natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By letters dated 29 July, 18 October and 16 December 2002, and 21 January, 20 March and 15 April 2003, the Commission requested further information from the French authorities, which replied by letters dated 19 August 2002 and 2 January, 11 February, 12 February, 19 May, 26 August and 7 November 2003.
S pismi z dne 29. julija, 18. oktobra in 16. decembra 2002, nato še z dne 21. januarja, 20. marca in 15. aprila 2003 je Komisija zahtevala od francoskih oblasti nove informacije. Le-te so odgovorile s pismi z dne 19. avgusta 2002, nato z dne 2. januarja, 11. februarja, 12. februarja, 19. maja, 26. avgusta in 7. novembra 2003.
On 20 November 2002 and 11 June 2003, meetings were held between the Commission and representatives of the French authorities and France Télévisions; on 14 April 2003, a meeting was held between the Commission and representatives of TF1.
Sicer so dne 20. novembra 2002 in dne 11. junija 2003 imeli sestanek predstavniki Komisije in predstavniki francoskih oblasti ter predstavniki France Télévisions; dne 14. aprila 2003 pa so imeli sestanek predstavniki Komisije in predstavniki TF1.
This Decision relates only to the financial measures in respect of which the decision was taken to initiate the Article 88(2) procedure, namely the investment grants received by France 2 and France 3 and the capital injections received by France 2 between 1988 and 1994.
Ta odločba obravnava samo finančne ukrepe, ki so predstavljali predmet odločitve o odprtju postopka, namreč investicijske subvencije, ki sta jih prejeli France 2 in France 3, kot tudi kapitalske dotacije, ki jih je prejemala France 2 v letih med 1988 in 1994.
It does not deal with the television licence fee introduced by Act No 49-1032 of 30 July 1949, which was excluded from the scope of the decision to initiate the procedure.
Ta odločba se ne nanaša na pristojbino za pravico do uporabe sprejemniških mest televizije, uvedeno s francoskim zakonom št. 49-1032 z dne 30. julija 1949, ker je bila izključena iz odločbe o odprtju postopka.
Nevertheless, in order to gain a comprehensive view of the financial relations between the French State and the public broadcasters France 2 and France 3 over the period covered by this Decision, the Commission must take account not only of the investment grants and capital injections but also of the licence fee.
Toda zato, da bi imela popoln pregled nad finančnimi odnosi med francosko državo in med javnima televizijskima kanaloma France 2 in France 3, v obdobju, ki ga zajema ta odločba, mora Komisija upoštevati ne samo investicijske subvencije in dotacije v kapital, ampak tudi pristojbino.
It will consequently refer in this Decision to the licence fee in so far as is necessary for its analysis of the financial measures referred to in recital 25.
Komisija se bo torej pri tej odločbi sklicevala na pristojbino, v tolikšni meri, kot je to potrebno za njeno analizo navedenih finančnih ukrepov, ob upoštevanju točke 25.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES
PODROBEN OPIS ZADEVNIH UKREPOV
Nevertheless, over the period 1988 to 1994, France 2 and France 3 also received investment grants and France 2 received capital injections.
Pristojbina predstavlja običajno javno financiranje javnih francoskih kanalov, toda v obdobju od leta 1988 do leta 1994 sta France 2 in France 3 bili poleg tega deležni investicijskih subvencij, France 2 pa še dotacij v kapital.
Investment grants and other grants
Investicijske subvencije in druge subvencije
Between 1988 and 1994, France 2 and France 3 received from the French State the investment grants and other grants set out in tables 1 and 2.
Od leta 1988 do leta 1994 sta France 2 in France 3 vsaka s svoje strani prejeli od države investicijske in druge subvencije, navedene v preglednicah 1 in 2.
Grants received by France 2
Subvencije, ki jih je prejela France 2
(FRF million) [6]
(v milijonih FRF) [6]
Investment grants
Investicijske subvencije
Other grants
Druge subvencije
Total grants
Vsota subvencij
Grants received by France 3
Subvencije, ki jih je prejela France 3
(FRF million) [7]
(v milijonih FRF) [7]
Capital injections
Dotacije v kapitalu
During the period under consideration, France 2 also received three capital injections from the French State, in 1991 (FRF 500 million), 1993 (FRF 55 million) and 1994 (FRF 355 million).
V okviru upoštevanega obdobja je bila France 2 prav tako deležna treh dotacij v kapitalu. Prvo dotacijo v kapitalu ji je dodelila država v letu 1991, v znesku 500 milijonov francoskih frankov (FRF), drugo v letu 1993, v znesku 55 milijonov FRF, in tretjo v letu 1994, v znesku 355 milijonov FRF.
With the exception of the licence fee, the investigation has shown that France 2 and France 3 did not receive other public funding enabling them to finance their activities.
Po preverjanju in z izjemo pristojbine, kanala France 2 in France 3 nista prejela drugih javnih finančnih sredstev, ki bi jima dovoljevala financiranje njune dejavnosti.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
PRIPOMBE TRETJE ZAINTERESIRANE OSEBE
In the course of the formal investigation procedure, the Commission received, by letter dated 1 February 2000, comments from the ACT, which represents most of the commercial television broadcasters in the Community.
V okviru formalnega postopka presoje je Komisija prejela s pismom z dne 1. februarja 2000 pripombe ACT, ki predstavlja največji del komercialnih televizijskih kanalov Skupnosti.
By way of introduction, the ACT stated that the private broadcasters TF1, M6 and Canal + had been required to fulfil public service obligations without receiving any corresponding financial compensation from the State and that the public service obligations imposed on France 2 and France 3 therefore in no way justified their public funding.
V preliminarnem pogledu ACT ocenjuje, da so se zasebni kanali TF1, M6 in Canal + znašli pred naloženimi obveznostmi javnih storitev, ne da bi zato prejeli državno finančno nadomestilo, in da torej obveznosti javnega servisa, ki obremenjujejo France 2 in France 3, nikakor ne opravičujejo njunega javnega financiranja.
It also regretted that certain items of information, such as the additional costs incurred by the public broadcasters on account of their public service remits or the content of their reorganisation plan, did not appear in the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Sicer obžaluje, da se določene informacije, na primer podatki o dodatnih stroških, ki jih imajo javni kanali zaradi njihovih poslanstev na področju javnega servisa ali vsebina načrta reorganizacije kanalov, ne pojavljajo v odločbi o odprtju formalnega postopka presoje.
It nevertheless confirmed the Commission’s analysis of the effect of the aid measures in question on competition and trade between Member States.
Nasprotno pa potrjuje analizo Komisije glede učinka zadevnih pomoči na konkurenco in njihovega vpliva na izmenjave med državami članicami.
The ACT claimed, firstly, that the licence fee constituted State aid following the liberalisation of broadcasting and that it was new aid, since the licence fee was paid to France 2 and France 3 each year.
ACT v prvi vrsti zatrjuje, da pristojbina predstavlja državno pomoč po liberalizaciji avdiovizualnega sektorja in da pri tem gre za novo pomoč, kajti pristojbino vplačujejo kanalom vsako leto. Po tem sklepa, da bi morala Komisija vključiti pristojbino med ukrepe, ki predstavljajo predmet formalnega postopka presoje.
It concluded from this that the Commission should have included the licence fee among the measures covered by the formal investigation procedure and took the view that the licence fee could not be declared compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) or Article 86(2) of the Treaty.
Poleg tega ocenjuje, da pristojbine ni mogoče razglasiti za združljivo s trgom Skupnosti, na osnovi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, niti na osnovi člena 86(2) Pogodbe. Javno financiranje France 2 in France 3 se ji zdi dejansko neupravičeno, ker imajo zasebni kanali podobne obveznosti javnega servisa kot javni kanali, ne da bi zato bili deležni enakega državnega finančnega nadomestila.
The public funding of France 2 and France 3 was unjustified in its opinion insofar as the private broadcasters had similar public service obligations to those of the public broadcasters but did not receive the same financial compensation from the State.
Glede zadevnih investicijskih subvencij in dotacij v kapitalu, ACT ocenjuje, da te finančne pomoči niso vezane na točno določen kulturni projekt in da torej ne morejo biti upravičene v smislu člena 87(3)(d) Pogodbe.
Lastly, after recalling the methodology that the Commission should follow for assessing State aid in the light of Article 86(2) of the Treaty, the ACT argued that the investment grants and capital injections under examination did not meet the criteria laid down by that provision insofar as they constituted exceptional, temporary aid and were not paid in order to finance additional public service tasks.
Končno, potem ko je opomnila na metodologijo, ki bi jo morala upoštevati Komisija pri ocenjevanju denarne državne pomoči, glede na člen 86(2) Pogodbe, ACT meni, da pregledane investicijske subvencije in dotacije v kapitalu, v tem posebnem primeru, ne izpolnjujejo kriterijev, ki jih postavlja omenjeni člen, v takšni meri, kot gre za izjemne, začasne denarne pomoči, in da niso bile izplačane z namenom financiranja dodatnih poslanstev javnih servisov.
In conclusion, the ACT therefore called on the Commission to adopt a negative final decision on the investment grants paid to France 2 and France 3 and the capital injections granted to France 2, to initiate the formal investigation procedure in respect of the licence fee and to provide it with fuller information on the public service obligations of the two broadcasters and the content of their reorganisation plan.
Iz vsega tega sledi, da ACT torej od Komisije zahteva, da sprejme dokončno negativno odločitev glede investicijskih subvencij, izplačanih France 2 in France 3, in glede dotacij v kapitalu, izplačanih France 2, da sproži formalni postopek presoje glede pristojbine in da ji posreduje obsežnejše informacije glede obveznosti javnega servisa obeh kanalov in glede vsebine njunega načrta reorganizacije.
COMMENTS FROM FRANCE
PRIPOMBE FRANCIJE
Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure
Glede odprtja formalnega postopka presoje
The points developed in those two letters will be summarised here only where they did not appear already in the letter of 10 December 1999.
Razmišljanj, ki so vključena v ti dve pismi, tukaj ne bomo povzemali, razen v kolikor se ne pojavljajo že v pismu z dne 10. decembra 1999.
The French authorities ascribed that trend to two factors: on the one hand, TF1’s programme schedule had been redirected, for commercial reasons, towards housewives under 50 years of age, the audience of most interest to advertisers, whereas the target audience for the public broadcasters was broad and diversified; on the other hand, the rules laid down by law and regulatory action allowed public broadcasters more limited access to advertising resources than private broadcasters.
Francoske oblasti za tak razvoj dogodkov ponujajo dvojno pojasnilo: po eni strani se je mreža programov TF1, v komercialnem prizadevanju, preusmerila k občinstvu „gospodinje, mlajše od petdesetih let“, ki predstavlja najzanimivejše občinstvo za oglaševalce, medtem ko javni operaterji ciljajo na široko občinstvo, ki je zelo raznoliko po svoji sestavi; po drugi strani zakonodajna določila in uredbe predvidevajo za javne operaterje bolj omejen dostop do oglaševalskih virov kot za zasebne operaterje.
Programme purchase and production costs had also risen sharply.
Sicer pa se je pri stroških nakupa in proizvodnje programov pojavila močna inflacija.
Since the number of broadcasters had doubled in the space of four years, competition had become keener on the programmes market, while the new operators had injected additional cash into that market.
Število operaterjev se je v obdobju štirih let podvojilo, na tržišču programov se je močno zaostrila konkurenca, medtem ko so novi operaterji na to tržišče prispevali dodatna likvidna sredstva.
As a result, the costs of programmes of all types had increased.
Rezultat, stroški programov so se zvišali, ne glede na to, kakšna je bila njihova zvrst.
Falling advertising incomes and rising costs thus brought about a deterioration in the financial situation of the two public broadcasters.
Zmanjšanje obsega oglaševalskih virov in zviševanje stroškov je prišlo do izraza tudi s poslabšanjem finančnega položaja obeh javnih kanalov.
The French authorities claimed that the State was forced to intervene in order to ensure the continued operation of the public channels and performance of their public service tasks, thereby maintaining pluralism.
Francoske oblasti trdijo, da je bila država prisiljena intervenirati, zato da bi zagotovila nadaljnji obstoj javnih kanalov in njihovih poslanstev javnih storitev ter da bi na ta način omogočila vzdrževanje pluralizma.
The performance of these tasks resulted in both an additional cost and a loss of advertising income for the public broadcasters.
Izvajanje teh poslanstev predstavlja za javne kanale po eni strani dodaten strošek, po drugi strani pa zmanjšanje oglaševalskih prihodkov.
Between 1988 and 1994, the deterioration in their economic situation threatened to jeopardise their survival and thus obstruct the performance of their public service tasks.
Od leta 1988 do leta 1994 je bilo poslabšanje njunega ekonomskega položaja tolikšno, da je ogrožalo njun obstoj in da je tudi škodovalo dobremu izvajanju njunih poslanstev javnih storitev.
The State therefore had to intervene through investment grants and capital injections.
Država je torej morala intervenirati v obliki subvencioniranja investicij in dotacij v kapitalu.
The spontaneous growth of the licence fee could not absorb the rapid increase in programme costs and halt the broadcasters’ economic decline.
Spontano naraščanje pristojbine dejansko ni moglo ublažiti naglega naraščanja stroškov za programe in ni moglo zaustaviti poslabševanja ekonomskega položaja obeh kanalov.
The French authorities considered that the State intervention in favour of France 2 and France 3 was compatible with the common market pursuant to both Article 86(2) and Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty and the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty [8].
Francoske oblasti ocenjujejo, da je intervencija države v korist France 2 in France 3 združljiva s tržiščem Skupnosti, tako na temelju člena 86(2) kot na temelju člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, kot tudi na temelju vodilnih usmeritev glede pomoči za reševanje in za prestrukturiranje podjetij, ki so se znašla v težavah [8].
They argued that the investment grants awarded to France 2 and France 3 were justified by the need to help them cope with the increase in programme costs.
Francoske oblasti opravičujejo investicijske subvencije, dodeljene France 2 in France 3, s potrebo po pomoči kanalom, zato da bi bili kos povečanju stroškov programov.
Furthermore, following an audit by the consultants Coopers & Lybrand, the two public broadcasters drew up a strategic plan in July 1991, comprising for each channel an internal reorganisation plan and a redundancy programme designed to generate savings, and setting out a strategy for meeting viewers’ expectations more effectively while asserting their specific identity as public service broadcasters.
Sicer pa sta oba javna kanala po reviziji, ki jo je pri njiju opravila revizorska hiša Coopers & Lybrand, v juliju 1991 sestavila strateški načrt, ki je za vsakega od obeh kanalov obsegal projekt interne reorganizacije in socialni načrt, namenjena ustvarjanju prihrankov in določanju strategije za boljši odziv gledalcev televizije ob poudarjanju svoje specifičnosti javnega omrežja.
The State supported the implementation of this strategic plan with additional finance in the form of the abovementioned investment grants and in the case of France 2, a capital injection in order to consolidate the structure of its balance sheet.
Država je spremljala uresničitev tega strateškega načrta z dodatnimi financiranji v obliki že navedenih investicijskih subvencij, in za France 2, z dotacijo v kapitalu, z namenom saniranja njene bilance.
The first injection of FRF 500 million having proved insufficient, the State decided to grant France 2 two more capital injections in 1993 and 1994, the latter being implemented following a fresh audit by Coopers & Lybrand and at the same time as a further cost cutting plan.
Potem ko se je izkazalo, da ta prva dotacija, v višini 500 milijonov FRF, ne zadošča, se je Država odločila, da bo France 2 odobrila dve novi dotaciji v kapitalu, leta 1993 in leta 1994. Ta zadnja dotacija po opravljeni novi reviziji revizorske hiše Coopers & Lybrand je sovpadala z novim varčevalnim načrtom.
These recapitalisation measures enabled France 2’s financial situation to be put onto a sounder footing.
Ti ukrepi za rekapitalizacijo so omogočili sanacijo finančnega položaja France 2.
The French authorities consider that these financing measures enabled the two public broadcasters to adjust to the new competitive environment.
Francoske oblasti ocenjujejo, da so ti finančni ukrepi obema javnima kanaloma omogočili prilagoditev novemu konkurenčnemu okolju.
The French authorities pointed out that the aid measures for the public broadcasters were granted against a general background of the redefinition of their public service tasks and their relations with the State through the conclusion of target-setting contracts.
Francoske oblasti poudarjajo, da so se te finančne pomoči v korist javnih kanalov pojavile v splošnem okolju ponovnega opredeljevanja njunih poslanstev javnih storitev in njunih odnosov z Državo, s sklenitvijo pogodb z ustreznimi cilji.
They stated, lastly, that the markets in television audiences, programmes and advertising were national in size and claimed that the Commission had not demonstrated how intra-Community trade had been affected by the public financing measures in question.
Francoske oblasti končno navajajo, da tržišča občinstva, programov in avdiovizualnega oglaševanja predstavljajo tržišča nacionalnih razsežnosti, in Komisiji očitajo, da ni pokazala, v čem so bile izmenjave znotraj Skupnosti prizadete zaradi teh državnih finančnih ukrepov.
In their reply dated 29 April 1999, the French authorities commented on the position of France 2 and France 3 on the markets in the acquisition of broadcasting rights and advertising.
V svojem odgovoru z dne 29. aprila 1999 so francoske oblasti navedle opombe glede položaja France 2 in France 3 na tržiščih pridobivanja avdiovizualnih pravic in oglaševanja in so pri tem navedle, da javna omrežja niso sposobna ogroziti položaja komercialnih omrežij na tržiščih avdiovizualnih pravic, saj so njihove finančne zmogljivosti manjše in njihova programska politika ustreza imperativu zahtevnosti in raznolikosti, medtem ko komercialni kanali svojemu občinstvu ponujajo samo privlačne programe.
They stated that the public broadcasters were unable to threaten the positions of the commercial channels on the markets in the acquisition of broadcasting rights, since their financial capacities were smaller and their programming had to meet standards of quality and diversity, whereas the commercial channels offered only programmes that were attractive in terms of audience ratings.
Francoske oblasti so prav tako zanikale, da bi France 2 in France 3 imeli „umetno nizko“ tarifno politiko glede prodaje oglaševalskega prostora.
The French authorities also denied that France 2 and France 3 had pursued an ‘artificially low’ pricing policy in the sale of advertising slots: they argued among other things that France 2’s advertising rates were on the whole only 5 to 10 % lower than TF1’s, although the latter’s slots were twice as powerful; the difference between the prices applied by the two public broadcasters and TF1 merely reflected the difference in the power of their advertising slots.
Prav tako so poudarjale zlasti dejstvo, da so cene prodaje oglaševalskega prostora France 2 v celoti le za 5 do 10 % nižje od cen TF1, medtem ko so njihovi zasloni dvakrat manj zmogljivi. Razlika v cenah, ki veljajo med obema javnima kanaloma in med TF1, odraža le razliko v moči oglaševalskih ekranov.
Comments from the ATC
Glede pripomb ATC
They maintained that the investment grants and capital injections covered by this Decision were compatible with the common market pursuant to both Article 86(2) and Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty and pointed out that they had not requested the application of Article 87(3)(d) concerning the promotion of culture.
Potrjujejo svojo analizo, po kateri so investicijske subvencije in dotacije v kapitalu, ki predstavljajo predmet te odločbe, združljive s tržiščem Skupnosti, na temelju člena 86(2) in člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe, in navajajo, da niso zahtevale uporabe člena 87(3)(d), ki se nanaša na promocijo kulture.
They ended by stating that it was for the Commission to assess whether the information in its possession was sufficient in order to bring the procedure to an end and whether the public documents could be communicated to the ACT.
Nazadnje navajajo, da mora Komisija oceniti, ali so informacije, ki jih ima na voljo, zadostne za to, da zaključi postopek, in za to, da so javni dokumenti lahko sporočeni ACT.
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES
V. OVREDNOTENJE ZADEVNIH UKREPOV
Article 87(1) of the Treaty provides that ‘save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe ureja, da „razen izjem, ki jih predvideva ta pogodba, finančne pomoči, ki jih zagotavljajo države ali s pomočjo virov države, v kakršni koli obliki, ki negativno vplivajo na konkurenco ali obstaja nevarnost, da bi negativno vplivale na konkurenco, z dajanjem prednosti določenim podjetjem ali določenim proizvodnjam, niso združljive s tržiščem Skupnosti, kolikor vplivajo na izmenjave med državami članicami“.
Consequently, for a measure to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, all of the following conditions must be met:
Zato da določeni finančni ukrep predstavlja državno pomoč, v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe, morajo biti kumulativno izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji:
the aid must be granted by a Member State using State resources,
finančno pomoč mora zagotavljati država članica iz državnih sredstev,
it must favour certain undertakings or certain sectors and thereby distort or threaten to distort competition,
finančna pomoč mora dajati prednost določenim podjetjem ali določenim sektorjem in mora na ta način povzročati kršitev konkurence ali pa groziti, da jo bo ustvarila,
it must affect trade between Member States.
finančna pomoč mora vplivati na izmenjave med državami članicami.
State resources
Glede državnih virov
The grants and capital injections covered by this Decision come from the French national budget.
Subvencije in dotacije v kapitalu, ki predstavljajo predmet te odločbe, izvirajo iz proračuna države.
They were awarded by virtue of a legislative instrument or a regulatory decision.
Podeljevanje teh subvencij in dotacij je torej izhajalo bodisi iz zakonodajnega ali pa iz uredbenega akta.
Consequently, there can be no doubt that they involve State resources and can be imputed to the State.
Glede značaja državnih virov v zvezi s predmetnimi ukrepi in z njihovo prištevnostjo državi torej ni nikakršnega dvoma.
Selective advantage and distortion of competition
Glede selektivne prednosti in motenj konkurence