natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sagsøgeren bestrider på ingen måde tilstedeværelsen af denne kontrol, ej heller påstås det, at der er fundet fejl i RTP’s årsregnskaber.
The applicant in no way disputes that that monitoring existed, nor does it claim to have discovered errors in RTP’s annual accounts.
Sagsøgeren bemærker alene, at Kommissionen »ikke kan kontrollere den måde, hvorpå RTP sikrer public servicetv på grundlag af årlige beretninger, som virksomhedens revisor udfærdiger eller på grundlag af virksomhedens regnskab«, og bemærker i den forbindelse, at i henhold til bestemmelserne om revisorers retsstilling (Decreto-Lei nr. 487/99 af 16.11.1999 (portugisisk lovdekret nr. 487/99) (Diário da Republica I, série I-A, nr. 267 af 16.11.1999)) skal revisoren ikke kontrollere, om en given virksomhed sikrer public service-ydelser eller ej, og end mindre skal det afgøres, hvilke beløb der er tilknyttet denne public service-ydelse.
It confines itself to stating that the Commission ‘is unable to monitor the way in which RTP provides public service television on the basis of annual reports established by an auditor of the undertaking on the basis of the undertaking’s accounting’, and notes, in that regard, that, according to their statutory status (Decreto-Lei no 487/99 of 16 November 1999 (Portuguese Decree-Law No 487/99) (Diário da República I, Series I-A, No 267, of 16 November 1999)), auditors are not required to verify whether a particular undertaking provides public services or not and still less to determine whether certain sums correspond or not to the provision of those public services.
Revisorens retlige pligt er i princippet at godkende regnskaberne, altså at give udtryk for en ekstern og uafhængig vurdering af lovligheden og rigtigheden af regnskaberne, og for, om de giver et retvisende billede af selskabets tilstand.
The statutory role of the auditor is, generally, to certify the accounts, thereby giving an external and independent appraisal of the validity and fairness of the accounts and of the question whether the impression they give of the state of the company is a faithful one.
Imidlertid, og eftersom revisionspåtegningen af de årlige regnskaber berettiger Kommissionen til at anse dem for troværdige, er der intet til hinder for, at Kommissionen bruger disse attesterede regnskaber, når de indeholder informationer af relevans for vurderingen af public service-omkostningerne med henblik på vurderingen af støttens forholdsmæssighed inden for rammerne af artikel 86, stk. 2, EF.
If and to the extent that the certification of annual accounts by the company’s auditor properly allows the Commission to consider them to be reliable, there is nothing to preclude the use by that institution of the accounts thus certified, indeed it should do so, where those accounts include information relevant to the assessment of the costs for the purposes of its assessment of whether the aid is proportional within the context of Article 86(2) EC.
Desuden, og for så vidt som en revisor kan pålægges, ved siden af sin funktion som lovbestemt attesteringsrevisor, at afgive en vurdering vedrørende andre spørgsmål, f.eks. vedrørende gennemførelsen af en public service-opgave, er der intet til hinder for, at Kommissionen i givet fald kan tage hensyn til denne vurdering.
Moreover and inasmuch as an auditor may be entrusted, alongside his duty to statutorily certify the accounts, with giving ad hoc advice on other questions, relating, for example, to the performance of a public service remit, there is nothing to prohibit the Commission, where appropriate, from taking that advice into account.
Det følger af ovenstående betragtninger, at intet er til hinder for at fastslå, at Kommissionen hverken lovligt kunne støtte sig til RTP’s godkendte årsregnskaber eller til RTP’s revisorers vurderinger.
It follows from the foregoing considerations that there is nothing to permit the finding that the Commission was unable to base its assessment legitimately on RTP’s certified annual accounts or on the advice of RTP’s auditors.
Hvad dernæst angår public service-rapporterne, der nævnes i betragtning 57, andet punktum, og i betragtning 178 til den anfægtede beslutning, og som indeholder en »beskrivelse af opfyldelsen af hver enkelt public service-forpligtelse og angivelse af udgifter for hver enkelt forpligtelse på baggrund af et analytisk bogføringssystem« (betragtning 178), er det ikke bestridt, at Kommissionen rådede over disse for alle årene i undersøgelsesperioden.
Next, with regard to the public service reports, mentioned in the second sentence of recital 57 and in recital 178 of the contested decision and which ‘describ[ed] how each public service obligation had been fulfilled and identif[ied] the costs of each public service obligation by using an analytical accounting system’ (recital 178), it is not contested that they were available to the Commission for all years included in the investigation period.
Oplysningerne i disse rapporter led dog af en objektiv svaghed, hvilket Kommissionen havde kendskab til.
Nevertheless, the information in those reports suffered from an objective weakness of which the Commission was aware.
Denne svaghed vedrørte den omstændighed, at disse public service-rapporter ikke altid var ledsaget af en »revisionsrapport« (»relatório de auditoria«) (betragtning 180, sidste punktum, til den anfægtede beslutning).
That weakness consisted in the fact that those reports were not systematically accompanied by an ‘audit statement’ (‘relatório de auditoria’) (last sentence of recital 180 of the contested decision).
Med andre ord var det ikke sikkert, at disse public service-rapporter, der indeholdt analytiske detaljer vedrørende de for hver enkelt leveret public service-ydelse
In other words, it was not certain whether those public service reports, which supplied the analytical detail for the costs incurred in providing the public services, were subject to independent external verification by RTP’s auditors.
Det skal på dette trin bemærkes, at den eksterne og uafhængige af revisorer foretagne kontrol af public service-rapporterne, der nævnes i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 180, andet punktum, andre steder i den anfægtede beslutning, både i den autentiske portugisiske version og i andre sprogversioner, navnlig den franske version, omtales forskelligartet og uden sammenhæng: »Paracer do Gabinete de Auditoria« og »avis du conseil des commisaires aux comptes« (betragtning 57, andet punktum), »Paracer do Gabinete de Auditoria« og »avis du conseil interne des commisaires aux comptes« (betragtning 178, første punktum), »controlo […] pelo Gabinete de Auditoria a nivel interno« og »contrôle […] par le comité d’audit en interne «(betragtning 181, første punktum) og endog »auditoria externa sistematica« og »audit externe systématique« (betragtning 181, andet punktum).
It should be noted at this stage that that independent external verification by the auditors in respect of the public service reports, mentioned in the last sentence of recital 180 of the contested decision, is referred to, in other places in the contested decision — both in its authentic Portuguese version and in other language versions, inter alia in the French version — using terminology which is changeable and lacks coherence: ‘Paracer do Gabinete de Auditoria’ and ‘avis du conseil des commissaires aux comptes’ (‘opinion of the board of auditors’) (second sentence of recital 57); ‘Paracer do Gabinete de Auditoria’ and ‘avis du conseil interne des commissaires aux comptes’ (‘opinion of the internal board of auditors’) (first sentence of recital 178); ‘controlo… pelo Gabinete de Auditoria a nível interno’ and ‘contrôle… par le comité d’audit en interne’ (‘verification … internally by the board of auditors’) (first sentence of recital 181); or even ‘auditoria externa sistemática’ and ‘audit externe systématique’ (‘systematic external auditing’) (second sentence of recital 181).
Uanset hvorledes det forholder sig med hensyn til denne upræcise terminologi, skal Retten bemærke, at Kommissionen har fastslået, at den svaghed, der er konstateret i præmis 233 og 234 ovenfor, blev afhjulpet af reglerne for bogføringssystemet, der var sat i værk for på tydelig og kontrollerbar vis at identificere public service-ydelserne og de dertil knyttede omkostninger. (betragtning 180, sidste punktum, til den anfægtede beslutning).
Regardless of those terminological inaccuracies, the Court notes that the Commission found that the weakness referred to in paragraphs 233 and 234 above was compensated for by the capacity for the rules of the cost accounting system applied to identify, clearly and verifiably, the public services supplied and their costs (last sentence of recital 180 of the contested decision).
Længere nede tilføjer Kommissionen, at »selv om man kunne forestille sig, at der ikke blev foretaget en systematisk revision af rapporterne om public service-forplig-telserne, sikrede ovenfor beskrevne system, at forpligtelsen blev udført som planlagt« (betragtning 181, andet punktum, til den anfægtede beslutning).
Further on, the Commission added that, ‘although no systematic external auditing of the public service reports seems to have taken place, the system described ensured that the public service obligation was carried out in the manner provided for’ (second sentence of recital 181 of the contested decision).
Hvad angår den første betragtning (præmis 236 ovenfor) er det tilstrækkeligt at konstatere, at den manglende eksterne kontrol foretaget af revisorer ikke logisk kan dækkes af påstanden om, at »reglerne for bogføringssystemet endvidere [sikrede], at
Concerning the first consideration (paragraph 236 above), suffice it to state that the lack of external verification by auditors cannot, logically, be covered by the assertion that ‘the strict rules of the cost accounting system ensured that the costs of each
Denne påstand vil, når alt kommer til alt, være det samme som en selvmodsigende påstand om, at den omstændighed, at der ikke har været foretaget kontrol, ikke har nogen betydning for oplysningernes pålidelighed, eftersom kontrol var mulig.
That assertion amounts, in short, to the following proposition, the terms of which are contradictory: the fact that there was no verification has no effect on the reliability of the information because that verification was possible.
En virksomhed kan nemlig råde over præcise og klare regler for bogføringssystemer, der giver mulighed for en effektiv identifikation og kontrol, og på samme tid tilføje regnskabet tal eller overskrifter, hvad enten det sker ved en fejl eller en forsætlig handling, der ikke svarer til realiteten af de faktiske omstændigheder.
An undertaking may have precise and clear rules of cost accounting, permitting effective identification and verification and, at the same time, record in its accounting, whether by error or consciously, figures or headings which do not correspond to the truth.
Ved en mangel på kontrol vil disse afvigelser fra realiteten ikke blive opdaget.
Where, in particular, there is no verification, those departures from the truth will quite simply not be noticed.
Det følger heraf, at i mangel af en ekstern, systematisk kontrol af rapporterne om public service-forpligtelserne foretaget af RTP’s revisorer, og i modsætning til hvad Kommissionen har hævdet i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 180, andet punktum, bestod eller burde der nødvendigvis bestå en tvivl hos denne institution om pålideligheden af oplysningerne i disse rapporter, en tvivl, som ikke kunne fjernes ved den blotte påstand om kvaliteten af reglerne for bogføringssystemerne.
It follows that, in the absence of systematic external verification of the public service reports by RTP’s auditors and contrary to the Commission’s contention contained in the last sentence of recital 180 of the contested decision, there existed or should have existed, necessarily, a doubt on the part of that institution as to the reliability of the information contained in those reports, which the simple assertion of the quality of the rules of cost accounting could not dispel.
Hvad angår Kommissionens anden betragtning i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 181, der er gengivet i præmis 237 ovenfor, der endog går videre end den første betragtning om kvaliteten af bogføringsreglerne derved, at det skulle være »systemet« (»sistema«) i sin helhed, der gjorde det muligt for institutionen at konkludere, at den rådede over pålidelige oplysninger, konstaterer Retten, at denne heller ikke kan tiltrædes, idet også den er udtryk for en selvmodsigelse.
Concerning the Commission’s second consideration, set out in recital 181 of the contested decision and recalled in paragraph 237 above, to the effect that, beyond even the first consideration inferred from the quality of the accounting rules, it was the ‘system’ (‘sistema’) as a whole which led that institution to conclude that it had reliable information, the Court notes that it cannot be accepted either, since it also constitutes a contradiction in its own terms.
Kommissionen har i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 181, første punktum, i det væsentlige udtalt, at det fremgår af beslutningens forudgående betragtninger, at der har bestået et kontrolsystem på tre forskellige niveauer.
First, the Commission states, essentially, in the first paragraph of recital 181 of the contested decision, that it is apparent from the preceding recitals of that decision that there was a verification system which operated on three different levels.
Det første element af det system, som Kommissionen har identificeret, er »kontrol […] af Gabinete de Auditoria internt«.
The first element of that system identified by the Commission is ‘verification… internally by the board of auditors’.
Det drejer sig om revisorernes kontrol af de public service-rapporter, der omtales i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 178 samt atter i betragtning 180, i indledningen af sidste punktum.
It concerns verification by auditors of the public service reports, referred to in recital 178 of the contested decision and referred to again at the beginning of the last sentence of recital 180 of that decision.
Det andet element af det system, som Kommissionen har identificeret, er »kontrol […] af de ansvarlige regeringsorganer«.
The second element of that system identified by the Commission is ‘verification… by the responsible government bodies’.
Det drejer sig om den kontrol, der nævnes i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 179.
It concerns the verification mentioned in recital 179 of the contested decision.
Det tredje element af det system, som Kommissionen har specificeret, er »kontrol […] af en ekstern revisionsvirksomhed« Det drejer sig om den kontrol, der omtales i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 180, første punktum.
The third element of that system identified by the Commission is ‘verification… by an external auditing firm’. It concerns the verification referred to in the first sentence of recital 180 of the contested decision.
Kommissionen fortsætter i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 181, andet punktum, med i det væsentlige at udtale, at selv om man kunne forestille sig, at der ikke blev foretaget en systematisk revision af rapporterne om public service-forplig-telserne, sikrede dette system, at forpligtelsen blev udført som planlagt.
The Commission continues, at the second sentence of recital 181 of the contested decision, by stating, essentially, that, although no systematic external auditing of the public service reports appears to have taken place and although the first element of the system does not appear to have functioned correctly, that system ensured that the public service obligation was carried out in the prescribed manner.
Det fremgår af denne beskrivelse af Kommissionens argumentation, at denne institution således støtter sig på eksistensen og anvendelsen af et system bestående af tre elementer, for heraf at slutte, at public service-forpligtelsen blev udført som planlagt, selv om den selv har konstateret en manglende funktionsduelighed ved dette system, nærmere bestemt ved et af de tre elementer.
It is apparent from that description of the Commission’s reasoning that that institution therefore relies on the existence and the application of a verification system comprising three elements in order to infer therefrom that the public service was supplied as laid down, even though it noted the malfunctioning of that system, in particular in one of those three constituent elements.
Herved udgør argumentationen i den anfægtede beslutning en selvmodsigelse.
That being so, the reasoning stated in the contested decision, once again, constitutes a contradiction in its own terms.
Under disse omstændigheder konstaterer Retten, at til trods for de to ovennævnte betragtninger fremført af Kommissionen, kunne denne institution ikke i mangel af bevis for systematisk ekstern kontrol af public service-rapporterne, foretaget af en revisor, anse oplysningerne i disse rapporter, der ikke var ledsaget af en revisionspåtegning, for pålidelige.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance finds that, notwithstanding the two considerations above, put forward by the Commission, that institution was unable, in the absence of proof of systematic external verification of the public service reports by an auditor, to consider the information contained in those reports which were unaccompanied by an audit statement to be reliable.
Det er desuden ubestridt, at sagsøgeren ved flere lejligheder har henledt Kommissionens opmærksomhed på andre rapporter, nemlig de kontraktmæssige, eksterne revisionsrapporter, og anmodede institutionen om at forlange fremsendelse af rapporterne fra Den Portugisiske Republik.
Moreover, it is not contested that, on numerous occasions, the applicant drew the Commission’s attention to other reports, namely the contractual external audit reports, and requested that that institution require the Portuguese Republic to disclose them.
Sagsøgeren anførte i sit indlæg af 8. februar 2002, at ifølge dens oplysninger var den kontraktmæssige, eksterne revisionsrapport for 1998 blevet kritiseret i relation til RTP’s opfyldelse af forpligtelserne i henhold til public servicekontrakten fra 1996.
In its observations of 8 February 2002, the applicant stated that, according to its information, the contractual external audit report for 1998 was very critical of RTP’s performance of the obligations resulting from the public service contract for 1996.
Selv om disse betragtninger fra sagsøgeren ikke i sig selv er afgørende, når henses til den begrænsede rolle, som tildeles de berørte parter i undersøgelsesproceduren vedrørende statsstøtte, forholder det sig ikke desto mindre således, at med den tvivl, som Kommissionen nødvendigvis måtte have, bekræftede betragtningerne klart behovet for, at institutionen anmodede Den Portugisiske Republik om fremsendelse af de kontraktmæssige, eksterne revisionsreporter.
Although, in view of the limited role assigned to interested parties in the State aid investigation procedure, those observations by the applicant are not in themselves conclusive, nevertheless, in view of the uncertainty in which the Commission must necessarily have found itself, those observations were clearly such as to confirm that it was necessary for that institution to require the Portuguese Republic to disclose the contractual external audit reports.
Dette behov var så meget desto større, som Kommissionen vidste, at formålet med de kontraktmæssige, eksterne revisionsrapporter ifølge selve ordlyden af public serviceaftalerne var at kontrollere overensstemmelsen mellem public service-ydelserne og de afholdte udgifter.
That necessity was all the greater since the Commission knew that the purpose of the contractual external audit reports was, according to the terms themselves of the public service contracts, to verify that the public services supplied corresponded to the costs expended.
Den kunne således ikke være uvidende om, at disse kontraktmæssige, eksterne rapporter, i hvert fald for så vidt angår de år, for hvilke der ikke foretoges kontrol af public service-rapporterne, kunne levere relevante oplysninger, der kunne bekræfte — eller afkræfte — de oplysninger, den allerede havde.
The Commission could not, therefore, be unaware that those contractual external audit reports were, at least for the years for which there was no external verification of reports, liable to supply that institution with relevant information which would confirm — or refute — the data already at its disposal.
Henset til de ovenstående betragtninger er Retten af den opfattelse, at Kommissionen ved ikke at have anmodet Den Portugisiske Republik om fremsendelse af de
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court of First Instance finds that the Commission, in not requiring the Portuguese Republic to disclose the contrac-
SIC MOD KOMMISSIONEN kontraktmæssige, eksterne revisionsrapporter har tilsidesat sin forpligtelse til at foretage en omhyggelig og upartisk undersøgelse.
SIC v COMMISSION tual external audit reports, failed to fulfil its obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial investigation.
Dermed har Kommissionen forsømt at bringe sig i en situation, hvor den havde adgang til tilstrækkeligt pålidelige oplysninger vedrørende kvalifikationen af de faktisk leverede public service-ydelser samt de udgifter, der rent faktisk afholdtes i forbindelse med leveringen af disse ydelser.
That being the case, the Commission failed to place itself in a position in which it had information which was sufficiently reliable available to it to determine the public services actually supplied and the costs actually incurred in supplying them.
Da Kommissionen ikke rådede over sådanne oplysninger, kunne den derefter ikke foretage en brugbar proportionalitetskontrol af finansieringen af public service-omkostningerne og kunne således ikke gyldigt fastslå, at der ikke forelå en overkompensation af public service-udgifterne.
In the absence of such information, the Commission was unable to proceed subsequently to a meaningful verification of whether the funding was proportionate to the public service costs and was unable to make a valid finding that there had been no overcompensation of the public service costs.
Det følger heraf, uden at det er nødvendigt at anordne bevisoptagelse, jf. denne doms præmis 28, eller at undersøge sagsøgerens øvrige klagepunkter og anbringender, der, for så vidt som de kritiserer Kommissionens tilsidesættelse af sin undersøgelsespligt, i øvrigt finder deres svar ovenfor, at den anfægtede beslutnings artikel 1 bør annulleres, i hvilken Kommissionen fastslog, at den til RTP tildelte statsstøtte ikke havde ført til for høje kompensationer for de nettoomkostninger, som var forbundet med de public service-opgaver tildelt denne operatør.
It follows from this that, without it being necessary to order the measure of inquiry mentioned in paragraph 28 above or to examine the applicant’s other heads of claim and pleas in law, the answer to which, inasmuch as they allege breach by the Commission of its obligation to investigate, is, moreover, to be found above, it is necessary to annul Article 1 of the contested decision, by which the Commission found that the State aid granted to RTP mentioned in that article had not led to any overcompensation of the net costs of the public service tasks entrusted to the operator.
Det følger af samtlige ovennævnte betragtninger, at dels må den anfægtede beslutnings artikel 1 annulleres, dels må beslutningens artikel 2 annulleres, for så vidt som den fastslår, at »fritagelsen fra afgifter og gebyrer for registrering« ikke udgør statsstøtte.
It follows from all of the foregoing that it is necessary to annul, first, Article 1 of the contested decision and, second, Article 2 of that decision in so far as it lays down that the ‘exemption from registration charges’ does not constitute State aid.
I øvrigt frifindes Kommissionen, dvs. for så vidt som påstanden angår annullation af den anfægtede beslutnings artikel 2 om betalingsfaciliteter med hensyn til afgifter og obligationsudstedelsen fra 1994.
It is necessary to dismiss the action as to the remainder, that is to say, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 2 of the contested decision concerning the payment facilities for the fee and the 1994 bond issue.