natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Denne indsigelse, der i øvrigt ikke rejser tvivl om Kommissionens bedømmelse, er imidlertid ikke relevant.
However, that objection, which does not, moreover, call into question the Commission’s assessment, is not relevant.
Der er nemlig intet til hinder for, at Kommissionen nævner denne afgørelse fra 2003 som kriterium, ganske vist af svag vægt, men dog relevant, til støtte for sin vurdering, hvorefter det var en tvist om prissætning mellem RTP og Portugal Telecom, der lå til grund for betalingshenstanden med hensyn til afgifter.
Nothing precludes the Commission from relying on that 2003 decision as evidence — tenuous certainly, but none the less relevant — in support of its assessment that it was a tariff dispute between RTP and Portugal Telecom that was at the origin of the payment facilities for the fee.
Hvad angår sagsøgerens argument om den påståede omstændighed, at det ikke i sig selv er tilstrækkeligt til ikke at kvalificere foranstaltningerne som statsstøtte, at Portugal Telecom hverken har givet afkald på tilbagebetalingen af gælden eller morarenterne, må det konstateres, at det ikke vedrører spørgsmålet, om den omstridte foranstaltning kunne tilskrives staten, men højest spørgsmålet, om der er anvendt statslige ressourcer.
The applicant’s argument that the alleged fact that Portugal Telecom did not waive recovery of those debts or its claim for default interest is insufficient, in itself, to prevent the measures being classified as State aid is clearly not related to the question whether the measure at issue is imputable to the State, but, at most, to the question whether State resources were involved.
Dette spørgsmål er imidlertid ikke til diskussion, for så vidt som Kommissionen i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 107 i det væsentlige besluttede at fastslå, at der kunne være tale om anvendelse af statsmidler.
That question is not at issue inasmuch as, in recital 107 of the contested decision, the Commission decided, essentially, to find that State resources may have been involved.
Hvad endelig angår sagsøgerens henvisning til den omstændighed, at RTP var konkurs i teknisk forstand, en henvisning, der kan forstås således, at det alene var som følge af en påvirkning fra Den Portugisiske Republik, at Portugal Telecom indrømmede RTP henstand med betalingen af afgiften, tjener denne imidlertid ikke i sig selv til at afvise Kommissionens påstand om, at det er en tvist mellem RTP og Portugal Telecom om prissætning, der begrunder henstanden med afgiftsbetalingerne.
Concerning, lastly, the applicant’s reference to the fact that RTP was in a state of technical insolvency, a reference which could be understood as suggesting that it is only because of the implication of the Portuguese Republic that Portugal Telecom accorded the payment facilities for the fee to RTP, it does not in itself, however, include any specific refutation of the Commission’s argument that payment facilities for the fee can be explained by a tariff dispute between RTP and Portugal Telecom.
På denne baggrund finder Retten, at sagsøgeren ikke har formået at rejse tvivl om Kommissionens vurdering i den anfægtede beslutning, hvorefter der ikke findes holdepunkter for at antage, at henstanden med betaling af afgifter kunne tilskrives Den Portugisiske Republik.
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance finds that the applicant has not succeeded in calling into question the Commission’s assessment, contained in the contested decision, according to which there was no information to permit it to conclude that the payment facilities for the fee could be imputed to the Portuguese Republic.
Dette led af anbringendet må således forkastes.
It is thus necessary to reject that part of the plea.
Tredje led om, at obligationsudstedelsen i 1994 ikke er blevet anset for statsstøtte
The third part, alleging failure to classify the 1994 bond issue as State aid
Sagsøgeren bestrider, at Kommissionens vurdering, hvorefter informationsprospektet om obligationsudstedelsen i 1994 skulle indeholde oplysninger om, at RTP garanterede tilbagebetalingen af lånene med sine egne indtægter, giver institutionen mulighed for at konkludere, at der ikke var tale om statsstøtte.
The applicant disputes that the Commission’s finding that the information notice for the 1994 bond issue indicated that RTP guaranteed repayment of the loan with its own revenue entitled that institution to find that there was no State aid.
Det fremgår af den anfægtede beslutning, at RTP’s finansielle situation var stærkt forringet i 1994.
It is apparent from the contested decision that RTP’s financial position was very poor in 1994.
Det er alene fordi den samlede selskabskapital var ejet af staten — og fordi man således kunne forledes til at antage, at staten ikke ville tillade virksomheden at gå konkurs — at obligationsudstedelsen i 1994 blev accepteret af markedet.
It was solely because all its share capital was held by the State — and because it was thought that the State would not allow the undertaking to go into insolvency — that the 1994 bond issue was accepted by the market.
Denne omstændighed skulle have været taget i betragtning ved vurderingen af den pågældende foranstaltning.
That situation should have been properly taken into account in the assessment of the measure at issue.
I replikken nævner sagsøgeren Tribunal de Contas’ rapport, af hvilken det fremgår, at omfanget af RTP’s bankgæld skyldes, at RTP er en offentlig virksomhed, der skal levere public service-tv, og som modtager regelmæssig finansiel støtte fra staten, hvilket udgør en tilstrækkelig sikkerhed for RTP’s forskellige kreditorer.
In the reply, the applicant cites the report of the Tribunal de Contas, from which it appears that the level of RTP’s bank indebtedness is explained by the fact that RTP is a public undertaking, entrusted with providing public service television and benefiting from the regular financial support of the State, which was sufficient guarantee for RTP’s various creditors.
Kommissionen er af den opfattelse, at sagsøgerens synspunkt er forkert.
The Commission contends that the applicant’s position is incorrect.
Kommissionen har i den anfægtede beslutning (betragtning 121) gjort rede for, hvorfor den ikke anså obligationsudstedelsen i 1994 for at udgøre statsstøtte.
The Commission explained in the contested decision (recital 121) why it considered that the 1994 bond issue did not constitute State aid.
Der blev ikke udstedt en statslig garanti, hvilket sagsøgeren også har medgivet.
No State guarantee was formally given, which is something which the applicant admits.
RTP garanterede selv for gælden.
RTP itself guaranteed the servicing of the debt.
RTP var på det tidspunkt et aktieselskab og havde således ikke en status, der kunne medføre en stiltiende statsgaranti.
RTP was a public limited company at the time and thus did not have a status which would have resulted in an implicit State guarantee.
Kommissionen vurderer derfor, at obligationsudstedelsen i 1994 er sket på markedsvilkår, og at staten ikke har givet afkald på indtægter.
Consequently, the Commission contends that the 1994 bond issue was carried out under market conditions and that the State did not forgo revenue.
Endelig ændrer den omstændighed, at RTP er ejet af staten, ikke på denne konklusion, når henses til traktatens neutralitet i forhold til, om den omhandlede virksomhed er offentligt eller privat ejet.
Lastly, the fact that RTP was owned by the State in no way alters that finding in view of the neutrality of the Treaty as to whether the undertaking at issue is in public or private ownership.
Kommissionen gør gældende, at Tribunal de Contas’ rapport ikke kan indgå i sagens behandling, idet den ikke er indeholdt i stævningen, og bemærker, at samme citat fra den af sagsøgeren påberåbte rapport viser, at Den Portugisiske Republik på ingen måde har stillet en garanti.
The Commission maintains that the report of the Tribunal de Contas is inadmissible because it was not produced in the application, and notes that even the quotation from the report upon which the applicant relies shows that the Portuguese Republic did not provide any guarantee whatsoever.
Kommissionen har i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 121 tilkendegivet, at den ikke har modtaget oplysninger, der kan bevise, at obligationsudstedelsen i 1994 var omfattet af en statsgaranti.
In recital 121 of the contested decision, the Commission stated that it had received no information to show that the 1994 bond issue was accompanied by a State guarantee.
I overensstemmelse med prospektet for obligationsudstedelsen garanterede RTP for tilbagebetalingen af gælden.
According to the prospectus for that bond issue, it was RTP itself which guaranteed repayment of the debt.
RTP havde ikke en retlig status, der indebar en stiltiende garanti fra staten.
RTP did not have a legal status which led to an implicit State guarantee.
Det er ubestridt, at RTP på tidspunktet for obligationsudstedelsen i 1994 var et aktieselskab.
It is not contested that RTP was a public limited company at the time of the 1994 bond issue.
Som følge af denne selskabsform var ejeren af RTP, Den Portugisiske Republik, ikke undergivet en forpligtelse til ubegrænset tilbagebetaling af selskabets gæld.
As a result, RTP’s owner, the Portuguese Republic, was not subject to an unlimited obligation to repay that company’s debts.
Det er ligeledes ubestridt, at prospektet for obligationsudstedelsen i 1994 ikke indeholdt en statslig garanti.
Neither is it contested that the prospectus for the 1994 bond issue provided for no guarantee on the part of the State.
Sagsøgeren påstår imidlertid, at den omstændighed, at staten ejede 100% af aktierne i RTP, medførte en implicit garanti, der var den eneste forklaring på, at virksomheden på trods af en forringet finansiel situation fik afhændet obligationerne på markedet i 1994.
The applicant claims, however, that the fact that the State had a 100% stake in RTP led to the existence of an implicit guarantee which alone explains how that company, despite its poor financial position, was successful in placing the 1994 bond issue on the market.
Spørgsmålet, om staten udtrykkeligt eller stiltiende har stillet en garanti, det eneste relevante spørgsmål i denne sag, skal imidlertid ikke forveksles med spørgsmålet om, hvordan markedet reagerede på den omstændighed, at udstederen af obligationerne ikke var en hvilken som helst, men derimod RTP.
It is necessary, however, not to confuse the question whether the State granted, expressly or implicitly, a guarantee — the only question relevant to this case — with that of how the market reacted to the fact that the issuer of the bonds was not just another private operator, but RTP.
Den omstændighed, at markedet accepterede tegningen af obligationsudstedelsen i 1994, efter sagsøgerens mening fordi staten de facto garanterede for tilbagebetalingen, kan ikke føre til, at det konkluderes, at der foreligger statsstøtte, idet det er ubestridt, at staten ikke har afgivet en garanti, hverken udtrykkeligt eller stiltiende.
The fact that the market agreed to subscribe to the 1994 bond issue — in the applicant’s opinion, because it considered that the State would guarantee de facto its repayment — does not permit a finding that there is State aid, since it is not disputed that the State did not give its guarantee, either expressly or implicitly.
Alene objektive konstateringer, der fører til en konklusion om, at staten er retligt forpligtet til at tilbagebetale emissionen i tilfælde af RTP’s betalingsstandsning, giver mulighed for at fastslå, at der foreligger en statsgaranti.
Only objective findings leading to the conclusion that the State legally had to repay that issue in the event of default by RTP would permit a finding of the existence of a State guarantee.
Det fremgår imidlertid hverken af sagsakterne eller af sagsøgerens skriftlige indlæg, at der påhvilede Den Portugisiske Republik en sådan forpligtelse.
It is not apparent from the court file or the applicant’s pleadings that the Portuguese Republic was under such an obligation.
Hvad angår Tribunal de Contas’ rapport, der er fremlagt i replikken, er denne, som konstateret i præmis 186-193 ovenfor, uden relevans for bedømmelsen af den anfægtede beslutnings lovlighed.
Concerning the report of the Tribunal de Contas produced in the reply, that report, as noted in paragraphs 186 to 193 below, is not relevant to the assessment of the lawfulness of the contested decision.
Da sagsøgeren ikke har fremlagt oplysninger i sine skriftlige indlæg, der kan rejse tvivl om Kommissionens vurderinger i den anfægtede beslutnings betragtning 121, må sagsøgerens klagepunkt om obligationsudstedelsen i 1994 forkastes.
Thus, the applicant having, in its pleadings, submitted no evidence such as to call into question the Commission’s assessment set out in recital 121 of the contested decision, it is necessary to dismiss the applicant’s head of claim concerning the 1994 bond issue.
På baggrund af samtlige ovenfor anførte betragtninger må anbringendet tages delvist til følge, og den anfægtede beslutnings artikel 2 bør annulleres, for så vidt som den fastslår, at fritagelse fra notarialgebyrer og registreringsgebyrer ikke udgør statsstøtte.
In view of all the foregoing considerations, it is necessary to uphold the present plea in part and to annul Article 2 of the contested decision inasmuch as it finds that the exemption from registration charges does not constitute State aid.
Herefter skal den anden overordnede indsigelse nævnt i præmis 33 og, følgelig, det fjerde anbringende til støtte for annullationspåstanden undersøges.
It is necessary to examine, next, the second main contention, referred to in paragraph 33 above and, accordingly, the fourth plea in support of annulment.
Det fjerde anbringende om retlige fejl vedrørende betingelserne for anvendelse af artikel 86, stk. 2, EF
The fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law as to the conditions for the application of Article 86(2) EC
I første led er sagsøgeren af den opfattelse, at Den Portugisiske Republiks tildeling af public servicetv til RTP, uden offentligt udbud, er til hinder for, at undtagelsen i artikel 86, stk. 2, EF kan finde anvendelse.
In the first part, the applicant claims that the award of the public television service by the Portuguese Republic to RTP, without competitive tendering, precluded the grant of a derogation under Article 86(2) EC.
I andet led påstår sagsøgeren, at der er sket tilsidesættelse af artikel 86, stk. 2, EF som følge af, at Kommissionen i den anfægtede beslutning har tilsidesat kriterierne for anvendelse af artiklen, sådan som disse er fastsat i meddelelsen om radio- og tv-virksomhed.
In the second part, the applicant alleges an infringement of Article 86(2) EC, resulting from breach by the Commission, in the contested decision, of the criteria for the application of that provision as defined in the Communication on broadcasting.
Første led om tildeling af public servicetv uden afholdelse af udbudsprocedure
The first part, alleging the award of the public television service to RTP without competitive tendering
Sagsøgeren har efter at have anført, at tildelingen af public servicetv til RTP ikke er sket på grundlag af et offentligt udbud, foreholdt Kommissionen, at den ikke har rejst spørgsmål om lovligheden af tildelingen.
The applicant, after stating that the public television service was not awarded to RTP on the basis of competitive tendering, complains that the Commission failed to question the lawfulness of that award.
Sagsøgeren vurderer, at hvis Kommissionen havde foretaget en sådan undersøgelse, ville den have konkluderet, at tildelingen ikke overholdt fællesskabsrettens krav, og at den til RTP ydede støtte følgelig ikke var omfattet af undtagelsen i artikel 86, stk. 2, EF.
It claims that, if the Commission had carried out that examination, it would have been compelled to find that that award did not comply with the requirements of Community law and, accordingly, that the funding granted to RTP could not benefit from any exemption under Article 86(2) EC.
Sagsøgeren har påberåbt sig Kommissionens fortolkningsmeddelelse om koncessioner i EU-lovgivningen (EFT 2000 C 121, s. 2, herefter »meddelelsen om koncessioner«), samt den fortolkning, som Kommissionen har foretaget i sin 31.
It relies on the Commission’s interpretative communication on concessions under Community law (OJ 2000 C 121, p.
Sagsøgeren påberåber sig ligeledes Domstolens dom af 18. november 1999, Teckal (sag C-107/98, Sml. I, s. 8121).
The applicant also relies on Case C-107/98 Teckal [1999] ECR I-8121.
I replikken gør sagsøgeren i det væsentlige gældende, at den fjerde betingelse, der omtales i præmis 88-93 i Domstolens dom af 24. juli 2003, Altmark Trans og Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg (sag C-280/00, Sml. I, s. 7747, herefter »den fjerde Altmark-betingelse«), pålægger Kommissionen — idet der ikke er blevet afholdt en udbudsprocedure — at efterprøve, om niveauet for den til RTP tildelte kompensation er fastsat på grundlag af en gennemsnitlig, veldrevet og veludstyret virksomhed.
In the reply, the applicant claims, essentially, that the fourth of the conditions set out in paragraphs 88 to 93 of Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747 (‘the fourth Altmark condition’) required the Commission, in view of the failure to follow a competitive tendering procedure, to verify that the level of compensation awarded to RTP had been determined on the basis of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means.
Dette har imidlertid tydeligvis ikke været tilfældet.
Such was manifestly not the case.
Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at tildelingen af public service-tv-opgaven er et spørgsmål, der er forskelligt fra — og ikke er blevet rejst under den formelle procedure — spørgsmålet om foreneligheden med statsstøttereglerne af de kompensationer, der er blevet tildelt virksomheden.
The Commission contends that the award of the public service television remit to RTP is a different question from that of whether the compensation awarded to that undertaking was compatible with the State aid rules and one which was never raised during the formal procedure.
Uanset hvorledes det forholder sig, følger det hverken af artikel 86, stk. 2, EF eller af retspraksis, at medlemsstaterne er forpligtet til at følge særlige procedurer ved valget af de virksomheder, der skal have til opgave at udføre tjenesteydelser af almindelig økonomisk interesse (herefter »SIEG«).
Whatever the position, it does not follow from the provisions of Article 86(2) EC or from the caselaw that Member States are required to follow specific procedures for choosing undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (‘SGEIs’).
Hvad angår SIEG vedrørende radio- og tv-virksomhed stiller fællesskabsretten ikke krav om de sædvanligt foreskrevne åbne og konkurrencebaserede procedurer ved koncessionsaftaler om public service.
In any event, in the case of broadcasting SGEIs, Community law does not require the open and competitive procedures normally required as a matter of course in contracts for concessions for public services.
De henvisninger, som sagsøgeren har foretaget til gældende regler for koncessioner samt til retspraksis, er ikke relevante.
The references made by the applicant to the regime applicable to concessions and to the caselaw of the Court are not relevant.
Hvad angår den fjerde Altmark-betingelse tager sagsøgeren fejl af dens funktion.
With regard to the fourth Altmark condition, the applicant mistook its purpose.
Denne betingelse vedrører spørgsmålet, om en foranstaltning udgør statsstøtte, og ikke, om samme foranstaltning kan undtages i medfør af artikel 86, stk. 2, EF.
That condition concerns the question whether the measure is State aid and not whether it can benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 86(2) EC.
Kommissionens synspunkt om, at der er tale om et nyt argument fra sagsøgeren, kan således ikke medføre, at det forkastes.
The Commission’s position, alleging that the applicant has raised a new argument, is thus not such as to permit that argument to be disregarded.
Retten er imidlertid i lighed med Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at dette argument ikke kan rejse tvivl om lovligheden af den anfægtede beslutning.
None the less, the Court of First Instance finds, like the Commission, that that argument has not succeeded in calling into question the lawfulness of the contested decision.
Artikel 86, stk. 2, EF indeholder blandt betingelserne for sin anvendelse ikke et krav om, medlemsstaten skal følge en procedure for offentligt udbud ved tildeling af SIEG.
Among its conditions for application, Article 86(2) EC does not include a requirement to the effect that the Member State must have followed a competitive tendering procedure for the award of the SGEI.
I dommen af 15. juni 2005, Olsen mod Kommissionen (sag T-17/02, Sml. II, s. 2031, præmis 239), bemærkede Retten udtrykkeligt, at det hverken følger af ordlyden af artikel 86, stk. 2, EF eller af retspraksis om bestemmelsen, at en SIEG alene kan tildeles en operatør efter afholdelse af en udbudsprocedure.
Moreover, in Case T-17/02 Olsen v Commission [2005] ECR II-2031, paragraph 239, the Court expressly stated that it is not apparent either from the wording of Article 86(2) EC or from the caselaw on that provision that an SGEI may be entrusted to an operator only as a result of a tendering procedure.
Henset til de ovenstående betragtninger må sagsøgerens klagepunkt om, at Kommissionen i forbindelse med sin undersøgelse i henhold til artikel 86, stk. 2, EF skulle have undersøgt, om tildelingen af SIEG’en med hensyn til tv-virksomhed skete efter en udbudsprocedure, forkastes.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the applicant’s head of claim alleging that the Commission should, in the context of its examination under Article 86(2) EC, have verified whether the television SGEI had been awarded to RTP after competitive tendering must be rejected.
Det følger ligeledes af denne konklusion, hvorefter Kommissionen i forbindelse med sin undersøgelse i henhold til artikel 86, stk. 2, EF ikke skulle undersøge, om tildelingen af SIEG’en med hensyn til tv-virksomhed skete efter afholdelse af udbudsprocedure, at selv om det antages, at SIEG’en med hensyn til tv-virksomhed af andre grunde end de af sagsøgeren påberåbte, der fremgår af de to sidste sætninger i præmis 134 ovenfor, skulle undergives en udbudsprocedure, ville den omstændighed, at der i det foreliggende tilfælde ikke er blevet afholdt en sådan udbudsprocedure, højst kunne føre til, at Kommissionen indledte en traktatbrudssag mod Den Portugisiske Republik i henhold til artikel 226, EF, hvilken procedure i givet fald ville have kunnet foranledige, at medlemsstaten annullerede tildelingen og iværksatte en udbudsprocedure.
It follows equally from this conclusion — to the effect that, in the context of its examination under Article 86(2) EC, the Commission was not required to examine whether the award to RTP of the television SGEI occurred in the context of a competitive tendering — that, even if the television SGEI, for other reasons, such as those relied on by the applicant and recalled in the last two sentences of paragraph 134 above, should have been the subject of such a competitive tendering, its absence in this case would, at most, have justified the Commission in bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations against the Portuguese Republic pursuant to Article 226 EC, a procedure which, if that case had arisen, might have resulted in that Member State bringing that award to an end and organising a tendering procedure.
Denne ikke-foretagne udbudsprocedure kan imidlertid ikke have som konsekvens, at den statslige finansiering af indehaveren af SIEG’ens public service-forplig-telse, selv om betingelserne om definitionen af SIEG, mandatet og proportionaliteten er opfyldt, skal anses for en med fællesmarkedet uforenelig støtte.
However, that absence of competitive tendering cannot, by contrast, have the result that State funding of the SGEI holder’s public service obligations must, even though the requirements concerning the definition of the SGEI, the remit and proportionality are fulfilled, be considered to be State aid incompatible with the common market.