natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The internal rate of return of the investment was expected to reach approximately 24 %, a level that would exceed the demands of private market investors in this sector (the comparable industry rate of return on equity is 8,6 %) and compensate also for the financial risk of the company.
Notranja stopnja donosa naložbe naj bi po pričakovanjih dosegla približno 24 %, kar bi presegalo zahteve zasebnih tržnih vlagateljev v tem sektorju (stopnja donosa lastniškega kapitala v primerljivem sektorju je 8,6 %) in nadomestilo tudi finančno tveganje družbe.
Although it is impossible to establish with certainty ex post what would have been the evolution of revenues in the absence of the shareholder contribution, the Commission notes that Teracom's return on equity grew from 3 % in 2003 to 11 % in 2004 and 19 % in 2005.
Čeprav je naknadno nemogoče zagotovo trditi, kako bi se razvijali prihodki, če ne bi bilo delniškega prispevka, Komisija ugotavlja, da je donosnost lastniškega kapitala družbe Teracom zrasla s 3 % v letu 2003 na 11 % v letu 2004 in 19 % v letu 2005.
Figure 3 below illustrates Teracom's return to profitability in 2003, 2004 and 2005.
Prikaz 3 prikazuje vrnitev donosnosti družbe Teracom v letu 2003, 2004 in 2005.
The company made its first repayment of the conditional shareholder contribution in 2006.
Družba je prvo povračilo pogojnega delniškega vložka opravila leta 2006.
Figure 3:
Prikaz 3
Development of Teracom's actual profits from 1998 to 2005
Razvoj dejanskega dobička družbe Teracom od leta 1998 do leta 2005
million SEK
milijonov SEK
Source: Teracom's Annual Reports 1998 to 2005
Vir: Letna poročila družbe Teracom od leta 1998 do leta 2005.
The Commission concludes, therefore, that the conditional shareholder contribution by way of a capital injection was made in circumstances that would be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je bil pogojni delniški vložek z dokapitalizacijo opravljen v okoliščinah, ki bi bile sprejemljive za vlagatelja v okviru običajnih pogojev tržnega gospodarstva.
However, in this particular case the question arises whether the fact that Teracom maintained its position as exclusive terrestrial network operator notwithstanding the entry into force in October 2002 of the Directive on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (the ‘Competition Directive’), which prohibits the maintenance of exclusive rights in the relevant sector, has an impact on the present State aid assessment.
Vendar pa se v tem primeru postavlja vprašanje, ali na sedanjo oceno državne pomoči vpliva dejstvo, da je družba Teracom ohranila svoj položaj kot izključni operater prizemnega omrežja, ne glede na to, da je oktobra 2002 začela veljati Direktiva o konkurenci na trgih za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve („Direktiva o konkurenci“), ki prepoveduje ohranjanje izključnih pravic v zadevnem sektorju.
When, in examining a potential aid measure, the Commission finds that another provision of the EC Treaty has been breached, it must be assessed whether aspects of that aid contravene specific provisions of the EC Treaty other than Articles 87 and 88 and are so indissolubly linked to the object of the aid that it is impossible to evaluate them separately.
Kadar Komisija pri proučevanju možnega ukrepa pomoči ugotovi, da je bila kršena kakšna druga določba Pogodbe ES, je treba presoditi, ali so vidiki te pomoči v nasprotju s posebnimi določbami Pogodbe ES, ki niso člena 87 in 88, in so tako neločljivo povezani z namenom pomoči, da jih je nemogoče ocenjevati posebej.
In such a case, it is only if the breach of that other EC Treaty provision has a distortive effect which is demonstrable and additional to that inherent in the potential aid measure that it can determine the Commission's assessment of the measure.
V takem primeru lahko Komisija pri svoji oceni ukrepa upošteva kršitev druge določbe Pogodbe ES, samo če ima ta izkrivljajoči učinek, ki je dokazljiv in dopolnjuje izkrivljajoči učinek, povezan z možnim ukrepom pomoči.
In the case at hand, the Commission notes that the infringement of the Competition Directive does not form part of the measure under assessment, but results from a course of action of the Government that is separate and distinct from the decision to grant the shareholder contribution.
V zadevnem primeru Komisija ugotavlja, da kršitev Direktive o konkurenci ni del ocenjevanega ukrepa, ampak je posledica ločenih dejanj vlade, ki niso povezana z odločitvijo o odobritvi delniškega vložka.
Moreover, although it cannot be excluded that the exclusive right may have influenced the profitability of Teracom and, therefore, of the shareholder contribution to a certain extent, this cannot be established with certainty since Teracom is subject to price regulation — as explained above in paragraphs 42, 43 and 102 — and cannot freely exercise its market power.
In čeprav ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da je izključna pravica morda vplivala na donosnost družbe Teracom in torej v določenem obsegu na donosnost delniškega vložka, tega ni mogoče zanesljivo dokazati, ker so cene družbe Teracom nadzorovane, kot je pojasnjeno v odstavkih 42, 43 in 102 – in Teracom ne more svobodno uveljavljati svoje tržne moči.
In the present case, it can, therefore, not be demonstrated that it is primarily because of the exclusive right that the shareholder contribution was a profitable investment.
V zadevnem primeru torej ni mogoče dokazati, da je bila izključna pravica glavni razlog, da je bil delniški vložek donosna naložba.
It can therefore also not be determined that, without the exclusive right, the expected return on the shareholder contribution would not have been acceptable to a private investor.
Zato tudi ni mogoče ugotoviti, da brez izključne pravice pričakovani donos delniškega vložka ne bi bil sprejemljiv za zasebnega vlagatelja.
Therefore, in the absence of a clearly established causal link between Sweden's breach of the Competition Directive and the expected profitability of the shareholder contribution, the Commission is not in a position to invalidate Sweden's claim that the MEIP test has been met in the present case.
Ker torej ni jasno dokazljive vzročne povezave med švedsko kršitvijo Direktive o konkurenci in pričakovanim donosom delniškega vložka, Komisija ne more razveljaviti trditve Švedske, da je bil v zadevnem primeru uspešno opravljen preizkus v zvezi z načelom vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji.
This, however, does not prejudge the position which the Commission may take in future cases in the light of their facts.
Vendar pa to ne prejudicira mnenja, ki ga lahko Komisija poda v prihodnjih primerih ob upoštevanju zadevnih dejstev.
To conclude, in the present case the shareholder contribution and the breach of the Competition Directive can and should be assessed separately in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable to the two measures.
Skratka, v zadevnem primeru je delniški vložek in kršitev Direktive o konkurenci mogoče in treba ocenjevati ločeno v skladu s pravili in postopki, ki se uporabljajo za ta ukrepa.
It should be noted that, with regard to the Competition Directive, the Commission has referred Sweden to the European Court of Justice under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.
Treba je opozoriti, da je Komisija v zvezi z Direktivo o konkurenci Švedsko napotila na Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti v skladu s členom 226 Pogodbe ES.
As regards the shareholder contribution, however, the Commission concludes that the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) has not been established.
V zvezi z delniškim vložkom pa Komisija ugotavlja, da obstoj državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES ni bil dokazan.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that there are no indications that the investigated measures conferred an economic advantage upon Teracom or any of its subsidiaries.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da ni dokazov, da so preiskovani ukrepi družbi Teracom ali kateri od njenih hčerinskih družb omogočili gospodarsko prednost.
The Commission therefore concludes that the measures which Sweden has implemented do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty,
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da ukrepi, ki jih je uresničila Švedska, niso pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe –
The measures investigated by the Commission and described in this Decision relating to the introduction of digital terrestrial television in Sweden do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Ukrepi, ki jih je preiskala Komisija in so opisani v tej odločbi ter zadevajo vzpostavljanje digitalne prizemne televizije na Švedskem, niso državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
See Case C 24/04 (ex NN 35/04) Introduction of digital terrestrial television in Sweden, OJ C 238, 25.9.2004, p. 5.
Glej Zadevo C 24/04 (prej NN 35/04) Vzpostavljanje digitalne prizemne televizije na Švedskem, UL C 238, 25.9.2004, str. 5.
On 1 December 2005, NSAB changed its name to SES Sirius AB.
Dne 1. decembra 2005 je družba NSAB spremenila svoje ime v SES Sirius AB.
Notwithstanding this, the complainant will throughout this Decision be referred to as ‘NSAB.’
Ne glede na to se ta pritožnik v tej odločbi obravnava kot „NSAB“.
On 12 April 2002 and on 2 October 2002, NSAB supplemented its complaint with additional information concerning the alleged state aid measures.
Dne 12. aprila 2002 in 2. oktobra 2002 je NSAB predložila pritožbo z dodatnimi informacijami o domnevnih ukrepih državne pomoči.
See B2's submission dated 22 October 2004.
Glej stališča B2 z dne 22. oktobra 2004.
See ECCA's submission dated 25 October 2004 (registered as received on 2 December 2004).
Glej predložena stališča ECCA z dne 25. oktobra 2004 (evidentirana 2. decembra 2004).
See ESOA's submission dated 18 October 2004 (registered as received on 25 October 2004).
Glej predložena stališča ESOA z dne 18. oktobra 2004 (evidentirana 25. oktobra 2004).
See NSAB's submissions dated 22 October 2004, 11 February 2005 (registered as received on 14 February 2005), 9 March 2005 (registered as received on 10 March 2005) and 1 December 2005 (registered as received on 6 December 2005).
Glej predložena stališča NSAB z dne 22. oktobra 2004, 11. februarja 2005 (evidentirana 14. februarja 2005), 9. marca 2005 (evidentirana 10. marca 2005) in 1. decembra 2005 (evidentirana 6. decembra 2005).
See Telenor Broadcast's submission dated 17 November 2004 (registered as received on 18 November 2004).
Glej predložena stališča družbe Telenor Broadcast z dne 17. novembra 2004 (evidentirana 18. novembra 2004).
See TeliaSonera's submission dated 25 October 2004 (registered as received on 26 October 2004).
Glej predložena stališča družbe TeliaSonera z dne 25. oktobra 2004 (evidentirana 26. oktobra 2004).
See UGC's submission dated 25 October 2004 (registered as received on 26 October 2004).
Glej predložena stališča družbe UGC z dne 25. oktobra 2004 (evidentirana 26. oktobra 2004).
See Viasat's submission dated 25 October 2004 (registered as received on 26 October 2004).
Glej predložena stališča družbe Viasat z dne 25. oktobra 2004 (evidentirana 26. oktobra 2004).
According to the complainants, unlawful state aid has also been provided to a company called Senda i Sverige AB (‘Senda’).
Po trditvah pritožnikov je nezakonito državno pomoč dobila tudi družba Senda i Sverige AB („Senda“).
Senda used to be a subsidiary of Teracom dealing with the coordination, marketing and packaging of television programmes and services for terrestrial digital television.
Senda je bila hčerinska družba družbe Teracom, ki se je ukvarjala z usklajevanjem, trženjem in pripravo paketov televizijskih programov in storitev za prizemno digitalno televizijo.
Since 1 October 2002, Senda has been merged with Boxer and the two companies are now operating under the name ‘Boxer.’
Senda se je 1. oktobra 2002 združila z družbo Boxer in družbi zdaj poslujeta pod imenom „Boxer“.
See Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings, OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.
Glej Direktivo Komisije 2000/52/ES z dne 26. julija 2000 o spremembi Direktive 80/723/EGS o preglednosti finančnih odnosov med državami članicami in javnimi podjetji, UL L 193, 29.7.2000, str. 75.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2004 in Case C-141/03 Commission v Sweden, not yet reported.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 15. julija 2004 v Zadevi C-141/03 Komisija proti Švedski, še neobjavljena.
See Prop.
Glej Prop.
Televerket has since been privatised and is now known as Telia AB.
Televerkt je bil medtem privatiziran in se zdaj imenuje Telia AB.
In December 2004, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against Sweden for violations of the Directive on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (SG infringement No 2004/2197; Case COMP/C-1/39.157).
Decembra 2004 je Komisija sprožila postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Švedski zaradi kršitev Direktive o konkurenci na trgih za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve (Kršitev SG št. 2004/2197; Zadeva COMP/C-1/39 157).
The case concerned the maintenance of exclusive rights in the relevant sector.
V tej zadevi se je obravnavala ohranitev izključnih pravic v zadevnem sektorju.
As a result of these proceedings, the Government undertook to abolish the exclusive rights awarded to Teracom with regard to the provision of analogue terrestrial broadcasting services by 1 January 2006.
Zaradi tega postopka se je vlada zavezala, da bo ukinila izključne pravice, dodeljene družbi Teracom v zvezi z zagotavljanjem storitev analognega prizemnega prenosa, do 1. januarja 2006.
The case concerning digital terrestrial broadcasting services is still ongoing although the Government no longer disputes the Commission's assessment that the regulatory framework currently in force infringes the said Directive.
Zadeva v zvezi s storitvami digitalnega prizemnega prenosa je še vedno v teku, čeprav vlada ne spodbija več ocene Komisije, da veljavni ureditveni okvir krši navedeno direktivo.
However, because the Government has failed to provide the Commission with a draft piece of legislation which would allow it to ascertain whether the infringement will come to an end and when the new legislation would enter into force, the Commission has decided to refer Sweden to the Court of Justice; see Commission press release IP/06/1411 of 17 October 2006.
Ker pa vlada Komisiji ni predložila osnutka zakonodaje, na podlagi katerega bi ta lahko ugotovila, ali bo kršitev odpravljena in kdaj bo začela veljati nova zakonodaja, se je Komisija odločila, da bo zadevo v zvezi s Švedsko predložila Sodišču; glej sporočilo Komisije za javnost IP/06/1411 z dne 17. oktobra 2006.
See Decision 05-8675/23 of 15 December 2005 relating to the digital terrestrial network and Decision 05-8674/23 of 15 December 2005 relating to the analogue terrestrial network.
Glej Sklep 05-8675/23 z dne 15. decembra 2005 v zvezi z digitalnim prizemnim omrežjem in Sklep 05-8674/23 z dne 15. decembra 2005 v zvezi z analognim prizemnim omrežjem.
See www.boxer.se.
Glej www.boxer.se.
Between April 2000 and April 2005, 3i's 30 % shareholding in Boxer was held by Skandia Liv (‘Skandia’).
30-odstotni lastniški delež, ki ga ima družba 3i v družbi Boxer, je bil od aprila 2000 do aprila 2005 v lasti družbe Skandia Liv („Skandia“).
This Decision is without prejudice to the application of the EU internal market rules.
Ta odločba ne vpliva na uporabo pravil notranjega trga EU.
See Boxer's press release of 18 January 2006, Boxer grew by 42 % in 2005.
Glej sporočilo za javnost družbe Boxer z dne 18. januarja 2006, Boxer grew by 42 % in 2005.
See also Boxer's press release of 12 July 2005, Boxer fortsätter att öka antalet digitala TV-kunder; and its press release of 20 October 2005, Fortsatt ökning för Boxer.
Glej tudi sporočilo za javnost družbe Boxer z dne 12. julija 2005, Boxer fortsätter att öka antalet digitala TV-kunder; in njeno sporočilo za javnost z dne 20. oktobra 2005, Fortsatt ökning för Boxer.
See www.svt.se and Prop.
Glej www.svt.se in Prop.
See, e.g., Government Decision of 10 February 2005 (No I:11), Government Decision of 22 June 2005 (No I:22), Government Decision of 15 December 2005 (No I:102) and Government Decision of 23 February 2006 (No I:15).
Glej npr. Sklep vlade z dne 10. februarja 2005 (št. I:11), Sklep vlade z dne 22. junija 2005 (št. I:22), Sklep vlade z dne 15. decembra 2005 (št. I:102) in Sklep vlade z dne 23. februarja 2006 (št. I:15).
Until 31 December 2005, it was obliged to do so with regard to analogue broadcasting.
Do 31. decembra 2005 je bila to njena obveznost za analogno razširjanje.
The agreement between NSAB and SVT was notified to the Commission in 1999 (Case No IV/C-2/37.517) and the parties received a comfort letter in November 1999.
Dogovor med NSAB in SVT je bil Komisiji priglašen leta 1999 (Zadeva št. IV/C-2/37 517) in stranki sta novembra 1999 prejeli upravno pismo.
See www.ur.se/ur/start.php?
Glej www.ur.se/ur/start.php?
See Government Decision 29 addressed to UR, Tillstånd att sända television, KU2001/1543/Me (partly) of 20 December 2001; and Annex 1 to Government Decision I:12, Tillstånd att sända ljudradio och television, U2005/1824/Me of 2 October 2005.
Glej Sklep vlade 29, naslovljen na UR, Tillstånd att sända television, KU2001/1543/Me (delno) z dne 20. decembra 2001, in Prilogo 1 k Sklepu vlade I:12, Tillstånd att sända ljudradio och television, U2005/1824/Me z dne 2. oktobra 2005.
This broadcasting licence has been prolonged and covers the whole of 2006 as well.
To radiodifuzijsko dovoljenje je bilo podaljšano in zajema tudi celotno leto 2006.
The reason for this is that the appropriations allocated to UR are not significant and the rules governing UR's activities and transmissions are virtually the same as those governing SVT.
Razlog je naslednji: sredstva, odobrena UR, so zanemarljiva in pravila, ki urejajo dejavnosti in prenose UR, so pravzaprav enaka tistim, ki urejajo SVT.
Moreover, UR broadcasts via one of SVT's channels.
Poleg tega UR oddaja prek enega od kanalov SVT.
The appropriations allocated to each of the two companies, and payments made by each of them, will therefore be treated as one.
Sredstva, odobrena obema družbama, in plačila, ki sta jih opravili, bodo torej obravnavana skupaj.
See http://www.ses-sirius.com.
Glej http://www.ses-sirius.com.
See Teracom's Annual Report 2000.
Glej letno poročilo družbe Teracom za leto 2000.
See the 29 October response, p. 11.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, str. 11.
See Statens Offentliga Utredningar: Sveriges övergång till digital-TV, Digital-TV-Kommissionen.
Glej Statens Offentliga Utredningar: Sveriges övergång till digital-TV, Digital-TV-Kommissionen.
Source: Mediavision, MMS, see the 20 March response, question 15.
Vir: Mediavision, MMS, glej odgovor z dne 20. marca, vprašanje 15.
See also Radio och TV-verket's Mediautveckling 2005 och 2006.
Glej tudi Radio och TV-verket's Mediautveckling 2005 och 2006.
See Bet.
Glej Bet.
See https://www.teracom.se.
Glej https://www.teracom.se.
See the 29 October response, sections 3.4.2. and 3.5.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, oddelka 3.4.2. in 3.5.
See http://www.teracom.se and Statens Offentliga Utredningar: Sveriges övergång till digital-TV, Digital-TV-Kommissionen.
Glej http://www.teracom.se in Statens Offentliga Utredningar: Sveriges övergång till digital-TV, Digital-TV-Kommissionen.
See http://www.rtvv.se/se/Om_media/tv/digitaltv/but also the Report made by the Post and Telecommunications Regulator in November 2005, Förstudie: Frigjort frekvensutrymme vid övergången till digitalt marksänd TV, pp. 5-7.
Glej http://www.rtvv.se/se/Om_media/tv/digitaltv/in poročilo, ki ga je Organ za pošto in telekomunikacije pripravil novembra 2005, Förstudie: Frigjort frekvensutrymme vid övergången till digitalt marksänd TV, str. 5–7.
See the 29 October response, p. 22, and the Government's response of 20 December 2004, p. 2.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, str. 22, in odgovor vlade z dne 20. decembra 2004, str. 2.
It should be noted that, as of April 2005, 3i is the owner of the 30 % previously held by Skandia.
Treba je opozoriti, da je 3i od aprila 2005 lastnica 30 %, ki jih je prej imela Skandia.
See the Law on the Television Licence Fee (1989:41).
Glej Zakon o prispevku za opravljanje televizijske dejavnosti (1989:41).
See Radio och TV i allmänhetens tjänst — Riktlinjer för en ny tillståndsperiod, Betänkande av Kommittén om radio och TV i allmänhetens tjänst, Stockholm 2005.
Glej Radio och TV i allmänhetens tjänst – Riktlinjer för en ny tillståndsperiod, Betänkande av Kommittén om radio och TV i allmänhetens tjänst, Stockholm 2005.
See Anslagsvillkor för Sveriges Television AB för år 2005, Prop.
Glej Anslagsvillkor för Sveriges Television AB för år 2005, Prop.
See the 29 October response, pp. 27-30 and 42-43.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, str. 27–30 in 42–43.
Also, the distribution costs will decrease as the analogue terrestrial network is shut down.
Tudi stroški razširjanja se bodo znižali po ukinitvi analognega prizemnega omrežja.
See the 29 October response, pp. 27-30.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, str. 27–30.
See the 29 October response, pp. 27-29; Prop.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, str. 27–29; Prop.
Prop.
2001/02:1, str. 121; Prop.
and the 20 March response, question 4.
2004/05:1, str. 108; in odgovor z dne 20. marca, vprašanje 4.
See, e.g., Anslagsvillkor för Sveriges Television AB för år 2005, Prop.
Glej Anslagsvillkor för Sveriges Television AB för år 2005, Prop.
but also the 20 March response, question 4.
2004/05:97; pa tudi odgovor z dne 20. marca, vprašanje 4.
See the 29 October response, section 3.6.2; the 20 March response, question 9; and Teracom's Annual Reports for, e.g., 2003 and 2004.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, oddelek 3.6.2; odgovor z dne 20. marca, vprašanje 9, in letni poročili družbe Teracom npr. za leti 2003 in 2004.
See the 29 October response, section 3.6.2; and the framework agreement (‘ramavtal’) between Teracom and SVT signed on 4 March 2004, annexed to the 20 March response.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, oddelek 3.6.2, in okvirni dogovor („ramavtal“) med družbo Teracom in SVT, podpisan 4. marca 2004, ki je priložen odgovoru z dne 20. marca.
The reason why Teracom is no longer obliged to price analogue transmission at cost level is the recent decision (with commitments) issued by the PTS.
Družbi Teracom ni več treba zaračunavati analognega prenosa na ravni stroškov na podlagi nedavne odločitve (z obveznostmi), ki jo je sprejela PTS.
Since that decision, Teracom's prices are subject to ex ante control by the PTS.
Od te odločitve cene družbe Teracom predhodno preveri PTS.
See Section 3.1.1. above.
Glej oddelek 3.1.1.
See the 29 October response, section 3.6.1, p. 29.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, oddelek 3.6.1, str. 29.
It is only in the case of the fourth multiplex that since 2002 the variable part of the transmission fee has been based on another, cost-based pricing model; see the Government's reply of 21 March 2003.
Samo pri četrtem multipleksu je od leta 2002 spremenljivi del plačila za prenos temeljil na drugačnem modelu oblikovanja cen, in sicer na podlagi stroškov; glej odgovor vlade z dne 21. marca 2003.
See the 29 October response, section 3.6.2., and the 20 March response, question 9.
Glej odgovor z dne 29. oktobra, oddelek 3.6.2, in odgovor z dne 20. marca, vprašanje 9.
2005/06:1, Utgiftsområde 24, pp. 71-74.
2005/06:1, Utgiftsområde 24, str. 71–74.
The text in paragraph 44 and related footnote has been deleted for confidentiality reasons.
Besedilo odstavka 44 in z njim povezane opombe je bilo izbrisano zaradi zaupnosti podatkov.
The text contains certain information about an agreement between SVT and Teracom.
Besedilo vsebuje določene informacije o dogovoru med SVT in družbo Teracom.
See Teracom's Interim Report for the second quarter of 2002.
Glej vmesno poročilo družbe Teracom za drugo četrtletje 2002.
See Government bill 2001/02:76.
Glej Vladni zakon 2001/02:76.
See Parliament's Decision 2001/02:KrU07; Rskr.
Glej Sklep parlamenta 2001/02:KrU07; Rskr.