natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
LfM is subject to legal supervision by the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia (staatliche Rechtsaufsicht) [49] and its annual budget is under the control of the Court of Auditors of the Land [50].
Za LfM je podrejen pravnemu nadzoru zvezne dežele Severno Porenje-Vestfalija [49], njegov proračun pa nadzoruje Računsko sodišče te zvezne dežele [50].
The public task of relevance for the present case, the promotion of the technical infrastructure for broadcasting and of projects of new broadcasting transmission technologies, is laid down in the national State Broadcasting Treaty [51].
Javna naloga, ki je pomembna za ta primer, to je pospeševanje tehnične infrastrukture za radiodifuzijo in projektov za nove tehnologije radiodifuznega prenosa, je določena v nacionalnem Meddeželnem sporazumu o radiodifuziji [51].
More specifically, with respect to the digital switchover, the Media Law of North Rhine-Westphalia provides that LfM shall support and guide the switchover from analogue to digital transmission [52].
Glede digitalnega preklopa Zakon o medijih Severnega Porenja-Vestfalije izrecneje določa, da mora LfM podpirati in usmerjati preklop z analognega na digitalni prenos [52].
LfM is therefore to be considered a public body established by the State to serve the general interest.
Tako LfM velja za javni organ, ki ga je ustanovila država zaradi splošnega interesa.
Clearly, the financing foreseen under the present measure constitutes a burden for LfM’s budget.
Jasno je, da financiranje, načrtovano v skladu z obravnavanim ukrepom, pomeni breme za proračun LfM.
The circumstance that the budgetary resources of LfM are stemming from the licence fee collected from private households does not in any event prevent the budgetary resources of LfM to be categorised as State resources.
Dejstvo, da proračunska sredstva LfM izhajajo iz naročnin, zbranih od zasebnih gospodinjstev, ne preprečuje uvrstitve proračunskih sredstev LfM med državna sredstva.
The fact that the subsidies are granted out of the budget of a public body is in itself sufficient to conclude that State resources are involved.
Dejstvo, da so subvencije dodeljene iz proračuna javnega organa, samo po sebi zadošča za sklepanje, da so vpletena državna sredstva.
Moreover, the licence fee is a compulsory levy imposed on owners of radio/TV sets and their collection follows procedures similar to those of tax collection.
Poleg tega je naročnina obvezna dajatev, naložena lastnikom radijskih/televizijskih sprejemnikov, pobiranje naročnine pa poteka po postopkih, podobnih postopkom pri pobiranju davkov.
The level of the licence fee is decided jointly by the Länder Parliaments and fixed in the respective legal acts.
O višini naročnine skupaj odločajo zvezne dežele, določena pa je v ustreznih pravnih aktih.
The share of licence fees accruing to LfM is defined in the State Broadcasting Treaty, the State Treaty on the Financing of Broadcasting and the Media Law of NRW as described in recital 32 above.
Delež naročnin, ki se steče v LfM, je opredeljen v Meddeželnem sporazumu o radiodifuziji, Meddeželnem sporazumu o financiranju radiodifuzije in Zakonu o medijih Severnega Porenja-Vestfalije, kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 32.
Thus, the licence fees constitute statutory levies which are under public control and which constitute State resources [53].
Tako so naročnine obvezne dajatve, ki so pod javnim nadzorom in pomenijo državna sredstva [53].
On the basis of the above and in line with the established case law on parafiscal charges [54], the Commission takes the position that the present measure is granted out of State resources.
Na podlagi zgornjega in v skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso o davkom podobnih dajatvah [54] Komisija meni, da je obravnavani ukrep dodeljen iz državnih virov.
This finding is in line with the case-law of the ECJ invoked by the German authorities.
Ta ugotovitev je skladna s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, na katero se sklicujejo nemški organi.
The cases referred to by the German authorities concerned different types of measures which did not involve an advantage granted out of the budget of public bodies.
Primeri, na katere se sklicujejo nemški organi, so zadevali različne vrste ukrepa, ki niso vključevale prednosti, dodeljene iz proračuna javnih organov.
Furthermore, the German authorities also argued that the present measure is not imputable to the State.
Nadalje so nemški organi zagovarjali stališče, da obravnavanega ukrepa ni bilo mogoče pripisati državi.
By reference to the cases Stardust Marine [55] and Pearle and others [56], they maintain that in itself, the fact that LfM is a public authority under a certain State control does not mean that the measure is imputable to the State.
S sklicevanjem na Stardust Marine [55] ter Pearle in drugi [56] so menili, da dejstvo, da je bil LfM javni organ pod nadzorom države, samo po sebi ni pomenilo, da je bilo ukrep mogoče pripisati državi.
They claim that in accordance with the independence of LfM under German law (Staatsferne der LfM) the State had no influence over the present measure.
Trdili so, da glede na neodvisnost LfM v skladu z nemško zakonodajo („Staatsferne der LfM“) država ni imela nobenega vpliva na ukrep.
The Commission considers that the independence of LfM under German law does not prevent the present measure from being considered imputable to the State from the point of view of the application of the State aid rules.
Komisija meni, da neodvisnost LfM v skladu z nemškim zakonom ne preprečuje, da bi zadevni ukrep obravnavali kot pripisljivega državi z vidika uporabe pravil o državni pomoči.
The information provided by the German authorities indicates that the measure is granted by LfM in the framework of its public tasks as defined in the State Broadcasting Treaty and the Media Law of North Rhine-Westphalia.
Informacije, ki so jih predložili nemški organi, kažejo, da LfM dodeljuje ukrep v okviru svojih javnih nalog, kot so opredeljene v Meddeželnem sporazumu o radiodifuziji in Zakonu o medijih Severnega Porenja-Vestfalije.
Although these provisions guarantee LfM a certain degree of autonomy for the purpose of safeguarding the independence of broadcasting, they provide limited discretion concerning the use of its budgetary resources.
Čeprav določbe zagotavljajo LfM določeno stopnjo avtonomije zaradi varovanja neodvisnosti radiodifuzije, določajo omejeno diskrecijo glede uporabe njegovih proračunskih sredstev.
Notwithstanding the autonomy of LfM, it is — as stated out above — a public body whose activities are clearly guided by public policy considerations.
Ne glede na avtonomnost LfM gre – kot je navedeno zgoraj – za javni organ, čigar dejavnosti so jasno usmerjene z javno-političnimi premisleki.
The envisaged granting of non-repayable grants to commercial broadcasters in the measure at hand with no direct economic benefit to LfM cannot be considered as being driven by commercial considerations.
Za predvideno dodelitev nepovratnih subvencij komercialnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa v skladu z obravnavanim ukrepom brez neposredne gospodarske koristi za LfM ne more veljati, da jo poganjajo komercialni premisleki.
These circumstances establish in the Commission’s view the imputability of the funding granted by LfM to the State.
Po mnenju Komisije te okoliščine dokazujejo, da je finančna sredstva, ki jih dodeli LfM, mogoče pripisati državi.
The ECJ cases referred to by the German authorities concern different situations (levies collected for a purely commercial purpose in Pearle and others, and public undertakings carrying out commercial activities in Stardust Marine) and do not support the position of the German authorities.
Zadeve Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, na katere se sklicujejo nemški organi, zadevajo drugačne situacije (dajatve, pobrane v čisto komercialni namen, v zadevi Pearle in drugi in javna podjetja, ki izvajajo komercialne dejavnosti, v zadevi Stardust Marine) in ne podpirajo mnenja nemških organov.
Based on the above considerations, the Commission considers that the present measure is granted out of State resources and is imputable to the State.
Glede na zgornje premisleke Komisija meni, da je obravnavani ukrep dodeljen iz državnih virov in ga je mogoče pripisati državi.
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE TO UNDERTAKINGS
GOSPODARSKA PREDNOST ZA PODJETJA
In order to qualify as State aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, a measure has to confer an economic advantage to one or more undertakings.
Da bi ukrep opredelili kot državno pomoč v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES, mora ta zagotavljati gospodarsko prednost enemu ali več podjetjem.
In the opening decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that the present measure appears to favour the commercial broadcasters which receive the funding as direct beneficiaries and may also benefit indirectly the operator of the DVB-T network concerning commercial broadcasters, T-Systems.
V odločitvi za sprožitev postopka je Komisija zavzela predhodno stališče, da je bilo videti, da ukrep daje prednost komercialnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa, ki so prejeli sredstva kot neposredni prejemniki, in da bi lahko tudi posredno koristil operaterju omrežja DVB-T za komercialne izdajatelje televizijskega programa, družbi T-Systems.
In their submissions, the German authorities have argued that the measure does not confer an advantage neither directly to the commercial broadcasters, nor indirectly to the network operator.
V svojih ugotovitvah so nemški organi zagovarjali mnenje, da ukrep ni zagotovil niti neposredne prednosti komercialnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa, niti posredne prednosti omrežnemu operaterju.
Advantage to the commercial broadcasters
Prednost za komercialne izdajatelje televizijskega programa
The German authorities maintain that the financing does not constitute an economic advantage to the commercial broadcasters which receive funding under the measure.
Nemški organi menijo, da financiranje ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti za komercialne izdajatelje televizijskega programa, ki prejemajo sredstva v skladu z ukrepom.
In the first place, they claim that the funding does not constitute an advantage because it merely compensates the broadcasters for the economic risks involved in their participation in DVB-T.
Prvič, trdijo, da financiranje ne pomeni prednosti, ker je za izdajatelje televizijskega programa samo nadomestilo za gospodarska tveganja, ki so posledica njihovega sodelovanja v DVB-T.
Second, they argue that the measure only covers the ‘additional costs’ of digital terrestrial broadcasting as compared to the analogue mode.
Drugič, trdijo, da ukrep pokriva le „dodatne stroške“ digitalne prizemne radiodifuzije v primerjavi z analognim načinom.
At the same time, the information submitted by the German authorities indicates that the measure subsidises the transmission fees paid by the commercial broadcasters to the network operator.
Informacije, ki so jih predložili nemški organi, kažejo, da ukrep subvencionira pristojbine za prenos, ki jih komercialni izdajatelji televizijskega programa plačujejo omrežnemu operaterju.
These costs are inherent in the commercial operation of the broadcasters.
Ti stroški so del komercialnega poslovanja izdajateljev televizijskega programa.
By covering part of the fees, the measure relieves the broadcasters from expenses which are part of their normal operating costs.
S pokritjem dela teh pristojbin ukrep izdajatelje televizijskega programa razbremeni stroškov, ki so del njihovih običajnih obratovalnih stroškov.
Therefore, independently from whether it is intended to compensate for ‘economic risks’ or alleged ‘additional costs’, the Commission considers that the envisaged public funding constitutes an economic advantage to the recipients.
Zato Komisija meni, da predvidena javna sredstva pomenijo gospodarsko prednost za prejemnike, ne glede na to, ali so namenjena nadomestitvi „gospodarskih tveganj“ ali domnevnih „dodatnih stroškov“.
Moreover, the Commission notes that contrary to the argument put forward by the German authorities, the measure cannot be considered to cover genuine ‘additional costs’ of broadcasters in relation to DVB-T.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da, v nasprotju z argumentom, ki so ga predložili nemški organi, za ukrep ne more veljati, da pokriva dejanske „dodatne stroške“ izdajateljev televizijskega programa v odnosu do DVB-T.
On the one hand, this argument has not been substantiated concerning those broadcasters which have not been previously present on the analogue terrestrial platform and therefore did not incur costs in the analogue terrestrial transmission in NorthRhine-Westphalia.
Ta argument po eni strani ni bil utemeljen glede tistih izdajateljev televizijskega programa, ki predhodno niso bili navzoči na analogni prizemni platformi in zato niso imeli stroškov z analognim prizemnim prenosom v Severnem Porenju-Vestfaliji.
In their case, no cost comparison has been made and the German authorities have not provided any justification for the share of transmission fees covered by the measure.
V njihovem primeru ni bilo opravljene nobene primerjave in nemški organi niso predložili nobene utemeljitve za delež pristojbin za prenos, ki ga zajema ukrep.
On the other hand, in the case of those commercial broadcasters previously present on the analogue terrestrial platform, the calculation method used by the German authorities cannot be considered as reflecting genuine additional costs relating to the switchover to digital terrestrial transmission.
Poleg tega v primeru tistih komercialnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa, ki so predhodno bili navzoči na analogni prizemni platformi, za obračunsko metodo, ki so jo uporabili nemški organi, ne more veljati, da izraža dejanske dodatne stroške, povezane s preklopom na digitalni prizemni prenos.
On a comparable basis per programme channel, the transmission fees are actually lower for DVB-T than in the analogue mode.
Primerjano po programskih kanalih so pristojbine za prenos dejansko nižje za DVB-T kot v analognem načinu.
The alleged ‘additional costs’ arise merely from the increase in the number of channels transmitted by these broadcasters (see Table 4 for an overview of the level of transmission fees in North Rhine-Westphalia and the envisaged subsidies).
Domnevni „dodatni stroški“ izhajajo samo iz povečanja števila kanalov, ki jih prenašajo ti izdajatelji televizijskega programa (glede pregleda višine pristojbin za prenos v Severnem Porenju-Vestfaliji in načrtovanih subvencij glej tabelo 4).
Overview of transmission costs per programme channel and planned public support in North Rhine-Westphalia — all figures in EUR
Pregled stroškov prenosa na programski kanal in načrtovane javne podpore v Severnem Porenju-Vestfaliji (v EUR)
Broadcasters/programme channels
Izdajatelji televizijskega programa/programski kanali
Transmission costs per year
Letne pristojbine za prenos
Overall difference digital/analogue transmission costs per year [57]
Skupna razlika med stroški digitalnega/analognega prenosa na leto [57]
Average planned public support per year [58]
Povprečna načrtovana državna podpora na leto [58]
Average aid intensity
Povprečna intenzivnost pomoči
analogue [59]
analogno [59]
digital [60]
digitalno [60]
Total RTL
Skupaj RTL
Total P7Sat1
Skupaj P7Sat1
Third, the German authorities also put forward that the subsidy is a compensation for those broadcasters which renounced their analogue licences before the expiry date in order to allow for the launch of DVB-T.
Tretjič, nemški organi tudi menijo, da je subvencija nadomestilo za tiste izdajatelje televizijskega programa, ki so se odpovedali svojim analognim dovoljenjem pred datumom poteka, da bi omogočili uvedbo DVB-T.
The Commission notes, in the first place that this argument cannot be applied to those broadcasters which have previously not been present on the analogue platform and were not in the possession of analogue licences.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da tega argumenta ni mogoče uporabiti za tiste izdajatelje televizijskega programa, ki predhodno niso bili navzoči na analogni platformi in niso imeli analognih dovoljenj.
As regards the broadcasters which were present on the analogue platform, the submissions of the German authorities also state that the possession and the outstanding duration of the licences do not have a direct influence on the amount of the subsidy, given that in their view, the economic disadvantage due to the return of the analogue transmission capacities cannot be exactly determined.
Glede izdajateljev televizijskega programa, ki so bili navzoči na analogni platformi, pa predloženi dokumenti nemških organov tudi navajajo, da posedovanje in preostalo trajanje dovoljenj ne vplivata neposredno na znesek subvencije, saj po njihovem mnenju ni mogoče točno ugotoviti gospodarske prednosti zaradi vračila zmogljivosti za analogni prenos.
According to the authorities, the return of the analogue licences was instead taken into account in the context of the attribution of digital multiplexes to the broadcasters concerned [61].
Organi menijo, da je bilo vračilo analognih dovoljenj namesto tega upoštevano v okviru dodelitve digitalnih multipleksov zadevnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa [61].
As a consequence, both the RTL group and ProSiebenSat.1 received a licence for four programme channels instead of two ATT programmes in the case of the RTL group and one ATT programme for ProSiebenSat.1.
Posledično sta tako skupina RTL kot ProSiebenSat.1 prejela dovoljenje za štiri programske kanale, namesto dveh APP programov pri skupini RTL in enega APP programa za ProSiebenSat.1.
The fact that the subsidy is not related to the return of the licences is also indicated by the circumstance that only ProSiebenSat.1 is entitled to receive funding according to the calculation method submitted by the German authorities.
Da subvencija ni povezana z vračilom dovoljenj, je razvidno tudi iz dejstva, da je le ProSiebenSat.1 upravičen do prejetja finančnih sredstev v skladu z obračunsko metodo, ki so jo predložili nemški organi.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the measure cannot be regarded as a compensation for the economic value of the outstanding duration of the analogue licences which were returned by RTL Television, VOX/DTCP and Sat1.
Zato Komisija meni, da ukrepa ni mogoče obravnavati kot nadomestila za gospodarsko vrednost preostalega trajanja analognih dovoljenj, ki so jih vrnili RTL Television, VOX/DTCP in Sat1.
Finally, by reference to the observations made by ProSiebenSat.1 in the Berlin-Brandenburg case [62], the German authorities also submit in their observations after the opening of the formal investigation procedure that in any case, following the logic of the opening decision by the Commission, the commercial broadcasters would transfer all the economic advantage conferred by the public funding to the network operator T-Systems in the form of transmission fees.
Na koncu, sklicujoč se na pripombe ProSiebenSat.1 v primeru Berlin-Brandenburga [62], nemški organi v svojem odgovoru na sprožitev formalnega postopka preiskave tudi navajajo, da bi po logiki odločitve Komisije o sprožitvi postopka komercialni izdajatelji televizijskega programa vse gospodarske prednosti, podeljene z javnimi sredstvi, v vsakem primeru prenesli na omrežnega operaterja T-Systems v obliki pristojbin za prenos.
The Commission notes that this argument contradicts those made by Germany concerning the presence of an economic advantage to the network operator, and has not been substantiated by the German authorities.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ta argument nasprotuje argumentom Nemčije v zvezi z navzočnostjo gospodarske prednosti za omrežnega operaterja in ga nemški organi niso utemeljili.
As explained under recitals 80 to 88 below, the Commission considers that the network operator T-Systems would be able to draw an indirect benefit from the measure.
Kot je bilo razloženo v uvodnih izjavah 80 in 88, Komisija meni, da bi omrežni operater T-Systems od ukrepa lahko imel posredno korist.
However, there is no indication that this would imply a complete transfer of the economic advantage of the broadcasters arising from the direct financing of their normal operational expenses.
Vendar pa ni nobenega znaka, da bi to pomenilo popoln prenos gospodarske prednosti izdajateljev televizijskega programa, ki izhajajo iz neposrednega financiranja njihovih običajnih obratovalnih stroškov.
Therefore, in the Commission’s view, this argument cannot be accepted either.
Zato po mnenju Komisije tudi tega argumenta ni mogoče sprejeti.
In addition, the Commission notes that the procedure for the allocation of the broadcasting licences described in recitals 24 to 28 cannot be considered as having eliminated or even reduced the economic advantage granted to commercial broadcasters.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da za postopek za dodelitev dovoljenj za radiodifuzijo, opisan v uvodnih izjavah 24 in 28, ne more veljati, da je odpravil ali celo zmanjšal gospodarsko prednost, podeljeno komercialnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa.
The tender announcement did not contain any reference to the funding.
Objava razpisa ni vsebovala nobenega sklicevanja na financiranje.
In the general agreement of 20 October 2003 between LfM, the PSBs and the commercial broadcasters present in the analogue platform, only a vague reference was made to possible support measures, without giving any details as to the envisaged financial assistance.
V splošnem sporazumu z dne 20. oktobra 2003 med LfM ter javnimi in komercialnimi izdajatelji televizijskega programa, navzočimi na analogni platformi, so bili morebitni podporni ukrepi le nedoločno omenjeni, brez kakršnih koli podrobnosti glede predvidene finančne pomoči.
Therefore, there was no possibility for the broadcasters to take the amount of financing into account when submitting their licence applications.
Zato izdajatelji televizijskega programa niso imeli nobene možnosti, da bi ta znesek finančnih sredstev upoštevali pri oddaji svojih vlog za izdajo dovoljenja.
Advantage to the network operator
Prednost za omrežnega operaterja
The German authorities maintain that the funding provided to the commercial broadcasters does not constitute an indirect advantage for the network operator T-Systems.
Nemški organi menijo, da finančna sredstva, zagotovljena komercialnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa, ne pomenijo posredne prednosti za omrežnega operaterja T-Systems.
In their opinion, the category of indirect beneficiary can only be used in exceptional circumstances.
Po njihovem mnenju je mogoče kategorijo posrednega prejemnika uporabiti le v izrednih okoliščinah.
By reference to the ECJ cases Germany v Commission [63] and the Netherlands v Commission [64], they take the view that in order to qualify as indirect beneficiary under the State aid rules, the undertaking concerned has to benefit from an advantage which automatically follows from the measure.
S sklicevanjem na sodbe Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v zadevah Nemčija proti Komisiji [63] in Nizozemska proti Komisiji [64] zagovarjajo stališče, da mora udeleženo podjetje, če naj bi obveljalo za posrednega prejemnika po pravilih o državni pomoči, imeti korist od prednosti, ki avtomatično izhaja iz ukrepa.
Moreover, they claim that the concept of indirect beneficiary can only be used if — unlike in the present case — the advantage can be demonstrated and quantified.
Poleg tega menijo, da je mogoče koncept posrednega prejemnika – obratno kot v obravnavanem primeru – uporabiti samo, če je prednost mogoče dokazati in količinsko opredeliti.
In the circumstances of the present case, the German authorities argue that the measure does not necessarily enable the network operator T-Systems to charge higher transmission fees to the broadcasters than the market price.
V okoliščinah obravnavanega primera nemški organi menijo, da ni nujno, da ukrep omrežnemu operaterju T-Systems omogoča zaračunavanje pristojbin za prenos izdajateljem televizijskega programa, ki so višje od tržne cene.