natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A sum of DKK 96 million was invested in commercial activities and it cannot be determined whether this was financed through capital or outside funding.
96 miljoni Taani krooni suurune summa investeeriti kommertstegevusse ning ei ole võimalik teha kindlaks, kas seda finantseeriti omakapitali või välisrahadega.
Assuming that only capital was used, this would imply that DKK 544 million of capital was available for TV2 to carry out its public service broadcasting activities.
Kui eeldada, et kasutati ainult omakapitali, tähendab see, et TV2 avalik-õigusliku ringhäälingutegevuse jaoks oli kättesaadav 544 miljoni Taani krooni suurune omakapital.
With regard to what was stated in recital 198 above, it should be noted that TV2 also performs a number of commercial activities.
Eeltoodud põhjenduse 198 kohta tuleb märkida, et TV2 tegeleb ka erinevate kommertstegevustega.
These are fairly marginal compared with TV2’s overall activities.
kogu tegevusega võrreldes on neil üsna marginaalne osa.
The costs for these commercial activities have been allocated based on the method presented in the 2001 Broadcasting Communication [87], under which, contrary to the approach generally adopted in other utilities sectors, costs that are entirely attributable to public service activities while also benefiting commercial activities need not be apportioned between the two and can be entirely allocated to those public service activities.
Kommertstegevuse kulud on määratud vastavalt 2001. aasta ringhäälinguteatises [87] toodud meetodile, milles on sätestatud, et vastupidiselt kommunaalteenuste sektoris kasutatavale tavapärasele meetodile ei pea kulusid, mis on seotud ainult avalike teenustega ning millest on samal ajal kasu ka äritegevusel, jagama kõnealuse kahe tegevusala vahel, vaid need võib täielikult eraldada avalike teenuste valdkonnale.
The 2001 Broadcasting Communication considered there was a risk that a strict breakdown of such costs between the two activities would be arbitrary and not meaningful.
aasta ringhäälinguteatises leiti, et nende kulude täielik jagamine kahe tegevusala vahel võib osutuda suvaliseks ja põhjendamatuks.
As for the advantage that TV2 receives from its access to the transmission frequency, the Commission notes that this is inseparably linked to the public service mission.
Seoses TV2 eelistega edastussageduse osas märgib komisjon, et need on lahutamatult seotud avaliku teenusega.
The Commission also considers that in line with the Broadcasting Communication, the financing costs (interest advantages) can be fully attributed to the public service activities.
Komisjon leiab ühtlasi, et vastavalt ringhäälinguteatisele saab finantseerimiskulud (intressieelised) täielikult siduda avaliku teenuse osutamisega.
To neutralise the effect of the tax exemption that the public service activities enjoy, 30 % of the profits from commercial activities are transferred to the public service side.
Et neutraliseerida avaliku teenuse tegevustele antud tulumaksuvabastuse mõju, kantakse 30 % kommertstegevusest saadud tuludest üle avaliku teenuse tarbeks.
However, in future the advantage should no longer exist, given that the share of the transfer corresponds to the actual taxation rate thanks to this ‘neutralisation’ mechanism.
Edaspidi ei peaks seda eelist siiski enam olema, kuna neutraliseerimismehhanismi tulemusel ülekantud osa vastab tegelikule tulumaksumäärale.
As for the past, this does not pose a problem when it comes to establishing the amount of overcompensation, since the total income from commercial activities was used to reduce the net cost of the public service activities.
Minevikus toimunud ülemäärase hüvitamise arvutamisel ei teki sellest probleeme, sest kommertstegevuse kogutulu on kasutatud avaliku teenuse netokulude vähendamiseks.
engaged in loss-making commercial Internet activities.
TV2-l on olnud kahjumit andvad kommertstegevused Internetis.
As these activities fall outside the public service broadcasting mission, no State funding is possible.
Kuna need tegevused jäävad avaliku ringhäälinguteenuse ülesandest välja, ei ole võimalik neid riiklikult rahastada.
Moreover, as no other activities were operated on a ‘stand-alone’ basis, there is no surplus from commercial activities to cover the losses on Internet activities.
Kuna ei leidu ka teisi eraldi toimivaid tegevusi, ei ole ühtegi kommertstegevust, mille tuludest võiks katta Interneti-tegevuse kahjumi.
Assessment of TV2’s behaviour in the advertising market
käitumise hindamine reklaamiturul
Paragraph 58 of the Broadcasting Communication states that ‘a public service broadcaster, in so far as lower revenues are covered by the State aid, might be tempted to depress the prices of advertising or other non-public service activities on the market, so as to reduce the revenue of competitors (…). Whenever a public service broadcaster undercuts prices in non-public service activities below what is necessary to recover the stand-alone costs that an efficient commercial operator in a similar situation would normally have to recover, such practice would indicate the presence of overcompensation of public service obligations (…)’.
Ringhäälinguteatise punktis 58 on sätestatud, et „kui avalik-õigusliku ringhäälinguorganisatsiooni väikesemahulised tulud katab riigiabi, võib organisatsioonil tekkida soov langetada turul reklaamihindu või muude avaliku teenuse väliste teenuste hindu, et vähendada konkurentide saadavat tulu […]. Kui avalik-õiguslik ringhäälinguorganisatsioon kehtestab avaliku teenuse välise tegevuse puhul hinnad, mis on madalamad kui on vaja selleks, et katta üksnes tegevuskulud, mida tõhus äriettevõtja peaks samasuguses olukorras tavaliselt kandma, näitab see avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustuse ülemäärast hüvitamist […]”.
TVDanmark submitted information showing that it could not cover the stand-alone costs of its television operations with the advertising prices that TV2 charges.
TvDanmark on esitanud andmed, mis näitavad, et TvDanmark ei ole võimeline katma ainult teleteenuste osutamisest tekkivaid kulusid TV2 reklaamihindadega.
TVDanmark compared its costs with the TRP 21-50 advertising prices that TV2 was charging.
TvDanmark võrdleb oma kulusid TV2 kasutatava vanuserühma 21–50 sihtreitingupunktide hinnaga.
For this comparison to be valid, the Commission must, as a first step, establish whether or not TVDanmark can be considered to be in a similar situation to TV2 and whether or not it is an efficient operator.
Selleks, et võrdlus oleks kehtiv, peab komisjon kõigepealt määrama kindlaks, kas TvDanmark on TV2ga samas olukorras ja kas TVDanmark on tõhus operaator.
First, the Commission has to assess whether TVDanmark is in a similar situation to TV2.
Esiteks peab komisjon andma hinnangu sellele, kas TvDanmark on samasuguses olukorras kui TV2.
The Commission notes the following.
Sellega seoses märgib komisjon järgmist.
For the period under investigation, TV2’s audience share was in the region of 35 % whereas the corresponding figure for TVDanmark was approximately 15 %.
Uuritaval perioodil on TV2 vaatajate osakaal ligikaudu 35 %, TvDanmarkil ligikaudu 15 %.
Their shares of the advertising market also differed significantly.
Märkimisväärselt erinev on ka reklaamituru osakaal.
TV2’s market share was in the range of 60 %, whereas TVDanmark’s was around 8 %.
turuosa on ligikaudu 60 %, TvDanmarki turuosa aga ligikaudu 8 %.
TV2’s advertising turnover was approximately five times that of TVDanmark.
reklaamikäive on TvDanmarki käibest umbes viis korda suurem.
Moreover, TV2 is the only station that reaches 100 % of the population, whereas TVDanmark2 has a coverage of 77 % and TVDanmark1 even less.
Ühtlasi on TV2 ainus telekanal, mis katab kogu elanikkonna, samas kui TvDanmark2 katvus on 77 % ja TvDanmark1 katvus veelgi väiksem.
In view of the above, the Commission considers that TVDanmark cannot be directly compared to TV2.
Eeltoodud elementide põhjal leiab komisjon, et TvDanmarki ei saa otseselt võrrelda TV2ga.
Secondly, the Commission has to establish whether or not TVDanmark is an efficient market operator.
Teiseks peab komisjon tegema kindlaks, kas TvDanmark on tõhus turuoperaator.
An efficient operator can be determined by analysing commonly used accounting ratios and by comparing the operator’s results with average results in the Member State.
Tõhusa operaatori saab kindlaks määrata, kui analüüsida üldiselt kasutatavaid raamatupidamisandmeid ja võrrelda operaatori tulemusi liikmesriigi keskmiste tulemustega.
The analysis has to take into account the different size of the undertakings and their specific cost structures.
Analüüsi tehes tuleb võtta arvesse ettevõtjate erinevat suurust ja nende konkreetseid kulustruktuure.
However, as stated earlier, operators on the Danish market cannot be said to be in a comparable situation so as to enable a direct comparison of performance ratios.
Taani turul tegutsevad operaatorid ei ole aga nii sarnases olukorras, et oleks võimalik vahetult võrrelda nende tulemuslikkust.
Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that an analysis of such ratios on the Danish market is not appropriate in the present case.
Seetõttu on komisjon arvamusel, et antud juhul ei ole Taani turul loodud kasumi võrdlemine kohane.
Instead, the Commission has analysed data on the financial performance of TVDanmark and SBS Broadcasting.
Selle asemel analüüsis komisjon TvDanmarki ja SBS Broadcastingu finantstulemusi.
As a result of its analysis, the Commission cannot establish with certainty whether the losses incurred stem from the fact that TVDanmark had high initial start-up costs which it has not yet been able to recover or whether it is in fact not performing efficiently.
Analüüsi alusel ei saa komisjon kindlalt väita, kas TvDanmarki kantud kahjum tuleneb sellest, et ettevõttel olid suuremad stardikulutused, mida seni ei ole tagasi teenitud, või ei ole TvDanmark tõhusalt toimiv ettevõte.
Despite several requests, the Commission was not able to obtain data on the financial performance of the third operator, TV3, to allow a comparison with the third operator on the market.
Hoolimata korduvatest taotlustest ei ole komisjonile esitatud kolmanda televisiooniettevõtte, TV3 finantstulemusi, mis võimaldaks võrrelda andmeid kolmanda turul tegutseva operaatori omadega.
Consequently the Commission cannot conclude with certainty whether TVDanmark’s losses are a result of TV2’s pricing behaviour or whether they are due to other factors over which TVDanmark itself had some control.
Sellest tulenevalt ei saa komisjon kindlalt väita, kas TvDanmarki kahjum on tingitud TV2 hinnakujundusest või muudest teguritest, mida TvDanmark on võimeline mõjutama.
Since it cannot be established with certainty whether or not TVDanmark is an efficient operator and since a direct comparison of the two operators is not possible, the Commission is of the opinion that any such assessment is inconclusive in the present case.
Arvestades seda, et ei saa kindlalt määrata, kas TvDanmark on tõhus operaator, ning kuna otsene operaatorite võrdlus ei ole võimalik, leiab komisjon, et tehtud katse ei ole antud juhul järelduste tegemiseks sobiv.
The Commission therefore decided to undertake a more detailed analysis of TV2’s pricing policies and of the data available concerning the advertising market in order to assess whether or not TV2 acted with a view to maximising its advertising revenue during the period under investigation.
Komisjon on seetõttu otsustanud analüüsida täpsemalt TV2 hinnakujunduspoliitikat ja reklaamituru andmeid, et oleks võimalik hinnata, kas TV2 on uuritava perioodi vältel käitunud eesmärgiga tõsta oma reklaamitulusid.
First, the Commission compared the prices of the two operators and analysed the pricing policies of TV2.
Esiteks on komisjon võrrelnud kahe operaatori hindu ja analüüsinud TV2 hinnakujunduspoliitikat.
The analysis focused on the years 1998–2002, the period during which the complainant alleged that TV2 started applying ‘dumping’ prices on the advertising market.
Analüüsis keskendutakse aastatele 1998–2002, mil TV2 alustas kaebuse esitaja väitel hindade allasurumist reklaamiturul.
Second, it analysed Danish advertising spending in the EU context and in comparison with the other Scandinavian countries in particular.
Seejärel on komisjon analüüsinud Taani reklaamikulusid Euroopa Liidu ja eriti teiste Skandinaavia riikide kontekstis.
Third, a comparison of contact prices was made across all the Scandinavian countries and media types.
Kolmandaks on võrreldud kontaktihindu Skandinaavia riikide ja meedialiikide lõikes.
The Commission notes that TV2’s behaviour in the advertising market was investigated by the Danish competition authorities.
Komisjon märgib, et TV2 käitumist reklaamiturul on uurinud Taani konkurentsiasutused.
On 21 December 2005, the Danish Competition Council held that TV2 had infringed Article 102 TFEU and the corresponding national legislation by applying loyalty rebates on the advertising market.
21. detsembril 2005 võttis Taani konkurentsiamet vastu otsuse, et TV2 on rikkunud ELi toimimise lepingu artiklit 102 ja vastavaid siseriiklikke õigusnorme, kasutades reklaamiturul püsikliendisoodustusi.
Most notably, a loyalty rebate does not necessarily imply the existence of cross-subsidies within the meaning of the 2001 Broadcasting Communication (‘Whenever a public service broadcaster undercuts prices in non-public service activities below what is necessary to recover the stand-alone costs that an efficient commercial operator in a similar situation would normally have to recover, such practice would indicate the presence of overcompensation of public service obligations’).
Tuleb täheldada, et püsikliendisoodustused ei eelda ristsubsideerimist 2001. aasta ringhäälinguteatise tähenduses (s.o „kui avalik-õiguslik ringhäälinguorganisatsioon kehtestab avaliku teenuse välise tegevuse puhul hinnad, mis on madalamad kui on vaja selleks, et katta üksnes tegevuskulud, mida tõhus äriettevõtja peaks samasuguses olukorras tavaliselt kandma, näitab see avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustuse ülemäärast hüvitamist”).
In fact, as explained below, on average, TV2 charged significantly higher prices than its competitors.
Nagu järgnevas selgitatud, küsis TV2 tegelikult keskmiselt reklaami eest konkurentidest tunduvalt kõrgemat hinda.
Moreover, the loyalty rebates imply that customers placed a larger part of their annual advertising budgets with TV2 than they would have done under other circumstances.
Peale selle tähendasid püsikliendisoodustused, et klientide iga-aastasest reklaamieelarvest läks TV2-le suurem osa, kui see oleks toimunud muudel tingimustel.
The allegation therefore implies that TV2 increased its advertising revenue by way of the rebate scheme, which would actually have reduced need for licence fee funding.
Seetõttu järeldub sellest väitekst, et TV2 suurendas oma reklaamitulusid allahindlussüsteemi abil, mis oleks pidanud tingima väiksema litsentsitasude vajaduse.
In any event, the Commission is not bound by the decisions of the Danish competition authorities.
Igal juhul ei ole Taani konkurentsiasutuste otsused komisjoni jaoks siduvad.
Audience shares and composition, programming content, the rules on advertising time, and the funding mechanism of stations are all factors that affect the nature of competition in the advertising market.
Konkurentsi reklaamiturul mõjutavad tegurid, nagu vaatajate arv ja koosseis, programmi sisu, reklaamiaja reeglid ja telejaamade finantskorraldus.
As a result, prices vary between different broadcasters.
Seetõttu on erinevate ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide hinnad erinevad.
Stations also sell a range of differentiated ‘products’ that fetch different prices [88].
Lisaks müüvad telekanalid erinevaid diferentseeritud tooteid, mille hinnad on erinevad [88].
The prices charged by the stations include significant discounts.
Telejaamade reklaamihinnad sisaldavad olulisi allahindlusi.
It is therefore not relevant to compare listed prices in television advertising.
Seetõttu ei ole asjakohane võrrelda telereklaamide hinnakirju.
Most television advertising (approximately 90 % of all nationwide advertising) is governed by annual agreements under which television channels grant annual rebates.
Suurem osa telereklaami (umbes 90 % kogu üleriigilisest reklaamist) müüakse aastaste lepingutega, mille alusel telekanalid teevad aastaseid allahindlusi.
To allow the different stations to be compared, an average of the different prices charged has to be determined.
Selleks et võrrelda erinevaid telejaamu, tuleb arvutada erinevate hindade keskmine.
The table below shows the average prices for the target group TRP 21-50.
Järgmises tabelis on toodud sihtreitingupunktide 21–50 keskmised hinnad.
The average prices were obtained by dividing the relevant stations’ turnover from national spots by the number of national TRP 21-50 delivered [89]:
Need hinnad on saadud asjaomaste telejaamade üleriigilise reklaamilõikude käibe jagamisel saavutatud sihtreitingupunktidega 21–50 [89]:
EUR 283
283 eurot
EUR 270
270 eurot
EUR 252
252 eurot
EUR 251
251 eurot
EUR 211
211 eurot
EUR 480
480 eurot
EUR 409
409 eurot
EUR 364
364 eurot
EUR 381
381 eurot
EUR 325
325 eurot
EUR 197
197 eurot
EUR 139
139 eurot
EUR 112
112 eurot
EUR 130
130 eurot
EUR 114
114 eurot
TVDanmark CPP as share of TV2 CPP [90]
TvDanmarki CCP % TV2 CPPst [90]
average CPP for TRP 21-50 weighted for coverage (by 0,7)
keskmine CPP sihtreitingupunkti 21–50 kohta, kaalutud katvusega (0,7)
EUR 336
336 eurot
EUR 286
286 eurot
EUR 255
255 eurot
EUR 267
267 eurot
EUR 228
228 eurot
TVDanmark CPP as share of TV2 weighted CPP
TvDanmarki CPP % TV2 kaalutud CPPst
From the figures above it can be seen that TVDanmark’s TRP 21-50 price was around 30-40 % lower than TV2’s price.
Vastavalt eeltoodud andmetele on TvDanmarki sihtreitingupunktide 21–50 hind olnud ligikaudu 30–40 % madalam TV2 hinnast.
As the Commission held in its decision on State aid for France 2 and France 3, there is a positive relationship between the average number of contacts and the average net price per contact in the television advertising market [91].
Nagu väitis komisjon oma otsuses riigiabi kohta telejaamadele France 2 ja France 3, eksisteerib telereklaamiturul positiivne suhe vaatekordade keskmise arvu ja vaatekorra keskmise netohinna vahel [91].
Thus any price difference between broadcasters could be explained by the relative strength of the stations in terms of their ability to attract viewers.
Seetõttu saab hinnaerinevust ringhäälinguettevõtete vahel seletada telejaamade suhtelise tugevusega ehk võimega hankida vaatajaid.
In such a situation, it is relevant to establish whether or not the actual price difference reflects conditions on the market.
Sellises olukorras on asjakohane vaadata, kas tegelikud hinnaerinevused peegeldavad turutingimusi.
In contrast to the situation in France, in the present case observations can only be analysed for two operators.
Vastupidiselt Prantsuse telekanalite juhtumile on käesoleval juhul võimalik analüüsida tähelepanekuid vaid kahe operaatori kohta.
The slope of the linear regression line would therefore have to be calculated on the basis of those two operators’ prices and would be of little statistical relevance.
Sellest tulenevalt tuleb lineaarse regressioonikõvera kalle arvutada nende kahe operaatori hindade põhjal ja sellel ei ole erilist statistilist tähtsust.
Thus it would not be possible to draw any conclusion on whether or not the slope of the line is ‘appropriate’.
Selle tulemusel ei ole võimalik teha järeldust kõvera kalde asjakohasuse kohta.
In order to verify whether or not the actual price difference between the two operators could be said to reflect market conditions, a correction factor was therefore applied in an attempt to neutralise TV2’s stronger position in the market.
Selleks et uurida, kas kahe operaatori tegelikud hinnaerinevused peegeldavad turutingimusi, on seetõttu kasutatud kaalumistegurit, püüdes neutraliseerida TV2 paremat turupositsiooni.
The weighting factor was obtained from calculations made by media agencies and reflects the difference in coverage of the desired target group that can be attained by purchasing 100 TRP 21-50 from TVDanmark and from TV2.
Kaalumistegur on tuletatud meediaagentuuride arvutustest ja see peegeldab sihtrühma erinevat katvust, mis saavutatakse 100 sihtreitingupunkti 21–50 ostmisega TvDanmarkilt ja TV2-lt.
On average TVDanmark’s coverage is just under 70 % of TV2’s (on purchasing 100 TRP 21-50).
TvDanmarki keskmine katvus on alla 70 % TV2 katvusest (juhul kui ostetakse 100 sihtreitingupunkti 21–50).
When this factor is applied, the prices are more closely convergent, although TV2’s price is still slightly higher than TVDanmark’s.
Selle teguri kohaldamisel on hinnad ühtlasemad. Võib märgata, et TV2 hind on siiski natuke TvDanmarki omast kõrgem.
The price difference therefore seems to reflect market conditions.
Seetõttu paistab, et hinnaerinevus peegeldab turutingimusi.
However, this result must be treated with caution, as it has to be borne in mind that a correction factor of this kind cannot possibly take account of all the differences between the stations.
Järeldusi tuleb siiski käsitleda ettevaatusega, sest tuleb võtta arvesse, et sellise kaalumisteguriga ei saa kohandada kõiki telejaamade vahelisi erinevusi.
The Commission also notes that the complainant maintains that competition in the television advertising market is actually played out neither through the listed prices nor through the average GRP or TRP prices as presented above.
Samuti märgib komisjon, et kaebuse esitaja väidab, et tegelikult ei konkureerita telereklaamiturul hinnakirjades olevates hindades ega eespool esitatud kogu- või sihtreitingupunktide hindades.
Instead, TVDanmark argues that the operators compete on so-called marginal prices.
Selle asemel võistlevad operaatorid TvDanmarki väitel nn marginaalhindades.
These marginal prices, it is claimed, derived from TV2’s stronger position in the market.
Kõnealused marginaalhinnad tulenevad TV2 paremast positsioonist turul.
For advertisers to achieve their campaign goals, they have to buy a certain quota of rating points exclusively from TV2.
Et reklaamijad jõuaksid oma kampaania eesmärkideni, on nad sunnitud ostma teatava arvu reitingupunkte üksnes TV2-lt.
As there was no competition for these so-called infra-marginal units, TV2 was able to make excess profits on them.
Kuna selliste inframarginaalsete üksuste osas ei ole mingit konkurentsi, saab TV2 seetõttu nendelt lisakasumit.
As a result, the operators competed on the residual rating points and thus on marginal prices.
Järelikult konkureerisid operaatorid ülejäänud reitingupunktide eest marginaalhindadega.
TVDanmark claims that these prices were even lower than the average prices shown in the table above.
TvDanmark väidab, et need hinnad on olnud veelgi madalamad kui asitõendites esitatud keskmised hinnad.
Leaving aside the question of whether this claim is correct, the Commission considers that such behaviour would be possible given TV2’s strong position on the market.
Jättes kõrvale küsimuse, kas see väide vastab tõele, leiab komisjon, et arvestades TV2 jõulist positsiooni turul oleks selline käitumine olnud võimalik.
However, the present investigation has to establish whether or not TV2, through its behaviour on the advertising market, attempted to maximise its revenue.
Käesoleva uuringu eesmärk on siiski kindlaks teha, kas TV2 käitumine reklaamiturul oli sellise iseloomuga, et TV2 püüdis oma sissetulekuid suurendada.
On this question, the possibility cannot be ruled out that TV2 kept its prices low in order to maintain a high market share, but that does not mean that it did not attempt to maximise income.
Selles suhtes ei saa välistada, et TV2 hoidis oma hindu all suurema turuosa kindlustamiseks, kuid selline käitumine ei räägi vastu ettevõtte soovile oma tulusid suurendada.
TV2’s pricing behaviour during the period under investigation
hinnakujunduslik käitumine uuritaval perioodil
The foregoing shows that TV2’s prices were higher than TVDanmark’s during the period under investigation.
Ülaltoodut aluseks võttes võib kinnitada, et TV2 hinnad on olnud uuritaval perioodil kõrgemad kui TvDanmarki hinnad.