natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The presence of State aid in the case at issue is not called into question by the possible application of the Altmark judgment in respect of a possible compensation for public service costs.
Obstoja državne pomoči v zadevnem primeru ne postavlja pod vprašaj morebitna uporaba sodbe Altmark v zvezi z morebitnim nadomestilom za stroške javnih storitev.
None of the four criteria (definition and assignment of the service of general economic interest, ex-ante determination of parameters for compensation, no overcompensation and choice of efficient provider via tender or estimate of the net additional costs of the average well-run company) is met.
Izpolnjeno ni nobeno izmed štirih meril (določitev in dodelitev storitve splošnega gospodarskega interesa, vnaprejšnja določitev parametrov za nadomestilo, nobeno preveliko nadomestilo in izbira sposobnega ponudnika prek oddaje javnega naročila ali ocene neto dodatnih stroškov povprečnega dobro vodenega podjetja).
Therefore RAI's comment that the measure does not constitute aid for RAI because it was obliged to make specific investments in digital television because of its public service mandate cannot be accepted.
Pripombe javne radiotelevizije RAI, da ukrep ni pomoč za javno radiotelevizijo RAI, ker je morala posebej vlagati v digitalno televizijo zaradi svojega mandata javne službe, zato ni mogoče sprejeti.
As regards digital terrestrial network operators, the Commission — despite considering that the measure in question has potentially distorted competition in their favour — is not in a position to state with reasonable certainty that the advantage was already present in the period of application of the measure.
Glede digitalnih prizemnih omrežnih operaterjev Komisija kljub mnenju, da je zadevni ukrep morda izkrivil konkurenco v njihovo korist, ne more z razumno gotovostjo trditi, da je prednost že obstajala v obdobju uporabe ukrepa.
It therefore concludes that these operators are not the beneficiaries of State aid under Article 87(1) EC.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da ti operaterji niso upravičenci državne pomoči na podlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Finally, the Commission notes that in the decision to initiate the procedure it identified a third category of possible indirect beneficiaries of the measure in addition to television broadcasters and network operators, namely producers of decoders.
Nazadnje, Komisija opozarja, da je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka poleg izdajateljev televizijskega programa in omrežnih operaterjev opredelila tretjo kategorijo možnih posrednih upravičencev ukrepa, in sicer proizvajalce sprejemnikov.
In the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission doubted that the measure constituted aid for producers of decoders, since the subsidy is granted to decoders that incorporate the MHP standard, i.e. an open API that is freely available to any manufacturer.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija dvomila, da je ukrep pomoč za proizvajalce sprejemnikov, saj se subvencija dodeli sprejemnikom, ki imajo vgrajen standard MHP, tj. odprt vmesnik aplikacijskega programa (API), ki je prosto na voljo vsem proizvajalcem.
The aid is directed at consumers who can choose from among all manufacturers' decoders; it therefore seemed that the aid did not selectively favour any type of producer of decoders on the basis of the place of production.
Pomoč je usmerjena na uporabnike, ki lahko izbirajo med vsemi sprejemniki proizvajalcev; zato se zdi, da pomoč ni selektivno dala prednosti nobeni vrsti proizvajalcev sprejemnikov na podlagi kraja proizvodnje.
Nor did there seem to be manufacturers that specialised in the production of the subsidised decoders and that could have been favoured over producers of other models.
Prav tako se zdi, da ni bilo nobenih proizvajalcev, ki so se specializirali za proizvodnjo subvencioniranih sprejemnikov in ki bi lahko imeli prednost pred proizvajalci drugih modelov.
Furthermore, it did not appear that manufacturers of decoders competed with operators in other sectors that could not benefit from the measure.
Poleg tega se zdi, da proizvajalci sprejemnikov niso tekmovali z operaterji v drugih sektorjih, ki niso mogli imeti koristi od ukrepa.
Finally, the measure being examined did not seem to seek, through its purpose or general structure, to create an advantage for manufacturers of decoders.
Nazadnje, zdi se, da proučevani ukrep niti prek svojega namena niti prek splošne strukture ni skušal ustvariti prednosti za proizvajalce sprejemnikov.
On the other hand, the Commission notes that producers of decoders benefit from a sectoral advantage that cannot be enjoyed by other sectors of the economy and that creates a distortion in the allocation of resources in the economy.
Komisija na drugi strani ugotavlja, da imajo proizvajalci sprejemnikov korist od sektorske prednosti, ki je drugi gospodarski sektorji nimajo in ki povzroča izkrivljanje pri razporejanju virov v gospodarstvu.
Even though none of the comments received in the context of the decision to initiate the procedure suggests the existence of aid for producers of decoders, the Commission considers that the existence of distortion of competition at their level cannot be entirely ruled out.
Čeprav nobena od pripomb, prejetih v okviru odločitve o sprožitvi postopka, ne omenja obstoja pomoči za proizvajalce sprejemnikov, Komisija meni, da ni mogoče v celoti izključiti obstoja izkrivljanja konkurence na njihovi ravni.
However, the Commission also considers that, in this particular case, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the measure constitutes aid for the producers of decoders within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Komisija prav tako meni, da v tej zadevi ni treba določiti, ali je ukrep pomoč za proizvajalce sprejemnikov v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
The indirect effect of the measure, in terms of increase in the sale of decoders, is inherent in whatever initiative the public authorities decide to take in favour of the development of digital television, even the most technologically neutral.
Posreden vpliv ukrepa v smislu povečanja prodaje sprejemnikov je prisoten v vsaki pobudi, ki jo bodo javni organi sprejeli v korist razvoja digitalne televizije, celo v najbolj tehnološko nevtralni.
As explained in section IV.B below, if aid to producers of decoders were present, the Commission would consider it compatible under Article 87(3)(c) EC.
Kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku IV.B spodaj, če bi pomoč proizvajalcem sprejemnikov obstajala, bi jo Komisija štela za nezdružljivo na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT
OCENA ZDRUŽLJIVOSTI
In the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the measure in question is an aid measure compatible with the single market on the basis of Article 87(2)(a), Article 86(2) and Article 87(3)(c), after having excluded the application of the three exceptions in Article 87 of the EC Treaty to the case in point.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija izrazila dvome, ali je zadevni ukrep ukrep pomoči, združljiv z enotnim trgom na podlagi člena 87(2)(a), člena 86(2) in člena 87(3)(c), potem ko je izključila uporabo treh izjem iz člena 87 Pogodbe ES za obravnavan primer.
In their comments, however, Italy and Mediaset put forward arguments to counter the Commission's objections in the decision to initiate the procedure, stating that the measure is compatible on the basis of Article 87(2)(a) and Article 87(3)(c) and Italy stressed that, in its view, the exceptions provided for in Article 87(3)(b) and Article 87(3)(d) apply in the present case.
Italija in družba Mediaset sta v svojih pripombah predstavili argumente, s katerimi nasprotujeta ugovorom Komisije iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka in trdita, da je ukrep združljiv na podlagi člena 87(2)(a) in člena 87(3)(c), Italija pa je poudarila, da se po njenem mnenju izjeme iz člena 87(3)(b) in člena 87(3)(d) v zadevnem primeru uporabljajo.
After receiving the comments of Italy and the interested parties, the Commission maintains its view that the aid in object is not compatible with the common market, for the reasons set out below in this Decision.
Po prejetju pripomb Italije in zainteresiranih strank Komisija še vedno meni, da zadevna pomoč ni združljiva s skupnim trgom iz razlogov, navedenih v nadaljevanju te odločbe.
ARTICLE 87 (2) (A)
ČLEN 87(2)(A)
In the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission had argued that the term ‘social character’ should be interpreted narrowly and that therefore, according to Commission practice, this term refers to aid addressing the needs of underprivileged population groups and referred to the example of the Guidelines on State aid in the aviation sector, section III.3, where aid with a social character must in principle only cover specific categories of passengers.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija trdila, da je treba izraz „socialni značaj“ razlagati v ožjem smislu in da se zato v skladu s prakso Komisije ta izraz nanaša na pomoč, ki rešuje potrebe najrevnejših slojev prebivalstva, ter se sklicevala na primer iz oddelka III.3 Smernic o državni pomoči v letalskem sektorju, po katerem mora pomoč s socialnim značajem načeloma zajemati samo posebne kategorije potnikov.
The Commission argued that in the case of this measure, the law does not contain any reference to the social or economic status of the beneficiary.
Komisija je trdila, da v primeru tega ukrepa zakon ne vsebuje nobenega sklicevanja na socialni ali ekonomski položaj upravičenca.
It referred to AGCOM's survey on the availability on the market of decoders at an affordable price which seemed to suggest that not the whole population is in need of the aid in order to switch to digital TV — the market trend was such that in the best-case scenario more than 50 % of households would have a decoder by 2006 and in the worst-case scenario by the beginning of 2008.
Sklicevala se je na raziskavo organa AGCOM o razpoložljivosti sprejemnikov po sprejemljivi ceni na trgu, iz katere je bilo mogoče razbrati, da celotno prebivalstvo ne potrebuje pomoči za prehod na digitalno televizijo – tržno gibanje je bilo tako, da bi v najboljšem možnem primeru več kot 50 % gospodinjstev imelo sprejemnik do leta 2006 in v najslabšem možnem primeru do začetka leta 2008.
The argument by Italy that the AGCOM figure of 50 % of households with a decoder by the end of 2006 or 2008 is low given the higher cost of interoperable decoders does not change the Commission's assessment, since Italy has not presented any argument to prove that the aid is designed only for the population groups that need it, nor that the entire population needs this aid.
Argument Italije, da je številka 50 % gospodinjstev s sprejemnikom do konca leta 2006 ali 2008, ki jo navaja organ AGCOM, nizka glede na višji strošek medobratovalnih sprejemnikov, ne spremeni ocene Komisije, saj Italija ni predstavila nobenega argumenta v dokaz, da je pomoč zasnovana samo za skupine prebivalstva, ki jo potrebujejo, niti da celotno prebivalstvo potrebuje to pomoč.
Likewise, the argument that the measure would have an indirect effect on poor households as a result of the economies of scale brought about by a reduction in prices cannot be accepted by the Commission for two reasons.
Komisija podobno iz dveh razlogov ne more sprejeti argumenta, da bi ukrep imel posreden vpliv na revna gospodinjstva zaradi ekonomije obsega, ki jo povzroči znižanje cen.
Second, accepting the argument proposed by Italy would be tantamount to accepting the argument that aid given to the entire population has a social character as it would also help the population groups in need of the aid.
Drugič, sprejeti argument, ki ga predlaga Italija, bi bilo enako kot sprejeti argument, da ima pomoč, dana celotnemu prebivalstvu, socialni značaj, saj bi pomagala tudi skupinam prebivalstva, ki pomoč potrebujejo.
Adopting this approach would imply accepting that all indirect aid provided via consumers or investors is compatible aid, thereby circumventing the restrictive nature of the exceptions from the general ban on State aid.
Sprejeti tak pristop bi pomenilo sprejemati, da je vsa posredna pomoč, zagotovljena prek uporabnikov ali investitorjev, združljiva pomoč, s čimer bi se izognili omejevalni naravi izjem od splošne prepovedi državne pomoči.
In short, it seems that the measure does not have a social character and that the exception on the basis of Article 87(2)(a) EC is not applicable.
Skratka, zdi se, da ukrep nima socialnega značaja in da izjeme na podlagi člena 87(2)(a) Pogodbe ES ni mogoče uporabljati.
ARTICLE 87(3)(B) OF THE EC TREATY
ČLEN 87(3)(B) POGODBE ES
In the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission considered that the exception provided for in Article 87(3)(b) did not apply to the aid in question.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija menila, da se izjema iz člena 87(3)(b) ni uporabljala za zadevno pomoč.
Yet, in its submissions Italy argues that as the switchover is a project of common European interest as part of a transnational programme backed by various Member States, the waiver in Article 87(b)(3) should apply in line with the Court of Justice ruling in Exécutif régional wallon and SA Glaverbel v Commission.
Vendar pa Italija v svojih stališčih trdi, da je treba glede na to, da je prehod projekt skupnega evropskega interesa v okviru nadnacionalnega programa, ki ga podpirajo različne države članice, oprostitev iz člena 87(b)(3) uporabljati v skladu s sodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi Exécutif régional wallon in SA Glaverbel proti Komisiji.
In these two cases, the Walloon regional government supported Glaverbel, a company investing in high technology areas such as the development of thin-layer photovoltaic cells, which was part of the European programme for research and development in information technologies (ESPRIT).
V teh dveh zadevah je Valonska regionalna vlada podprla Glaverbel, družbo, ki se ukvarja z naložbami na visokotehnoloških področjih, kot so razvoj tankoplastnih fotonapetostnih celic, ki je bil del Evropskega programa za raziskave in razvoj informacijskih tehnologij (ESPRIT).
On this basis, the Wallon regional government stated that the aid was compatible in line with the exception provided for by Article 87(3)(b).
Na tej podlagi je Valonska regionalna vlada izjavila, da je pomoč združljiva v skladu z izjemo iz člena 87(3)(b).
The ESPRIT programme was set up by the European Community.
Program ESPRIT je ustanovila Evropska skupnost.
The Court maintained that the Commission had exercised its discretion on the matter and that the parties had not proven that the measure contributed to a project of common European interest.
Sodišče je trdilo, da je Komisija uporabila svojo diskrecijsko pravico o zadevi in da stranke niso dokazale, da je ukrep prispeval k projektu skupnega evropskega interesa.
In this case, the Commission does not consider that the steps taken by Italy to promote the sale of decoders qualify for the exception provided for by Article 87(3)(b).
Komisija v tem primeru meni, da ukrepi, ki jih je sprejela Italija za spodbujanje prodaje sprejemnikov, ne izpolnjujejo pogojev za izjemo iz člena 87(3)(b).
The measure is an individual initiative of a Member State, which, as explained further on in this Decision, causes an unnecessary distortion of competition.
Ukrep je individualna pobuda države članice, ki, kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju te odločbe, povzroča nepotrebno izkrivljanje konkurence.
It cannot be seen as part of a well-identified project agreed or coordinated with other Member States in such a way as to exclude adverse effects on trade and competition and to ensure a common European interest.
Ni ga mogoče šteti za del dobro opredeljenega projekta, ki je bil dogovorjen ali usklajen z drugimi državami članicami tako, da izključuje škodljive učinke na trgovino in konkurenco ter zagotavlja skupni evropski interes.
As regards the comment by Italy that there is Community interest in completing the switchover and that an increasing number of Member States support such an aim, this argument will be addressed in the following section, which discusses the possible grounds for compatibility under Article 87(3)(c).
Glede pripombe Italije, da obstaja interes Skupnosti za zaključek prehoda in da vse več držav članic podpira tak cilj, bo ta argument obravnavan v naslednjem oddelku, v katerem se razpravlja o možnih razlogih za združljivost na podlagi člena 87(3)(c).
ARTICLE 87(3)(C) OF THE EC TREATY
ČLEN 87(3)(C) POGODBE ES
In the decision to initiate the procedure the Commission stated that it was not convinced that the aid to broadcasters could be deemed compatible under Article 87(3)(c) EC.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija navedla, da ni prepričana, da je pomoč izdajateljem televizijskega programa mogoče šteti za združljivo na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission maintains this opinion even after having received the comments of the interested parties.
Komisija vztraja pri tem mnenju tudi po tem, ko je prejela pripombe zainteresiranih strank.
In order for aid to be compatible under Article 87(3)(c) it must pursue an objective of common interest in a necessary and proportionate way.
Da bi bila pomoč združljiva na podlagi člena 87(3)(c), mora uresničevati cilj skupnega interesa na potreben in sorazmeren način.
In particular, the measure should be assessed in the light of the following questions:
Ukrep je treba oceniti predvsem glede na naslednja vprašanja:
Is the aid measure aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest?
ali je ukrep pomoči namenjen natančno opredeljenemu cilju skupnega interesa?
Is the aid well designed to deliver the objective of common interest, i.e. does the proposed aid address a market failure or other objective?
ali je pomoč dobro oblikovana za dosego cilja skupnega interesa, tj. ali je predlagana pomoč usmerjena v tržno nepopolnost ali drug cilj?
is the aid measure an appropriate instrument, i.e. are there other, better placed instruments?
ali je ukrep pomoči ustrezen instrument, tj. ali obstajajo drugi primernejši instrumenti?
is there an incentive effect, i.e. does the aid change the behaviour of firms?
ali obstaja spodbujevalni učinek, tj. ali pomoč spreminja obnašanje podjetij?
is the aid measure proportional, i.e. could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid?
ali je ukrep pomoči sorazmeren, tj. ali bi bila lahko enaka sprememba obnašanja dosežena z manj pomoči?
Are the distortions of competition and effect on trade limited, so that the overall balance is positive?
ali sta izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino omejena, tako da je splošno ravnovesje pozitivno?
Objective of common interest
Cilj skupnega interesa
In the decision to initiate the procedure the Commission maintained that the digital switchover has great advantages — a more efficient frequency spectrum usage and increased transmission possibilities — leading to new and better quality services and to wider consumer choice.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija trdila, da ima digitalni prehod velike prednosti, in sicer učinkovitejšo uporabo frekvenčnega spektra in večje možnosti prenosa, ki vodijo k novim in kakovostnejšim storitvam ter širši izbiri uporabnikov.
Accordingly, in the decision to initiate the procedure the Commission considered that the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting and the diffusion of open standards for interactivity were to be considered objectives of common interest.
V skladu s tem je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka Komisija menila, da je treba prehod z analogne na digitalno radiodifuzijo in razširjanje odprtih standardov za interaktivnost šteti za cilja skupnega interesa.
Italy agreed with the Commission in its submission.
Italija se je v svojem stališču strinjala s Komisijo.
Europa7, however, reiterated comments which had been made by Sky Italia in its complaint and stressed that there was no general interest at stake because, at present, the purchase of digital decoders was linked to purely commercial activities and that the benefit from the switchover had already been put off to 2012.
Družba Europa7 pa je ponovila pripombe, ki jih je izrazila družba Sky Italia v svoji pritožbi, in poudarila, da ni šlo za noben splošni interes, saj je bil tedaj nakup digitalnih sprejemnikov povezan z izključno komercialnimi dejavnostmi in da je bila korist prehoda že odložena na leto 2012.
The Commission disagrees with Europa7.
Komisija se ne strinja z družbo Europa7.
First, as it stated in the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission actively supports the digital switchover and it has underlined these advantages in the eEurope 2005 Action Plan, in the two communications on the digital switchover and its communication ‘e2010 — A European Information Society for growth and employment’.
Prvič, kot je navedla v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, Komisija dejavno podpira digitalni prehod in je te prednosti poudarila v akcijskem načrtu e-Evropa 2005, v dveh sporočilih o digitalnem prehodu in v svojem sporočilu „i2010 – Evropska informacijska družba za rast in zaposlovanje“.
Regulation should neither impose nor discriminate in favour of the use of a particular digital platform — i.e. it should respect the so-called principle of ‘technological neutrality’ but, as stated in Directive 2002/21/EC, intervention targeting at correcting market failures that are specific to one platform can be envisaged.
Zakonska ureditev ne sme niti dati prednosti uporabi določene digitalne platforme niti jo predpisati, tj. spoštovati mora tako imenovano načelo „tehnološke nevtralnosti“, vendar se, kot je navedeno v Direktivi 2002/21/ES, lahko predvidijo ukrepi za odpravo tržnih nepopolnosti, ki so značilne za eno platformo.
In the end, the platforms that offer the greatest benefit to consumers should prevail.
Na koncu morajo prevladati platforme, ki zagotavljajo največjo korist uporabnikom.
In the communication on interoperability of digital interactive television services the Commission also stresses the relevance of ‘interactivity’ and ‘interoperability’.
V sporočilu o interoperabilnosti digitalnih interaktivnih televizijskih storitev Komisija poudarja tudi pomen „interaktivnosti“ in „medobratovalnosti“.
The communication states that ‘the Commission seeks to ensure that European citizens benefit from a growing range of interactive DTV services, available on an increasing number of transmission platforms’.
V sporočilu je navedeno, da „želi Komisija zagotoviti, da imajo evropski državljani koristi od rastočih interaktivnih digitalnih televizijskih storitev, ki so na voljo na vse večjem številu platform za oddajanje signala“.
Indeed, interactive TV adds another layer of functionality to digital television (DTV) beyond video which could be exploited in the future not only for commercial purposes but also to implement e-government functions for the share of the population with most difficulties with informatics.
Interaktivna televizija dejansko dodaja še eno plast funkcionalnosti digitalni televiziji (DTV) razen videa, ki bi jo bilo mogoče v prihodnosti izkoristiti ne samo v komercialne namene, temveč tudi za izvajanje funkcij e-vlade za delež prebivalstva, ki ima največ težav z informatiko.
In the communications, the Commission also stresses that the lack of interoperability (covering both technical interoperability and access issues) and possible constraints on consumer choice could affect the free flow of information, media pluralism and cultural diversity.
Komisija v Sporočilih tudi poudarja, da bi lahko pomanjkanje medobratovalnosti (ki zajema tako vprašanja tehnične medobratovalnosti in dostopa) in možne omejitve izbire uporabnikov vplivale na prost pretok informacij, pluralnost medijev in kulturno raznolikost.
These concerns could be summarised as follows. Consumers would be unable to buy a standardised, universal receiver able to receive all free-to-air and pay-TV interactive services and could be locked into using more costly receivers containing proprietary APIs.
Te pomisleke bi bilo mogoče povzeti na naslednji način: uporabniki ne bi mogli kupiti standardiziranega univerzalnega sprejemnika, ki lahko sprejema vse brezplačne in interaktivne storitve plačljive televizije, in bi bili prisiljeni uporabljati dražje sprejemnike, ki vsebujejo zaščitene vmesnike aplikacijskih programov (API-je).