natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The costs for these commercial activities have been allocated based on the method presented in the 2001 Broadcasting Communication [87], under which, contrary to the approach generally adopted in other utilities sectors, costs that are entirely attributable to public service activities while also benefiting commercial activities need not be apportioned between the two and can be entirely allocated to those public service activities.
Te so v primerjavi z vsemi dejavnostmi TV2 bolj postranske Stroški teh komercialnih dejavnosti so se dodelili na podlagi metode, predstavljene v Sporočilu o oddajanju [87] iz leta 2001, v okviru katere je treba v nasprotju s pristopom, ki je na splošno sprejet v drugih oskrbovalnih sektorjih, stroške, ki jih je mogoče v celoti pripisati dejavnostim javne službe, medtem ko jih koristijo tudi komercialne dejavnosti, razdeliti med ta dva sklopa dejavnosti in se lahko v celoti dodelijo tem dejavnostim javne službe.
The 2001 Broadcasting Communication considered there was a risk that a strict breakdown of such costs between the two activities would be arbitrary and not meaningful.
V Sporočilu o oddajanju iz leta 2001 je bilo upoštevano, da je obstajalo tveganje, da bi bila stroga razčlenitev takih stroškov med tema dvema sklopoma dejavnosti samovoljna in nesmiselna.
As for the advantage that TV2 receives from its access to the transmission frequency, the Commission notes that this is inseparably linked to the public service mission.
Kar zadeva prednost, ki jo ima TV2 zaradi svojega dostopa do oddajne frekvence, Komisija ugotavlja, da je to neločljivo povezano z mandatom za radijsko in televizijsko oddajanje.
The Commission also considers that in line with the Broadcasting Communication, the financing costs (interest advantages) can be fully attributed to the public service activities.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da se lahko v skladu s Sporočilom o oddajanju stroški financiranja (ugodnosti iz obresti) v celoti pripišejo dejavnostim javnih storitev.
To neutralise the effect of the tax exemption that the public service activities enjoy, 30 % of the profits from commercial activities are transferred to the public service side.
Za nevtralizacijo učinka oprostitve od plačevanja davka, ki je veljala za dejavnosti javnih storitev, se 30 % dobičkov iz komercialnih dejavnosti prenese na dejavnosti javnih storitev.
However, in future the advantage should no longer exist, given that the share of the transfer corresponds to the actual taxation rate thanks to this ‘neutralisation’ mechanism.
V prihodnje pa ta prednost ne bi smela več obstajati glede na to, da delež transferja ustreza dejanski stopnji obdavčitve zaradi tega mehanizma „nevtralizacije“.
As for the past, this does not pose a problem when it comes to establishing the amount of overcompensation, since the total income from commercial activities was used to reduce the net cost of the public service activities.
Za preteklost to ne predstavlja težav za izračun višine prekomernega nadomestila, saj se je celotni prihodek teh komercialnih dejavnosti uporabil za zmanjšanje neto stroškov dejavnosti javnih storitev.
engaged in loss-making commercial Internet activities.
je izvajala komercialne spletne dejavnosti, ki so prinašale izgubo.
As these activities fall outside the public service broadcasting mission, no State funding is possible.
Ker te dejavnosti ne spadajo v mandat za javno radijsko in televizijsko oddajanje, državno financiranje ni mogoče.
Moreover, as no other activities were operated on a ‘stand-alone’ basis, there is no surplus from commercial activities to cover the losses on Internet activities.
Poleg tega ni presežka iz komercialnih dejavnosti za kritje spletnih izgub, ker ni drugih dejavnosti, ki so potekale na „neodvisni“ podlagi.
Assessment of TV2’s behaviour in the advertising market
Ocena ravnanja TV2 na oglaševalskem trgu
Paragraph 58 of the Broadcasting Communication states that ‘a public service broadcaster, in so far as lower revenues are covered by the State aid, might be tempted to depress the prices of advertising or other non-public service activities on the market, so as to reduce the revenue of competitors (…). Whenever a public service broadcaster undercuts prices in non-public service activities below what is necessary to recover the stand-alone costs that an efficient commercial operator in a similar situation would normally have to recover, such practice would indicate the presence of overcompensation of public service obligations (…)’.
V odstavku 58 Sporočila o oddajanju je navedeno, da bi „izvajalce storitev javne radiotelevizije pokrivanje nižjih prihodkov z državno pomočjo lahko zavedlo k znižanju cen za oglaševanje ali za druge dejavnosti, ki niso javne storitve, da bi s tem zmanjšali prihodke konkurentov […]. Kadar koli izvajalec javnih storitev radiotelevizije zniža cene komercialnih dejavnosti pod mejo, ki je potrebna za povračilo neodvisnih stroškov, ki bi jih moral v podobnem položaju običajno nadomestiti uspešen komercialni operater, bi takšna praksa kazala na obstoj prekomernega nadomestila obveznosti iz izvajanja javnih storitev […].“
TVDanmark submitted information showing that it could not cover the stand-alone costs of its television operations with the advertising prices that TV2 charges.
TVDanmark je predložila informacije, ki kažejo, da ne more pokriti neodvisnih stroškov svojih televizijskih dejavnosti po oglaševalskih cenah, ki jih zaračunava TV2.
TVDanmark compared its costs with the TRP 21-50 advertising prices that TV2 was charging.
TVDanmark je primerjala svoje stroške z oglaševalskimi cenami TRP za skupino 21–50, ki jih je zaračunavala TV2.
For this comparison to be valid, the Commission must, as a first step, establish whether or not TVDanmark can be considered to be in a similar situation to TV2 and whether or not it is an efficient operator.
Da bi bila ta primerjava veljavna, mora Komisija najprej ugotoviti, ali se za TVDanmark lahko šteje, da je v podobnem položaju kot TV2, in ali je TVDanmark uspešen operater ali ne.
First, the Commission has to assess whether TVDanmark is in a similar situation to TV2.
Prvič, Komisija mora oceniti, ali je TVDanmark v podobnem položaju kot TV2.
The Commission notes the following.
Komisija je navedla naslednje.
For the period under investigation, TV2’s audience share was in the region of 35 % whereas the corresponding figure for TVDanmark was approximately 15 %.
V preiskovanem obdobju se je delež gledalcev TV2 gibal okoli 35 %, medtem ko je ta vrednost pri TVDanmark znašala približno 15 %.
Their shares of the advertising market also differed significantly.
Poleg tega so se tržni deleži na oglaševalskem trgu močno razlikovali.
TV2’s market share was in the range of 60 %, whereas TVDanmark’s was around 8 %.
Tržni delež TV2 se je gibal okoli 60 %, medtem ko je znašal tržni delež TVDanmark približno 8 %.
TV2’s advertising turnover was approximately five times that of TVDanmark.
Promet iz oglaševanja TV2 je bil približno petkrat večji kot pri TVDanmark.
Moreover, TV2 is the only station that reaches 100 % of the population, whereas TVDanmark2 has a coverage of 77 % and TVDanmark1 even less.
je tudi edina postaja, ki doseže 100 % prebivalstva, TVDanmark2 ima dostop do 77 % prebivalstva, TVDanmark1 pa celo manj.
In view of the above, the Commission considers that TVDanmark cannot be directly compared to TV2.
Komisija glede na zgornje navedbe meni, da se TVDanmark ne more neposredno primerjati s TV2.
Secondly, the Commission has to establish whether or not TVDanmark is an efficient market operator.
Drugič, Komisija mora določiti, ali je TVDanmark uspešen operater na trgu ali ne.
An efficient operator can be determined by analysing commonly used accounting ratios and by comparing the operator’s results with average results in the Member State.
Uspešen operater se lahko določi z analizo običajno uporabljenih računovodskih razmerij in s primerjavo rezultatov operaterja s povprečnimi rezultati, doseženimi v neki državi članici.
The analysis has to take into account the different size of the undertakings and their specific cost structures.
Analiza bi morala upoštevati tudi različne velikosti podjetij in njihovo individualno stroškovno strukturo.
However, as stated earlier, operators on the Danish market cannot be said to be in a comparable situation so as to enable a direct comparison of performance ratios.
Kot pa je navedeno že zgoraj, se za operaterje na danskem trgu ne more reči, da so v podobnem položaju, ki bi omogočil neposredno primerjavo razmerij uspešnosti.
Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that an analysis of such ratios on the Danish market is not appropriate in the present case.
Zato je Komisija mnenja, da analiza takih razmerij v tem primeru ni primerna.
Instead, the Commission has analysed data on the financial performance of TVDanmark and SBS Broadcasting.
Namesto tega je Komisija analizirala podatke o finančni uspešnosti TVDanmark in SBS Broadcasting.
As a result of its analysis, the Commission cannot establish with certainty whether the losses incurred stem from the fact that TVDanmark had high initial start-up costs which it has not yet been able to recover or whether it is in fact not performing efficiently.
Na podlagi svoje analize Komisija ne more z gotovostjo ugotoviti, ali nastale izgube izhajajo iz velikih začetnih stroškov, potrebnih za zagon dejavnosti, ki jih TVDanmark še ni zmogla nadomestiti, ali pa TVDanmark dejansko ne posluje uspešno.
Despite several requests, the Commission was not able to obtain data on the financial performance of the third operator, TV3, to allow a comparison with the third operator on the market.
Kljub več zahtevam Komisija ni mogla pridobiti podatkov o finančnem uspehu tretje radijske in televizijske postaje, TV3, da bi lahko izvedla primerjavo s tretjim operaterjem na trgu.
Consequently the Commission cannot conclude with certainty whether TVDanmark’s losses are a result of TV2’s pricing behaviour or whether they are due to other factors over which TVDanmark itself had some control.
Zato Komisija ne more z gotovostjo priti do sklepa, ali so izgube TVDanmark posledica oblikovanja cen pri TV2 ali jih povzročajo drugi dejavniki pod vplivom same TVDanmark.
Since it cannot be established with certainty whether or not TVDanmark is an efficient operator and since a direct comparison of the two operators is not possible, the Commission is of the opinion that any such assessment is inconclusive in the present case.
Ker ni mogoče z gotovostjo ugotoviti, ali je TVDanmark uspešen operater ali ne, in ker neposredna primerjava obeh operaterjev ni mogoča, Komisija meni, da zgornja ocena v tem primeru ni dokončna.
The Commission therefore decided to undertake a more detailed analysis of TV2’s pricing policies and of the data available concerning the advertising market in order to assess whether or not TV2 acted with a view to maximising its advertising revenue during the period under investigation.
Komisija se je zato odločila, da izvede podrobnejšo analizo cenovne politike TV2 in razpoložljivih podatkov o oglaševalskem trgu, da bi lahko ocenila, ali je TV2 ravnala tako, da bi kar najbolj povečala svoje prihodke iz oglaševanja v preiskovanem obdobju ali ne.
First, the Commission compared the prices of the two operators and analysed the pricing policies of TV2.
Prvič, Komisija je primerjala cene obeh operaterjev in analizirala cenovno politiko TV2.
The analysis focused on the years 1998–2002, the period during which the complainant alleged that TV2 started applying ‘dumping’ prices on the advertising market.
Analiza je bila osredotočena na leta 1998–2002, tj, na obdobje, za katero pritožnik izjavlja, da se TV2 začela prodajati „pod ceno“ na oglaševalskem trgu.
Second, it analysed Danish advertising spending in the EU context and in comparison with the other Scandinavian countries in particular.
Drugič, analizirala je stroške oglaševanja na Danskem v okviru EU in predvsem v primerjavi z drugimi skandinavskimi državami.
Third, a comparison of contact prices was made across all the Scandinavian countries and media types.
Nazadnje je naredila primerjavo sorodnih cen po vseh skandinavskih državah in vseh sredstvih javnega obveščanja.
The Commission notes that TV2’s behaviour in the advertising market was investigated by the Danish competition authorities.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so ravnanje TV2 na oglaševalskem trgu raziskovali danski organi za konkurenco.
On 21 December 2005, the Danish Competition Council held that TV2 had infringed Article 102 TFEU and the corresponding national legislation by applying loyalty rebates on the advertising market.
Danski svet za konkurenčnost je 21. decembra 2005 navedel, da je TV2 kršila člen 102 PDEU in ustrezno nacionalno zakonodajo s tem, da je na oglaševalskem trgu uvedla popuste za stalne stranke.
Most notably, a loyalty rebate does not necessarily imply the existence of cross-subsidies within the meaning of the 2001 Broadcasting Communication (‘Whenever a public service broadcaster undercuts prices in non-public service activities below what is necessary to recover the stand-alone costs that an efficient commercial operator in a similar situation would normally have to recover, such practice would indicate the presence of overcompensation of public service obligations’).
Zlasti ni nujno, da popust stalnim strankam kaže na obstoj navzkrižnega subvencioniranja v smislu Sporočila o oddajanju iz leta 2001 („Kadar koli izvajalec javnih storitev radiotelevizije zniža cene komercialnih dejavnosti pod mejo, ki je potrebna za povračilo neodvisnih stroškov, ki bi jih moral v podobnem položaju običajno nadomestiti uspešen komercialni operater, bi takšna praksa kazala na obstoj prekomernega nadomestila obveznosti iz izvajanja javnih storitev“).
In fact, as explained below, on average, TV2 charged significantly higher prices than its competitors.
Dejansko je TV2, kot je pojasnjeno v nadaljevanju, povprečno zaračunavala bistveno višje cene kot njeni konkurenti.
Moreover, the loyalty rebates imply that customers placed a larger part of their annual advertising budgets with TV2 than they would have done under other circumstances.
Poleg tega popusti stalnim strankam kažejo na to, da so stranke za TV2 namenile večji del svojih letnih proračunov za oglaševanje, kot bi ga v drugih okoliščinah.
The allegation therefore implies that TV2 increased its advertising revenue by way of the rebate scheme, which would actually have reduced need for licence fee funding.
Zato navedba kaže, da je TV2 svoj prihodek iz oglaševanja povečala s sistemom popustov, kar bi pravzaprav zmanjšalo potrebo po financiranju iz naročnin.
In any event, the Commission is not bound by the decisions of the Danish competition authorities.
Komisije v nobenem primeru ne obvezujejo odločitve danskih organov za konkurenco.
Audience shares and composition, programming content, the rules on advertising time, and the funding mechanism of stations are all factors that affect the nature of competition in the advertising market.
Delež in sestava gledalcev, vsebina programov, predpisi o oglaševalskem času in tudi mehanizem financiranja postaj so dejavniki, ki vplivajo na značaj konkurence na oglaševalskem trgu.
As a result, prices vary between different broadcasters.
Torej se spreminjajo tudi cene med različnimi izvajalci radijskih in televizijskih storitev.
Stations also sell a range of differentiated ‘products’ that fetch different prices [88].
Postaje prodajajo tudi paleto diferenciranih „proizvodov“, katerih cene se razlikujejo [88].
The prices charged by the stations include significant discounts.
Cene, ki jih zaračunavajo postaje, vključujejo tudi znatne popuste.
It is therefore not relevant to compare listed prices in television advertising.
Zato ni bistveno primerjati navedenih cen v televizijskem oglaševanju.
Most television advertising (approximately 90 % of all nationwide advertising) is governed by annual agreements under which television channels grant annual rebates.
Večji del televizijskega oglaševanja (približno 90 % vsega oglaševanja po celotni državi) poteka na podlagi letnih sporazumov, na podlagi katerih televizijski kanali dajejo letne popuste.
To allow the different stations to be compared, an average of the different prices charged has to be determined.
Da bi bila mogoča primerjava med različnimi postajami, je treba določiti povprečje različnih cen, ki se zaračunavajo.
The table below shows the average prices for the target group TRP 21-50.
Spodnja preglednica prikazuje povprečne cene za TRP ciljne skupine 21–50.
The average prices were obtained by dividing the relevant stations’ turnover from national spots by the number of national TRP 21-50 delivered [89]:
Povprečne cene so bile pridobljene tako, da se je promet zadevnih postaj iz nacionalnega prostora delil z doseženim številom TRP ciljne skupine 21–50 [89]:
TVDanmark CPP as share of TV2 CPP [90]
CPP TVDanmark kot delež CPP TV2 [90]
average CPP for TRP 21-50 weighted for coverage (by 0,7)
Povprečni CPP TV2 za TRP skupine 21–50, tehtan za pokritje (za 0,7)
TVDanmark CPP as share of TV2 weighted CPP
CPP TVDanmark kot delež tehtanih CPP TV2
From the figures above it can be seen that TVDanmark’s TRP 21-50 price was around 30-40 % lower than TV2’s price.
Iz zgornjih podatkov je razvidno, da so bile cene TVDanmark za TRP skupine 21–50 za okoli 30–40 % nižje od cen TV2.
As the Commission held in its decision on State aid for France 2 and France 3, there is a positive relationship between the average number of contacts and the average net price per contact in the television advertising market [91].
Kot je navedla Komisija v svojem sklepu o državni pomoči za France 2 in France 3, obstaja pozitivno razmerje med povprečnim številom stikov in povprečno neto ceno na stik na trgu televizijskega oglaševanja [91].
Thus any price difference between broadcasters could be explained by the relative strength of the stations in terms of their ability to attract viewers.
Zato se razlika v cenah med radijskimi in televizijskimi postajami lahko razloži z relativno močjo postaj v smislu njihove zmožnosti pritegnitve gledalcev.
In such a situation, it is relevant to establish whether or not the actual price difference reflects conditions on the market.
V takih primerih je bistveno ugotoviti, ali dejanske razlike v cenah odražajo pogoje na trgu ali ne.
In contrast to the situation in France, in the present case observations can only be analysed for two operators.
V nasprotju s primerom v Franciji se opažanja v tem primeru lahko analizirajo samo za dva operaterja.
The slope of the linear regression line would therefore have to be calculated on the basis of those two operators’ prices and would be of little statistical relevance.
Naklon črte linearne regresije bi se tako izračunal na podlagi cen teh dveh operaterjev in bi bil z vidika statistike le malo pomemben.
Thus it would not be possible to draw any conclusion on whether or not the slope of the line is ‘appropriate’.
Zato ne bi bilo mogoče sklepati o tem, ali je naklon te črte „ustrezen“ ali ne.
In order to verify whether or not the actual price difference between the two operators could be said to reflect market conditions, a correction factor was therefore applied in an attempt to neutralise TV2’s stronger position in the market.
Da bi preverili, ali je za dejanske razlike v cenah med obema operaterjema mogoče trditi, da odražajo pogoje na trgu, ali ne, se je uporabil korekcijski faktor, da bi poskušali nevtralizirati superiorni položaj TV2 na trgu.
The weighting factor was obtained from calculations made by media agencies and reflects the difference in coverage of the desired target group that can be attained by purchasing 100 TRP 21-50 from TVDanmark and from TV2.
Vplivni faktor se je določil na podlagi izračunov agencij za medije in odraža razliko v pokritju, ki se lahko doseže v želeni ciljni skupini z nakupom 100 TRP ciljne skupine 21–50 od TVDanmark in TV2.
On average TVDanmark’s coverage is just under 70 % of TV2’s (on purchasing 100 TRP 21-50).
TVDanmark ima v povprečju nekoliko manj kot 70 % dosega TV2 (z nakupom 100 TRP ciljne skupine 21–50).
When this factor is applied, the prices are more closely convergent, although TV2’s price is still slightly higher than TVDanmark’s.
Če se uporabi ta vplivni faktor, se cene približajo, čeprav so cene TV2 še vedno nekoliko višje od cen TVDanmark.
The price difference therefore seems to reflect market conditions.
Zato se zdi, da razlika v cenah odraža pogoje na trgu.
However, this result must be treated with caution, as it has to be borne in mind that a correction factor of this kind cannot possibly take account of all the differences between the stations.
Vendar je pri takih sklepih potrebna previdnost, saj je treba upoštevati, da tak korekcijski faktor nikakor ne more upoštevati vseh razlik med postajami.
The Commission also notes that the complainant maintains that competition in the television advertising market is actually played out neither through the listed prices nor through the average GRP or TRP prices as presented above.
Komisija tudi navaja, da pritožnik trdi, da konkurenca na trgu televizijskega oglaševanja ne poteka niti po navedenih cenah niti po povprečnih cenah GRP ali TRP, kot je predstavljeno zgoraj.
Instead, TVDanmark argues that the operators compete on so-called marginal prices.
TVDanmark trdi, da operaterji namesto tega konkurirajo po tako imenovanih mejnih cenah.
These marginal prices, it is claimed, derived from TV2’s stronger position in the market.
Te naj bi se pojavile zaradi superiornega položaja TV2 na trgu.
For advertisers to achieve their campaign goals, they have to buy a certain quota of rating points exclusively from TV2.
Da bi oglaševalci dosegli cilje svojih kampanj, morajo kupiti določeno kvoto točk gledanosti ekskluzivno od TV2.
As there was no competition for these so-called infra-marginal units, TV2 was able to make excess profits on them.
Za te tako imenovane inframejne enote ni bilo konkurence, zato je TV2 lahko ustvarjala presežni dobiček iz teh enot.
As a result, the operators competed on the residual rating points and thus on marginal prices.
Zato so operaterji konkurirali pri preostalih točkah gledanosti, torej po mejnih cenah.
TVDanmark claims that these prices were even lower than the average prices shown in the table above.
TVDanmark trdi, da so bile te cene celo nižje od povprečnih cen, predstavljenih v zgornjih preglednicah.
Leaving aside the question of whether this claim is correct, the Commission considers that such behaviour would be possible given TV2’s strong position on the market.
Če odmislimo vprašanje o tem, ali je ta trditev pravilna ali ne, Komisija meni, da bi bilo tako ravnanje mogoče zaradi močnega položaja TV2 na trgu.
However, the present investigation has to establish whether or not TV2, through its behaviour on the advertising market, attempted to maximise its revenue.
Pričujoča preiskava pa mora ugotoviti, ali je TV2 s svojim ravnanjem na oglaševalskem trgu poskušala kar najbolj povečati svoje prihodke.
On this question, the possibility cannot be ruled out that TV2 kept its prices low in order to maintain a high market share, but that does not mean that it did not attempt to maximise income.
V zvezi s tem ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da je TV2 ohranila svoje cene nizke, da bi obdržala velik tržni delež, vendar to ne pomeni, da ni poskušala kar najbolj povečati svojih prihodkov.
TV2’s pricing behaviour during the period under investigation
Oblikovanje cen pri TV2 v preiskovanem obdobju
The foregoing shows that TV2’s prices were higher than TVDanmark’s during the period under investigation.
Navedbe kažejo, da so bile cene TV2 v preiskovanem obdobju višje od cen TVDanmark.
It is also clear that, despite increases in listed prices, the actual price level was declining during that time.
Prav tako je očitno, da je dejanska raven cen kljub povečanju navedenih cen v tem obdobju padala.
raised its discounts substantially.
je znatno povečala svoje popuste.