natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endvidere forklarede de, at alle private TV-selskaber, der leverer audiovisuelle tjenester i offentlighedens interesse uden licens, frit kan vælge blandt de platformsteknologier, der er til rådighed.
In any event, if the Measure is found to constitute State aid, it would be compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty — as the release of the Digital Dividend is, according to the Spanish authorities, an exceptional occurrence.
Denne ret gælder også private TV-selskaber med licens, men kun som supplement til dækningsforpligtelsen på 96 %.
Alternatively, the Measure could be declared compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, since according to the Spanish authorities the Measure: (i) supports the European policy on transforming the Digital Dividend into social benefits and economic growth; (ii) remedies a market failure; (iii) is the appropriate instrument, since it will apply only to those broadcasters who are compelled to incur unwanted costs due to the imposition of simultaneous broadcasting and the compensation will be strictly limited to the amount of these exceptional expenses; (iv) has an incentive effect since if there was no aid, broadcasters may be reluctant to take part in the reallocation of spectrum and to ensure simulcast; (v) is proportionate, as it only covers the additional costs incurred by broadcasters due to the reallocation of channels; (vi) is technologically neutral, since other platforms are not affected by the change of channels necessary to liberate the Digital Dividend; and (vii) would not distort competition, since if the broadcasters had to assume the costs without compensation, this would frustrate their expectations of growth and would benefit participants in other markets.
Hvad angår teknologineutralitet mere specifikt, var de spanske myndigheders argument, at deres meddelelse respekterede dette princip, idet de private TV-selskaber frit kunne vælge platform til opfyldelse af samsendingsforpligtelsen (satellit, kabel, ADSL, fiberoptik eller DTT).
In the opening decision, the Spanish authorities were invited to submit comments concerning the Measure and to provide, inter alia, the following information: (i) documents (such as correspondence with broadcasters, declarations) demonstrating their inability to finance the simulcast period from they own resources; (ii) proof (such as tender, ex ante analysis of the costs/benefits, public consultation on the subject, etc.) which would justify the choice of terrestrial platform (reallocation of the terrestrial broadcasting to lower terrestrial frequency band) to solve the frequency scarcity problem; (iii) a summary of rights and obligations broadcasters have under the current licences, concessions, conditions under which these licences/concession can be modified and the consequences of such modifications (for the State as well as for the broadcasters); (iv) a detailed overview of the costs linked to the adjustment of infrastructure each broadcaster is financing from its own resources; (v) an explanation on the impact of the timing of the release of the Digital Dividend; and (vi) more information about the eligibility of the broadcasters of the pay-TV channels currently broadcasted via DTT.
De understregede dog, at foranstaltningen kun gælder i samsendingsperioden og ikke derefter.
The Spanish authorities replied that most of this information was already provided prior to the launch of the formal investigation procedure.
Når overgangsperioden med samsending er afsluttet, gælder disse TV-selskabers forpligtelse til, ifølge de gyldige licenser, at sikre den geografiske dækning via DTT, fortsat.
The Spanish authorities made specific comments on the question regarding the required evidence that would justify the choice of the terrestrial platform to solve the frequency scarcity problem by arguing that this issue goes beyond the assessment of neutrality of the Measure and that they are not obliged to justify intended compensatory measures clearly compatible with Union law.
Desuden forklarede de spanske myndigheder, at de private TV-selskabers forpligtelse til at opfylde dækningsforpligtelsen på 96 % i område I via DTT ikke betyder, at nøjagtig denne procentdel af den spanske befolkning faktisk vil modtage de jordbaserede TV-selskabers programmer via DTT-modtagesystemer.
The Spanish authorities maintained the same line of arguments in relation to the private broadcasters' licences in the sense that it is the State's right to impose non-technologically neutral licences to ensure the prescribed 96 % coverage obligation in Area I. They also stated that even if these licences do not foresee the right of private broadcasters to compensation for any costs related to the release of the Digital Dividend, these licences also do not exclude such compensation.
Det skyldes, at dækningsområdet med alternative teknologier kan overlappe DTT-området [49].
Moreover, they have explained that all private broadcasters providing audiovisual services in the public interest without a licence are free to choose from the available platform technologies.
De spanske myndigheder konkluderede, at foranstaltningen ikke giver private TV-selskaber, der opererer på DTT-platformen, nogen økonomisk fordel, da den begrænser sig til tilbagebetaling af de ekstraordinære omkostninger ved samsending, som direkte kan tilskrives deres forpligtelse til at frigøre 800 MHz-båndet.
This right also applies to private broadcasters holding a licence but only beyond the 96 % coverage obligation and in a complementary manner.
De spanske myndigheders reaktion på Astras bemærkninger
As regards technological neutrality more specifically, the Spanish authorities argued that their notification respected this principle in the sense that the private broadcasters were free to choose whatever platform to ensure the simulcast obligation (satellite, cable, ADSL, optic fibre or DTT).
Som nævnt i betragtning 4, fremsatte de spanske myndigheder udtalelser om de bemærkninger, som Astra havde fremsat under den formelle undersøgelse.
They have specified, however, that the Measure applies exclusively to the period of simulcast and not beyond.
De har understreget, at Astra ikke giver yderligere oplysninger ud over de argumenter, der fremgår af åbningsafgørelsen.
Once the simulcast (transitory) period is over, the obligation of these broadcasters to ensure the geographical coverage via DTT, as foreseen in the valid licences, remains in place.
De spanske myndigheder har fremhævet, at Astras kritik klart bevæger sig uden for den anmeldte foranstaltning, som er begrænset til midlertidig kompensation til private TV-selskaber for omkostningerne i forbindelse med samsending.
In addition, the Spanish authorities explained that the obligation of private broadcasters to ensure the 96 % coverage obligation in Area I via DTT does not mean that exactly this percentage of Spanish population would actually receive the programmes of the terrestrial broadcasters via DTT reception systems.
Efter de spanske myndigheders mening sigter Astra mod en ændring af det spanske regelsæt vedrørende transmission af TV-kanaler i område I, som ikke er omhandlet i meddelelsen.
This is because the area of coverage of alternative technologies can overlap with that of DTT [49].
De spanske myndigheder forklarede også, at foranstaltningen i praksis ikke kun gælder private TV-selskaber, der benytter DTT-teknologien, men alle TV-selskaber i Spanien, som sender gratiskanaler.
The Spanish authorities concluded that the Measure does not grant to private broadcasters operating on the DTT platform any economic advantage as it limits itself to the reimbursement of the exceptional costs of simulcast that are directly triggered by their obligation to liberate the 800 MHz band.
Det skyldes, at der ikke er nogen TV-selskaber, der udelukkende benytter alternative platforme, især satellitbaserede platforme.
Reactions of the Spanish authorities on the comments of Astra
Satellitbaserede platforme bruges til spredning af betalings-TV-kanaler (udenlandske gratiskanaler og internationale udgaver af visse kanaler), som er grupperet i Canal+ [50].
As mentioned in recital 4, the Spanish authorities submitted observations on the comments of Astra presented during the formal investigation.
På den baggrund mener de spanske myndigheder, at de TV-selskaber, der spreder DTT-gratiskanaler, og den satellitbaserede platform Canal+ under alle omstændigheder ikke er en del af det samme marked.
They have emphasised that Astra does not provide additional information beyond the arguments contained in the opening decision.
De spanske myndigheder svarede detaljeret på Astras udtalelse om, at foranstaltningen ikke havde hjemmel i EU-retten, ved at henvise til afgørelse nr. 243/2012/EU og Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2002/20/EF [51] (herefter »tilladelsesdirektivet«).
The Spanish authorities have highlighted that Astra's criticism goes clearly beyond the scope of the notified Measure that is limited to a temporary compensation to private broadcasters for the costs incurred for simultaneous broadcasting.
Hvad angår argumenterne med henvisning til tilladelsesdirektivet, bestred de spanske myndigheder Astras opfattelse af artikel 14.
In the opinion of the Spanish authorities, Astra aims at modifications to the Spanish regulatory framework for the transmission of TV channels in Area I that is not subject of the notification.
I lyset af den planlagte frigivelse af 700 MHz-båndet senest i 2020 er de spanske myndigheder af den opfattelse, at en negativ afgørelse fra Kommissionen om foranstaltningen kan udgøre en hindring for dette EU-initiativ.
Satellite is used for the broadcasting of pay-TV channels (FTA foreign channels and international versions of certain channels), grouped in Canal+ [50].
I henhold til det kongelige dekret er der ni offentlige TV-selskaber.
As regards their arguments with reference to Decision No 243/2012/EU, they pointed out that according to its Article 6(5) ‘Member States may, where appropriate and in conformity with Union law, ensure that the direct cost of migration or reallocation of spectrum usage is adequately compensated in accordance with national law’.
En (RTVE) er landsdækkende for hele Spanien, og otte er af regional karakter.
The Spanish authorities read this provision in conjunction with recital 18 which states that ‘Member States should be allowed, where appropriate, to introduce compensatory measures relating to migration costs.’
For alle disse offentlige TV-selskaber, som har et klart defineret public service-mandat, var samsending obligatorisk med sigte på tilpasning af husstandes modtageudstyr uden tab af tjenesten.
As for the arguments concerning the Authorisation Directive, the Spanish authorities argued with Astra's reading of Article 14.
Den samlede finansiering med offentlige midler var lavere end oprindelig forudset i meddelelsen fra 2011, og samsendingsperioden blev også forkortet [53].
According to this provision, ‘Member States shall ensure that the rights, conditions and procedures concerning general authorisations and rights of use or rights to install facilities may only be amended in objectively justified cases and in a proportionate manner’.
De spanske myndigheder underrettede Kommissionen om, at det kongelige dekret er i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens afgørelse 2012/21/EU [54], så anmeldelse er ikke nødvendig.
This article also prescribes that ‘Member States shall not restrict or withdraw rights to install facilities before expiry of the period for which they were granted except where justified and where applicable in conformity with relevant national provisions regarding compensation for withdrawal of rights’.
Hvad angår kompensation for private TV-selskabers [55] samsendingsomkostninger, har de spanske myndigheder ikke trukket denne del af anmeldelsen under foranstaltningen tilbage.
In this context, the Spanish authorities argued that contrary to what is stated in the opening decision, the broadcasters' licences do not exclude the compensation for the simulcast costs because these were not foreseeable costs at the moment of the granting of licences [52].
Bemærkninger fra interesserede parter
As for the compatibility of the Measure with Union law, the Spanish authorities disagree with the examples of precedents of the case law of EU Courts quoted in recitals 65-67 of the opening decision in relation to the Measure, because: (1) the compensation foreseen by the Measure is a direct consequence of the imposed simulcast obligation; (2) the latter obligation is compatible with Decision No 243/2012/EU that, as explained, foresees the right to compensation; (3) the legal framework for the compensation was adopted as a consequence of the imposition of the simulcast obligation; (4) the costs generated by this obligation correspond exactly with the scope of the compensation.
Alle de interesserede parter, som med undtagelse af Astra er anført i betragtning 4, har fremført argumenter imod Kommissionens foreløbige konklusioner om foranstaltningen.
With a view of the planned liberation of the 700 MHz band by 2020, the Spanish authorities are of the opinion that a negative Commission decision on the Measure can create an obstacle for the smooth running of that EU initiative.
Bemærkninger fra Astra
Compensation of simulcast costs incurred by public broadcasters
Den privatejede satellitoperatør Astra mener, at foranstaltningen klart udgør statsstøtte, at den er i modstrid med princippet om teknologineutralitet, og at den vil være til fordel for den dominerende DTT-platformsoperatør Abertis.
In September 2014, following the adoption of Royal Decree 677/2014, the Spanish authorities withdrew the notification concerning the compensation of simulcast costs incurred by public broadcasters.
Astra mener, at Abertis vil drage indirekte fordel af foranstaltningen.
The Royal Decree identifies nine public broadcasters.
Med hensyn til foranstaltningens virkning mener Astra, at uanset at den er begrænset til kompensation for samsending, vil den i praksis omfatte alle de udgifter, TV-selskaberne har til frigørelse af digitaliseringsdividenden.
One covers the entire territory of Spain (RTVE) and eight have a regional character.
Astra er enig med Kommissionen i, at private TV-selskabers samsendingsforpligtelse udspringer af national ret (reguleringsforanstaltning), og at den derfor ikke udløser nogen ret til kompensation.
For all these public broadcasters, with a clearly defined public service remit, the simulcast was declared mandatory in order to allow the adaptation of the reception systems of households without the loss of service.
Ifølge Astra fremgår det af NTP, at offentlige myndigheder kan fastsætte særlige vilkår for TV-spredning, som licenserne ikke har taget højde for, som følge af markedsregulering eller den tekniske udvikling, uden at det indebærer en ret til kompensation.
The total amount of public funding was lower than the one originally foreseen in the 2011 notification and the duration of simulcast was shortened as well [53].
Astra påpeger også, at DTT-selskaberne kendte til frigørelsen af digitaliseringsdividenden og den dermed forbundne overførsel af frekvenser, inden kongeligt dekret 365/2010 blev vedtaget.
The Spanish authorities informed the Commission that the Royal Decree complies with Commission Decision 2012/21/EU [54] and therefore does not need to be notified.
Foranstaltningen ville udelukkende være til fordel for disse TV-selskaber på bekostning af TV-selskaber, der benytter andre platforme.
As regards the simulcast compensation for private broadcasters [55], the Spanish authorities have not withdrawn this part of the notification under the Measure.
Hvad angår den retlige vurdering af foranstaltningen, er Astra uenig i, at foranstaltningen udgør en usædvanlig begivenhed, der berettiger anvendelse af traktatens artikel 107, stk. 2, litra b).
Comments from interested parties
Astra er også uenig i, at foranstaltningen opfylder kravene i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 3, litra c), da den ville fordreje konkurrencen mellem platformsoperatørerne, fordi den ikke er teknologineutral.
All interested parties identified in recital 4, with the exception of Astra, have presented arguments against the preliminary conclusions of the Commission on the Measure.
I den henseende understreger Astra, at dem, der drager direkte fordel af foranstaltningen, har et klart incitament til at samsende uden kompensation for at beholde deres seere og reklameindtægter for ikke at nævne de yderligere fordele, som frigørelsen af digitaliseringsdividenden giver dem (f.eks. muligheden for at se TV via mobiltelefoni på det frigjorte 800 MHz-bånd).
Comments from Astra
Astra fremfører også, at de spanske myndigheder ikke har fremlagt nogen uvildig undersøgelse, der begrunder foranstaltningen som passende, nødvendig og forholdsmæssig støtte.
The privately owned satellite operator Astra considers that the Measure clearly constitutes State aid, is in breach of the principle of technological neutrality and would strengthen the dominant DTT platform operator Abertis.
Konklusionen er, at Astra går ind for at åbne det spanske TV-marked i område I for konkurrence på resultater mellem forskellige teknologiske platforme.
It considers Abertis as an indirect beneficiary of the Measure.
Bemærkninger fra Abertis
As for the impact of the Measure, Astra believes that notwithstanding its limitation to the simulcast compensation, in practice it would cover all expenses of broadcasters related to the release of the Digital Dividend.
Som de spanske myndigheder mener Abertis heller ikke, at foranstaltningen udgør statsstøtte, da der ikke er tale om en selektiv økonomisk fordel eller konkurrencefordrejning.
Astra agrees with the Commission that the obligation of private broadcasters to simulcast results from national law (regulatory measure) and as such does not trigger the right to compensation.
Hvis Kommissionen beslutter at klassificere foranstaltningen som statsstøtte, bør den erklære den forenelig i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 3.
According to Astra, the NTP provides that public authorities can establish special conditions for broadcasting not foreseen in the licences as a consequence of market regulation or technical development without the right to compensation.
Abertis oplyser, at virksomheden hverken vil vinde eller tabe som følge af TV-selskabernes valg af teknologi i samsendingsperioden.
Astra also points to the fact that the DTT broadcasters were aware of the release of the Digital Dividend and the related transfer of frequencies before the adoption of Royal Decree 365/2010.
Abertis mener, at kompensation for samsending faktisk kan øge konkurrenceevnen mellem platformene til gavn for TV-spredningsmarkedet og forbrugerne.
The Measure would exclusively benefit these broadcasters, to the detriment of broadcasters using other platforms.
Abertis forsvarer DTT-teknologiens effektivitet, men er ikke enig i, at anvendelse af netop denne teknologi i samsendingsperioden vil bestemme, hvilken platform TV-selskaberne vil bruge i fremtiden.
Concerning the legal assessment of the Measure, Astra disagrees that the Measure constitutes an exceptional occurrence that would justify the application of Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty.
På den anden side indrømmer Abertis, at DTT-signalet fortsat vil blive transmitteret udelukkende via DTT-teknologien på vilkårene i TV-selskabernes licenser.
It also disagrees that the Measure fulfils the requirements of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, as it would distort competition between platform operators due to its non-technologically neutral character.
Konklusionen er, at Abertis ikke er enig i Kommissionens foreløbige konklusioner om foranstaltningen.
In this respect, Astra highlights that the direct beneficiaries of the Measure have clear incentive to simulcast without compensation in order to keep their audience and publicity revenues; not taking into account their additional advantages from the release of the Digital Dividend (e.g. which offers the possibility to view TV through mobile telephony on the freed 800 MHz band).
Bemærkninger fra EBU
Astra also argues that the Spanish authorities have failed to produce an independent study justifying the Measure as appropriate, necessary and proportionate aid.
EBU mener heller ikke, at foranstaltningen udgør statsstøtte.
In conclusion, Astra favours the opening of the Spanish TV market in Area I and allowing competition on the merits between alternative technological platforms.
Hvis Kommissionen beslutter at klassificere foranstaltningen som statsstøtte, bør den erklære den forenelig i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 3, da den efterlever princippet om teknologineutralitet.
Comments from Abertis
EBU anmoder Kommissionen om at begrænse vurderingen til foranstaltningens faktiske formål og virkninger, dvs. at sikre samsending under DTT-omstillingsprocessen i forbindelse med frigørelsen af digitaliseringsdividenden.
Similarly to the Spanish authorities, Abertis also does not qualify the Measure as State aid due to the lack of selective economic advantage and distortion of competition.
Ifølge EBU er digitaliseringsdividenden ikke en konsekvens af et reguleringstiltag foretaget af den relevante offentlige myndighed for TV-spredningssektoren, idet digitaliseringsdividenden ikke handler om, hvordan DTT-tjenesten skal leveres og heller ikke er et udslag af markedsudviklingen eller den teknologiske udvikling, og den påvirker ikke nødvendigvis hele DTT-branchen.
If the Commission would decide to qualify the Measure as State aid, it should declare it compatible under Article 107(3) of the Treaty.
EBU er ikke enig i, at foranstaltningen kan medføre en reel fordel for DTT-selskaber eller platformsoperatører og anmoder Kommissionen om at tage højde for, at de spanske TV-selskaber allerede har foretaget betydelige investeringer i at tilpasse deres tjenester til DTT-teknologien og infrastrukturen under omstillingen fra analogt til digitalt TV.
Abertis informs that it would neither benefit nor loose from the choice of technology used by broadcasters during simulcast.
Ifølge EBU har private DTT-selskaber legitime forventninger om kompensation for samsending, da der er hjemmel til det i national lovgivning og de gyldige licenser.
It considers that the simulcast compensation could actually increase competitiveness between the platforms to the benefit of the broadcasting market and consumers.
EBU mener, at der ikke er noget reelt alternativ til DTT-teknologien, som kan sikre overholdelse af den dækningsforpligtelse, der er pålagt TV-selskaberne.
Abertis defends the effectiveness of the DTT technology but does not agree that the use of this particular technology during the simulcast will determine the platform to be used by the broadcasters in the future.
DTT-platformen repræsenterer et marked, der er separat fra andre platforme, idet anvendelse og drift heraf ikke er substituerbar.
On the other hand, Abertis admits that the DTT signal will continue to be transmitted exclusively via the DTT technology under the conditions enshrined in the broadcasters' licences.
Konklusionen er, at EBU ikke er enig i Kommissionens foreløbige konklusioner om foranstaltningen.
In conclusion, Abertis does not agree with the preliminary conclusions of the Commission on the Measure.
Bemærkninger fra BNE
Comments from the EBU
BNE mener, at foranstaltningen ikke udgør statsstøtte.
Also the EBU does not consider the Measure to constitute State aid.
Hvis Kommissionen beslutter at klassificere foranstaltningen som statsstøtte, bør den erklære den forenelig i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 3, og under alle omstændigheder teknologineutral.
If the Commission would decide to qualify the Measure as State aid, it should declare it compatible under Article 107(3) of the Treaty as it respects the principle of technologically neutrality.