natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The fact that the State carries the risk should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium.
Državni prevzem tveganja se običajno plača z ustrezno premijo.
Where the State foregoes such a premium, there is both an advantage for TV2 and a drain on the resources of the State [43].
Kadar se država odreče taki premiji, je to ugodnost za TV2 in odliv državnih sredstev [43].
Moreover, the State has reserved a nationwide transmission frequency for TV2, for which TV2 pays a frequency fee to a State body.
Poleg tega je država rezervirala oddajno frekvenco s pokritjem celotne države za TV2, za katero TV2 plačuje pristojbino državnemu organu.
The annual fee that TV2 paid varied between DKK 2 million and DKK 4 million during the period under investigation.
Letna pristojbina, ki jo je plačala TV2, se je v preiskovanem obdobju gibala med 2 in 4 milijoni DKK.
In the absence of a basis of comparison for the fee paid for the nationwide frequency, it can only be compared with the fee paid for the permit to reach a larger share of the population through a network configuration.
Zaradi pomanjkanja primerjalne osnove za pristojbino, ki se je plačala za frekvenco s pokritjem celotne države, se pristojbina lahko primerja samo s pristojbino, ki se je plačala za dovoljenje za dostop do večjega deleža prebivalstva prek omrežne konfiguracije.
The frequency fee paid by TV2 for nationwide coverage is significantly lower than the networking fee that was imposed on TVDanmark, which varied between DKK 5 million in 1997 and DKK 30 million in 2001 even though the network of TVDanmark’s regional frequencies only attains a 77 % coverage.
Pristojbina za frekvenco, ki jo je plačala TV2 za pokritje celotne države, je bistveno nižja od omrežne pristojbine, ki se je zaračunala TVDanmark in se je gibala med 5 milijoni DKK leta 1997 in 30 milijoni DKK leta 2001, in to kljub temu, da znaša stopnja prodora omrežja regionalnih frekvenc TVDanmark samo 77 %.
Thus, TV2 has been able to reach a larger share of the Danish population at a lower price.
je torej lahko dosegla večji delež danskih prebivalcev po nižji ceni.
The Commission therefore considers that the frequency fee does not reflect market conditions and that by not asking for the market rate for the asset, the State has foregone revenue that should have gone to the State budget.
Komisija zato meni, da pristojbina za frekvenco ne odraža tržnih pogojev in da se je s tem, ko se ne zahteva tržna cena za to premoženje, država odrekla prihodku, ki bi bil v interesu državnega proračuna.
In contrast, since TV2 does not broadcast using a configuration of local frequencies in order to create a national network, it is not liable to pay the networking fee.
Ker pa TV2 ne oddaja prek konfiguracije lokalnih frekvenc, da bi ustvarila nacionalno omrežje, ni dolžna plačevati pristojbine za omrežje.
As the State was not entitled to collect this fee from TV2, it did not forego revenue and hence State resources are not involved here.
Ker država ni bila upravičena do pobiranja te pristojbine od TV2, se ni odrekla prihodku in zato državna sredstva v to niso vključena.
Similarly, the Commission cannot discern any element of State resources in the legal obligation on owners of common aerial installations to relay public service programmes through those installations (must-carry) as the State is neither forgoing any income nor actively transferring funds to such operators.
Komisija prav tako ne more odkriti nobenih državnih sredstev v pravni določbi, ki bi obvezovala lastnike antenskih inštalacij, da prenašajo javne programe prek teh inštalacij (obveznost prenašanja), ker se država ne odreka dohodku in aktivno ne prenaša denarja na te operaterje.
This access rule does not confer on TV2 any financial advantage from State resources [44].
Čeprav ima TV2 ugodnosti iz pravila o dostopu, pa nima finančnih koristi od državnih sredstev [44].
All the abovementioned measures are attributable to the Danish State because, as described above, they involved a decision by the Danish State in one way or another.
Vse zgoraj navedene ukrepe je mogoče pripisati danski državi, ker so, kot je opisano zgoraj, na tak ali drugačen način vključevali odločitev danske države.
SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE AND DISTORTION OF COMPETITION
SELEKTIVNA PREDNOST IN IZKRIVLJANJE KONKURENCE
The Commission considers that the licence fee revenue, the transfers from the TV2 Fund (including advertising revenue for 1995 and 1996) and the Radio Fund, the exemption from corporate tax, the interest- and repayment-free loans, and the State guarantee for operating loans, together with access to a nationwide frequency on favourable terms, gave TV2 an economic and financial advantage, relieving it of operating costs that it would normally have had to bear through its budget.
Komisija meni, da so prihodki iz naročnin, prenosi iz sklada TV2 (vključno s prihodkom iz oglaševanja za leto 1995 in leto 1996) in radijskega sklada, oprostitev od plačevanja davka od dobička pravnih oseb, brezobrestna in nepovratna posojila ter državno poroštvo za posojila za poslovanje skupaj z dostopom do frekvence s pokritjem celotne države pod ugodnejšimi pogoji dajali TV2 gospodarsko in finančno prednost, ker so jo razbremenjevali stroškov poslovanja, ki bi običajno bremenili njen proračun.
Furthermore, TV2’s competitors did not receive the same funds.
Poleg tega konkurenti TV2 niso prejeli enakih sredstev.
However, State measures compensating the net additional costs of a service of general economic interest (SGEI) do not qualify as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU when the four conditions set out by the Court of Justice in the Altmark case [45] are fulfilled:
Vendar državni ukrepi, ki so nadomestilo za neto dodatne stroške storitve, ki je splošnega gospodarskega interesa, niso državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če so izpolnjeni štirje pogoji, ki jih je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti določilo v zadevi Altmark [45]:
first, the recipient undertaking must actually be required to discharge public service obligations and those obligations must be clearly defined,
prvič, od podjetja prejemnika je treba dejansko zahtevati, da poravna obveznosti iz izvajanja javnih storitev, in te obveznosti je treba jasno opredeliti;
second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner,
drugič, parametre, na podlagi katerih se izračuna nadomestilo, je treba določiti vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način;
third, the compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations,
tretjič, nadomestilo ne sme presegati tistega, kar je potrebno, da se pokrijejo vsi ali del stroškov, nastalih pri poravnavanju obveznosti iz izvajanja javnih storitev, ob upoštevanju zadevnih prihodkov in sprejemljivega dobička za poravnavo teh obveznosti;
fourth, where the undertaking that is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.
četrtič, kadar podjetje, ki mora poravnati obveznosti iz izvajanja javnih storitev, ni izbrano po postopku javnih naročil, je treba stopnjo potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih tipično podjetje, dobro vodeno in ustrezno preskrbljeno s produkcijskimi sredstvi, da lahko izpolnjuje nujne zahteve javnih storitev, imelo s poravnavo teh obveznosti, ob upoštevanju zadevnih prihodkov in sprejemljivega dobička za poravnavo obveznosti.
As will be described more fully in the section of the present decision dealing with the compatibility of the measures (recitals 160 ff. of the present decision), it follows from the Court’s judgment that the first Altmark condition is met.
Kot bo podrobneje opisano v oddelku tega sklepa, ki obravnava združljivost ukrepov (uvodna izjava 160 in naslednje tega sklepa), iz sodbe Sodišča sledi, da je prvi pogoj iz sodbe Altmark izpolnjen.
As regards the second Altmark criterion, whereby the parameters used to calculate the compensation must be established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner, the Commission has to assess the legal and economic conditions under which the licence fee revenue payable to TV2 was determined during the period under investigation.
Komisija mora v zvezi z drugim merilom iz sodbe Altmark, po katerem je treba parametre, ki se uporabljajo za izračun nadomestila, določiti vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način, oceniti pravne in gospodarske pogoje, v okviru katerih je bil v preiskovanem obdobju določen prihodek iz naročnin, do katerega je upravičena TV2.
In that connection the Commission notes that the procedure was as follows.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da je bil postopek naslednji.
According to points 29 and 30 of the Danish authorities’ letter of 24 March 2003, the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act applicable during the period under investigation [46] laid down how the TV2 station as a whole was to be financed (licence fee resources, advertising revenue, and other sources of income) and assigned responsibility for determining TV2’s and DR’s share of the licence fee and therefore the amount of compensation to be granted to TV2 to the Minister for Culture.
Glede na točki 29 in 30 dopisa danskih oblasti z dne 24. marca 2003 je Zakon o radijskem in televizijskem oddajanju, ki se je uporabljal v preiskovanem obdobju [46], določal način, na katerega naj bi se financirala postaja TV2 kot celota (sredstva iz naročnin, prihodek iz oglaševanja in drugi viri dohodka), in ministru za kulturo dodelil odgovornost za določanje deleža naročnine TV2 in DR ter tako zneska nadomestila, ki bi se dodelil TV2.
It should be noted that for the years 1995 and 1996, TV2 received its share of the licence fee from the TV2 Fund.
Opozoriti je treba, da je TV2 za leti 1995 in 1996 svoj delež naročnine prejela iz sklada TV2.
In accordance with established practice, the size of the compensation was determined by the Minister in consultation with the Finance Committee of the Danish Parliament within the framework of a media agreement concluded with a majority of the political parties in the Parliament.
V skladu z uveljavljeno prakso je višino nadomestila določil minister po posvetovanju s finančnim odborom danskega parlamenta v okviru sporazuma o sredstvih javnega obveščanja, ki je bil sklenjen z večino političnih strank v parlamentu.
At the time in question, there were 3 media agreements: the media agreement for 1994 to 1997, concluded on 16 September 1993, the media agreement for 1997 to 2000, concluded on 10 May 1996, and the media agreement for 2001 to 2004, concluded on 28 March 2000.
V zadevnem času so obstajali trije sporazumi o sredstvih javnega obveščanja: sporazum o sredstvih javnega obveščanja za obdobje 1994–1997, sklenjen dne 16. septembra 1993, sporazum o sredstvih javnega obveščanja za obdobje 1997–2000, sklenjen dne 10. maja 1996, in sporazum o sredstvih javnega obveščanja za obdobje 2001–2004, sklenjen dne 28. marca 2000.
The licence fee revenue was thus fixed for a fairly long time.
Tako je bil prihodek iz naročnin določen za razmeroma dolgo obdobje.
During the period under investigation, the compensation granted to TV2 was not subject to any subsequent review, even when TV2’s revenue was falling.
V preiskovanem obdobju nadomestilo, dodeljeno TV2, ni bilo predmet nobenega naknadnega pregleda, niti takrat, ko je prihodek TV2 upadal.
For example, although TV2’s advertising income suffered a major decline in 1999, the compensation was not adjusted to reflect this fact.
Na primer, kljub temu, da je dohodek TV2 iz oglaševanja leta 1999 drastično upadel, nadomestilo ni bilo prilagojeno, da bi odražalo to dejstvo.
According to the Danish authorities, the compensation was determined through price and wage indexing of TV2’s budget and accounts, and through economic analyses.
Po mnenju danskih oblasti je bilo nadomestilo določeno prek cenovnega in plačnega indeksiranja proračuna in računov TV2 ter z ekonomskimi analizami.
In-depth economic analyses were carried out in 1995 and in 1999 by KPMG, a firm of auditors.
KPMG, tj. revizijsko podjetje, je leta 1995 in leta 1999 izvedlo poglobljene ekonomske analize.
For the 1999 report KPMG was assisted by a follow-up group consisting of representatives of the leading players in the market, including TV2’s competitors.
Pri poročilu iz leta 1999 je podjetju KPMG pomagala skupina za spremljanje, ki so jo sestavljali predstavniki vodilnih udeležencev na trgu, vključno s konkurenti TV2.
Particular attention was paid to information on potential income from sources other than the licence fee, such as advertising revenue.
Posebna pozornost je bila namenjena informacijam o morebitnem dohodku iz virov razen naročnine, kot je prihodek iz oglaševanja.
In points 164 and 165 of their letter of 24 March 2003, the Danish authorities stated that the KPMG consultancy studies, which were meant to forecast the likely trend of advertising turnover in the Danish advertising market and TV2’s sources of income, and to identify the uncertainties associated with those estimates, were drawn up in order to give the Danish Government and Parliament a better basis for determining and allocating licence fee revenue in the negotiations on media policy.
Danske oblasti so v točkah 164 in 165 svojega dopisa z dne 24. marca 2003 navedle, da so bile svetovalne študije podjetja KPMG, katerih namen je bil predvideti verjetno gibanje prometa iz oglaševanja na danskem oglaševalskem trgu in vire dohodka TV2 ter opredeliti negotovosti, povezane s temi izračuni, pripravljene zato, da se danski vladi in parlamentu zagotovi boljša podlaga za določanje in dodeljevanje prihodka iz naročnin v pogajanjih o medijski politiki.
According to the Danish authorities, the documents used to determine the compensation were publicly available.
Danske oblasti so navedle, da so bili dokumenti, ki so se uporabljali za določanje nadomestila, javno dostopni.
The media agreements were published in press releases and the Official Record of Parliamentary Proceedings (Folketingstidende).
Sporazumi o sredstvih javnega obveščanja so bili objavljeni v sporočilih za javnost in uradnem zapisniku parlamentarnih postopkov (Folketingstidende).
The legislation that was to implement the media agreements was published in the Danish Official Gazette (Lovtidende).
Zakonodaja, s katero naj bi se izvajali sporazumi o sredstvih javnega obveščanja, je bila objavljena v danskem uradnem listu (Lovtidende).
TV2’s accounts were also published, together with the abovementioned economic analyses.
Objavljeni so bili tudi računovodski izkazi TV2, skupaj z zgoraj navedenimi ekonomskimi analizami.
In light of the Court’s judgment, the Commission has to assess whether, given the procedure described above, it can be concluded that the second Altmark criterion is met.
Komisija mora na podlagi sodbe Sodišča oceniti, ali se lahko glede na zgoraj opisani postopek sklene, da je drugo merilo iz sodbe Altmark izpolnjeno.
The Commission considers that the involvement of the Danish Parliament in the process for setting the licence fee ensured a certain degree of transparency and objectivity.
Komisija meni, da je vključenost danskega parlamenta v postopek določanja naročnine zagotovila določeno stopnjo preglednosti in objektivnosti.
Moreover, the media agreements setting the amount of licence fee resources to be allocated to TV2 were decided in advance for several years, and thereafter TV2’s compensation was never adjusted during the period under investigation.
Poleg tega so bili sporazumi o sredstvih javnega obveščanja, ki določajo znesek sredstev iz naročnin, ki se dodeli TV2, določeni za več let vnaprej, zato nadomestilo postaje TV2 v preiskovanem obdobju ni bilo nikoli prilagojeno.
However, the economic reports prepared by KPMG only gave estimates of the amount of advertising revenue accruing to TV2 (i.e. the income side).
Vendar so ekonomska poročila, ki jih je pripravilo podjetje KPMG, podala samo izračune zneska prihodka iz oglaševanja za TV2 (tj. dohodkovni vidik).
They said nothing about the cost side of the compensation calculation, and it seems to the Commission that the media agreements were based solely on indexation of TV2’s costs in the previous years.
Glede stroškov v zvezi z izračunom nadomestila ni bilo nobenih podatkov in Komisija meni, da so sporazumi o sredstvih javnega obveščanja temeljili izključno na indeksaciji stroškov TV2 iz prejšnjih let.
Indeed, the Danish authorities stated that the compensation was determined on the basis of price and wage indexing of TV2’s budgets and accounts and on the basis of the economic analyses, which only assessed the income side and did not deal with the period covered by the media agreement concluded on 16 September 1993.
Danske oblasti so navedle, da je bilo nadomestilo določeno na podlagi cenovnega in plačnega indeksiranja proračuna in računov TV2 ter na podlagi ekonomskih analiz, ki so ocenjevale samo dohodkovni vidik in niso obravnavale obdobja, ki ga obsega sporazum o sredstvih javnega obveščanja, sklenjen 16. septembra 1993.
In addition, there was no indication of the parameters to be used to calculate the compensation.
Poleg tega ni bilo nobene navedbe parametrov, ki bi se uporabili za izračun nadomestila.
The amount of the compensation was set in advance, but the second Altmark criterion requires that the parameters used to calculate the compensation must themselves be established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner.
Znesek nadomestila je bil določen vnaprej, vendar drugo merilo sodbe Altmark zahteva, da morajo bili sami parametri, ki se uporabljajo za izračun nadomestila, predhodno določeni na objektiven in pregleden način.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the second Altmark criterion is not met.
Komisija glede na navedeno meni, da drugo merilo sodbe Altmark ni izpolnjeno.
In any event, the Altmark criteria are cumulative and the Commission finds that the fourth criterion is not met (see below).
Merila sodbe Altmark so v vsakem primeru kumulativna in Komisija ugotavlja, da četrto merilo ni izpolnjeno (glej spodaj).
The fourth Altmark criterion requires that ‘[the] public service provider should be chosen according to a public procurement procedure or the level of compensation needed [should be] determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations’.
Četrto merilo sodbe Altmark zahteva, da „mora biti ponudnik javne storitve izbran glede na postopek oddaje javnega naročila ali se mora raven potrebnega nadomestila določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s produkcijskimi sredstvi, zato da lahko zadosti potrebam javne službe, imelo pri izpolnjevanju teh obveznosti ob upoštevanju realiziranih prejemkov in razumnega dobička zaradi izpolnjevanja teh obveznosti.“
In the present case, the public service provider TV2 was not chosen following a public procurement procedure.
V obravnavani zadevi ponudnik javne storitve TV2 ni bil izbran po postopku oddaje javnega naročila.
The Commission therefore has to assess whether the level of compensation was determined on the basis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of production, would have incurred in discharging the public service obligations.
Komisija mora zato oceniti, ali je bila raven nadomestila določena na podlagi stroškov, ki bi jih povprečno, dobro vodeno podjetje, ki je ustrezno opremljeno s produkcijskimi sredstvi, imelo pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti javne službe.
The economic and legal conditions in which the compensation to TV2 was set have been described above.
Ekonomski in pravni pogoji, po katerih je bilo določeno nadomestilo TV2, so opisani zgoraj.
In the light of the Court’s judgment and taking account of its finding that the procedure used by the Kingdom of Denmark to determine the amount of licence fee revenue payable to TV2 between 1995 and 2002 involved, inter alia, economic analyses drawn up with the help of TV2’s competitors, the Commission must take particular account of the 1995 and 1999 KPMG reports in assessing whether TV2’s costs were compared with those of a typical well run operator.
V smislu sodbe Sodišča in ob upoštevanju njegove ugotovitve, da je postopek, ki ga je Kraljevina Danska uporabila za določitev zneska prihodka iz naročnin, ki je pripadel TV2 med letoma 1995 in 2002, med drugim vključeval ekonomske analize, ki so bile pripravljene s pomočjo konkurentov TV2, mora Komisija pri ocenjevanju, ali so se stroški TV2 primerjali s stroški povprečnega dobro vodenega operaterja, zlasti upoštevati poročila podjetja KPMG iz leta 1995 in leta 1999.
The KPMG reports consider various scenarios of how the advertising market might develop over the respective licence fee periods.
Poročila podjetja KPMG upoštevajo različne scenarije o tem, kako bi se lahko oglaševalski trg razvijal v ustreznih obdobjih naročnine.
The reports contain no information on TV2 as such (e.g. on its financial situation or its operating costs); they illustrate how advertising revenue might develop and how much of the general advertising market might result in revenue for TV2.
Poročila ne vsebujejo informacij o TV2 kot taki (npr. o njenem finančnem stanju ali njenih stroških poslovanja); ponazarjajo način, na katerega bi se lahko prihodek iz oglaševanja razvijal in kolikšen del splošnega oglaševalskega trga bi lahko zagotavljal prihodek za TV2.
By estimating how advertising turnover in the Danish advertising market was most likely to develop and identifying the uncertainties associated with these estimates, the reports were part of the procedure used by the Danish authorities to determine the licence fee to be granted to TV2.
Z oceno načina, na katerega bi se promet iz oglaševanja na danskem oglaševalskem trgu najverjetneje razvijal, in opredelitvijo negotovosti, povezanih s temi ocenami, so bila poročila del postopka, ki so ga danske oblasti uporabile za določitev naročnine, ki bi bila odobrena za TV2.
The KPMG reports do not assess any of TV2’s costs or the costs of other operators, limiting themselves to considering the development of the advertising market and TV2’s share of advertising revenue.
Poročila podjetja KPMG ne ocenjujejo nobenih stroškov TV2 ali stroškov drugih operaterjev, s čimer se omejujejo na upoštevanje razvoja oglaševalskega trga in delež prihodka postaje TV2 iz oglaševanja.
It should also be noted that the reports do not cover the first years of the period under investigation, which was covered by the 1993 media agreement.
Opozoriti je treba tudi na to, da poročila ne vključujejo prvih let preiskovanega obdobja, ki ga obsega sporazum o sredstvih javnega obveščanja iz leta 1993.
To a certain extent, competitors were involved in drawing up these reports.
Do določene mere so pri sestavi teh poročil sodelovali tudi konkurenti.
The 1995 report states that ‘many stakeholders’ were involved, but it is not clear from the report who they were.
V poročilu iz leta 1995 je navedeno, da je bilo vključenih „več zainteresiranih strank“, vendar ni jasno, kdo so bile te stranke.
The 1999 KPMG report mentions a follow-up group of experts that did indeed involve competitors of TV2.
V poročilu iz leta 1999 je omenjena stalna skupina strokovnjakov, ki je dejansko vključevala konkurente TV2.