natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By estimating how advertising turnover in the Danish advertising market was most likely to develop and identifying the uncertainties associated with these estimates, the reports were part of the procedure used by the Danish authorities to determine the licence fee to be granted to TV2.
Aruanded, milles hinnati Taani reklaamituru käibe tõenäolisemaid arenguid ning tehti kindlaks nimetatud hinnangutega seotud määramatus, moodustasid osa menetlusest, mille alusel Taani ametiasutused määrasid kindlaks TV2-le antava litsentsitasu summa.
The KPMG reports do not assess any of TV2’s costs or the costs of other operators, limiting themselves to considering the development of the advertising market and TV2’s share of advertising revenue.
KPMG aruannetes ei hinnata TV2 ega teiste ettevõtjate kulusid, vaid need piirduvad reklaamituru arengu ja reklaamitulust TV2-le mineva osa kaalumisega.
It should also be noted that the reports do not cover the first years of the period under investigation, which was covered by the 1993 media agreement.
Ühtlasi tuleb tähele panna, et asjaomastes aruannetes ei ole käsitletud uuritava perioodi esimesi aastaid, mis olid hõlmatud 1993. aasta meediakokkuleppega.
To a certain extent, competitors were involved in drawing up these reports.
Aruannete koostamisse olid teataval määral kaasatud ka konkurendid.
The 1995 report states that ‘many stakeholders’ were involved, but it is not clear from the report who they were.
aasta aruandes on väidetud, et dokumendi koostamisel osales palju sidusrühmi, ent aruandest ei selgu, milliseid sidusrühmi silmas peetakse.
The 1999 KPMG report mentions a follow-up group of experts that did indeed involve competitors of TV2.
KPMG 1999. aasta aruandes on nimetatud ekspertidest koosnevat kontrollrühma, kuhu kuulusid ka TV2 konkurendid.
However, the fact that these economic reports were to some extent drawn up with the help of TV2’s competitors does not prove by itself that an analysis of the competitor’s costs was carried out.
Asjaolu, et majandusaruannete koostamisel kasutati teataval määral TV2 konkurentide abi, ei tähenda aga iseenesest seda, et analüüsiti konkurentide kulusid.
In other words the reports include no analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production, would have incurred in discharging public service obligations, but instead dealt with the more general issue of the outlook for the advertising market as well as the amount of TV2’s future advertising revenue.
Teiste sõnadega ei hõlma aruanded analüüsi kulude kohta, mida keskmine hästi korraldatud juhtimise ja piisavate tootmisvahenditega ettevõtja oleks avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustuse täitmisel kandnud, vaid pigem käsitletakse neis reklaamituru väljavaadete ja TV2 tulevase reklaamitulude summaga seotud laiemaid küsimusi.
It should also be added that prices on the advertising market are determined by a variety of factors, such as audience shares, and not only on the basis of costs.
Lisada tuleb ka seda, et reklaamiturul lähtutakse hindade määramisel eri elementidest, näiteks vaatajate osakaalust, mitte ainult kuludest.
The Danish authorities and TV2 also put forward legal and factual arguments in relation to the fourth Altmark condition.
Taani ametiasutused ja TV2 esitasid neljanda Altmarki tingimuse kohta ka õiguslikke ja faktilisi väiteid.
Firstly, Denmark cited the BUPA case, arguing that the fourth Altmark condition did not necessarily apply, or at least that the Commission, in light of the Court’s judgment, should only assess whether it was met in essence.
Esiteks osutas Taani BUPA kohtuasjale ja väitis, et neljas Altmarki kriteerium ei ole tingimata kohaldatav või vähemalt peaks komisjon kohtuotsust arvesse võttes hindama ainult seda, kas see on sisuliselt täidetud.
The Commission takes the view that the situation in the BUPA case was rather special in that the scheme in question, which concerned the provision of health services, was not cost-related but was based on customers’ risk profiles, unlike in other public service sectors.
Komisjon on arvamusel, et BUPA kohtuasja puhul oli tegemist väga spetsiifilise olukorraga, kuna asjaomane tervishoiuteenuste osutamise kava ei olnud seotud kuludega, st vastupidiselt muudele avalike teenuste sektoritele põhines süsteem klientide riskiprofiilidel.
In that instance there was thus no possibility for the operator to improve efficiency by way of its costs.
Seega ei oleks ettevõtja saanud kulusid jälgides sellises olukorras tõhusalt toimida.
However, for public service broadcasters, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the basis of costs and revenue.
Avalik-õiguslike ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide puhul on aga võimalik arvutada hüvitis kulude ja tulude põhjal.
Secondly, with reference to the Chronopost [49] case, Denmark argued that a public service provider like TV2 could not be compared to a private operator.
Teiseks väitis Taani Chronoposti [49] kohtuasjale viidates, et TV2 sarnast avaliku teenuse osutajat ei saa võrrelda eraettevõtjaga.
However, the Commission takes the view that unlike the issue at stake in the Chronopost case, which was cost allocation in the context of a compatibility assessment, the essence of the fourth Altmark criterion is precisely that, in the absence of a tender, the costs of the public service provided should be compared with those of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production.
Komisjon on aga seiskohal, et erinevalt Chronoposti kohtuasjas käsitletud kulude jaotamisest vastavushinnangu kontekstis, seisneb neljanda Altmarki kriteeriumi sisu just selles, et kui pakkumist ei korraldata, tuleb avaliku teenuse osutaja kulusid võrrelda keskmise hästi korraldatud juhtimise ja piisavate tootmisvahenditega ettevõtja kuludega.
In addition, Denmark argued that the National Audit Office (Rigsrevision) carried out financial and management audits of TV2’s accounts as part of its routine appraisals of TV2 and that routine checks were made, including on efficiency.
Samuti väitis Taani, et TV2 tegevuse pideva järelevalve käigus viis riigikontroll TV2 raamatupidamises läbi juhtimis- ja finantsauditeid ning pidevalt korraldati kontrolle, milles pöörati tähelepani ka tõhususe küsimustele.
However, the Commission does not consider that the fact that TV2’s accounts were submitted for approval by the Ministry of Culture is sufficient proof that TV2’s costs were those of a typical well-run undertaking.
Komisjon arvamuse kohaselt ei ole aga asjaolu, et kultuuriministeerium pidi TV2 raamatupidamisaruanded heaks kiitma, piisav tõendamaks, et TV2 kulud vastavad keskmise hästi korraldatud juhtimisega ettevõtja kuludele.
In addition, it is doubtful whether ex post controls can be relevant for fulfilment of the fourth criterion if no analysis of the costs was made before compensation was set.
Pealegi on kaheldav, kas tagantjärele toimunud kontroll on neljanda kriteeriumi täitmisel asjakohane, kui enne hüvitise määramist ei toimunud kulude analüüsi.
The Danish authorities pointed in particular to the 2000 report from the Danish National Audit Office, in which the change in TV2’s productivity was to some extent compared with that of DR and certain foreign public service broadcasters (British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Sveriges Television ‘SVT’ and Norsk Riksringkastning ‘NRK’).
Peale selle tuginevad Taani ametiasutused eelkõige Taani Riigikontrolli 2000. aasta aruandele, milles TV2 tootlikkuse arengut võrreldi teataval määral DRi ja välismaiste avalik-õiguslike ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide (British Broadcasting Corporation, edaspidi „BBC”, Sveriges Television, edaspidi „SVT”, ja Norsk Riksringkastning, edaspidi „NRK”) tootlikkusega.
DR’s overall hourly broadcasting costs in 1999 were approximately 29 % higher than TV2’s.
DRi ülekannete tunnihind oli 1999. aastal ligikaudu 29 % kõrgem kui TV2-l.
The National Audit Office also found that DR’s and TV2’s productivity improvements were better than or equal to the productivity increase of the other three public service broadcasters.
Ühtlasi leidis riigikontroll, et kolme ülejäänud avalik-õigusliku ringhäälinguorganisatsiooniga võrreldes oli DRi ja TV2 tootlikkus arenenud rohkem või samaväärselt.
However, that report is not sufficient proof that the fourth condition was fulfilled.
Kõnealune aruanne ei ole aga piisav neljanda tingimuse täitmise tõendamiseks.
Indeed, the report was produced after the media agreements that set the amount of compensation and therefore did not show that the compensation was determined on the basis of the costs that a typical undertaking would have incurred in fulfilling its public service mission.
Aruanne on koostatud pärast meediakokkuleppeid, millega kehtestati hüvitise summa, ning seetõttu ei näita see, et hüvitis määrati kulude põhjal, mida oleks avaliku teenuse kohustuste täitmisel kandnud keskmine ettevõtja.
Furthermore, the report made a comparison with other public service broadcasters and therefore did not deal with the costs of a ‘typical’ broadcaster.
Pealegi käsitletakse aruandes teisi avalik-õiguslikke ringhäälinguorganisatsioone ja seetõttu ei ole see seotud keskmise ringhäälinguettevõtte kuludega.
For example, it did not establish that the costs of DR, which is not allowed to generate income through advertising and whose level of compensation was determined under the same media agreement as TV2, were those of a typical undertaking.
Näiteks ei ole tõendatud, et DRi puhul, kellel ei ole lubatud teenida reklaamiraha ja kelle hüvitise tase määratakse sama meediakokkuleppe alusel kui TV2-l, vastavad kulud keskmise ettevõtja kuludele.
For the purposes of the fourth Altmark criterion, it is therefore impossible to draw any conclusions from the comparison with DR’s costs.
Neljanda Altmarki kriteeriumi kohaldamisel ei saa seega võrdlusest DRi kuludega teha mingeid järeldusi.
As regards the comparison with foreign public service broadcasters, the report only compared the development of TV2’s productivity with one of the other public service broadcasters, but was silent on the level of efficiency as such, and hence on the costs themselves.
Mis puudutab võrdlust välismaiste avalik-õiguslike ringhäälinguorganisatsioonidega, siis on aruandes võrreldud TV2 tootlikkuse arengut üksnes ühega teistest avalik-õiguslikest ringhäälinguorganisatsioonidest, kuid esitamata on jäetud seiskoht tõhususe kui sellise ja seega ka kulude kohta.
In particular, a lower productivity increase could be due to many factors, for instance because efficiency was higher at the beginning of the period or because the broadcaster was not able to increase its broadcasting time.
Eeskätt võib tootlikusse tagasihoidlikum areng olla tingitud mitmest põhjusest, sealhulgas asjaolust, et tõhusus oli juba perioodi alguses suurem või ringhäälinguorganisatsioon ei suutnud pikendada oma saateaega.
For the above reasons, the Commission takes the view that the report does not show that TV2’s costs were those which a typical well-run undertaking would have incurred in performing the public service missions.
Seetõttu on komisjon eespool nimetatud põhjustel arvamusel, et aruandest ei ilmne, nagu oleksid TV2 kulud samad, mida oleks avaliku teenuse osutamisel kandnud keskmine hästi korraldatud juhtimisega ettevõtja.
To conclude, in view of the foregoing the Commission considers that the fourth Altmark criterion is not met, and because these criteria are cumulative, the compensation granted to TV2 does not satisfy the conditions set by the Court in the Altmark judgment.
Kokkuvõttes leiab komisjon eespool kirjeldatud elementide põhjal, et neljas Altmarki kriteerium ei ole täidetud, ning kuna asjaomased kriteeriumid on kumulatiivsed, ei vasta TV2-le määratud hüvitis tingimustele, mille kohus Altmarki kohtuotsuses kehtestas.
In any event, as will be shown below, the Commission considers that the compensation can be considered as compatible with the internal market.
Igal juhul leiab komisjon, et hüvitist võib käsitada siseturuga kokkusobivana, nagu nähtub alljärgnevast.
The Commission also has to assess whether the measures at issue could meet the ‘market economy investor test’ (‘MEIP test’).
Komisjon peab hindama ka seda, kas kõnealused meetmed vastavad turumajandusliku investeerimise tingimustele.
The Danish authorities and TV2 argued that the measures do not qualify as State aid because the conditions of the MEIP test are fulfilled.
Taani ametiasutuste ja TV2 väitel ei ole meetmete näol tegemist riigiabiga, sest täidetud on turumajandusliku investeerimise tingimused.
In particular, they held that it was perfectly justified under the MEIP test to leave the surplus in TV2 so as to build up capital.
Eeskätt leiavad nad, et turumajandusliku investeerimise tingimuste kohaselt on täiesti õigustatud jätta ülejääk omakapitali kogumiseks TV2-le.
In this respect, it should first be noted that the question of whether the measures were justified under the MEIP test is not the same as the question of whether they could be considered necessary in order to fulfil public service tasks (see the compatibility assessment below), since the fact that TV2 necessarily had to have a certain level of reserves and capital to perform its public service tasks does not mean that a private investor would have put money into the company and not have sought a return.
Siinkohal tuleb kõigepealt märkida, et küsimus, kas meetmed võivad turumajandusliku investeerimise tingimuste alusel olla põhjendatud, erineb küsimusest, kas meetmeid saab pidada vajalikuks avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustuste täitmiseks (vt hinnang kokkusobivuse kohta allpool), st asjaolu, et TV2 võib oma avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustuse täitmiseks vajada teataval määral varusid ja omakapitali, ei tähenda, et erainvestor oleks jätnud kõnealuse raha äriühingusse ega oleks nõudnud dividende.
The Commission, in accordance with settled case-law, must determine whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a size comparable to bodies managing the public sector could be expected to be willing to make capital injections of the same order of magnitude [50].
Komisjon peab kooskõlas väljakujunenud kohtupraktikaga otsustama, kas avalikus sektoris tegutsevate organisatsioonidega suuruselt võrreldava erainvestori puhul oleks sarnastel asjaoludel võinud eeldada sama suure kapitalisissemakse tegemist [50].
Although the behaviour of a private investor that is being compared with the public investor’s behaviour need not be the conduct of an ordinary investor laying out capital with a view to realising a profit in the relatively short term, it must at least be the behaviour of a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural policy and guided by prospects of profitability in the longer term.
Kuigi erainvestori käitumine, millega tuleb võrrelda avalik-õigusliku investori sekkumist, ei pea tingimata olema tavalise investori käitumine, kes teeb kapitalipaigutusi nende vähem või rohkem lühiajalist tasuvust silmas pidades, peab see olema vähemalt eraõigusliku valdusettevõtja või struktuuripoliitikat järgiva ning investeeritud kapitali pikaajalise tasuvuse väljavaadetest juhinduva eraõigusliku kontserni käitumine.
Furthermore, according to settled case-law, the MEIP test must be applied at the moment the decision is taken and not ex post [51].
Peale selle tuleb turumajandusliku investeerimise tingimusi kohaldada otsuse tegemise ajal ja mitte tagantjärele [51].
In the present case, as Denmark is the only stakeholder in TV2, it is both the first and the last creditor to be reimbursed in the event of the company’s failure.
Käesoleval juhul on Taani riik TV2 ainus aktsionär ning esimene ja viimane võlausaldaja, kellele ettevõtja ebaõnnestumise korral tagasi makstakse.
So, from the point of an investor, the Danish State could seek a return on its investment either by asking for remuneration in the form of interest on a loan or a return on a capital stake.
Seega võiks Taani riik investorina taotleda oma investeeringult tulu, nõudes laenult intressimakseid või tulu omakapitalilt.
The Commission notes that during the period in question, Denmark waived its claim to interest on the loans and allowed a moratorium on repayments.
Sellega seoses täheldab komisjon, et asjaomasel perioodil loobus Taani õigusest intressimaksetele ja jättis sisse nõudmata laenumaksed.
Moreover, the Danish State did not ask for any remuneration on the capital that was built up in TV2.
Lisaks ei ole Taani riik nõudnud mingit tulu TV2 kogunenud kapitalilt.
Therefore, the Danish State did not ask for a normal return on its investment as any creditor or owner of a company normally would.
Seega ei nõudnud Taani riik oma investeeringult tulu, nagu oleks tavaliselt teinud võlausaldaja või ettevõtja omanik.
Furthermore, the Danish authorities have not advanced any valid arguments to justify why it would make sense strategically to reinvest the surplus in TV2 instead of asking for remuneration in the form of interest or dividends.
Peale selle ei ole Taani ametiasutused esitanud mingeid põhjendusi, miks oleks strateegiliselt kasulik reinvesteerida ülejääk TV2, selle asemel et nõuda hüvitist intressi või dividendide näol.
Such a decision would normally be taken by an investor only if he thought that reinvestment would increase the value of his initial investment.
Sellise otsuse oleks investor tavaliselt teinud ainult siis, kui ta oleks arvanud, et reinvesteerimine kasvatab esialgse investeeringu väärtust.
In the present instance, it has not been established that there was a business plan or a clear overall business strategy suggesting that this was the case.
Antud juhul ei ole näidatud, et oleks eksisteerinud mingi äriplaan või selge, läbimõeldud äristrateegia, mis seda kinnitaks.
Nor have there been any other indications that TV2 was planning to develop its activities to produce such added value.
Samuti ei ole mingeid teisi märke sellest, et TV2 kavatses arendada oma tegevust sellise lisaväärtuse loomiseks.
In saying this, the Commission is not trying to use formalistic arguments in order to refute the Danish authorities’ argument on the MEIP test but is merely attempting to assesses whether a market economy investor would have decided to leave the funds in TV2 on the basis of the information available to him at the time when he took the decision.
Seda öeldes ei püüa komisjon kasutada formaalseid argumente, et lükata ümber Taani ametiasutuste väited turumajandusliku investeerimise tingimuste kohta, vaid hindab üksnes, kas turumajanduslik investor oleks otsuse tegemise ajal tema käsutuses olnud andmete põhjal otsustanud jätta rahalised vahendid TV2.
However, taking into account the information available at the time when the funds were left in TV2 [52] and leaving aside any considerations regarding TV2’s public service tasks, which a private investor would not have been taken into account, the Commission considers that there was no business plan and no investment project or any other element on the basis of which a rational private investor would have thought that the reinvestment would increase the value of his initial investment and would therefore have decided to leave the money in TV2 instead of asking for some sort of remuneration.
Võttes aga arvesse raha TV2-le jätmise ajal kättesaadavat teavet [52] ja sõltumata TV2 avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustuse täitmisega seotud vajadustest, mida erainvestor ei oleks arvestanud, on komisjon arvamusel, et puudus nii äriplaan kui ka investeerimisprojekt või muud andmed, mille põhjal ratsionaalne erainvestor oleks leidnud, et reinvesteering kasvatab tema esialgse investeeringu väärtust ja oleks seega otsustanud jätta raha TV2, selle asemel et nõuda hüvitist.
In addition, the Danish authorities have used the return on turnover as a benchmark in order to show that they acted as a private investor when reinvesting money into TV2.
Peale selle kasutasid Taani ametiasutused käibest saadud kogutulu võrdlusalusena, et tõendada oma käitumist erainvestorina raha TV2 reinvesteerides.
However, in the present case, it has to be emphasised that the Danish Government already acts as a financer of TV2, in that it provides it with significant funds to cover part of its operating costs.
Käesoleval juhul tuleb aga rõhutada, et Taani valitsus juba käitub TV2 rahastajana, andes talle märkimisväärse tulu tegevuskulude katmiseks.
The amount of these funds has a direct effect on the results that TV2 is able to generate.
Sellise tulu summa mõjutab otseselt kasumit, mida TV2 suudab toota.
In practice, this ratio can be boosted simply by increasing the amount of State funding.
Seega saab tulemuslikkust parandada üksnes riigi makstava summa suurendamise teel.
However, as excess funding normally also leads to inefficiencies, resulting in a larger drain on State resources, it is far from certain that increased funding produces a corresponding improvement in results.
Ent kuna üleliigne rahastamine põhjustab tavaliselt ka ebatõhusust, mille tulemuseks on riigi vahendite ulatuslikum kulutamine, ei ole sugugi kindel, et rahastamise suurendamine toob kaasa ka samaväärse tulemuste paranemise.
Thus the Danish authorities cannot be held to have acted as a market economy investor.
Seega ei saa Taani ametiasutuste käitumist pidada turumajandusliku investori omaks.
Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the compensation can be considered compatible, as will be explained in detail below.
Nagu allpool näidatakse, leiab komisjon igal juhul, et hüvitist saab käsitada kokkusobivana.
As already mentioned, the MEIP test is a different issue from the question of whether it was justified for the Danish State to allow TV2 to keep the surplus so as to build up the capital necessary for its public service tasks.
Nagu juba mainitud, erineb turumajandusliku investeerimise tingimuste täitmine küsimusest, kas Taani riigi poolt oli põhjendatud jätta ülejääk TV2-le, et koguda avaliku teenuse osutamise kohustuste täitmiseks vajalikku omakapitali.
In conclusion, the Commission takes the view that, during the period under investigation, TV2 benefited by the measures.
Kokkuvõttes leiab komisjon, et uuritaval perioodil anti TV2-le asjaomaste meetmetega eelis.
In the television broadcasting market, TV2 competes with other broadcasters who did not receive the same advantages.
konkureerib teleringhäälinguturul teiste ringhäälinguorganisatsioonidega, kes ei saanud samasuguseid soodustusi.
Therefore, the measures have to be regarded as selective and as distorting competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Seetõttu tuleb käsitada meetmeid valikulistena ja konkurentsi moonutavatena ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
State measures are caught by Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as they affect trade between Member States.
Kui riigi meetmed mõjutavad kaubandust liikmesriikide vahel, kohaldatakse nende suhtes ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõiget 1.
This is the case whenever the activities concerned are an object of intra-Community trade.
See kehtib juhul, kui kõnealused meetmed on seotud ühendusesisese kaubandusega.
The Court of Justice has developed a wide interpretation of this notion.
Euroopa Kohus on sellele mõistele andnud laiema tõlgenduse.
It is established case-law that when aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, those undertakings must be regarded as affected by that aid [53].
Euroopa Kohtu praktika kohaselt tuleb juhul, kui abi tugevdab ettevõtja seisundit võrreldes muude ühendusesiseses kaubanduses konkureerivate ettevõtjatega, lugeda viimased abimeetmest mõjutatuks [53].
The fact that the undertaking in question does not engage in exports does not rule out the possibility that trade might be affected.
Asjaolu, et asjaomane ettevõtja ei tegele ekspordiga, ei välista siiski selle võimalikku mõju kaubandusele.
When a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, its domestic activities may be supported or even boosted thanks to the aid, which in turn reduces the scope for other undertakings to establish themselves on the market.
Kui liikmesriik annab ettevõtjale abi, võidakse tänu sellele säilitada või isegi laiendada riigisisest tegevust, mis omakorda vähendab teiste ettevõtjate võimalusi turule pääseda.