natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is clear that the financing granted by means of the agreement with the body responsible for the social security scheme and the loan in 1998 were not part of a compensation system the parameters of which had been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner (second condition).
Jasno je, da financiranje, dodeljeno preko dogovora z organom, pristojnim za shemo socialne varnosti, in posojilo iz leta 1998 nista bila del sistema nadomestil, katerega merila so bila določena predhodno na objektiven in pregleden način (drugi pogoj).
On the contrary, they were based on ad hoc decisions attributable to the State.
Ravno nasprotno, temeljila sta na začasnih odločitvah, ki jih je mogoče pripisati državi.
Furthermore, as referred to in recital 61 of this Decision, the public service contracts provided for a specific financing possibility for investments in public service equipment by means of capital injections.
Poleg tega sta pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 61 tega sklepa, omogočili posebno možnost financiranja naložb v opremo javne službe s kapitalskimi injekcijami.
They do not restrict investments public services or define clearly the conditions and limits of state participation; they merely refer to the possibility for the State to participate in RTP’s investments as a shareholder.
Ne omejujeta naložb v javno službo, niti jasno ne določata pogojev in omejitev državne udeležbe; navajata samo možnost, da je država pri naložbah javne televizije RTP udeležena kot delničar.
Therefore, the Commission considers that the capital injections too may not be considered to be part of a compensation system the parameters of which have been established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner.
Zato Komisija meni, da tudi kapitalskih injekcij ni mogoče upoštevati kot del sistema nadomestil, katerega merila so bila določena vnaprej na objektiven in pregleden način.
RTP was clearly not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure guaranteeing the lowest possible cost.
Javna televizija RTP očitno ni bila izbrana v skladu s postopkom javnih naročil po jamčenju najnižje možne cene.
There are no indications that the amount of the ad hoc payments was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs that a typical undertaking would incur (fourth condition).
Nič ne kaže na to, da je bil znesek začasnih plačil določen na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih imelo povprečno podjetje (četrti pogoj).
Accordingly, it is clear that in this case not all the conditions set out in the Altmark case are satisfied.
V skladu s tem je jasno, da v tem primeru niso izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz sodbe v zadevi Altmark.
Therefore, the measures referred to in recital 143 of this Decision must be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zato je treba ukrepe iz uvodne izjave 143 tega sklepa šteti za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Assessment of the compatibility of the measures
Ocena združljivosti ukrepov
The Court of Justice has consistently held that Article 106 TFEU may provide for an exemption from the ban on State aid for undertakings entrusted with a service of general economic interest (SGEI).
Sodišče je dosledno menilo, da lahko člen 106 PDEU določa izjemo od prepovedi državne pomoči za podjetja, ki so zadolžena za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena (SGEI).
It has been implicitly confirmed in the Altmark case that State aid which compensates for the costs incurred by an undertaking in providing an SGEI may be regarded as compatible with the internal market if it meets the conditions of 106(2) TFEU (ex-Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty and formerly referred to as the ‘common market’) [76].
V sodbi v zadevi Altmark je bilo posredno potrjeno, da se lahko državna pomoč, namenjena za nadomestilo stroškov podjetju, ki opravlja storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom, če izpolnjuje pogoje člena 106(2) PDEU (prej člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES in „skupnim trgom“) [76].
The Court of Justice has made it clear that, for a measure to benefit from such exemption, the principles of definition, entrustment and proportionality must all be fulfilled.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da je ukrep upravičen do take izjeme samo, če so izpolnjena načela opredelitve, pooblastitve in sorazmernosti.
The Commission considers that, where those principles are fulfilled, the development of trade is not affected to an extent contrary to the interests of the Union.
Komisija meni, da razvoj trgovine v primerih, ko so ta načela izpolnjena, ni prizadet v taki meri, da bi bilo to v nasprotju z interesi Unije.
The way those principles apply in the broadcasting sector is explained in the Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (the Broadcasting Communication) [77].
Kako se ta načela uporabljajo v sektorju radiodifuzije, je razloženo v Sporočilu Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za storitve javne radiodifuzije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporočilo o radiodifuziji) [77].
According to that Broadcasting Communication, the Commission must assess whether or not [78]:
V skladu s Sporočilom o radiodifuziji mora Komisija oceniti, ali [78]:
the activities of RTP are public service obligations clearly defined as such by the Member State (definition);
so dejavnosti javne televizije RTP obveznosti javne službe, ki jih je kot take opredelila država članica (opredelitev);
RTP is officially entrusted by the Portuguese authorities with the provision of that service (entrustment);
so portugalski organi javno televizijo RTP uradno pooblastili za zagotavljanje teh storitev (pooblastitev);
the funding is proportionate to the net cost of providing the public service.
je denarna podpora sorazmerna z neto stroški zagotavljanja javne službe.
As stated in the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States (the Amsterdam Protocol [79]) and the Broadcasting Communication [80], it is for the Member States to define the public service remit of the public service broadcaster.
Kot je navedeno v Protokolu o sistemu javne radiotelevizije v državah članicah (Protokol Amsterdamske pogodbe [79]) in Sporočilu o radiodifuziji [80], mora država članica opredeliti opravljanje javne službe javne radiotelevizije.
In the broadcasting sector the role of the Commission is limited to checking whether the public service definition contains any manifest error.
V sektorju radiodifuzije je vloga Komisije omejena na preverjanje, ali opredelitev javne službe vsebuje kakšno očitno napako.
Such error would constitute an abuse of the definition of the public service.
Taka napaka bi pomenila zlorabo opredelitve javne službe.
Given the specific nature of the broadcasting sector, the Commission considers, in view of the interpretative provisions of that Protocol, a definition entrusting a given broadcaster with the task of providing balanced and varied programming to be legitimate [81].
Glede na posebno naravo sektorja radiodifuzije Komisija ob upoštevanju razlagalnih določb tega protokola meni, da je opredelitev, ki določeno televizijo pooblasti za zagotavljanje uravnoteženih in raznolikih programskih vsebin, veljavna [81].
Such a definition would be consistent with the objective of fulfilling the democratic, social and cultural needs of a particular society.
Taka opredelitev bi bila v skladu s ciljem izpolnjevanja demokratičnih, socialnih in kulturnih potreb določene družbe.
As referred to in recitals 44 to 48of this Decision., RTP is, by virtue of Law No 21/92 and the public service contracts, required to ensure as a general public television service the broadcasting of two channels with general coverage.
Kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 44 do 48 tega sklepa, mora javna televizija RTP kot splošna javna televizija na podlagi Zakona št. 21/92 in pogodb o izvajanju javne službe zagotoviti oddajanje dveh kanalov s splošnim pokritjem.
While the first channel has to offer more general programming, the second channel has to aim more at specific audiences.
Prvi kanal mora nuditi bolj splošne programske vsebine, drugi kanal pa mora biti namenjen posebnim skupinam gledalcev.
Furthermore, as described in recitals 44 and 45 of this Decision, Law No 21/92 and the public service contracts impose more detailed obligations on RTP regarding programme content and international cooperation, as well as some other specific obligations.
Poleg tega, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 44 in 45 tega sklepa, Zakon št. 21/92 in pogodbi za izvajanje javne službe javni televiziji RTP nalagajo podrobnejše obveznosti glede programskih vsebin in mednarodnega sodelovanja, kot tudi nekatere druge posebne obveznosti.
Although the definition of RTP’s public service broadcasting is of a qualitative and rather broad nature, the Commission, in view of the interpretative provisions of the Amsterdam Protocol, considers such a ‘broad’ definition to be legitimate [82].
Čeprav je opredelitev storitev javne radiotelevizije RTP kvalitativne in precej obširne narave, Komisija ob upoštevanju razlagalnih določb Protokola Amsterdamske pogodbe meni, da je taka „širša“ opredelitev veljavna [82].
Therefore, it also considers the general definition of RTP’s public service remit to provide two television channels of national coverage, one more general and the other more focused on specific audiences, to be legitimate.
Zato tudi meni, da je splošna opredelitev opravljanja javne službe s strani RTP glede zagotavljanja dveh televizijskih kanalov z nacionalnim pokritjem, enega bolj splošnega in drugega bolj osredotočenega na posebne skupine gledalcev, veljavna.
Such a definition can be regarded as fulfilling the democratic, social and cultural needs of Portuguese society.
Za tako opredelitev se lahko šteje, da izpolnjuje demokratične, socialne in kulturne potrebe portugalske družbe.
Furthermore, the Commission regards as legitimate the obligations which determine in detail how RTP should perform the general public service broadcasting remit.
Poleg tega so po mnenju Komisije obveznosti, ki natančno določajo, kako naj javna televizija RTP izvaja splošne obveznosti javne radiotelevizije, ustrezne.
In line with wording of the Amsterdam Protocol, those obligations can also be considered to fulfil the democratic, social and cultural needs of Portuguese society.
V skladu z besedilom Amsterdamskega protokola se tudi za te obveznosti lahko šteje, da izpolnjujejo demokratične, socialne in kulturne potrebe portugalske družbe.
Manifest error in defining RTP’s public service remit
Očitna napaka pri opredelitvi opravljanja javne službe s strani RTP
Although the Commission regards the public service mission of RTP as legitimate, it must, however, ascertain whether or not the definition contains any manifest errors.
Čeprav so po mnenju Komisije obveznosti, ki jih ima televizija RTP kot javna služba, ustrezne, mora vseeno ugotoviti, ali ta opredelitev vsebuje kakšne očitne napake.
The Commission will assess whether the temporary and permanent exemption from notarial deed charges, registration and publication costs can be considered as a compensation for a public service cost and will further analyse whether the obligation on RTP to support cinemas can be considered to be within the public service remit of RTP.
Komisija bo ocenila, ali se lahko začasna in trajna oprostitev plačila notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks in stroškov objave šteje za nadomestilo za stroške javne službe, in nadalje preučila, ali se za obveznost javne televizije RTP glede spodbujanja kinematografov lahko šteje, da sodi v opravljanje javne službe s strani RTP.
The Commission will first assess whether the temporary exemption from notarial deed requirements (and related costs), registration charges and publication costs during the 1992 transformation into a public limited company in accordance with Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92, as well as the permanent exemption from various charges in accordance with Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 may be considered as a compensation for costs resulting from the provision of the public service.
Komisija bo najprej ocenila, ali se lahko začasna oprostitev zahteve po sestavi notarskega zapisa (in s tem povezanih stroškov), plačila registracijskih taks in stroškov objave med preoblikovanjem v javno delniško družbo leta 1992 v skladu s členom 11(1) Zakona št. 21/92 in trajno oprostitev plačila različnih stroškov v skladu s členom 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92 šteje za nadomestilo za stroške, nastale zaradi zagotavljanja javnih storitev.
Exemption from registration charges
Oprostitev plačila registracijskih taks
Temporary exemptions: Firstly, it is necessary to examine whether costs involved in the transformation of RTP into a public limited company in 1992 (i.e. costs normally occurring for a notarial deed, its registration and publication) may be legitimately compensated for as public service costs.
Začasna oprostitev: najprej je treba preučiti, ali se lahko stroški, nastali ob preoblikovanju javne televizije RTP v javno delniško družbo v letu 1992 (tj. stroške, ki običajno nastanejo zaradi notarskega zapisa, njegove registracije in objave), upravičeno povrnejo kot stroški javne službe.
The compensation takes form, as stated above, by way of exemption according to Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92.
Kot je bilo navedeno, je bilo nadomestilo v obliki oprostitve v skladu s členom 11(1) Zakona št. 21/92.
At the time of its transformation, RTP conducted public service activities only (see recital 18 of this Decision), while commercial activities were carried out by legally distinct subsidiaries.
V času njenega preoblikovanja je javna televizija RTP izvajala samo dejavnosti javne službe (glej uvodno izjavo 18 tega sklepa), komercialne dejavnosti pa so izvajale pravno ločene podružnice.
Therefore, the costs related to the transformation of the public service broadcaster automatically constituted public service costs, which the State legitimately could compensate.
Zato so stroški, povezani s preoblikovanjem javne radiotelevizije, samodejno pomenili stroške javne službe, ki jih je lahko država upravičeno povrnila.
It is not necessary to consider whether the reorganisation of RTP was legally mandatory or needed [83].
Ni treba preučiti, ali je bila reorganizacija javne televizije RTP obvezna ali nujna [83].
The assessment under Article 106(2) TFEU and the Broadcasting Communication require that the compensation does not exceed the net public service costs, but does not require an assessment on whether these costs, provided that they are limited to the provision of the public service, could have been avoided [84].
Ocena na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU in Sporočila o radiodifuziji zahteva, da nadomestilo ne sme presegati neto stroškov javne službe, ni pa potrebna ocena, ali bi se bilo mogoče tem stroškom, če so omejeni na zagotavljanje javne službe, izogniti [84].
In line with the Amsterdam Protocol and the Broadcasting Communication, Member States are, in principle, free to decide on the organisation of their public service broadcaster, which does not only apply to the broadcaster’s organisation of which content will be distributed, but also under which legal form the public service broadcaster will carry out its operations.
V skladu s Protokolom Amsterdamske pogodbe in Sporočilom o radiodifuziji se lahko države članice načeloma same odločijo o organizaciji svoje javne radiotelevizije, kar ne velja samo za organizacijo vsebin, ki jih bo javna radiotelevizija razširjala, ampak tudi za pravno obliko, v kateri bo javna radiotelevizija opravljala svoje dejavnosti.
The Commission’s role is limited to control of whether this freedom by the Member State was used in an abusive manner.
Vloga Komisije je omejena na nadzor tega, ali je bila ta svoboda, ki jo imajo države članice, zlorabljena.
In this case, there are no indications that the transformation was carried out with the sole aim of conferring an advantage to RTP.
V tem primeru nič ne kaže na to, da je bilo preoblikovanje izvedeno samo z namenom dodelitve prednosti javni televiziji RTP.
There is no reason to question Portugal’s reasoning that the 1992 transformation was carried out in order to give RTP more flexibility in its operations rather than being a State organisation with cumbersome State control proceedings.
Nobenega razloga ni, da bi dvomili v razlago Portugalske, da je bilo preoblikovanje leta 1992 izvedeno zato, da javna televizija RTP ne bi bila državna organizacija, za katero veljajo zamudni postopki državnega nadzora, ampak da bi bila prožnejša pri izvajanju svojih dejavnosti.
It should therefore be concluded that the exemption from registration charges (i.e. notarial deed charges, registration charges, publication costs) at the time of the RTP transformation constitutes a legitimate compensation for the provision of the public service broadcasting.
Zato je treba skleniti, da oprostitev plačila registracijskih taks (tj. notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks, stroškov objave) v času preoblikovanja javne televizije RTP pomeni upravičeno nadomestilo za zagotavljanje storitev javne radiotelevizije.
Permanent exemption: However, the above reasoning (set out in recital 161 of this Decision) cannot apply to the permanent exemption in Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, which is not limited in time and therefore open to also cover registrations and inscriptions for activities of RTP outside its public service remit (e.g. when RTP would take up commercial activities itself rather than through legally distinct subsidiaries).
Trajna oprostitev: vendar pa navedena utemeljitev (iz uvodne izjave 161 tega sklepa) ne more veljati za trajno oprostitev iz člena 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92, saj ni časovno omejena in zato omogoča kritje registracij in vpisov dejavnosti javne televizije RTP, ki ne spadajo med obveznosti javne službe (npr. če bi javna televizija RTP komercialne dejavnosti izvajala sama, ne pa preko pravno ločenih podružnic).
In view of the wide scope of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, both as regards time (i.e. unlimited) and in kind (i.e. not limited to public service activities), a justification of any potential future exemption from registration charges as a public service cost is not possible.
Ob upoštevanju širokega področja uporabe člena 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92, tako glede časa (tj. neomejeno) kot v naravi (tj. ni omejeno na dejavnosti javne službe), utemeljitev morebitnih prihodnjih oprostitev plačila registracijskih taks kot stroškov javne službe, ni mogoča.
It should therefore be concluded that the exemption from charges in accordance with Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 is not compatible with the internal market.
Zato je treba skleniti, da oprostitev plačila stroškov v skladu s členom 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92 ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
While Portugal argued that Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 has never been applied and that RTP always paid all necessary registration charges after the 1992 transformation, that argument might prove valid in the case of recovery, but does not change the fact that that provision, as such, grants State aid to RTP which is not justified by Article 106(2) TFEU or any other provision of that Treaty.
Portugalska je trdila, da čeprav člen 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92 nikdar ni bil uporabljen in je javna televizija RTP po preoblikovanju leta 1992 vedno plačala vse potrebne registracijske takse, kar bi lahko bilo utemeljeno v primeru morebitnega povračila državne pomoči, pa to ne spremeni dejstva, da ta določba javni televiziji RTP dodeljuje državno pomoč, ki ni upravičena na podlagi člena 106(2) PDEU ali katere koli druge določbe te pogodbe.
Promotion of cinema
Spodbujanje kinematografov
Taking into account recital 45 to the ‘Television without Frontiers’ Directive, the Commission could accept, in so far the resulting film rights are shown on public service television, that the public service definition of public service broadcasters includes the obligation to contribute substantially to investment in European audiovisual production [85].
Ob upoštevanju uvodne izjave 45 Direktive o televiziji brez meja bi Komisija lahko sprejela, da opredelitev javne službe javnih radiotelevizij vključuje obveznost znatnega prispevanja k naložbam v evropsko audiovizualno produkcijo, če bi to pomenilo, da se na podlagi tako pridobljenih filmskih pravic filmi predvajajo na javni radioteleviziji [85].
The Commission considers that the obligation imposed on RTP to promote the cinema falls within the scope of public service broadcasting, as RTP subsequently broadcasts on public service television the films for which it has acquired the distribution rights.
Komisija meni, da obveznost, naložena javni televiziji RTP glede spodbujanja kinematografov, sodi v obseg storitev javne radiotelevizije, saj javna televizija RTP nato predvaja filme, za katere je pridobila distribucijske pravice.
The Commission cannot, therefore, agree with the comments by interested parties that RTP’s obligation regarding cinema promotion and its financing is discriminatory.
Komisija se zato ne more strinjati s pripombami zainteresiranih strani, da je obveznost javne televizije RTP glede spodbujanja kinematografov in njihovega financiranja diskriminatorna.
The parties argued that private broadcasters also concluded protocols on cinema promotion with the Portuguese authorities that do not provide for compensation.
Zainteresirane strani so trdile, da so zasebni izdajatelji televizijskega programa sklepali tudi protokole o spodbujanju kinematografov s portugalskimi organi, ki niso zagotovili nadomestila.
However, the Commission considers that it is necessary to distinguish between the voluntary agreements on cinema promotion concluded between the State and the private broadcasters, on the one hand, and the public service broadcasting obligations imposed on RTP to broadcast cinema productions and to finance them, on the other hand.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da je treba razlikovati med prostovoljnimi pogodbami o spodbujanju kinematografov, sklenjenimi med državo in zasebnimi izdajatelji televizijskih programov, ter obveznostmi, ki so bile glede predvajanja in financiranja kinematografske produkcije naložene javni radioteleviziji RTP.
It is clear that RTP is explicitly entrusted with a public service task to support certain film productions that are subsequently broadcast as public service television programmes, whereas no such public service task is entrusted to the private broadcasters.
Jasno je, da je javni televiziji RTP izrecno zaupana naloga javne službe, da podpira določene filmske produkcije, ki se kasneje prikazujejo kot televizijske programske vsebine javne televizije, medtem ko nobena taka naloga javne službe ni zaupana zasebnim izdajateljem televizijskih programov.
In fact, RTP has become an instrument used by the State to support the cinema.
Dejansko je javna televizija RTP postala sredstvo, ki ga država uporablja za podporo filmske produkcije.
Any resulting advantages granted by RTP to the cinema could constitute State aid and should be assessed as such.
Vse ugodnosti, ki jih na podlagi tega javna televizija RTP dodeli kinematografom, predstavljajo državno pomoč in bi se morale kot take tudi ocenjevati.
This decision is without prejudice to any assessment of possible advantages granted to film producers.
Ta odločitev ne vpliva na nobeno oceno morebitnih ugodnosti, odobrenih filmskim producentom.
Accordingly, it should be concluded that the co-financing by RTP of Portuguese cinematographic works that are shown on the public service channels may be considered as a legitimate specific obligation that is instrumental in fulfilling RTP’s general public service broadcasting obligations.
V skladu s tem je treba skleniti, da se financiranje portugalskih filmskih del s strani javne televizije RTP, ki se prikazujejo na kanalih javne televizije, lahko šteje za upravičeno posebno obveznost, ki je nujna za izpolnjevanje obveznosti splošne javne službe radiotelevizije RTP.