natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its submission prior to the decision to initiate the procedure, Italy stated that the digital technology will serve to promote innovation by offering interactivity (the possibility for the user to ‘dialogue’ with the system) and interoperability (the possibility for the user to access all broadcasters via one decoder).
Italija je v svojem stališču pred odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka trdila, da bo digitalna tehnologija spodbujala inovativnost z zagotavljanjem interaktivnosti (možnost, da se uporabnik „pogovarja“ s sistemom) in medobratovalnosti (možnost, da ima uporabnik dostop do vseh izdajateljev televizijskega programa prek enega sprejemnika).
Already in the decision to initiate the procedure the Commission acknowledged that the measure brought the price of interactive decoders into line with that of simpler models without interactive services (zappers).
Komisija je že v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka priznala, da je ukrep uskladil cene interaktivnih sprejemnikov s cenami preprostejših modelov brez interaktivnih storitev (sprejemnikov zapper).
However, in its comments on the decision to initiate the procedure, Italy did not provide valid reasons for excluding the satellite mode from the measure and instead simply repeated that when the measure was enforced, the interactivity of satellite decoders was very limited due to the use of a proprietary technology without open API standards.
Italija pa v svojih pripombah o odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka ni predložila utemeljenih razlogov za izključitev satelitskega načina iz ukrepa in namesto tega preprosto ponovila, da je bila interaktivnost satelitskih sprejemnikov v času uvedbe ukrepa zelo omejena zaradi uporabe zaščitene tehnologije brez odprtih standardov vmesnika aplikacijskih programov (API).
The Commission believes that these arguments are not a valid reason for considering that the aid to digital terrestrial broadcasters offering pay-TV services and cable pay-TV operators is compatible, for the following reasons.
Komisija verjame, da ti argumenti niso utemeljen razlog za mnenje, da je pomoč digitalnim prizemnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa, ki zagotavljajo plačljive televizijske storitve, in kabelskim operaterjem plačljive televizije združljiva iz naslednjih razlogov.
First, technically it was possible to put on the market decoders with advanced interactive capacities for the free-to-air satellite viewers.
Prvič, tehnično gledano je bilo mogoče dati na trg sprejemnike z naprednimi interaktivnimi zmogljivostmi za brezplačne satelitske gledalce.
By excluding, a priori, satellite decoders, the measure probably hampered the diffusion of high-quality satellite decoders.
Z vnaprejšnjo izključitvijo satelitskih sprejemnikov je ukrep verjetno oviral razširjanje visokokakovostnih satelitskih sprejemnikov.
Hence the Commission remains of the opinion that the exclusion of the satellite platform, based on the argument that at the time the first measure was adopted satellite used only ‘non-interoperable’ decoders, does not seem to take into account that satellite operators could have been willing and able to provide ‘interoperability’ in order to benefit from the measure.
Komisija zato še vedno meni, da je izključitev satelitske platforme na podlagi argumenta, da je v času sprejetja prvega ukrepa satelitska platforma uporabljala samo „nemedobratovalne“ sprejemnike, ne upošteva dejstva, da bi lahko bili satelitski operaterji pripravljeni in sposobni zagotoviti „medobratovalnost“, da bi imeli koristi od ukrepa.
Avoiding unnecessary distortions
Preprečevanje nepotrebnih izkrivljanj konkurence
While public intervention might be justified in view of the existence of certain market failures and possible cohesion problems, the Commission remains of the opinion that the way the measure is designed gives rise to unnecessary distortions of competition.
Čeprav bi lahko bilo javno ukrepanje upravičeno zaradi obstoja določenih tržnih nepopolnosti in možnih kohezijskih težav, Komisija vztraja pri mnenju, da način zasnove ukrepa povzroča nepotrebno izkrivljanje konkurence.
The Commission has explained in section IV.A.3 ‘Distortion of competition’ why it believes that such distortion exists, contrary to the claims made by Italy and Mediaset.
Komisija je v oddelku IV.A.3 „Izkrivljanje konkurence“ pojasnila, zakaj v nasprotju s trditvami Italije in družbe Mediaset verjame, da izkrivljanje obstaja.
An unnecessary distortion of competition does not, however, exist in the case of producers of decoders.
Nepotrebno izkrivljanje konkurence pa ne obstaja pri proizvajalcih sprejemnikov.
The measure promotes technological development in the form of higher-performance decoders with standards available to all producers.
Ukrep spodbuja tehnološki razvoj v obliki visoko zmogljivih sprejemnikov s standardi, ki so na voljo vsem proizvajalcem.
Any producer of decoders willing to engage in such production can gain from the advantage, including producers located in other Member States.
Vsak proizvajalec sprejemnikov, ki se je pripravljen vključiti v tako proizvodnjo, ima lahko koristi od te prednosti, vključno s proizvajalci, ki se nahajajo v drugih državah članicah.
While it is true that the measure will alter the normal allocation of resources in the market by stimulating the demand for decoders, this is an inherent and inevitable effect of any public policy in favour of digitisation — even the most technologically neutral.
Čeprav drži, da bo ukrep spremenil običajno razporeditev virov na trgu s spodbujanjem povpraševanja po sprejemnikih, je to neločljiv in neizogiben učinek vsake javne politike v korist digitalizacije, tudi najbolj tehnološko nevtralne.
Therefore it cannot be said that the measure introduces unnecessary distortions to competition as far as producers of decoders are concerned.
Zato ni mogoče trditi, da ukrep uvaja nepotrebna izkrivljanja konkurence v zvezi s proizvajalci sprejemnikov.
Conclusion on Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty
Sklepna ugotovitev o členu 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES
Article 87(3)(c) requires there to be a balance between positive developments allowed by a given measure and its negative effects on competition.
Člen 87(3)(c) zahteva ravnovesje med pozitivnim razvojem, ki ga omogoča določen ukrep, in njegovimi negativnimi učinki na konkurenco.
In the present context, it seems that digital switchover and interoperability are objectives of common interest, which, in the presence of externalities caused by the switchover and cohesion problems related to the obligation imposed on consumers to switch to digital television, can, in principle, justify aid in the form of a consumer subsidy.
V sedanjih razmerah se zdi, da sta digitalni prehod in medobratovalnost cilja skupnega interesa, ki lahko glede na obstoj zunanjih učinkov, ki jih povzročita prehod in kohezijske težave, povezane z obveznostjo, naloženo uporabnikom, naj se preusmerijo na digitalno televizijo, načeloma upravičita pomoč v obliki subvencije uporabnikom.
The measure, however, has certain characteristics that are neither necessary nor proportional and create unnecessary distortion in favour of the incumbent terrestrial television broadcasters, on a market seemingly characterised by a strict oligopoly where these distortions can have a considerable impact on competition.
Ukrep pa ima določene značilnosti, ki niso niti potrebne niti sorazmerne in povzročajo nepotrebno izkrivljanje v korist prvotnih prizemnih izdajalcev televizijskega programa na trgu, za katerega je navidezno značilen močan oligopol, kjer imajo lahko ta izkrivljanja precejšen vpliv na konkurenco.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that the aid to digital terrestrial broadcasters that offer pay-TV services and cable pay-TV operators cannot be deemed compatible under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
V skladu s tem Komisija meni, da pomoči digitalnim prizemnim izdajateljem televizijskih programov, ki zagotavljajo storitve plačljive televizije, in kabelskim operaterjem plačljive televizije ni mogoče šteti za združljivo na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission also considers that the measure in favour of producers of decoders, if it were indeed aid, would be compatible under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Komisija prav tako meni, da bi bil ukrep v korist proizvajalcev sprejemnikov, če bi bil dejansko pomoč, združljiv na podlagi člena 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
ARTICLE 87(3)(D) OF THE EC TREATY
ČLEN 87(3)(D) POGODBE ES
Italy states that, given the presence of many terrestrial local broadcasters that the Italian government wishes to protect, the measure is compatible on the basis of the exception in Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty because of its positive effects on cultural diversity.
Italija trdi, da je glede na prisotnost številnih prizemnih lokalnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa, ki jih želi italijanska vlada zavarovati, ukrep združljiv na podlagi izjeme iz člena 87(3)(d) Pogodbe ES zaradi svojih pozitivnih vplivov na kulturno raznolikost.
Given that satellite is not well suited to providing local services, satellite decoders should not be entitled to the subsidy.
Glede na to, da satelitska platforma ni primerna za zagotavljanje lokalnih storitev, satelitski sprejemniki ne smejo biti upravičeni do subvencije.
The Commission considers that this argument by Italy cannot be accepted.
Komisija meni, da tega argumenta Italije ni mogoče sprejeti.
The measure is not targeted specifically at promoting cultural objectives, nor at enhancing cultural diversity by favouring only local operators which, without the aid, would not be present on the market.
Ukrep ni posebej usmerjen k spodbujanju kulturnih ciljev niti krepitvi kulturne raznolikosti z dajanjem prednosti samo lokalnim operaterjem, ki brez pomoči ne bi bili prisotni na trgu.
It is a measure in favour of terrestrial broadcasters and cable pay-TV operators in general.
Gre za ukrep v korist prizemnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa in kabelskih operaterjev plačljive televizije na splošno.
Therefore, given the restrictive applicability of the exceptions, the Commission cannot accept that a large-scale measure with wide-reaching impact can be justified by the positive effects on local broadcasters.
Glede na omejeno uporabnost izjem Komisija zato ne more sprejeti, da je mogoče obsežen ukrep s širokim vplivom upravičiti s pozitivnimi učinki na lokalne izdajatelje televizijskega programa.
ARTICLE 86(2) OF THE EC TREATY
ČLEN 86(2) POGODBE ES
The Commission considers that the Article 86(2) exception that can apply to State compensation for the costs of providing a public service cannot be invoked in this case.
Komisija meni, da se na izjemo iz člena 86(2), ki se lahko uporablja za državno nadomestilo za stroške zagotavljanja javne storitve, v tem primeru ni mogoče sklicevati.
The Member State has not clearly defined and imposed public service obligations for which the measure would constitute proportional compensation.
Država članica ni jasno opredelila in naložila obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev, za katere bi bil ukrep sorazmerno nadomestilo.
In fact, the measure is also of benefit to the normal commercial activities of various operators that do not provide a public service.
Ukrep dejansko koristi tudi navadnim komercialnim dejavnostim različnih operaterjev, ki ne opravljajo javne storitve.
Even in the case of the public service broadcaster RAI, if there were public service obligations in relation to investments in digital TV, the cost of these investments should have been clearly identified so as to allow an appropriate level of compensation.
Celo pri izvajalcu storitve javne radiodifuzije RAI, če bi obstajale obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev v zvezi z naložbami v digitalno televizijo, bi bilo treba stroške teh naložb jasno opredeliti, da bi se omogočila ustrezna stopnja nadomestila.
CONCLUSION ON THE COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT
SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV O OCENI ZDRUŽLJIVOSTI
It is therefore concluded that the aid to digital terrestrial broadcasters offering pay-TV services and cable pay-TV operators does not qualify for any of the exceptions provided for in the Treaty and is therefore not compatible with the common market.
Zato se sklene, da pomoč digitalnim prizemnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa, ki zagotavljajo storitve plačljive televizije, in kabelskim operaterjem plačljive televizije ne izpolnjuje pogojev za nobeno od izjem, predvidenih v Pogodbi, in zato ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
CONCLUSION OF LEGAL ASSESSMENT
SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV O PRAVNI OCENI
The Commission concludes that the subsidy granted by Italy to digital terrestrial broadcasters offering pay-TV services and cable pay-TV operators for the purchase of decoders capable of receiving programmes broadcast using digital terrestrial technology constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Komisija sklene, da je subvencija, ki jo je Italija dodelila digitalnim prizemnim izdajateljem televizijskega programa, ki zagotavljajo storitve plačljive televizije, in kabelskim operaterjem plačljive televizije za nakup sprejemnikov, ki lahko sprejemajo programe, ki se oddajajo z uporabo digitalne prizemne tehnologije, pomoč v smislu člena 87(1)(c) Pogodbe ES.
The aid is not compatible with the common market.
Pomoč ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
It was not notified to the Commission by the Member State as required by Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and was unlawfully put into effect without Commission authorisation.
Država članica je uradno obvestila Komisijo o pomoči, kot to zahteva člen 88(3) Pogodbe ES, in jo začela nezakonito izvajati brez odobritve Komisije.
It must therefore be recovered from the digital terrestrial broadcasters offering pay-TV services and from the cable pay-TV operators involved.
Zato jo je treba izterjati od zadevnih digitalnih prizemnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa, ki zagotavljajo storitve plačljive televizije in kabelskih operaterjev plačljive televizije.
The Commission also concludes that no aid has to be recovered from producers of decoders.
Komisija prav tako sklene, da ni treba izterjati nobene pomoči od proizvajalcev sprejemnikov.
V. ELIMINATION OF THE AID
V. UKINITEV POMOČI
NEED TO ELIMINATE THE AID
POTREBA PO UKINITVI POMOČI
According to the Court of Justice's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the State concerned must abolish or alter aid when it has found that it is incompatible with the common market, The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the common market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation.
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti je Komisija pristojna za odločanje, da mora zadevna država ukiniti ali spremeniti pomoč, če ugotovi, da ni združljiva s skupnim trgom. Sodišče je prav tako dosledno menilo, da je obveznost države, da ukine pomoč, za katero Komisija meni, da ni združljiva s skupnim trgom, zasnovana za ponovno vzpostavitev prej obstoječih razmer.
In this context, the Court has established that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored.
V tem okviru je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je cilj dosežen, ko prejemnik povrne zneske, dodeljene na podlagi nezakonite pomoči, in tako izgubi prednost, ki jo je imel pred konkurenti na trgu, in ko se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere pred izplačilom pomoči.
Following that case-law, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 laid down that: ‘where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary […].
V skladu s to sodno prakso je člen 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/99 določil, da: „če se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč […].
The Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.’
Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti.“
In its submission, Italy argued that the Commission should not impose recovery because this would be against a general principle of law:
Italija je v svojem stališču trdila, da Komisija ne sme naložiti povrnitev pomoči, ker bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava Skupnosti:
According to Italy, ordering recovery would be against the principle of protection of legitimate expectations since even if diligent, the broadcasters could not refuse the aid or oppose it in any way.
po mnenju Italije bi bila naložitev vračila v nasprotju z načelom varstva legitimnih pričakovanj, saj izdajatelji televizijskega programa niso mogli zavrniti ali nasprotovati pomoči na kateri koli način, tudi če so skrbni.
Italy argues that the same logic was applied in Decision 2006/513/EC.
Italija trdi, da je bilo isto sklepanje uporabljeno v Odločbi 2006/513/ES;
In addition, according to Italy, it was clear that recovery was impossible from the outset.
poleg tega Italija meni, da je bilo že od začetka jasno, da je vračilo nemogoče.
Italy argues that in this case it is impossible to determine which broadcaster benefited from the measure and by how much, so that the Commission should not require recovery.
Italija trdi, da je v zadevnem primeru nemogoče opredeliti, kateri izdajatelj televizijskega programa je imel koristi od ukrepa in koliko koristi je imel, tako da Komisija ne sme zahtevati vračila pomoči.
In the case at issue the Commission considers that no general principle of Community law stands in the way of recovery.
V obravnavanem primeru Komisija meni, da nobeno splošno načelo prava Skupnosti ne ovira vračila.
In particular, as to legitimate expectations, the Court of Justice stated that: ‘in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Commission under Article 87 of the Treaty, undertakings to which an aid has been granted cannot, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that Article.
Predvsem v zvezi z legitimnimi pričakovanju je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti navedlo, da: „zaradi obvezne narave nadzora državne pomoči Komisije na podlagi člena 87 Pogodbe podjetje, ki mu je bila dodeljena pomoč, načeloma ne more imeti legitimnih pričakovanj, da je pomoč zakonita, razen če je bila dodeljena v skladu s postopkom, določenim v tem členu.
As regards the impossibility for beneficiaries to ‘refuse’ the aid, the Commission notes that if such an argument were to be accepted, Member States would be able to grant indirect aid via consumers without there being any possibility for the Commission to restore normal competitive conditions.
Glede nemožnosti upravičencev, da „zavrnejo“ pomoč, Komisija ugotavlja, da bi morale biti države članice, če bi se tak argument sprejel, sposobne dodeliti posredno pomoč prek uporabnikov, pri čemer Komisija ne bi imela nobene možnosti za ponovno vzpostavitev normalnih konkurenčnih pogojev.
The Commission also points out that the reference to Decision 2006/513/EC does not seem relevant because in that instance the Commission decided that the measure could be annulled by recovering all the aid from the direct beneficiaries and that is precisely what it did.
Komisija prav tako opozarja, da se sklicevanje na Odločbo 2006/513/ES ne zdi pomembno, saj je v tistem primeru Komisija odločila, da je ukrep mogoče ukiniti z izterjavo vse pomoči od neposrednih upravičencev, kar je tudi storila.
The question of whether aid could be ‘refused’ was not raised.
Vprašanje, ali je bilo mogoče pomoč „zavrniti“, se ni obravnavalo.
In addition, it should be noted that in the Germany v Commission case, the Commission ordered the recovery of aid paid out to investors who had acquired shares of companies situated in the new German Länder and West Berlin, and this recovery order was confirmed by the Court.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da je v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji Komisija ukazala vračilo pomoči, izplačane investitorjem, ki so kupili delnice družb, ki se nahajajo v novih nemških deželah in vzhodnem Berlinu, Sodišče pa je ta zahtevek za vrnitev potrdilo.
Italy has also argued that recovery is impossible since it is not possible to establish which broadcaster benefited from a transfer of State resources and how much the transfer amounted to.
Italija je trdila, da vračilo ni mogoče, ker je nemogoče opredeliti, kateri izdajatelj televizijskega programa je imel koristi od prenosa državnih sredstev in kolikšen je bil znesek tega prenosa.
It is correct that the Commission may not impose an obligation whose implementation from the outset would be impossible in objective and absolute terms.
Res je, da Komisija ne more naložiti obveznosti, izvajanje katere bi bilo že od začetka objektivno in absolutno nemogoče.
The Commission acknowledges that due to the facts of the case, it may be somewhat more difficult than in other cases to establish the amount of State resources that actually went to the recipients of the aid.
Komisija priznava, da je zaradi dejstev tega primera lahko težje kot v drugih primerih opredeliti znesek državnih sredstev, ki so jih upravičenci pomoči dejansko prejeli.
Nevertheless, the Commission considers that it is not impossible to quantify the benefit conferred on the recipients of the aid.
Kljub temu pa Komisija meni, da je mogoče količinsko opredeliti ugodnost, ki je bila dodeljena prejemnikom pomoči.
The Commission is therefore of the opinion that there are not sufficient grounds to release the Member State from its obligation to abolish the measure and re-establish the conditions of competition.
Komisija zato meni, da ne obstajajo zadostni razlogi za to, da se državo članico oprosti obveznosti ukinitve ukrepa in ponovne vzpostavitve konkurenčnih pogojev.
STATE AID RECIPIENTS
PREJEMNIKI DRŽAVNE POMOČI
As the Court has explained, the recovery of the aid must be from the actual recipients — in this case, digital terrestrial broadcasters offering pay-TV services and cable pay-TV operators.
Kot je pojasnilo Sodišče, je treba naložiti vračilo pomoči od dejanskih prejemnikov, v tem primeru od digitalnih prizemnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa, ki zagotavljajo storitve plačljive televizije in kabelskih operaterjev plačljive televizije.
Following the points made in sections IV.A.2 and IV.A.3 on the assessment of the existence of a selective advantage and the distortion of competition, the Commission is of the opinion that the main advantages of the measure are the creation of a customer base for the introduction of new digital services, in particular pay-per-view activities, and an increased number of customers for the cable operators.
V skladu z navedbami iz oddelkov IV.A.2 in IV.A.3 o oceni obstoja selektivne prednosti in izkrivljanja konkurence Komisija meni, da so glavne prednosti ukrepa oblikovanje baze uporabnikov za uvedbo novih digitalnih storitev, zlasti dejavnosti „plačilo po ogledu“, in večje število uporabnikov za kabelske operaterje.
The Commission therefore calls for recovery of the aid from digital terrestrial broadcasters offering pay-TV services and cable pay-TV operators.
Komisija zato zahteva vračilo pomoči od digitalnih prizemnih izdajateljev televizijskega programa, ki zagotavljajo storitve plačljive televizije, in kabelskih operaterjev plačljive televizije.
QUANTIFICATION OF THE AID TO BE RECOVERED
KOLIČINSKA OPREDELITEV POMOČI, KI JO JE TREBA VRNITI
As regards establishing what should be recovered from broadcasters, the Commission acknowledges that accurately calculating the amount of State resources that has actually benefited the recipients is fairly complex.
Glede določitve tega, kaj je treba izterjati od izdajateljev televizijskega programa, Komisija priznava, da je precej zapleteno natančno izračunati znesek državnih sredstev, od katerega so imeli prejemniki dejanske koristi.