natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the fact that these economic reports were to some extent drawn up with the help of TV2’s competitors does not prove by itself that an analysis of the competitor’s costs was carried out.
Vendar dejstvo, da so bila ta ekonomska poročila do neke mere sestavljena s pomočjo konkurentov TV2, samo po sebi ne dokazuje, da je bila izvedena analiza konkurentovih stroškov.
In other words the reports include no analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production, would have incurred in discharging public service obligations, but instead dealt with the more general issue of the outlook for the advertising market as well as the amount of TV2’s future advertising revenue.
Povedano drugače, poročila ne vključujejo nobene analize stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s produkcijskimi sredstvi, imelo pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti javne službe, ampak so namesto tega obravnavala bolj splošno vprašanje obetov za oglaševalski trg in znesek bodočega prihodka postaje TV2 iz oglaševanja.
It should also be added that prices on the advertising market are determined by a variety of factors, such as audience shares, and not only on the basis of costs.
Dodati je treba tudi, da so cene na oglaševalskem trgu določene z različnimi dejavniki, kot so deleži gledalcev, in ne le na podlagi stroškov.
The Danish authorities and TV2 also put forward legal and factual arguments in relation to the fourth Altmark condition.
Danske oblasti in TV2 so predstavile tudi pravne in dejanske argumente v zvezi s četrtim pogojem sodbe Altmark.
Firstly, Denmark cited the BUPA case, arguing that the fourth Altmark condition did not necessarily apply, or at least that the Commission, in light of the Court’s judgment, should only assess whether it was met in essence.
Prvič, Danska je citirala zadevo BUPA, pri čemer je zatrjevala, da četrti pogoj iz sodbe Altmark ni nujno veljal ali vsaj, da bi morala Komisija v smislu sodbe Sodišča samo oceniti, ali je bil načeloma izpolnjen.
The Commission takes the view that the situation in the BUPA case was rather special in that the scheme in question, which concerned the provision of health services, was not cost-related but was based on customers’ risk profiles, unlike in other public service sectors.
Komisija zavzema stališče, da so bile razmere v zadevi BUPA dokaj posebne v tem, da zadevna shema, ki se je nanašala na zagotavljanje zdravstvenih storitev, ni bila povezana s stroški, ampak je za razliko od drugih sektorjev javnih storitev temeljila na profilih tveganja konkurentov.
In that instance there was thus no possibility for the operator to improve efficiency by way of its costs.
Zato takrat ni bilo možnosti, da bi operater izboljšal učinkovitost s svojimi stroški.
However, for public service broadcasters, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the basis of costs and revenue.
Vendar je za javne radijske in televizijske postaje nadomestilo mogoče izračunati na podlagi stroškov in prihodka.
Secondly, with reference to the Chronopost [49] case, Denmark argued that a public service provider like TV2 could not be compared to a private operator.
Drugič, Danska je s sklicevanjem na zadevo Chronopost [49] trdila, da ponudnika javne storitve, kot je TV2, ni mogoče primerjati z zasebnim operaterjem.
However, the Commission takes the view that unlike the issue at stake in the Chronopost case, which was cost allocation in the context of a compatibility assessment, the essence of the fourth Altmark criterion is precisely that, in the absence of a tender, the costs of the public service provided should be compared with those of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production.
Vendar Komisija zavzema stališče, da je za razliko od vprašanja, obravnavanega v zadevi Chronopost, ki se je nanašalo na dodelitev stroškov v smislu ocene združljivosti, bistvo četrtega merila sodbe Altmark natančno to, da je treba stroške zagotovljene javne storitve, če ni razpisa, primerjati s stroški povprečnega, dobro vodenega podjetja, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s produkcijskimi sredstvi.
In addition, Denmark argued that the National Audit Office (Rigsrevision) carried out financial and management audits of TV2’s accounts as part of its routine appraisals of TV2 and that routine checks were made, including on efficiency.
Poleg tega je Danska trdila, da je državni urad za revizijo (Rigsrevision) izvedel finančne in upravne revizije računovodskih izkazov TV2 kot del svojih rutinskih presoj TV2 ter da so bili izvedeni rutinski pregledi, vključno s pregledi učinkovitosti.
However, the Commission does not consider that the fact that TV2’s accounts were submitted for approval by the Ministry of Culture is sufficient proof that TV2’s costs were those of a typical well-run undertaking.
Vendar Komisija ni mnenja, da je dejstvo, da so bili računovodski izkazi TV2 predloženi v pregled ministru za kulturo, zadosten dokaz, da so bili stroški TV2 stroški povprečnega, dobro vodenega podjetja.
In addition, it is doubtful whether ex post controls can be relevant for fulfilment of the fourth criterion if no analysis of the costs was made before compensation was set.
Poleg tega je dvomljivo, ali so lahko naknadne kontrole ustrezne za izpolnitev četrtega merila, če pred določitvijo nadomestila ni bila izvedena nobena analiza stroškov.
The Danish authorities pointed in particular to the 2000 report from the Danish National Audit Office, in which the change in TV2’s productivity was to some extent compared with that of DR and certain foreign public service broadcasters (British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Sveriges Television ‘SVT’ and Norsk Riksringkastning ‘NRK’).
Danske oblasti so izpostavile zlasti poročilo danskega državnega urada za revizijo iz leta 2000, v katerem se je sprememba produktivnosti TV2 do določene mere primerjala s spremembo produktivnosti DR in nekaterih tujih javnih radijskih in televizijskih postaj (British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Sveriges Television „SVT“ in Norsk Riksringkastning „NRK“).
DR’s overall hourly broadcasting costs in 1999 were approximately 29 % higher than TV2’s.
Skupni urni stroški oddajanja DR so bili leta 1999 za približno 29 % višji od stroškov TV2.
The National Audit Office also found that DR’s and TV2’s productivity improvements were better than or equal to the productivity increase of the other three public service broadcasters.
Državni urad za revizijo je tudi ugotovil, da so bile izboljšave produktivnosti DR in TV2 večje od ali enake povečanju produktivnosti ostalih treh javnih radijskih in televizijskih postaj.
However, that report is not sufficient proof that the fourth condition was fulfilled.
Vendar to poročilo ni zadosten dokaz, da je bil četrti pogoj izpolnjen.
Indeed, the report was produced after the media agreements that set the amount of compensation and therefore did not show that the compensation was determined on the basis of the costs that a typical undertaking would have incurred in fulfilling its public service mission.
Poročilo je bilo dejansko pripravljeno po sporazumih o sredstvih javnega obveščanja, ki so določili znesek nadomestila, in zato ni pokazalo, da je bilo nadomestilo določeno na podlagi stroškov, ki bi jih imelo povprečno podjetje pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti javne službe.
Furthermore, the report made a comparison with other public service broadcasters and therefore did not deal with the costs of a ‘typical’ broadcaster.
Poleg tega se je v poročilu izvedla primerjava z drugimi javnimi radijskimi in televizijskimi postajami in se zato niso obravnavali stroški „povprečne“ postaje.
For example, it did not establish that the costs of DR, which is not allowed to generate income through advertising and whose level of compensation was determined under the same media agreement as TV2, were those of a typical undertaking.
Na primer, v poročilu ni bilo dokazano, da so bili stroški DR, ki ji ni dovoljeno, da dohodek ustvari z oglaševanjem, in katere raven nadomestila je bila določena v okviru istega sporazuma o sredstvih javnega obveščanja kot za TV2, stroški povprečnega podjetja.
For the purposes of the fourth Altmark criterion, it is therefore impossible to draw any conclusions from the comparison with DR’s costs.
Zato za namene četrtega merila sodbe Altmark ni mogoče sprejeti sklepa na podlagi primerjave s stroški DR.
As regards the comparison with foreign public service broadcasters, the report only compared the development of TV2’s productivity with one of the other public service broadcasters, but was silent on the level of efficiency as such, and hence on the costs themselves.
V zvezi s primerjavo s tujimi javnimi radijskimi in televizijskimi postajami se je v poročilu primerjal samo razvoj produktivnosti TV2 z eno od drugih javnih radijskih in televizijskih postaj, vendar ni bilo nobenih navedb o stopnji učinkovitosti kot taki in zato tudi o samih stroških.
In particular, a lower productivity increase could be due to many factors, for instance because efficiency was higher at the beginning of the period or because the broadcaster was not able to increase its broadcasting time.
Zlasti bi lahko bilo manjše povečanje produktivnosti odvisno od več dejavnikov, na primer od tega, da je bila učinkovitost večja na začetku obdobja ali da postaja ni mogla podaljšati svojega časa oddajanja.
For example, paragraph 51 of the report states that ‘During the period in question, the BBC and SVT saw an almost identical rise in costs, an increase of approximately 50 % in real terms, while NRK’s costs increased by approximately 60 % in real terms. As mentioned above, DR’s costs increased by 23 % in real terms, and TV2’s by 63 %. Since, as already stated, SVT’s and the BBC’s broadcasting time did not grow as much as that of the other broadcasters, this cost increase meant that SVT and the BBC did not improve their productivity in the same manner as the other three public service broadcasters’.
Na primer, v odstavku 51 poročila je navedeno, da „so se stroški BBC in SVT v zadevnem obdobju povečali skoraj identično, in sicer je bilo povečanje realnih stroškov okoli 50-odstotno, medtem ko so se realni stroški NRK povečali za okoli 60 %. Kot je navedeno zgoraj, so se realni stroški DR povečali za 23 %, realni stroški TV2 pa za 63 %. Ker se čas oddajanja SVT in BBC, kot je že bilo navedeno, ni podaljšal v enaki meri kot čas drugih postaj, je to povečanje stroškov pomenilo, da SVT in BBC svoje produktivnosti nista izboljšali na enak način kot druge tri javne radijske in televizijske postaje.“
For the above reasons, the Commission takes the view that the report does not show that TV2’s costs were those which a typical well-run undertaking would have incurred in performing the public service missions.
Komisija zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov zavzema stališče, da poročilo ne kaže, da so stroški TV2 stroški, ki bi jih imelo povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje pri izvajanju obveznosti javne službe.
To conclude, in view of the foregoing the Commission considers that the fourth Altmark criterion is not met, and because these criteria are cumulative, the compensation granted to TV2 does not satisfy the conditions set by the Court in the Altmark judgment.
Komisija glede na navedeno v zaključku meni, da četrto merilo iz sodbe Altmark ni izpolnjeno, in ker so ta merila kumulativna, nadomestilo, dodeljeno TV2, ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki jih je določilo Sodišče v sodbi Altmark.
In any event, as will be shown below, the Commission considers that the compensation can be considered as compatible with the internal market.
Kot bo navedeno v nadaljevanju, Komisija v vsakem primeru meni, da se nadomestilo lahko obravnava kot združljivo z notranjim trgom.
The Commission also has to assess whether the measures at issue could meet the ‘market economy investor test’ (‘MEIP test’).
Komisija mora tudi oceniti, ali bi lahko zadevni ukrepi izpolnjevali „načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu“.
The Danish authorities and TV2 argued that the measures do not qualify as State aid because the conditions of the MEIP test are fulfilled.
Danske oblasti in TV2 so trdile, da ukrepov ni mogoče označiti kot državno pomoč, ker so pogoji načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu izpolnjeni.
In particular, they held that it was perfectly justified under the MEIP test to leave the surplus in TV2 so as to build up capital.
Zlasti so menile, da je bilo v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu popolnoma upravičeno, da se presežek pusti v TV2 z namenom, da se poveča kapital.
In this respect, it should first be noted that the question of whether the measures were justified under the MEIP test is not the same as the question of whether they could be considered necessary in order to fulfil public service tasks (see the compatibility assessment below), since the fact that TV2 necessarily had to have a certain level of reserves and capital to perform its public service tasks does not mean that a private investor would have put money into the company and not have sought a return.
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej opozoriti, da vprašanje, ali so bili ukrepi v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu upravičeni, ni enako vprašanju, ali bi se lahko obravnavali kot potrebni za izpolnitev nalog javne službe (glej oceno skladnosti spodaj), saj dejstvo, da je morala imeti TV2 določeno raven rezerv in kapitala za izvajanje nalog javne službe, ne pomeni, da bi zasebni vlagatelj vložil denar v podjetje in ne bi zahteval povračila.
The Commission, in accordance with settled case-law, must determine whether, in similar circumstances, a private investor of a size comparable to bodies managing the public sector could be expected to be willing to make capital injections of the same order of magnitude [50].
Zato mora Komisija v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso določiti, ali se v podobnih okoliščinah lahko pričakuje, da bo zasebni vlagatelj, po velikosti primerljiv z organi, ki upravljajo javni sektor, pripravljen prispevati kapital v enakem obsegu [50].
Although the behaviour of a private investor that is being compared with the public investor’s behaviour need not be the conduct of an ordinary investor laying out capital with a view to realising a profit in the relatively short term, it must at least be the behaviour of a private holding company or a private group of undertakings pursuing a structural policy and guided by prospects of profitability in the longer term.
Čeprav ni nujno, da je ravnanje zasebnega vlagatelja, ki se primerja z ravnanjem javnega vlagatelja, enako ravnanju običajnega vlagatelja, ki vloži kapital zaradi njegove donosnosti v sorazmerno kratkem času, pa mora biti enako vsaj ravnanju zasebnega holdinga ali skupine zasebnih podjetij, ki sledijo strukturni politiki in jih vodijo dolgoročne perspektive donosnosti.
Furthermore, according to settled case-law, the MEIP test must be applied at the moment the decision is taken and not ex post [51].
Poleg tega je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso načelo vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu uporabiti takrat, ko se sprejme odločitev, in ne naknadno [51].
In the present case, as Denmark is the only stakeholder in TV2, it is both the first and the last creditor to be reimbursed in the event of the company’s failure.
Ker je Danska v tej zadevi edina zainteresirana stranka za TV2, je tako edini upnik, ki mu v primeru stečaja pripada povračilo.
So, from the point of an investor, the Danish State could seek a return on its investment either by asking for remuneration in the form of interest on a loan or a return on a capital stake.
Zato bi lahko danska država z vidika vlagatelja poskušala doseči donos iz svoje naložbe, in sicer tako, da bi zahtevala nadomestilo v obliki obresti na posojilo ali v obliki donosa na vloženi kapital.
The Commission notes that during the period in question, Denmark waived its claim to interest on the loans and allowed a moratorium on repayments.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Danska v zadevnem obdobju odstopila od zahtevka za obresti na posojila in dovolila moratorij na povračila.
Moreover, the Danish State did not ask for any remuneration on the capital that was built up in TV2.
Poleg tega danska država ni zahtevala nobenega nadomestila za kapital, ki se je ustvarjal v TV2.
Therefore, the Danish State did not ask for a normal return on its investment as any creditor or owner of a company normally would.
Zato Danska ni zahtevala običajnega vračila svoje naložbe, kot bi običajno storil kateri koli upnik ali lastnik podjetja.
Furthermore, the Danish authorities have not advanced any valid arguments to justify why it would make sense strategically to reinvest the surplus in TV2 instead of asking for remuneration in the form of interest or dividends.
Poleg tega danske oblasti niso navedle nobenih utemeljenih razlogov, ki bi upravičili, zakaj bi bilo iz strateškega vidika smiselno reinvestirati presežek v TV2, namesto da bi zahtevale nadomestilo v obliki obresti ali dividend.
Such a decision would normally be taken by an investor only if he thought that reinvestment would increase the value of his initial investment.
Vlagatelj bi tako odločitev običajno sprejel samo, če bi menil, da bi reinvesticija povečala vrednost njegove začetne naložbe.
In the present instance, it has not been established that there was a business plan or a clear overall business strategy suggesting that this was the case.
V zadevnem primeru pa ni bilo dokazano, da je obstajal poslovni načrt ali jasna celovita poslovna strategija, ki bi dokazovala njegov obstoj.
Nor have there been any other indications that TV2 was planning to develop its activities to produce such added value.
Prav tako ni nič kazalo na to, da bi TV2 načrtovala razširitev svoje dejavnosti, da bi se ustvarila taka dodana vrednost.
In saying this, the Commission is not trying to use formalistic arguments in order to refute the Danish authorities’ argument on the MEIP test but is merely attempting to assesses whether a market economy investor would have decided to leave the funds in TV2 on the basis of the information available to him at the time when he took the decision.
Glede na navedeno Komisija ne uporablja formalističnih utemeljitev, da bi zavrnila utemeljitev danskih oblasti glede načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ampak želi le oceniti, ali bi se vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu odločil pustiti sredstva v TV2 na podlagi informacij, ki so mu bile na voljo takrat, ko je sprejel odločitev.
However, taking into account the information available at the time when the funds were left in TV2 [52] and leaving aside any considerations regarding TV2’s public service tasks, which a private investor would not have been taken into account, the Commission considers that there was no business plan and no investment project or any other element on the basis of which a rational private investor would have thought that the reinvestment would increase the value of his initial investment and would therefore have decided to leave the money in TV2 instead of asking for some sort of remuneration.
Vendar Komisija ob upoštevanju informacij, ki so bile na voljo takrat, ko so bila sredstva prepuščena TV2 [52], in brez upoštevanja kakršnih koli premislekov glede nalog TV2 kot javne službe, ki jih zasebni vlagatelj ne bi upošteval, meni, da ni bilo nobenega poslovnega načrta in nobenega investicijskega projekta ali kakršnega koli drugega elementa, na podlagi katerega bi razumen zasebni vlagatelj menil, da bi reinvesticija povečala vrednost njegove začetne naložbe, in bi se zato odločil, da denar pusti v TV2, namesto da bi zahteval neko vrsto nadomestila.
In addition, the Danish authorities have used the return on turnover as a benchmark in order to show that they acted as a private investor when reinvesting money into TV2.
Poleg tega so danske oblasti uporabile povračilo na promet kot merilo za dokaz, da so z reinvesticijo denarja v TV2 ravnale kot zasebni vlagatelj.
However, in the present case, it has to be emphasised that the Danish Government already acts as a financer of TV2, in that it provides it with significant funds to cover part of its operating costs.
Vendar je v tem primeru treba poudariti, da danska vlada že deluje kot financer TV2 s tem, da ji zagotavlja znatna sredstva za kritje dela njenih stroškov poslovanja.
The amount of these funds has a direct effect on the results that TV2 is able to generate.
Višina teh sredstev neposredno vpliva na rezultate, ki jih je sposobna doseči TV2.
In practice, this ratio can be boosted simply by increasing the amount of State funding.
V praksi se lahko to razmerje izboljša že s samim povečanjem državnega financiranja.
However, as excess funding normally also leads to inefficiencies, resulting in a larger drain on State resources, it is far from certain that increased funding produces a corresponding improvement in results.
Ker pa presežek financiranja običajno pripelje do neučinkovitosti, kar pomeni večje črpanje državnih sredstev, še zdaleč ni zanesljivo, da bo večje financiranje pripeljalo do ustreznega izboljšanja rezultatov.
Thus the Danish authorities cannot be held to have acted as a market economy investor.
Zato za danske oblasti ne more veljati, da so ravnale kot vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the compensation can be considered compatible, as will be explained in detail below.
Vendar Komisija meni, da se lahko nadomestilo obravnava kot združljivo, kot bo podrobno razloženo v nadaljevanju.
As already mentioned, the MEIP test is a different issue from the question of whether it was justified for the Danish State to allow TV2 to keep the surplus so as to build up the capital necessary for its public service tasks.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, se vprašanje načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu razlikuje od vprašanja, ali je bilo upravičeno, da je danska država TV2 dovolila, da obdrži presežek, s katerim bi povečala kapital, potreben za njene naloge javne službe.
In conclusion, the Commission takes the view that, during the period under investigation, TV2 benefited by the measures.
Komisija v zaključku meni, da je imela TV2 v preiskovanem obdobju koristi od ukrepov.
In the television broadcasting market, TV2 competes with other broadcasters who did not receive the same advantages.
na trgu televizijskega oddajanja konkurira drugim postajam, ki niso bile deležne enakih ugodnosti.
Therefore, the measures have to be regarded as selective and as distorting competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zato je treba ukrepe v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU obravnavati kot selektivne in kot ukrepe, ki izkrivljajo konkurenco.
State measures are caught by Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as they affect trade between Member States.
Državne ukrepe ureja določba člena 107(1) PDEU, če vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami.
This is the case whenever the activities concerned are an object of intra-Community trade.
To velja za vse primere, ko so zadevne dejavnosti predmet trgovine Skupnosti.
The Court of Justice has developed a wide interpretation of this notion.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je pripravilo široko razlago tega pojma.
It is established case-law that when aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, those undertakings must be regarded as affected by that aid [53].
Na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse je treba takrat, kadar pomoč krepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki konkurirajo v trgovini Skupnosti, ta podjetja obravnavati kot podjetja, na katera vpliva navedena pomoč [53].
The fact that the undertaking in question does not engage in exports does not rule out the possibility that trade might be affected.
Dejstvo, da se zadevno podjetje ne ukvarja z izvozom, ne izključuje možnosti vplivanja na trgovino.
When a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, its domestic activities may be supported or even boosted thanks to the aid, which in turn reduces the scope for other undertakings to establish themselves on the market.
Kadar država članica dodeli podjetju pomoč, se lahko njegove domače dejavnosti zaradi pomoči podprejo ali celo povečajo, s tem pa se za druga podjetja zmanjšajo možnosti, da bi se uveljavila na trgu.