydelige midler til rådighed for TV2 til dækning af en del af TV2's driftsomkostninger.
However, in the present case, it has to be emphasised that the Danish Government already acts as a financer of TV2, in that it provides it with significant funds to cover part of its operating costs.
Omfanget af disse midler har direkte indvirkning på, hvilke resultater TV2 er i stand til at skabe.
The amount of these funds has a direct effect on the results that TV2 is able to generate.
I praksis kan dette nøgletal forbedres, simpelthen ved at øge omfanget af de statsmidler, der tilføres.
In practice, this ratio can be boosted simply by increasing the amount of State funding.
Men da overfinansiering normalt også fører til ineffektivitet, som betyder et større dræn på statskassen, er det langt fra sikkert, at den øgede finansiering fører til tilsvarende bedre resultater.
However, as excess funding normally also leads to inefficiencies, resulting in a larger drain on State resources, it is far from certain that increased funding produces a corresponding improvement in results.
De danske myndigheder kan derfor ikke anses for at have handlet som en markedsøkonomisk investor.
Thus the Danish authorities cannot be held to have acted as a market economy investor.
Men som der redegøres nærmere for nedenfor finder Kommissionen under alle omstændigheder, at kompensationen kan anses for at være forenelig.
Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the compensation can be considered compatible, as will be explained in detail below.
Som allerede nævnt er spørgsmålet om det markedsøkonomiske investorkriterium ikke det samme som spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt det var berettiget, at den danske stat lod TV2 beholde overskuddet for at opbygge den kapital, der var nødvendig for public service-opgaven.
As already mentioned, the MEIP test is a different issue from the question of whether it was justified for the Danish State to allow TV2 to keep the surplus so as to build up the capital necessary for its public service tasks.
Kommissionen har draget den konklusion, at TV2 i den undersøgte periode blev begunstiget af foranstaltningerne.
In conclusion, the Commission takes the view that, during the period under investigation, TV2 benefited by the measures.
På tv-markedet konkurrerer TV2 med andre tv-stationer, der ikke modtog samme fordel.
In the television broadcasting market, TV2 competes with other broadcasters who did not receive the same advantages.
Foranstaltningerne må derfor anses for at være selektive og konkurrencefordrejende som omhandlet i artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF.
Therefore, the measures have to be regarded as selective and as distorting competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
PÅVIRKNING AF SAMHANDELEN
EFFECT ON TRADE
Statslige foranstaltninger falder ind under artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF, i det omfang hvor de påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstater.
State measures are caught by Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as they affect trade between Member States.
Det er altid tilfældet, når de pågældende aktiviteter er genstand for samhandel inden for EU.
This is the case whenever the activities concerned are an object of intra-Community trade.
Domstolen har anlagt en vid fortolkning af dette begreb.
The Court of Justice has developed a wide interpretation of this notion.
Ifølge Domstolens retspraksis gælder, at »når statsstøtte styrker en virksomheds stilling i forhold til andre virksomheder, som den konkurrerer med i samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet, må det antages, at denne samhandel påvirkes af støtten« [53].
It is established case-law that when aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, those undertakings must be regarded as affected by that aid [53].
Den omstændighed, at den pågældende virksomhed ikke eksporterer noget, udelukker således ikke, at samhandelen kan være påvirket.
The fact that the undertaking in question does not engage in exports does not rule out the possibility that trade might be affected.
Når en medlemsstat yder støtte til en virksomhed, kan støtten bevirke, at de indenlandske aktiviteter opretholdes eller sågar øges, hvilket igen mindsker andre virksomheders muligheder for at etablere sig på markedet.
When a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, its domestic activities may be supported or even boosted thanks to the aid, which in turn reduces the scope for other undertakings to establish themselves on the market.
Støtten sætter derigennem den modtagende virksomhed i stand til at fastholde en markedsandel, som konkurrenter i andre medlemsstater ellers kunne have erobret [54].
The aid consequently allows the recipient to maintain a market share that might otherwise have been captured by competitors from other Member States [54].
I punkt 18 i radio- og tv-meddelelsen har Kommissionen under henvisning til Domstolens retspraksis anført, at »statslig finansiering af public service-radio- og tv-virksomhed normalt vil påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne. Det er oplagt tilfældet, når der er tale om erhvervelse og salg af programrettigheder, der ofte finder sted på internationalt niveau. For de public service-virksomheder, der har ret til at sælge reklametid, har også reklamer grænseoverskridende virkninger, navnlig i homogene sprogområder, der overskrider de nationale grænser. Endvidere kan radio- og tv-selskabernes ejerstruktur række ud over én medlemsstat«.
In paragraph 18 of the Broadcasting Communication, the Commission, referring to the Court’s case-law, stated that the ‘State financing of public service broadcasters can generally be considered to affect trade between Member States. This is clearly the position as regards the acquisition and sale of programme rights, which often takes place at an international level. Advertising, too, in the case of public broadcasters who are allowed to sell advertising space, has a cross-border effect, especially for homogenous linguistic areas across national boundaries. Moreover, the ownership structure of commercial broadcasters may extend to more than one Member State.’
De finansielle midler, TV2 fik stillet til rådighed, gav TV2 en konkurrencemæssig fordel med henblik på køb af tv-rettigheder og investering i programmer, der derefter kunne sælges.
The financial resources made available to TV2 gave it a competitive advantage as regards the purchase of television rights and investment in programmes that could subsequently be sold.
Støtteforanstaltningerne begunstigede desuden TV2 i forhold til konkurrenterne inden for Den Europæiske Union ved at forringe konkurrenternes muligheder for at etablere sig i Danmark.
Moreover, the aid measures placed TV2 in a favourable position compared with its competitors in the European Union by reducing their scope for establishing themselves in Denmark.