natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Taking into account recital 45 to the Television without Frontiers Directive, the Commission could accept, in so far the resulting film rights are shown on public service television, that the public service definition of public service broadcasters includes the obligation to contribute substantially to investment in European audiovisual production [82].
Arvestades piirideta televisiooni direktiivi põhjendust 45 võiks komisjon seni, kuni tulemuseks olevaid filmiõigusi näidatakse avalik-õiguslikus televisioonis, nõustuda sellega, et avalik-õigusliku ringhäälinguorganisatsiooni avalike teenuste määratlemine sisaldab ka kohustust oluliselt toetada Euroopa audiovisuaalset toodangut. [82]
The Commission considers that the obligation imposed on RTP to promote the cinema falls within the scope of public service broadcasting, as RTP subsequently broadcasts on public service television the films for which it acquired the distribution rights.
Komisjoni arvates kuulub RTP-le määratud kohustus soodustada filmitööstust avalik-õigusliku ringhäälingu alla, kuna RTP näitab hiljem neid filme, mille levitamisõigused ta omandas, avalik-õiguslikus televisioonis.
The Commission cannot, therefore, agree with the comments by interested parties that RTP's obligation regarding cinema promotion and its financing is discriminatory.
Seetõttu ei saa komisjon nõustuda huvitatud poolte kommentaaridega, et RTP kohustus filmitööstust soodustada ja seda finantseerida on diskrimineeriv.
The parties argued that private broadcasters also concluded protocols on cinema promotion with the Portuguese authorities that do not provide for compensation.
Pooled väitsid, et ka eraõiguslikud ringhäälinguorganisatsioonid sõlmisid Portugali ametiasutustega filmitööstuse soodustamise protokolle, mis aga ei sätesta hüvitisi.
The Commission is of the opinion that a distinction has to be made between the voluntary agreements on cinema promotion concluded between the State and the private broadcasters, on the one hand, and the public service broadcasting obligations imposed on RTP to broadcast cinema productions and to finance them, on the other.
Komisjon on seisukohal, et eristada tuleb ühelt poolt riigi ja eraõiguslike ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide vahel sõlmitud vabatahtlikke filmitööstuse soodustamise lepinguid ja teiselt poolt RTP-le kehtestatud avalik-õigusliku ringhäälinguteenuse osutamise kohustust filmitootmist ringhäälingusse edastada ja finantseerida.
It is clear that RTP is explicitly entrusted with a public service task to support certain film productions that are subsequently broadcast as public service television programmes, whereas no such public service task is entrusted to private broadcasters.
On selge, et RTP-le on antud sõnaselge avaliku teenuse ülesanne toetada teatud filmitoodangut, mis hiljem avaliku teleteenuse programmidena ringhäälingusse edastatakse, samas kui eraõiguslikele ringhäälinguorganisatsioonidele sellist avaliku teenuse ülesannet ei anta.
In fact, RTP becomes an instrument used by the State to support the cinema.
Tegelikult on RTP vahend, mida riik kasutab filmitööstuse toetamiseks.
Any resulting advantages granted by RTP to the cinema could constitute state aid and should be assessed as such.
Kõik tulenevad eelised, mis RTP filmitööstusele võimaldab, kujutavad endast riigiabi ja sellisena tuleks neid ka hinnata.
This decision is without prejudice to any assessment of possible advantages granted to film producers.
Käesolev otsus ei piira hinnanguid võimalike filmitootjatele antud eeliste kohta.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the co-financing by RTP of Portuguese cinematographic works that are shown on the public service channels can be considered as a legitimate specific obligation that is instrumental in fulfilling RTP’s general public service broadcasting obligation.
Sellest tulenevalt järeldab komisjon, et RTP poolset avaliku televisiooniteenuse kanalitel näidatavate Portugali kinematograafiateoste kaasrahastamist võib pidada õiguspäraseks erikohustuseks, mis on vajalik RTP avalike ringhäälinguteenuste üldkohustuste täitmiseks.
This obligation does not, therefore, constitute a manifest error.
Seetõttu ei kujuta see kohustus endast ilmset viga.
However, the Commission considers that the legal obligation imposed on RTP to provide ‘other services to be specified on an ad hoc basis’ [83] is not sufficiently precise to enable the Commission to assess beforehand with sufficient legal certainty whether such services can be considered as a public service.
Siiski leiab komisjon, et RTP-le kehtestatud õiguslikud kohustused pakkuda “muid teenuseid, mida vastavalt olukorrale täpsustatakse”, [83] ei ole piisavalt täpsed, et võimaldada komisjonil eelnevalt piisava õiguskindlusega hinnata, kas neid teenuseid saab lugeda avalikeks teenusteks. Ehkki komisjoni arvates ei ole “muud teenused, mida täpsustatakse”, selgelt määratletud, tuleb märkida, et uurimisperioodi jooksul ei sooritatud selle sätte kohaselt ühtegi makset.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the activities of RTP as described in Law No 21/92 and redefined in the public service contracts are clearly defined public service obligations.
Eelnevat silmas pidades järeldab komisjon, et seaduses nr 21/92 kirjeldatud ja riiklikes teenuslepingutes uuesti määratletud RTP tegevus kuulub selgelt määratletud avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustuste alla.
Although the obligation to provide ‘other services to be provided on an ad hoc basis’ is not sufficiently precise for it to be concluded beforehand that all the services provided under this heading could be considered public services, no payments were made under this provision in the period 1992 to 1998.
Ehkki kohustus pakkuda “muid teenuseid, mida vastavalt olukorrale täpsustatakse”, ei ole piisavalt täpne, et juba eelnevalt järeldada, kas kõiki sellesse rubriiki kuuluvaid teenuseid saab lugeda avalikeks teenusteks, ei sooritatud selle sätte kohaselt ajavahemikul 1992–1998 ühtegi makset.
Entrustment
Ülesande andmine
Secondly, the Commission has to assess whether the public service obligations were entrusted to the recipient of the funding.
Teiseks tuleb komisjonil hinnata, kas avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustused anti ülesandeks raha saajale.
In line with the Communication on broadcasting, the Commission has to verify whether the public service remit has been entrusted to RTP by means of an official act [85].
Ringhäälinguteatisele vastavalt peab komisjon kindlaks tegema, kas avaliku teenuse osutamise ülesanne anti RTP-le avaliku toiminguga. [85]
As can be seen from paragraph 55, the public service obligations are clearly entrusted to RTP under various laws and contracts: Article 5 of Law No 58/90, Articles 4(1) and 5 of Law No 21/92 and Clause 1 of the public service contracts.
Nagu punktis 55 ilmneb, on avalike teenuste osutamise kohustused RTP-le selgelt ülesandeks antud erinevate seaduste ja lepingute kohaselt: seaduse nr 58/90 artikkel 5, seaduse nr 21/92 artikli 4 lõige 1 ja artikkel 5 ning avaliku teenuse osutamise lepingute punkt 1.
The Commission did not receive any comments from interested parties or the Portuguese Government to the effect that the public service was not sufficiently entrusted to RTP by means of an official act.
Komisjonile ei laekunud huvitatud pooltelt ega Portugali valitsuselt kommentaare selle kohta, et RTP-le ametliku toiminguga avaliku teenuse ülesande andmine oleks ebapiisavalt teostatud olnud.
In line with the communication and in view of the above laws and contracts, it concludes that there is no doubt that RTP has to perform the public service television obligations and the public service remit has, therefore, been officially entrusted to RTP.
Teatisega kooskõlas ja eelpool mainitud seadusi ning lepinguid arvestades järeldab komisjon, et ei ole põhjust kahelda selles, et RTP on kohustatud täitma avaliku televisiooniteenuse osutamise kohustust, ja seega on avaliku teenuse osutamine ametlikult RTP-le ülesandeks antud.
Not only should the public service be entrusted to RTP by means of an official act; steps should also be taken to ensure that the public service is provided as provided for.
Avaliku teenuse osutamise ülesanne tuleks RTP-le anda mitte ainult avaliku toiminguga, astuda tuleks ka samme tagamaks, et avaliku teenuse osutamine toimuks ettenähtud viisil.
As stated in paragraphs 56 to 59, different control mechanisms were in place to ensure that RTP carried out the public service obligation in the manner provided for.
Vastavalt punktides 56–59 sätestatule kasutati selleks et tagada seda, et RTP täidaks avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustusi ettenähtud viisil, erinevaid kontrollimehhanisme.
Firstly, RTP had to present reports on the public service performance as well as plans accompanied by an opinion of the internal board of auditors.
Esmalt pidi RTP oma avaliku teenuse osutamise tegevuse kohta esitama aruandeid ning plaane koos siseaudiitorkogu arvamusega.
In the period 1992 to 1998 it did indeed present such reports describing how each public service obligation had been fulfilled and identifying the costs of each public service obligation by using an analytical accounting system.
Ajavahemikul 1992–1998 esitas ettevõte tõepoolest selliseid aruandeid, kirjeldades, kuidas iga avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustus täideti, ja määratles analüütilise raamatupidamissüsteemi abil ka iga avaliku teenuse kohustuse täitmise kulud.
Secondly, the Minister for Finance and the member of the Government responsible for the media verified compliance with the public service contracts and the Inspector-General of Finances audited the financial plan.
Teiseks kontrollisid rahandusminister ning meediasektori eest vastutavad valitsuse liikmed vastavust avaliku teenuse osutamise lepingutega avaliku teenuse osutamise lepingutega ning peafinantsinspektor auditeeris rahastamiskava.
Thirdly, an external audit had to be carried out each year.
Kolmandaks tuleb igal aastal läbi viia välisaudit.
The Commission cannot agree with SIC that the public service costs as presented by the Portuguese authorities and the RTP figures included in its public service contracts and annual accounts are not reliable and therefore could not be properly verified.
Komisjon ei saa nõustuda SICi väitega, et Portugali ametiasutuste esitatud avalike teenuste osutamise kulud ning RTP riiklikes teenuslepingutes ja aastaaruannetes esitatud arvud ei ole usaldusväärsed ja seetõttu ei saa neid nõuetekohaselt kontrollida.
It points out that a statutory auditor carried out an annual audit of RTP's financial accounts in the period 1992 to 1998.
Komisjon rõhutab, et ajavahemikul 1992–1998 auditeeris RTP raamatupidamisaruandeid diplomeeritud audiitor.
Furthermore, although an audit statement did not systematically accompany the public service reports, the strict rules of the cost accounting system ensured that the costs of each public service obligation eligible for compensation payments could be identified and properly verified.
Peale selle, ehkki auditiaruanne ei olnud avalike teenuste osutamise aruandele süstemaatiliselt lisatud, tagasid ranged kuluarvestussüsteemi reeglid, et iga hüvitamisele kuuluva avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustus määratletakse ja kontrollitakse.
From the above it is clear that verification took place at three different levels: internally by the board of auditors, by the responsible government bodies and by an external auditing firm.
Eespool kirjeldatust selgub, et kontroll toimus kolmel erineval tasandil: sisekontrolli viisid läbi audiitorkogu, vastutavad valitsusasutused ja välisauditifirma.
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.
Ehkki näib, et avalike teenuste osutamise aruande välisauditit ei teostatud süstemaatiliselt, kindlustas kirjeldatud süsteem selle, et avaliku teenuse kohustusi täideti ettenähtud viisil.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that an effective mechanism was in place in the period 1992-98 to ensure effective monitoring of the fulfilment of RTP's public service obligations.
Seetõttu järeldab komisjon, et ajavahemikul 1992–1998 kasutati efektiivset mehhanismi RTP avalike teenuste kohustuste täitmise tõhusa jälgimise tagamiseks.
The third criterion the Commission has to assess is whether the financing is proportionate to the net cost of the public service.
Kolmas kriteerium, mida komisjonil hinnata tuleb, on rahastamise proportsionaalsus avaliku teenuse osutamise netokulude suhtes.
Firstly, in order to determine the cost of the public service activities correctly, the communication requires a proper allocation of costs and revenue between the public service and commercial activities.
Esmalt, avaliku teenuse tegevuse kulude nõuetekohaselt kindlaksmääramiseks nõuab teatis tulude ja kulude asjakohast jaotust avalik-õiguslike ja eraõiguslike ühingute vahel.
As described in paragraphs 62 to 64, the public service contracts define the method of cost and revenue allocation that RTP has to apply.
Vastavalt punktides 62–64 kirjeldatule määratlevad avaliku teenuse osutamise lepingud tulude ja kulude jaotuse meetodi, mida RTP peab rakendama.
In the present case, the Commission's task is, in principle, made easier by the fact that RTP has implemented an analytical accounting system which permits quantification of the eligible costs incurred by the undertaking to fulfil each of the reimbursable public service obligations.
Käesoleval juhul on komisjoni tööd põhimõtteliselt kergendanud fakt, et RTP on kohaldanud analüütilist raamatupidamissüsteemi, mis võimaldab mõõta neid ettevõtte kantud abikõlblikke kulusid, mis tekkisid iga hüvitamisele kuuluva avaliku teenuse kohustuse täitmise käigus.
By means of this system, each item of eligible expenditure is allocated to an activity and subsequently divided between the different reimbursable public service tasks of RTP on the basis of objective accounting principles.
Selle süsteemi abil määratakse igale tegevusele abikõlbliku kulu artikkel ning seejärel jaotatakse need objektiivsete raamatupidamispõhimõtete alusel RTP erinevate hüvitatavate avaliku teenuse ülesannete vahel.
As the revenues derived from each reimbursable public service task are deducted from the operating costs, the system guarantees that the annual compensation payments are limited to the net cost of each public service obligation (see paragraph 65).
Kuna igast hüvitatava avaliku teenuse ülesandest saadav tulu arvatakse maha tegevuskuludest, siis tagab süsteem, et aastased hüvitismaksed piirduvad iga avaliku teenuse kohustuse puhaskuluga (vt punkti 65).
The Commission has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the parameters for determining the cost are, in principle, established in an objective and transparent manner.
Seetõttu peab komisjon järeldama, et põhimõtteliselt on kulude määratlemise parameetrid objektiivselt ja läbipaistvalt kehtestatud.
However, it notes that the rules of cost compensation might underestimate the real net cost of RTP's public service and could lead to structural underfinancing of the real funding needs.
Siiski tuleb märkida, et kulude hüvitamise reeglid võivad RTP avaliku teenuse osutamise tegelikku puhaskulu alahinnata, mille tulemusena võib tekkida tegelike rahastamisvajaduste struktuuriline alarahastamine.
As can be seen from paragraph 65, under the cost calculation method laid down in the contracts, certain public service costs were excluded from payment by means of annual compensation [87].
Nagu punktis 65 ilmneb, ei maksta lepingutes sätestatud kuluarvestusmeetodi kohaselt teatud avalike teenuste kulusid aastahüvitise abil.
Moreover, the Portuguese authorities informed the Commission that, although RTP had to pay VAT on the annual compensation payments received, the resulting costs could not be taken into account under the accounting rules (paragraph 96).
Lisaks teavitasid Portugali ametiasutused komisjoni sellest, et ehkki RTP pidi saadud aastastelt hüvitismaksetelt maksma käibemaksu, ei saanud sellest tulenevaid kulusid raamatupidamisreeglite kohaselt arvestada (punkt 96).
Finally, in its public service reports RTP did not include all the investments made in public service equipment, although these were accounted for in its financial accounts (see paragraph 67).
Lõpetuseks, RTP ei esitanud oma avalike teenuste aruandes kõiki investeeringuid avaliku teenuse osutamise vahendeisse, ehkki need on kajastatud ettevõtte raamatupidamisaruandes.
However, under the Amsterdam Protocol, it is for the Member State to provide for the funding of the public service broadcasters.
Siiski on Amsterdami protokolli kohaselt avalik-õiguslike ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide rahastamise reguleerimine liikmesriigi enese otsustada.
In the present case, the Portuguese authorities decided not to reimburse some of the costs incurred by the service provider in fulfilling its tasks.
Käesoleval juhul otsustasid Portugali ametiasutused osasid kulusid, mis teenusepakkujal oma ülesandeid täites tekkisid, mitte hüvitada.
In the case at hand, the State granted not only annual compensation payments to RTP but also additional financing in the form of share capital increases, loans and an agreement with the social security scheme.
Antud juhul eraldas riik RTP-le mitte ainult aastaseid hüvitismakseid, vaid ka lisafinantseeringuid aktsiakapitali suurendamise, laenude ning sotsiaalkindlustusskeemiga sõlmitud lepingu näol.
Although the public service contracts provided for state compensation in the form of annual compensation payments for operating costs and the possibility of capital increases for investments made by RTP, the legal provisions relating to RTP's public service did not provide for any financing by means of loans and social security deductions.
Ehkki avaliku teenuse osutamise lepingud sätestasid tegevuskulude kompenseerimiseks riigihüvitise aastamaksed ning võimaluse investeeringute eest RTP kapitali suurendada, ei näinud RTP avaliku teenuse osutamisega seotud õigusnormid ette rahastamist laenude ja sotsiaalkindlustusest mahaarvamise abil.
However, in line with paragraph 57 of the communication on broadcasting, the Commission has to analyse whether all measures are proportionate to the net public service costs.
Kooskõlas ringhäälinguteatise punktiga 57 peab komisjon siiski analüüsima, kas kõik meetmed on proportsioonis avaliku teenuse osutamise puhaskuludega.
Only then can the financing of RTP be considered to be compatible with Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty.
Alles siis saab RTP rahastamist lugeda vastavaks EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 86 lõikele 2.
The Commission also considers that the public service obligations imposed on RTP which were not eligible for compensation under the public service contracts can, in fact, be considered as legitimate and clearly defined public service obligations formally imposed by the State on the service provider.
Komisjon leiab ka, et neid RTP-le kehtestatud avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustusi, mis ei olnud avaliku teenuse osutamise lepingute kohaselt hüvitiskõlblikud, saab siiski lugeda õiguspärasteks ning selgelt määratletud avaliku teenuse kohustusteks, mille riik on ametlikult teenusepakkujale kehtestanud.
Therefore, under Community law, the Portuguese State may finance all the net public service costs of RTP.
Seega võib Portugali riik ühenduse õiguse kohaselt rahastada kõiki RTP avaliku teenuse osutamisega kaasnevaid netokulusid.
For the purposes of the present decision, it is not necessary to recalculate exactly all the real net costs incurred by RTP in performing its public service obligations.
Käesoleva otsuse kohandamisel ei ole vajalik uuesti täpselt arvutada kogu tegelikku netokulu, mis RTP-l tekkis seoses avalike teenuste kohustuste täitmisega.
It is sufficient to demonstrate that the total state financing received by RTP in the period 1992 to 1998 did not exceed the net extra costs incurred by the undertaking in fulfilling over the same period the public service tasks referred to.
See on piisav näitamaks, et kogu riigipoolne rahastamine, mida RTP sai ajavahemikul 1992–1998, ei ületanud netolisakulusid, mis ettevõttel sama aja jooksul eelnevalt mainitud avaliku teenuse ülesannete täitmise käigus tekkisid.
Table 6 gives an overview of RTP's public service costs (both investment costs and net operating costs), as calculated under the cost accounting rules applicable, and of the compensation received for investment and operating costs.
Tabel 6 annab ülevaate RTP vastavalt kohaldatavatele kuluarvestusreeglitele arvutatud avalike teenuste osutamise kuludest (nii investeerimis- kui puhastegevuskuludest) ning ka investeeringute ja tegevuskulude eest saadud hüvitistest.
Firstly, the investments in public service equipment (Table 5) and compensation provided for to finance investments (Table 2) are presented.
Esmalt on esitatud investeeringud avalike teenuste osutamise vahendeisse (tabel 5) ja finantsinvesteeringute eest ette nähtud hüvitised (tabel 2).
Secondly, the net operating costs of RTP (Table 4) and the compensation payments for these costs (Table 1) are presented.
Teiseks on esitatud RTP puhastegevuskulud (tabel 4) ja nende kulude eest saadus hüvitismaksed (tabel 1).
Lastly, the table shows the advantage gained from ad hoc aid resulting from the agreement with the social security scheme and the loan.
Lõpuks näitab tabel sihtotstarbelisest abist saadud soodustusi, mis tulenesid lepingust sotsiaalkindlustusskeemiga ja laenust.
Table 6
Tabel 6:
Summary of funding needs and compensation for the public service net operating cost under the accounting rules
Kokkuvõte rahastamisvajadusest ja hüvitis avaliku teenuse osutamise puhastegevuskulude eest vastavalt raamatupidamiseeskirjadele
Source: Financial report and public service reports.
Allikad: Finantsaruanne ja avalike teenuste aruanne.
Sum
Summa
Investment costs
Investeerimiskulud
Capital injections
Kapitalisüstid
Difference between investment costs and compensation
Investeerimis-kulude ja hüvitise vahe
Public service operating costs
Avalike teenuste osutamisega kaasnevad tegevuskulud
Compensation payments
Hüvitismaksed
Loan
Laen
Difference between operating costs and compensation
Tegevuskulude ja hüvitise vahe
At a second stage, in order to maintain the financial equilibrium of RTP, the authorities used ad hoc instruments to finance RTP's public service costs.
Teises etapis kasutasid ametiasutused selleks et RTP finantstasakaalu säilitada, RTP avalike teenuste osutamise kulude rahastamiseks sihtotstarbelisi vahendeid.
As Table 6 shows, the capital injection overcompensated for public service investments by PTE 26736,8 million, whereas the operating costs were underfinanced by the compensation payments and the other ad hoc aid to the tune of PTE 28755,1 million.
Nagu tabelist 6 ilmneb, hüvitasid kapitalisüstid avalike teenuste investeeringuid ülemääraselt 26,7368 miljardi eskuudo võrra, samas kui hüvitismaksed ja muu sihtotstarbeline abi alafinantseerisid tegevuskulusid 28,7551 miljardi eskuudo võrra.
Indeed, although the capital injections were basically meant to finance investments in equipment, they were also used to repay accumulated debt.
Ehkki kapitalisüstid olid peamiselt mõeldud vahenditesse investeerimise rahastamiseks, kasutati neid ka kogunenud võla tagasimaksmiseks.
As Table 6 also shows, the total compensation was PTE 2018,3 million less than the net public service costs (PTE 28755,1 minus PTE 26736,8 million).
Tabel 6 näitab ka seda, et hüvitiste kogusumma oli 2,0183 miljardi eskuudo võrra väiksem kui avalike teenuste osutamise puhaskulud (28,7551 miljardit eskuudot miinus 26,7368 miljardit eskuudot).
The Commission concludes, therefore, that under the Community rules total state funding is proportionate to the net operating public service costs of RTP for the period under investigation.
Seetõttu järeldab komisjon, et ühenduse eeskirjade kohaselt on uurimisperioodil riikliku rahastamise kogusumma proportsioonis RTP avaliku teenuse osutamise puhastegevuskuludega.