natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They maintain that the level of the transmission fees depends on a number of other factors and that in any case, the regulator (BNetzA, previously RegTP) controls any eventual misuse in relation to the transmission fees.
Menijo, da je raven pristojbin za prenos odvisna od številnih drugih dejavnikov in da regulator (BNetzA, prej RegTP) v vsakem primeru nadzira kakršne koli morebitne zlorabe v zvezi s pristojbinami za prenos.
In addition, linked to their previous argument concerning the advantage to broadcasters, the authorities argue that as broadcasters only receive compensation for ‘additional costs’ due to the switchover, they have no interest in paying higher transmission fees than the market price.
Poleg tega, v povezavi s prejšnjim argumentom glede prednosti za izdajatelje televizijskega programa, organi menijo, da izdajatelji televizijskega programa nimajo nobenega interesa za plačevanje pristojbin za prenos, ki so višje od tržne cene, saj prejemajo nadomestilo samo za „dodatne stroške“ zaradi preklopa.
The German authorities also contest that the measure would lead to guaranteed revenue for T-Systems.
Nemški organi tudi izpodbijajo mnenje, da bi ukrep pripeljal do zajamčenega prihodka za T-Systems.
In their view, the ‘guaranteed revenues’ follow from the use of the network infrastructure which results from the attribution of broadcasting licences and not from the funding.
Po njihovem mnenju pritekajo „zajamčeni prihodki“ iz uporabe omrežne infrastrukture, kar je posledica dodelitve dovoljenj za radiodifuzijo in ne financiranja.
Moreover, they also maintain that even if there was more interest for the use of the network due to the measure, the resulting additional revenues would be offset by the additional costs of the network services incurred by T-Systems.
Poleg tega tudi menijo, da bi, čeprav bi zaradi ukrepa prišlo do večjega zanimanja za uporabo omrežja, bili posledični dodatni prihodki izravnani z dodatnimi stroški omrežnih storitev, ki bi jih imel T-Systems.
Contrary to the arguments put forward by the German authorities, the Commission considers that T-Systems would be able to draw an indirect advantage from the measure, taking into account that the measure subsidises directly the transmission fees paid by the commercial broadcasters to T-Systems, it is conditional upon the use of the DVB-T platform and specifically targeted to promote the platform operated by T-Systems.
Obratno argumentom, ki so jih predložili nemški organi, Komisija meni, da bi T-Systems lahko dobil posredno prednost iz ukrepa, saj ukrep neposredno subvencionira pristojbine za prenos, ki jih komercialni izdajatelji televizijskega programa plačajo T-Systems, kjer gre za korist, ki je odvisna od uporabe platforme DVB-T, in ciljno promocijo platforme, ki jo upravlja T-Systems.
In the Commission’s view, the restrictive interpretation of the category of indirect beneficiary proposed by the German authorities cannot be accepted.
Po mnenju Komisije ni mogoče sprejeti restriktivne razlage kategorije posrednega prejemnika, ki so jo predlagali nemški organi.
In both judgements referred to by the German authorities, the Court has upheld the qualification of the undertakings concerned as indirect beneficiaries.
V obeh sodbah, ki so ju navedli nemški organi, je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti podprlo opis udeleženih podjetij kot posrednih prejemnikov.
In Germany v Commission, the Court considered that the fact that the indirect advantage resulted from independent decisions by the direct beneficiaries did not eliminate the connection between the measure and the indirect advantage, which followed from the alteration of the market conditions by the measure [65].
V zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji je menilo, da dejstvo, da je bila posredna prednost posledica neodvisnih odločitev neposrednih prejemnikov, ni odpravilo povezave med ukrepom in posredno prednostjo, ki je izhajala iz spremembe tržnih pogojev zaradi ukrepa [65].
Given that in the present case, the aid has not been granted, it is indeed not possible to quantify the indirect advantage possibly accruing to T-Systems.
Ker v tem primeru pomoč ni bila dodeljena, dejansko ni mogoče količinsko opredeliti posredne prednosti, ki bi je bila lahko deležna družba T-Systems.
However, in any case, the Commission is not bound to quantify the exact amount of the advantage in order to establish the presence of an economic advantage to an undertaking under the State aid rules.
Vendar pa Komisiji v nobenem primeru ni treba količinsko opredeliti točnega zneska prednosti, da bi ugotovila navzočnost gospodarske prednosti za podjetje v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči.
In the present case, the Commission considers that the funding of the transmission fees payable by the commercial broadcasters changes the conditions under which they operate, and enables them to bear eventually higher transmission fees.
V obravnavanem primeru Komisija meni, da financiranje pristojbin za prenos, ki jih plačujejo komercialni izdajatelji televizijskega programa, spremeni pogoje, pod katerimi poslujejo, in jim navsezadnje omogoči, da prenesejo višje pristojbine za prenos.
As outlined in recitals 73 and 74, the funding cannot be considered as covering real additional costs of commercial broadcasters in relation to the introduction of DVB-T.
Kot je razloženo v uvodnih izjavah 73 in 74, za ta finančna sredstva ne more veljati, da pokrijejo dejanske dodatne stroške komercialnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa v zvezi z uvedbo DVB-T.
Although the level of the transmission fee indeed depends on a number of factors, the ability of commercial broadcasters to bear higher costs certainly constitutes one of the key commercial considerations from the point of view of the network operator for defining the level of the transmission fees.
Čeprav je raven pristojbine za prenos dejansko odvisna od številnih dejavnikov, je zmožnost komercialnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa, da prenesejo višje stroške, dejansko eden ključnih komercialnih premislekov z vidika omrežnega operaterja pri določanju višine pristojbine za prenos.
In line with the German Telecommunications Law (Telekommunikationsgesetz), BNetzA only exercises control over transmission fees charged by operators with significant market power.
V skladu z nemškim Zakonom o telekomunikacijah (Telekommunikationsgesetz) izvaja BNetzA nadzor samo prek pristojbin za prenos, ki jih zaračunajo operaterji z precejšnjo tržno močjo.
As indicated in recital 36, T-Systems has so far not been considered by BNetzA to have a significant market power with regard to terrestrial television transmission.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 36 T-Systems, po mnenju BNetzA doslej ni imel večje tržne moči glede prizemnega televizijskega prenosa.
Therefore, it remains free to fix the amount of transmission fees for commercial broadcasters on the DVB-T platform.
Zato lahko prosto določa znesek pristojbin za prenos za komercialne izdajatelje televizijskega programa na platformi DVB-T.
With respect to the argument that the ‘guaranteed revenues’ for T-Systems arise from the attribution of the licences and not from the measure, the Commission acknowledges that the interest of the commercial broadcasters to be present on the platform and their willingness to bear the corresponding costs is already demonstrated by the high number of applications for the licences.
Glede argumenta, da „zajamčeni prihodki“ za T-Systems izhajajo iz dodelitve dovoljenj in ne iz ukrepa, Komisija potrjuje, da sta zanimanje komercialnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa za navzočnost na platformi in njihova pripravljenost, da nosijo ustrezne stroške, dokazana že z velikim številom vlog za dovoljenja.
However, the Commission considers that funding of part of their operational costs for a period of five years increases their willingness to pay even higher costs to be continuously present on the platform.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da financiranje dela njihovih obratovalnih stroškov za obdobje petih let povečuje njihovo pripravljenost, da plačajo še višje stroške, da bi bili ves čas navzoči na platformi.
Thereby, the measure may provide for additional revenues for T-Systems deriving form the transmission fees from commercial broadcasters.
Posledično lahko ukrep pripelje do dodatnih prihodkov za T-Systems, ki izhajajo iz pristojbin za prenos, ki jih plačujejo komercialni izdajatelji televizijskega programa.
These revenues cannot be considered as fully offset by the network service provided in return without leaving any profit margin to the network operator which operates under market conditions.
Za te prihodke ne more veljati, da se popolnoma izravnajo z omrežno storitvijo, ponujeno v zameno, brez kakršnega koli dobička za omrežnega operaterja, ki posluje pod tržnimi pogoji.
Based on the above, the Commission considers that T-Systems would be able to draw an indirect benefit from the support measure.
V skladu s tem Komisija meni, da bi T-Systems od podpornega ukrepa lahko imel posredno korist.
The State funding of part of the transmission fees would enable T-Systems to obtain higher revenues as compared to a situation where no aid is present.
Javno financiranje dela pristojbin za prenos bi družbi T-Systems omogočilo, da doseže višje prihodke kot v situaciji, ko ni nobene pomoči.
In addition, the Commission notes that the procedure for the allocation of the network licences organised by RegTP cannot be considered as eliminating or even reducing the indirect advantage possibly arising from the measure for the network operator T-Systems.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da za postopek za dodelitev omrežnih dovoljenj, ki ga je organiziral RegTP, ne more veljati, da je odpravil ali celo zmanjšal posredno korist, ki bi lahko iz ukrepa izhajala za omrežnega operaterja T-Systems.
The relevant procedure did not make any reference to the funding measure envisaged by LfM.
Obravnavani postopek se na noben način ni skliceval na ukrep financiranja, ki ga je predvidel LfM.
Therefore, T-Systems could not take into account the availability of such funding to commercial broadcasters when submitting its application for the network licence.
Zato T-Systems ni mogel upoštevati razpoložljivosti teh finančnih sredstev za komercialne izdajatelje televizijskega programa, ko je predložil svojo vlogo za omrežno dovoljenje.
In addition, T-Systems, the incumbent operator and owner of the analogue terrestrial network throughout Germany appears to have had a competitive advantage over potential new entrants for the allocation of the network licence.
Poleg tega je videti, da je bil T-Systems, prvotni operater in lastnik analognega prizemnega omrežja po vsej Nemčiji, deležen konkurenčne prednosti pred morebitnimi novimi udeleženci na trgu pri dodeljevanju omrežnih licenc.
In a procedure launched in 2002, it has been already allocated a licence for operating a nation-wide DVB-T multiplex.
V postopku, sproženem leta 2002, mu je že bilo dodeljeno dovoljenje za upravljanje multipleksa DVB-T po vsej državi.
Moreover, there were only about two months between the deadline for the frequency allocation procedure (17 March 2004) and the launch of the DVB-T operations (24 May 2004), which left little time for potential new entrants to roll-out the network to start DVB-T transmissions on time.
Poleg tega sta od roka za postopek za dodelitev frekvenc (17. marec 2004) do začetka operacij DVB-T (24. maj 2004) minila komaj dva meseca, kar bi morebitnim novim udeležencem na trgu pustilo bolj malo časa za uvedbo omrežja in pravočasni začetek prenosov DVB-T.
Applicability of the Altmark judgment
Uporabnost sodbe v zadevi Altmark
In their submissions, the German authorities have also invoked the Altmark judgment [66] to argue that the envisaged payments do not constitute State aid but merely represent a compensation for a service of general economic interest.
V svojih ugotovitvah so se nemški organi sklicevali tudi na sodbo v zadevi Altmark [66], s čimer so utemeljevali, da načrtovana plačila niso pomenila državne pomoči, temveč samo nadomestilo za storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
In this judgment, the Court stated that public service compensation does not constitute an advantage in the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty if all of the following four conditions are met: (1) the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and these obligations must be clearly defined, (2) the parameters of the compensation must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner, (3) the compensation does not exceed the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, (4) in order to ensure the least costs to the community, the company which is to discharge public service obligations is chosen either pursuant to a public procurement, or if not, the level of compensation is determined based on the costs of a typical, well run undertaking.
V tej sodbi je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti navedlo, da nadomestilo za javno storitev ne pomeni prednosti v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, če so izpolnjeni vsi štirje naslednji pogoji: (a) prvič, podjetje, ki je prejelo pomoč, mora dejansko imeti obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev, ki jih mora izpolniti, in obveznosti morajo biti jasno opredeljene; (b) parametri nadomestila morajo biti objektivno in pregledno določeni vnaprej; (c) nadomestilo ne sme presegati stroškov, nastalih pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev, in (d) za zagotovitev kar najnižjih stroškov za skupnost je treba družbo, ki bo izpolnjevala obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev, izbrati v skladu z javnim razpisnim postopkom; sicer se stroški opravljanja storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena določijo na podlagi stroškov značilnega, dobro upravljanega podjetja.
In accordance with the first Altmark criterion, it has to be assessed whether the beneficiary undertakings have clearly defined public service obligations to discharge.
V skladu s prvim merilom iz zadeve Altmark je treba presoditi, ali so prejemna podjetja jasno opredelila obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev, ki jih je treba izpolniti.
The German authorities maintain that the transmission of broadcasting programmes by the private broadcasters over the digital terrestrial platform constitutes a service of general economic interest, which is, according to the German authorities, in line with the Switchover communication.
Nemški organi menijo, da prenos programov s strani zasebnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa prek digitalne prizemne platforme pomeni storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, ki je skladna s Sporočilom o preklopu.
In their view, the general interest of DVB-T follows from the contribution of digital terrestrial television to the transmission of regional and local programmes, as well as to the promotion of innovation, media plurality and infrastructure competition between the different transmission platforms.
Po njihovem mnenju izhaja splošni interes DVB-T iz prispevka digitalne prizemne televizije k prenosu regionalnih in lokalnih programov ter k pospeševanju inovacij, pluralnosti medijev in infrastrukturne konkurence med različnimi platformami prenosa.
In their view, this public service obligation is stemming from the Media Law of North Rhine-Westphalia which explicitly assigns LfM the general task of supporting and guiding the switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial television [67].
Poleg tega tudi menijo, da obveznost iz opravljanja javnih storitev izhaja iz Zakona o medijih Severnega Porenja-Vestfalije, ki LfM izrecno zadolžuje za podporo in usmerjanje preklopa z analogne na digitalno prizemno televizijo [67].
The German authorities claim that by means of the attribution of the digital terrestrial broadcasting licences, the commercial broadcasters are entrusted with a service of general economic interest and are under the obligation to carry out this service.
Nemški organi trdijo, da je z dodelitvijo dovoljenj za digitalno prizemno radiodifuzijo komercialnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa zaupana storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena in da so zavezani za izvedbo te storitve.
They argue that in view of the ‘dual broadcasting system’ including both public service broadcasters and private broadcasters in Germany, commercial operators also have a public interest role and are bound by legal obligations with respect to their programmes.
Uveljavljajo mnenje, da imajo glede na „dvojni sistem radiodifuzije“, ki v Nemčiji vključuje tako javne kot zasebne izdajatelje televizijskega programa, tudi komercialni operaterji vlogo v javnem interesu in da jih vežejo pravne zaveze glede njihovih programov.
Without public financial support, the authorities claim further, some commercial broadcasters (in particular ProSiebenSat.1) would not have participated in DVB-T in North Rhine-Westphalia.
Organi nadalje trdijo, da brez javne finančne podpore nekateri komercialni izdajatelji televizijskega programa (predvsem ProSiebenSat.1) ne bi sodelovali v DVB-T v Severnem Porenju-Vestfaliji.
They argue that a lack of public funding would obstruct the provision of this service and would have put the existence of the terrestrial platform at risk [68].
Menijo, da bi pomanjkanje javnega financiranja oviralo izvajanje te storitve in ogrozilo obstoj prizemne platforme [68].
The Commission does not share the arguments submitted by the German authorities.
Komisija ni enakega mnenja kot nemški organi.
The Commission does not call into question that the digitisation of broadcasting transmission is in the public interest.
Ne dvomi, da je digitalizacija radiodifuznega prenosa v javnem interesu.
The presence of public interest objectives in relation to the switchover is however not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of public service obligations imposed on commercial broadcasters in relation to the transmission of their programmes over the digital terrestrial platform in North Rhine-Westphalia.
Vendar pa navzočnost ciljev javnega interesa v povezavi s preklopom ne zadošča za dokaz obstoja obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev, ki jo imajo komercialni izdajatelji televizijskega programa v zvezi s prenosom svojih programov prek digitalne prizemne platforme v Severnem Porenju-Vestfaliji.
Furthermore, the mere fact that commercial broadcasters are part of the dual broadcasting system in Germany or that their programmes are subject to legal obligations resulting from the broadcasting legislation in Germany does not lead to the conclusion that they have to discharge public service obligations as regards the transmission of their programmes over the digital terrestrial platform [69].
Poleg tega samo dejstvo, da so komercialni izdajatelji televizijskega programa del dvojnega sistema radiodifuzije v Nemčiji ali da za njihove programe veljajo pravne obveznosti, ki so posledica radiodifuzne zakonodaje v Nemčiji, ne vodi v sklepanje, da morajo izpolnjevati obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev glede prenosa njihovih programov prek digitalne prizemne platforme [69].
In the Commission’s view, the general provisions concerning the public tasks of LfM in relation to the switchover do not contain clearly defined public service obligations for commercial broadcasters.
Po mnenju Komisije splošne določbe v zvezi z javnimi nalogami LfM glede preklopa za komercialne izdajatelje televizijskega programa ne vsebujejo jasno opredeljenih obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev.
The Commission further notes that none of the official documents relating to the introduction of DVB-T in North Rhine-Westphalia (agreements concerning the switchover, official documents relating to the DVB-T licences) contain any such public service obligations.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da nobeden od uradnih dokumentov, ki se nanašajo na uvedbo DVB-T v Severnem Porenju-Vestfaliji (sporazumi v zvezi s preklopom, uradni dokumenti v zvezi z dovoljenji za DVB-T), ne vsebuje sklicevanja na obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev.
Also, the terms of the broadcasting licences do not contain any specific public service obligation [70].
Tudi pogoji glede dovoljenj za radiodifuzijo ne vsebujejo nobene specifične obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev [70].
Moreover, contrary to what has been argued by the German authorities, the broadcasters do not have the obligation to transmit their programmes over DVB-T: as the example of TerraNova demonstrates, licences can be returned upon the decision of the broadcaster.
Poleg tega, obratno kot trdijo nemški organi, izdajatelji televizijskega programa niso zavezani, da svoje programe prenašajo prek DVB-T: kot je razvidno iz primera TerraNove, je mogoče dovoljenja vrniti na podlagi odločitve izdajatelja televizijskega programa, da bo vrnil dovoljenje.
Hence, as already stated in the opening decision [71], the German authorities seem to have made the argument that a service of general economic interest was present on an ad hoc basis, after the award of the licences and the launch of the transmission over the digital terrestrial network.
Zato je videti, kot je že bilo navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka [71], da so nemški organi argument o navzočnosti storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena oblikovali na ad hoc podlagi, po dodelitvi dovoljenj in začetku prenosa prek digitalnega prizemnega omrežja.
In the Commission’s view, rather than being public service obligations, the transmission of their programmes over the digital terrestrial network constitutes part of the normal commercial activities of the commercial broadcasters.
Po mnenju Komisije pri komercialnih izdajateljih televizijskega programa prenos programov prek digitalnega prizemnega omrežja ni obveznost iz opravljanja javnih storitev, temveč del njihovih običajnih poslovnih dejavnosti.
Based on the above, the Commission considers that the present measure envisages support to normal business activities of commercial undertakings rather than a compensation for costs incurred in discharge of public service obligations.
Skladno s tem Komisija meni, da obravnavani ukrep predvideva podporo običajnim poslovnim dejavnostim komercialnih podjetij, ne pa nadomestilo za stroške, nastale pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev.
It follows that the first Altmark criterion is not fulfilled.
Iz tega sledi, da prvo merilo iz zadeve Altmark ni izpolnjeno.
As regards the second Altmark criterion, the Commission finds that the parameters of the alleged ‘compensation’ have not been established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
Glede drugega merila iz zadeve Altmark Komisija ugotavlja, da parametri domnevnega „nadomestila“ niso bili vnaprej določeni na objektiven in pregleden način.
The directive on the financial support was issued on 19 November 2004 (with a retroactive effect as of 3 May 2004), whereas the licences were allocated by order of 14 May 2004.
Direktiva o finančni podpori je bila izdana 19. novembra 2004 (z retroaktivnim učinkom od 3. maja 2004), medtem ko so bila dovoljenja dodeljena z odlokom z dne 14. maja 2004.
Therefore, it cannot be considered as an advance definition of the parameters of the funding.
Tako ne more veljati za vnaprejšnjo opredelitev parametrov financiranja.
Moreover, the Directive does not make clear how the funding would be calculated in the case of those broadcasters previously present on the analogue platform, which is only known to the Commission from the notification.
Poleg tega v direktivi ni jasno opredeljeno, kako bi se izračunavala finančna sredstva pri tistih izdajateljih televizijskega programa, ki so bili predhodno navzoči na analogni platformi.
Consequently, the parameters have not been established in a transparent manner.
To je mogoče ugotoviti samo iz priglasitve. Zato parametri niso bili pregledno določeni.