natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In any event, if the Measure is found to constitute State aid, it would be compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty — as the release of the Digital Dividend is, according to the Spanish authorities, an exceptional occurrence.
Nad täpsustasid siiski, et meedet kohaldatakse üksnes samaaegse edastamise perioodi suhtes ja mitte kauem.
Alternatively, the Measure could be declared compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, since according to the Spanish authorities the Measure: (i) supports the European policy on transforming the Digital Dividend into social benefits and economic growth; (ii) remedies a market failure; (iii) is the appropriate instrument, since it will apply only to those broadcasters who are compelled to incur unwanted costs due to the imposition of simultaneous broadcasting and the compensation will be strictly limited to the amount of these exceptional expenses; (iv) has an incentive effect since if there was no aid, broadcasters may be reluctant to take part in the reallocation of spectrum and to ensure simulcast; (v) is proportionate, as it only covers the additional costs incurred by broadcasters due to the reallocation of channels; (vi) is technologically neutral, since other platforms are not affected by the change of channels necessary to liberate the Digital Dividend; and (vii) would not distort competition, since if the broadcasters had to assume the costs without compensation, this would frustrate their expectations of growth and would benefit participants in other markets.
Kui samaaegse edastamise periood (üleminekuperiood) on läbi, jääb kehtima nende ringhäälinguoperaatorite kohustus tagada geograafiline kaetus maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni kaudu, nagu on ette nähtud kehtivate litsentsidega.
In the opening decision, the Spanish authorities were invited to submit comments concerning the Measure and to provide, inter alia, the following information: (i) documents (such as correspondence with broadcasters, declarations) demonstrating their inability to finance the simulcast period from they own resources; (ii) proof (such as tender, ex ante analysis of the costs/benefits, public consultation on the subject, etc.) which would justify the choice of terrestrial platform (reallocation of the terrestrial broadcasting to lower terrestrial frequency band) to solve the frequency scarcity problem; (iii) a summary of rights and obligations broadcasters have under the current licences, concessions, conditions under which these licences/concession can be modified and the consequences of such modifications (for the State as well as for the broadcasters); (iv) a detailed overview of the costs linked to the adjustment of infrastructure each broadcaster is financing from its own resources; (v) an explanation on the impact of the timing of the release of the Digital Dividend; and (vi) more information about the eligibility of the broadcasters of the pay-TV channels currently broadcasted via DTT.
Lisaks selgitasid Hispaania ametiasutused, et eraõiguslike ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide kohustus tagada I piirkonnas maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni kaudu 96 % leviala kohustus ei tähenda, et täpselt see protsent Hispaania elanikkonnast tegelikult maapealsete edastajate programme maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni vastuvõtusüsteemide kaudu vastu võtta saaks.
The Spanish authorities replied that most of this information was already provided prior to the launch of the formal investigation procedure.
Seda seepärast, et teiste tehnoloogiate leviala võib kattuda maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni levialaga [49].
The Spanish authorities made specific comments on the question regarding the required evidence that would justify the choice of the terrestrial platform to solve the frequency scarcity problem by arguing that this issue goes beyond the assessment of neutrality of the Measure and that they are not obliged to justify intended compensatory measures clearly compatible with Union law.
Hispaania ametiasutused järeldasid, et meede ei anna eraõiguslikele ringhäälinguorganisatsioonidele, kes tegutsevad maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni platvormil, mingit majanduslikku eelist, kuna see piirdub samaaegse edastamisega seotud erakorraliste kulude hüvitamisega, mille tekitab otseselt nende kohustus vabastada 800 MHz sagedusala.
The Spanish authorities maintained the same line of arguments in relation to the private broadcasters' licences in the sense that it is the State's right to impose non-technologically neutral licences to ensure the prescribed 96 % coverage obligation in Area I. They also stated that even if these licences do not foresee the right of private broadcasters to compensation for any costs related to the release of the Digital Dividend, these licences also do not exclude such compensation.
Hispaania ametiasutuste vastused Astra märkustele
Moreover, they have explained that all private broadcasters providing audiovisual services in the public interest without a licence are free to choose from the available platform technologies.
Nagu märgitud põhjendudes 4, esitasid Hispaania ametiasutused tähelepanekuid Astra poolt ametliku uurimise ajal esitatud märkuste kohta.
This right also applies to private broadcasters holding a licence but only beyond the 96 % coverage obligation and in a complementary manner.
Nad rõhutasid, et Astra peale menetluse algatamise otsuses sisalduvate väidete lisateavet ei anna.
As regards technological neutrality more specifically, the Spanish authorities argued that their notification respected this principle in the sense that the private broadcasters were free to choose whatever platform to ensure the simulcast obligation (satellite, cable, ADSL, optic fibre or DTT).
Hispaania ametiasutused rõhutasid, et Astra kriitika hõlmab selgelt rohkemat kui teatatud meetme kohaldamisala, mis piirdub eraõiguslikele ringhäälinguorganisatsioonidele ajutise hüvitise maksmisega samaaegse edastamisega tekkinud kulude eest.
They have specified, however, that the Measure applies exclusively to the period of simulcast and not beyond.
Hispaania ametiasutuste arvates on Astra eesmärk muuta Hispaania õigusraamistikku seoses telekanalite edastamisega I piirkonnas, mida teates ei käsitleta.
Once the simulcast (transitory) period is over, the obligation of these broadcasters to ensure the geographical coverage via DTT, as foreseen in the valid licences, remains in place.
Hispaania ametiasutused selgitasid ka, et tegelikult ei kohaldata meedet ainult eraõiguslike ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide suhtes, kes kasutavad maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni tehnoloogiat, vaid kõigi tasuta telekanalite edastajate suhtes Hispaanias.
In addition, the Spanish authorities explained that the obligation of private broadcasters to ensure the 96 % coverage obligation in Area I via DTT does not mean that exactly this percentage of Spanish population would actually receive the programmes of the terrestrial broadcasters via DTT reception systems.
See on tingitud sellest, et puuduvad ainuõiguslikud edastajad alternatiivsetel platvormidel ja eelkõige satelliidil.
This is because the area of coverage of alternative technologies can overlap with that of DTT [49].
Satelliiti kasutatakse tasuliste telekanalite edastamiseks (tasuta edastatavad välisriikide kanalid ja teatavate kanalite rahvusvahelised versioonid), mis on koondatud Canal+ alla [50].
The Spanish authorities concluded that the Measure does not grant to private broadcasters operating on the DTT platform any economic advantage as it limits itself to the reimbursement of the exceptional costs of simulcast that are directly triggered by their obligation to liberate the 800 MHz band.
Sellest tulenevalt on Hispaania ametiasutused arvamusel, et igal juhul ei kuulu tasuta edastatavate maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni ja platvormi Canal+ kanalite edastajad samale turule.
Reactions of the Spanish authorities on the comments of Astra
Hiljem vastasid Hispaania ametiasutused Astra arvamusele, et liidu õigusaktid meedet ei toeta, viidates otsusele nr 243/2012/EL ning Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivile 2002/20/EÜ [51] (edaspidi „loadirektiiv“).
As mentioned in recital 4, the Spanish authorities submitted observations on the comments of Astra presented during the formal investigation.
Loadirektiiviga seotud väidete osas langes Hispaania ametiasutuste arvamus kokku Astra poolse artikli 14 tõlgendusega.
They have emphasised that Astra does not provide additional information beyond the arguments contained in the opening decision.
Seda arvesse võttes väitsid Hispaania ametiasutused, et vastupidiselt menetluse algatamise otsuses sätestatule ei välista ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide litsentsid hüvitise maksmist samaaegse edastamise kulude eest, sest need ei olnud litsentside andmise ajal prognoositavad kulud [52].
The Spanish authorities have highlighted that Astra's criticism goes clearly beyond the scope of the notified Measure that is limited to a temporary compensation to private broadcasters for the costs incurred for simultaneous broadcasting.
Seoses meetme kokkusobivusega liidu õigusega ei ole Hispaania ametiasutused nõus näidetega ELi kohtute praktika pretsedentidest, mida on meetmega seoses tsiteeritud menetluse algatamise otsuse põhjendustes 65–67, sest 1) meetmega ette nähtud hüvitis on määratud samaaegse edastamise kohustuse otsene tagajärg; 2) viimatinimetatud kohustus on kooskõlas otsusega nr 243/2012/EL, millega, nagu selgitatud, nähakse ette õigus hüvitisele; 3) hüvitist käsitlev õiguslik raamistik võeti vastu samaaegse edastamise kohustuse määramise tulemusena; 4) kõnelusest kohustusest tekkinud kulud vastavad täpselt hüvitise ulatusele.
In the opinion of the Spanish authorities, Astra aims at modifications to the Spanish regulatory framework for the transmission of TV channels in Area I that is not subject of the notification.
Pidades silmas 700 MHz sagedusala kavandatud vabastamist 2020. aastaks, on Hispaania ametiasutused arvamusel, et komisjoni negatiivne otsus meetme kohta võib takistada nimetatud ELi algatuse sujuvat toimimist.
Satellite is used for the broadcasting of pay-TV channels (FTA foreign channels and international versions of certain channels), grouped in Canal+ [50].
Kuninga dekreedis nimetatakse üheksa avalik-õiguslikku ringhäälinguorganisatsiooni.
As regards their arguments with reference to Decision No 243/2012/EU, they pointed out that according to its Article 6(5) ‘Member States may, where appropriate and in conformity with Union law, ensure that the direct cost of migration or reallocation of spectrum usage is adequately compensated in accordance with national law’.
Riiklike rahaliste vahendite kogusumma oli väiksem kui 2011. aasta teates algselt ette nähtud ning ka samaaegse edastamise kestust vähendati [53].
The Spanish authorities read this provision in conjunction with recital 18 which states that ‘Member States should be allowed, where appropriate, to introduce compensatory measures relating to migration costs.’
Hispaania ametiasutused teatasid komisjonile, et kuninga dekreet on kooskõlas komisjoni otsusega 2012/21/EL [54] ning seepärast ei tule sellest teatada.
As for the arguments concerning the Authorisation Directive, the Spanish authorities argued with Astra's reading of Article 14.
Teate osa, milles käsitletakse samaaegse edastamise hüvitamist eraõiguslikele ringhäälinguorganisatsioonidele, [55] ei ole Hispaania ametiasutused meetme raames tagasi võtnud.
According to this provision, ‘Member States shall ensure that the rights, conditions and procedures concerning general authorisations and rights of use or rights to install facilities may only be amended in objectively justified cases and in a proportionate manner’.
Huvitatud isikute märkused
This article also prescribes that ‘Member States shall not restrict or withdraw rights to install facilities before expiry of the period for which they were granted except where justified and where applicable in conformity with relevant national provisions regarding compensation for withdrawal of rights’.
Kõik põhjenduses 4 määratletud huvitatud isikud, välja arvatud Astra, on esitanud vastuväiteid meedet käsitlevate komisjoni esialgsete järelduste kohta.
In this context, the Spanish authorities argued that contrary to what is stated in the opening decision, the broadcasters' licences do not exclude the compensation for the simulcast costs because these were not foreseeable costs at the moment of the granting of licences [52].
Astra märkused
As for the compatibility of the Measure with Union law, the Spanish authorities disagree with the examples of precedents of the case law of EU Courts quoted in recitals 65-67 of the opening decision in relation to the Measure, because: (1) the compensation foreseen by the Measure is a direct consequence of the imposed simulcast obligation; (2) the latter obligation is compatible with Decision No 243/2012/EU that, as explained, foresees the right to compensation; (3) the legal framework for the compensation was adopted as a consequence of the imposition of the simulcast obligation; (4) the costs generated by this obligation correspond exactly with the scope of the compensation.
Eraomanduses oleva satelliidi operaator Astra on arvamusel, et meede kujutab endast selgelt riigiabi, sellega rikutakse tehnoloogilise neutraalsuse põhimõtet ning see tugevdaks valitsevat maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni platvormi operaatorit Abertist.
With a view of the planned liberation of the 700 MHz band by 2020, the Spanish authorities are of the opinion that a negative Commission decision on the Measure can create an obstacle for the smooth running of that EU initiative.
Ta peab Abertist meetme kaudseks kasusaajaks.
Compensation of simulcast costs incurred by public broadcasters
Seoses meetme mõjuga usub Astra, et hoolimata sellest, et see piirdub samaaegse edastamise hüvitamisega, kataks see tegelikkuses kõik digitaalse dividendi vabakslaskmisega seotud ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide kulud.
In September 2014, following the adoption of Royal Decree 677/2014, the Spanish authorities withdrew the notification concerning the compensation of simulcast costs incurred by public broadcasters.
Astra nõustub komisjoniga selles, et eraõiguslike ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide samaaegse edastamise kohustus tuleneb siseriiklikust õigusest (reguleeriv meede) ega tekita sellisel kujul õigust hüvitisele.
The Royal Decree identifies nine public broadcasters.
Astra sõnul on riiklikus tehnilises kavas sätestatud, et avaliku sektori asutused võivad kehtestada ringhäälingule turu reguleerimise või tehnilise arengu tulemusena eritingimusi, mida ei ole litsentsidega ette nähtud, ilma et tekkiks õigus hüvitisele.
One covers the entire territory of Spain (RTVE) and eight have a regional character.
Astra juhib samuti tähelepanu asjaolule, et maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni edastajad olid teadlikud digitaalse dividendi vabakslaskmisest ja sellega seotud sageduste üleandmisest enne kuninga dekreedi 365/2010 vastuvõtmist.
For all these public broadcasters, with a clearly defined public service remit, the simulcast was declared mandatory in order to allow the adaptation of the reception systems of households without the loss of service.
Meede tooks kasu üksnes nendele ringhäälinguorganisatsioonidele, kahjustades ringhäälinguorganisatsioone, kes kasutavad teisi platvorme.
The total amount of public funding was lower than the one originally foreseen in the 2011 notification and the duration of simulcast was shortened as well [53].
Seoses meetmele õigusliku hinnangu andmisega ei ole Astra nõus, et meede kujutab endast erandjuhtu, mis õigustaks aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 2 punkti b kohaldamist.
The Spanish authorities informed the Commission that the Royal Decree complies with Commission Decision 2012/21/EU [54] and therefore does not need to be notified.
Samuti ei ole ta nõus sellega, et meede vastab aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti c nõuetele, kuna see moonutaks oma tehnoloogiliselt mitteneutraalse olemuse tõttu platvormioperaatorite konkurentsi.
As regards the simulcast compensation for private broadcasters [55], the Spanish authorities have not withdrawn this part of the notification under the Measure.
Seoses sellega rõhutab Astra, et meetme otsestel kasusaajatel on selge stiimul samaaegseks edastamiseks hüvitist saamata, et säilitada oma vaatajad ja reklaamitulud, arvestamata nende lisaeeliseid, mis tulenevad digitaalse dividendi vabakslaskmisest (mis pakub nt võimalust vaadata vabastatud 800 MHz sagedusalal teleprogramme mobiilside kaudu).
Comments from interested parties
Astra väidab ka, et Hispaania ametiasutustel ei ole õnnestunud viia läbi sõltumatut uuringut, mis õigustaks meedet kui asjakohast, vajalikku ja proportsionaalset abi.
All interested parties identified in recital 4, with the exception of Astra, have presented arguments against the preliminary conclusions of the Commission on the Measure.
Kokkuvõtteks pooldab Astra Hispaania televisioonituru avamist I piirkonnas ning võrdsetel tingimustel konkurentsi võimaldamist alternatiivsete tehnoloogiliste platvormide vahel.
Comments from Astra
Abertise märkused
The privately owned satellite operator Astra considers that the Measure clearly constitutes State aid, is in breach of the principle of technological neutrality and would strengthen the dominant DTT platform operator Abertis.
Sarnaselt Hispaania ametiasutustele ei kvalifitseeri ka Abertis meedet riigiabina valikulise majandusliku eelise ja konkurentsi moonutamise puudumise tõttu.
It considers Abertis as an indirect beneficiary of the Measure.
Kui komisjon otsustaks kvalifitseerida meetme riigiabina, peaks ta kuulutama selle siseturuga kokkusobivaks aluslepingu 107 lõike 3 alusel.
As for the impact of the Measure, Astra believes that notwithstanding its limitation to the simulcast compensation, in practice it would cover all expenses of broadcasters related to the release of the Digital Dividend.
Abertis annab teada, et ta ei saaks ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide poolt samaaegse edastamise ajal kasutatava tehnoloogia valikust kasu ega kahju.
Astra agrees with the Commission that the obligation of private broadcasters to simulcast results from national law (regulatory measure) and as such does not trigger the right to compensation.
Ta on arvamusel, et samaaegse edastamise hüvitis võiks tegelikult suurendada platvormidevahelist konkurentsivõimet, mis toob kasu ringhäälinguturule ja tarbijatele.
According to Astra, the NTP provides that public authorities can establish special conditions for broadcasting not foreseen in the licences as a consequence of market regulation or technical development without the right to compensation.
Abertis kaitseb maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni tehnoloogia tõhusust, ent ei ole nõus, et selle konkreetse tehnoloogia kasutamine samaaegse edastamise ajal määrab kindlaks platvormi, mida ringhäälinguorganisatsioonid tulevikus kasutama hakkavad.
Astra also points to the fact that the DTT broadcasters were aware of the release of the Digital Dividend and the related transfer of frequencies before the adoption of Royal Decree 365/2010.
Teisest küljest möönab Abertis, et maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni signaali edastatakse üksnes maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni tehnoloogia kaudu ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide litsentsides sätestatud tingimustel.
The Measure would exclusively benefit these broadcasters, to the detriment of broadcasters using other platforms.
Kokkuvõttes ei nõustu Abertis komisjoni esialgsete järeldustega meetme kohta.
Concerning the legal assessment of the Measure, Astra disagrees that the Measure constitutes an exceptional occurrence that would justify the application of Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty.
EBU märkused
It also disagrees that the Measure fulfils the requirements of Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, as it would distort competition between platform operators due to its non-technologically neutral character.
Ka EBU ei pea meedet riigiabiks.
In this respect, Astra highlights that the direct beneficiaries of the Measure have clear incentive to simulcast without compensation in order to keep their audience and publicity revenues; not taking into account their additional advantages from the release of the Digital Dividend (e.g. which offers the possibility to view TV through mobile telephony on the freed 800 MHz band).
Kui komisjon otsustaks kvalifitseerida meetme riigiabina, peaks ta kuulutama selle siseturuga kokkusobivaks aluslepingu 107 lõike 3 alusel, kuna sellega järgitakse tehnoloogilise neutraalsuse põhimõtet.
Astra also argues that the Spanish authorities have failed to produce an independent study justifying the Measure as appropriate, necessary and proportionate aid.
EBU nõuab, et komisjon piirduks hindamisel üksnes meetme faktilise eesmärgi ja mõjuga, st samaaegse edastamise tagamisega maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni ümberpaigutamise protsessi ajal digitaalse dividendi vabakslaskmise raames.
In conclusion, Astra favours the opening of the Spanish TV market in Area I and allowing competition on the merits between alternative technological platforms.
EBU sõnul ei ole digitaalne dividend ringhäälingusektori jaoks asjaomase riigiasutuse poolt vastu võetud õigusakti tagajärg: see ei ole seotud viisiga, kuidas maapealseid digitaaltelevisiooniteenuseid tuleb osutada, see ei tulene turust ega tehnoloogia arengust ega mõjuta tingimata kogu maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni tööstusharu.
Comments from Abertis
EBU ei nõustu sellega, et meede annaks maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni edastajatele või platvormioperaatoritele tegeliku eelise, ning palub komisjonil võtta arvesse märkimisväärseid investeeringuid, mida Hispaania ringhäälinguorganisatsioonid on juba teinud oma teenuste kohandamisel maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni tehnoloogiale ja infrastruktuurile analoogtelevisioonilt digitaaltelevisioonile ülemineku ajal.
Similarly to the Spanish authorities, Abertis also does not qualify the Measure as State aid due to the lack of selective economic advantage and distortion of competition.
EBU sõnul on eraõiguslikel maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni edastajatel õiguspärased ootused samaaegse edastamise hüvitisele, sest selline hüvitis on sätestatud siseriiklikus õiguses ja kehtivates litsentsides.
If the Commission would decide to qualify the Measure as State aid, it should declare it compatible under Article 107(3) of the Treaty.
EBU usub, et maapealsele digitaaltelevisiooni tehnoloogiale ei ole tõelist alternatiivi, mis võimaldaks täita ringhäälinguorganisatsioonidele ette nähtud levialakohustust.
Abertis informs that it would neither benefit nor loose from the choice of technology used by broadcasters during simulcast.
Maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni platvorm on teistest platvormidest eraldi seisev turg, kuna nende kasutusviisi ega käitamist ei saa omavahel asendada.
It considers that the simulcast compensation could actually increase competitiveness between the platforms to the benefit of the broadcasting market and consumers.
Kokkuvõttes ei nõustu EBU komisjoni esialgsete järeldustega meetme kohta.
Abertis defends the effectiveness of the DTT technology but does not agree that the use of this particular technology during the simulcast will determine the platform to be used by the broadcasters in the future.
BNE MÄRKUSED
On the other hand, Abertis admits that the DTT signal will continue to be transmitted exclusively via the DTT technology under the conditions enshrined in the broadcasters' licences.
BNE on arvamusel, et meede ei kujuta endast riigiabi.
In conclusion, Abertis does not agree with the preliminary conclusions of the Commission on the Measure.
Kui komisjon otsustaks kvalifitseerida meetme riigiabina, peaks ta kuulutama selle siseturuga kokkusobivaks aluslepingu 107 lõike 3 alusel ja igal juhul tehnoloogiliselt neutraalseks.
Comments from the EBU
BNE sõnul ei sisalda ringhäälinguorganisatsioonide digitaalse dividendi vabakslaskmise kulud ainult samaaegse edastamise ajal ringhäälinguteenuste osutamisega seotud lisakulusid (mida tuleb tasuda vastavale maapealse digitaaltelevisiooni operaatorile), vaid ka kulusid, mis on tingitud nõutavast edastamissageduste muutmisest maapealses võrgus.