natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards SIC’s allegation that according to the BDO Binder report, the opinion of Public Opinion Council was missing, Portugal emphasises that that opinion did not extend to RTP’s public service report.
Glede trditve komercialne televizije SIC, da v skladu s poročilom revizorja BDO Binder manjka mnenje Sveta za javno mnenje, je Portugalska poudarila, da se to mnenje ni nanašalo na poročilo javne televizije RTP o izvajanju javne službe.
While the opinion of that body was warranted, in the old public service contract, it had not become a legally binding requirement.
Sicer je bilo mnenje tega organa upravičeno na podlagi stare pogodbe o izvajanju javne službe, vendar ni postalo pravno zavezujoče.
Also, the new public service contract did not require the opinion of that body to be given on the public service report.
Nova pogodba o izvajanju javne službe ni zahtevala, da se to mnenje priloži poročilu o izvajanju javne službe.
As regards SIC’s allegations that the BDO Binder report for the year 1998 included some EUR 53 million of tangible assets, although no inventory existed for such assets, Portugal has confirmed that the respective investments have been made for those assets.
Glede trditev komercialne televizije SIC, da je poročilo revizorja BDO Binder za leto 1998 vsebovalo stvarno premoženje v višini približno 53 milijonov EUR, čeprav to premoženje ni bilo nikjer evidentirano, je Portugalska potrdila, da so bile za to premoženje izvedene ustrezne naložbe.
The fact that no inventory was originally drawn up for those assets (although except for 4 million the value of such assets could later be identified and inventory could retroactively be drawn up), does not mean that no investment had been made.
Če za to premoženje ni bila sestavljena nobena evidenca (čeprav je bilo kasneje mogoče opredeliti vrednost tega premoženja, razen dela v višini 4 milijone EUR, evidenco pa je bilo mogoče pripraviti za nazaj), to še ne pomeni, da naložbe niso bile izvedene.
The external auditor confirmed balances and figures and transaction with third parties.
Zunanji revizor je potrdil bilance in številke ter transakcije s tretjimi osebami.
As regards SIC’s allegation that according to the BDO Binder report for the year 1998 advertising times limits had been exceeded, Portugal pointed out that this would in no way involve a reduction in the financial compensation.
Glede trditve komercialne televizije SIC, da so bile v skladu s poročilom revizorja BDO Binder za leto 1998 presežene omejitve oglaševanja, je Portugalska poudarila, da zaradi tega finančno nadomestilo nikakor ne bi bilo zmanjšano.
The reason for that is that the amounts, which RTP received from the excess of advertising times was way below the under-financing of that year.
Razlog za preseženo omejitev oglaševanja je bil ta, da so bili zneski, ki jih je javna televizija RTP prejela iz presežka oglaševanja, precej nižji od zneskov, ki jih je za to leto potrebovala.
In any event, Portugal confirmed that the total advertising revenues (including revenues from the excess of advertising limits) were taken into account when calculating the financing need, i.e. the compensation for the fulfilment of the public service obligation.
V vsakem primeru je Portugalska potrdila, da so bili skupni prihodki od oglaševanja (vključno s prihodki od presežene omejitve oglaševanja) upoštevani pri izračunu potrebe po financiranju, tj. nadomestila za izpolnjevanje obveznosti javne službe.
Portugal claims that the 8/2002 report of the Portuguese Court of Auditors should not be taken into account in this Decision as the judgment of the Court in Case T-442/2003 only found an objective weakness of the information contained in the public service reports, which were not accompanied by an external audit.
Portugalska trdi, da poročilo portugalskega revizijskega sodišča št. 8/2002 v tem sklepu ne bi smelo biti upoštevano, saj je bila v sodbi Sodišča v zadevi T-442/2003 ugotovljena samo objektivna pomanjkljivost informacij iz poročil o izvajanju javne službe, katerim niso bile priložene zunanje revizije.
Portugal emphasises that the 8/2002 report of the Court of Auditors only relates to the years 1997 to 2000 and not the whole period covered by the current investigation.
Portugalska je poudarila, da se poročilo revizijskega sodišča št. 8/2002 nanaša samo na obdobje 1997–2000 in ne na celotno obdobje, ki ga obravnava tekoča preiskava.
Portugal claims that the Court of Auditor exceeded its mandate of auditing public finances and instead entered into an analysis of efficacy and cost effectiveness of the public expenditure.
Namen poročila je bil oceniti upravljanje javne televizije RTP, vlogo države kot delničarja in zagotavljanje storitev javne televizije.
The report has, in the view of Portugal, no relevance except that it constituted an independent audit on the company, confirmed the accounts of Portugal and detected no illegality.
Portugalska trdi, da je računsko sodišče prekoračilo svoja pooblastila glede revidiranja javnih financ ter namesto tega opravilo analizo učinkovitosti in stroškovne učinkovitosti javnih izdatkov.
In order to ascertain whether the ad hoc measures implemented by Portugal for RTP constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, the Commission has to assess whether those measures:
Da bi Komisija ugotovila, ali začasni ukrepi, ki jih je Portugalska izvajala za javno televizijo RTP, pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, mora oceniti, ali ti ukrepi:
are granted by the Member State or through State resources;
pomenijo pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica ali je dodeljena iz državnih sredstev;
are capable of distorting competition;
lahko izkrivljajo konkurenco;
favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods;
dajejo prednost določenim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga;
Involvement of State resources
Prisotnost državnih sredstev
State resources are involved in the exemption notarial deed charges, registration charges and publications costs, as a loss of tax revenue is equivalent to the consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure [60].
Državna sredstva so prisotna pri oprostitvi notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks in stroškov objave, saj je izguba davčnih prihodkov enaka porabi državnih sredstev v obliki davčnih izdatkov [60].
As regards the rescheduling of debt due to the social security scheme and the waiver of interest for late payment, the Commission considers that the body responsible for social security scheme cannot be regarded as an undertaking.
Komisija glede odloga plačila dolga shemi socialne varnosti in odpovedi zamudnim obrestim od terjatev meni, da organa, odgovornega za shemo socialne varnosti, ni mogoče obravnavati kot podjetje.
It does not carry out an economic activity but is a public body with the task of administering social security [61].
Ne opravlja gospodarske dejavnosti, temveč je javni organ z nalogo upravljanja socialne varnosti [61].
Furthermore, the authorisation for the debt rescheduling was given not by the social security scheme itself but by a joint decree of the State Secretaries for Finance and Social Security and the Deputy State Secretary to the Deputy Minister.
Poleg tega odloga plačila dolga ni odobrila shema socialne varnosti, temveč skupna uredba državnih sekretarjev za finance in socialno varnost ter namestnik državnega sekretarja namestnika ministra.
With the authorisation, the State did forgo income since normally it would have received PTE 1206 million in interest on the outstanding debt.
Država se je na podlagi dovoljenja odrekla dohodku, saj bi morala za neplačani dolg prejeti obresti v višini 1206 milijonov PTE.
Therefore, it is clear that State resources were involved and that the measure is attributable to the State.
Zato je jasno, da so bila prisotna državna sredstva in da je mogoče ukrep pripisati državi.
The capital increases granted to RTP were provided by the State directly from the public budget.
Kapitalske injekcije, ki jih je prejela javna televizija RTP, je država zagotovila neposredno iz državnega proračuna.
It is therefore clear that such funding constituted State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zato je jasno, da so bila pri tem financiranju prisotna državna sredstva v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Commission cannot accept the claim by Portugal that no State resources are involved in the loan to RTP.
Komisija se ne more strinjati s trditvijo Portugalske, da pri posojilu javni televiziji RTP državna sredstva niso bila prisotna.
The concept of State resources also includes advantages granted by bodies designated or established by a Member State for that purpose [62].
Pojem državnih sredstev vključuje tudi prednosti, odobrene s strani organov, ki jih je država članica imenovala ali ustanovila v ta namen [62].
The loan contract of 1998 was concluded between RTP and the Public Debt Stabilisation Fund, a fund managed by the Public Debt Management Institute.
Posojilna pogodba iz leta 1998 je bila sklenjena med javno televizijo RTP in Skladom za stabilizacijo javnega dolga, ki ga upravlja Inštitut za upravljanje javnega dolga.
A legal act determines that the Institute is subject to the authority and supervision of the Minister for Finance [63].
Pravni akt določa, da je ta inštitut pod pristojnostjo in nadzorom ministra za finance [63].
It may therefore be concluded that the funds granted by the Public Debt Stabilisation Fund should be regarded as State resources.
Torej je mogoče sklepati, da bi bilo treba sredstva, ki jih je podelil Sklad za stabilizacijo javnega dolga, obravnavati kot državna sredstva.
That measure can be considered as being directly attributable to the State, since a resolution agreed on 17 December 1998 between the Secretary for State for the Media, the Treasury and Finance laid down the conditions of the contract.
Ker pogoje pogodbe določa sklep med državnimi sekretarji za sredstva javnega obveščanja, državno blagajno in finance z dne 17. decembra 1998, je mogoče ta ukrep neposredno pripisati državi.
The favouring of certain undertakings
Dajanje prednosti določenim podjetjem
Exemption from notarial deed charges, as well as registration charges and publication costs: As regards the exemption from notarial deed charges, registration charges and publication costs it should be assessed whether that measure conferred a general tax exemption that benefited RTP or whether it applied specifically to RTP.
Oprostitev plačila notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks in stroškov objave Glede oprostitve plačila notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks in stroškov objave je treba oceniti, ali je ta ukrep dodelil splošno davčno oprostitev, od katere je imela javna televizija RTP korist, oziroma ali je veljal samo za javno televizijo RTP.
In the following recitals the Commission distinguishes between the temporary exemption provided for in Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92 and the permanent exemption provided for in Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92.
V naslednjih uvodnih izjavah Komisija razlikuje med začasno oprostitvijo iz člena 11(1) Zakona št. 21/92 in trajno oprostitvijo iz člena 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92.
Temporary exemption in accordance with Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92
Začasna oprostitev v skladu s členom 11(1) Zakona št. 21/92
The Commission finds that the exemption from the necessity of a notarial deed, registration and publication costs conferred an advantage in favour of RTP by relieving it of charges that it would otherwise have to bear from its own budget.
Komisija meni, da je oprostitev zahteve po sestavi notarskega zapisa ter plačila registracijskih taks in stroškov objave javni televiziji RTP dodelila prednost, saj tako ni imela stroškov, ki bi jih v nasprotnem primeru morala plačati iz lastnega proračuna.
That advantage is also materially selective by being granted, as Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92 demonstrates, only to RTP.
Ta prednost je tudi materialno selektivna, saj je bila v skladu s členom 11(1) Zakona št. 21/92 dodeljena samo javni televiziji RTP.
The fact that that law might reaffirm, as argued by Portugal, the application of a more general law, namely Law No 84/88, does not change this finding.
Dejstvo, da ta zakon po trditvah Portugalske zgolj potrjuje uporabo bolj splošnega zakona, namreč Zakona št. 84/88, te ugotovitve ne spremeni.
Law No 84/88 refers to public undertakings and provides that such undertakings may be transformed into public limited companies by way of a decree-law.
Zakon št. 84/88 se nanaša na javna podjetja in navaja, da se lahko taka podjetja z uredbo z zakonsko močjo preoblikujejo v javno delniško družbo.
However, the fact that that law refers to ‘public undertakings in general’ does not affect the material selectivity found in Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92 in favour of the specific company RTP.
Vendar pa to, da se zakon nanaša na „javna podjetja na splošno“, ne vpliva na materialno selektivnost iz člena 11(1) Zakona 21/92 v korist določenega podjetja, tj. javne televizije RTP.
In any event, an exemption for only public undertakings would likewise constitute a materially selective measure for that group of undertakings (compared to private undertakings), of which RTP forms part.
V vsakem primeru bi oprostitev samo za javna podjetja pomenila materialno selektiven ukrep za to skupino podjetij (v primerjavi z zasebnimi podjetji), med katere sodi javna televizija RTP.
Nature and logic of the Portuguese legal system
Narava in logika portugalskega pravnega sistema
State measures can however, despite being materially selective, not fall within the notion of a selective measure within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, if the State measure, instead of derogating from the normal application of the system becomes an inherent part of it [64].
Državni ukrepi pa kljub temu, da so materialno selektivni, ne sodijo v pojem selektivnega ukrepa v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če državni ukrep, namesto da bi odstopal od običajnega izvajanja sistema, postane njegov sestavni del [64].
It is therefore necessary to examine whether the measure was compatible with the nature and logic of the Portuguese legal system to transform the public undertaking RTP into a public limited company by way of legislation or whether resource to legislation for the purpose of transforming RTP was chosen in order to confer an advantage to it in relation to other undertakings.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali je bil ukrep združljiv z naravo in logiko portugalskega pravnega sistema, da se preoblikovanje javnega podjetja RTP v javno delniško družbo izvede z zakonom, oziroma ali sklicevanje na ta zakon pri preoblikovanju javne televizije RTP pomeni izjemo, ki ji dejansko daje prednost pred drugimi podjetji.
In line with the approach by the Court in its judgment, the Commission will in the following distinguish between the exemption from notarial costs on the one hand and registration and publication costs on the other hand [65].
V skladu s pristopom Sodišča v njegovi sodbi bo Komisija v nadaljevanju razlikovala med oprostitvijo plačila notarskih stroškov ter oprostitvijo registracijskih taks in stroškov objave [65].
Exemption from the notarial deed and the notarial costs: The Commission finds that the transformation of RTP into a public limited company and the approval of its statutes by way of legislation instead of by a notarial deed complies with the logic and nature of the Portuguese legal system.
Oprostitev zahteve po sestavi notarskega zapisa in notarskih stroškov: Komisija meni, da sta preoblikovanje javne televizije RTP v javno delniško družbo in odobritev njenega statuta z zakonodajo namesto z notarskim zapisom v skladu z logiko in naravo portugalskega pravnega sistema.
The transformation into a public limited company was done in order to give RTP a more flexible company form and thereby put it on an equal footing with private operators.
Preoblikovanje v javno delniško družbo je bilo izvedeno zato, da bi bila javna televizija RTP v prožnejši obliki podjetja, zaradi česar bi imela enake pogoje kot zasebni operaterji.
The fact that this transformation was done by law, rather than by a notarial deed, was not an attempt to circumvent the requirement of a notarial deed, but resulted from the general principle of Portuguese law that legislative acts may only be modified by equivalent legislative acts.
Dejstvo, da je bilo to preoblikovanje izvedeno z zakonodajo in ne z notarskim zapisom, ni bil poskus izogibanja zahtevi po sestavi notarskega zapisa, ampak je bilo v skladu s splošnim načelom portugalske zakonodaje, da se zakonodajni akti lahko spremenijo samo z enakovrednimi zakonodajnimi akti.
Under that principle of ‘equivalence of acts’, a law may only be repealed, suspended or modified by a legal act which is of the same hierarchical rank as the constitutive act and not by an act which has a lower rank in the hierarchy of laws.
V skladu z načelom „enakovrednosti aktov“ se lahko zakon razveljavi, začasno prekliče ali spremeni samo s pravnim aktom, ki je enakovreden ustanovnemu aktu in ne z aktom, ki mu je v hierarhiji aktov podrejen.
There is also nothing to suggest that RTP’s original nationalisation in 1975 was carried out in order to circumvent the applying to companies governed by private law and created a benefit for the company.
Prav tako nič ne kaže na to, da je bila prvotna nacionalizacija javne televizije RTP leta 1975 izvedena zaradi izogibanja pravilom, ki veljajo za podjetja zasebnega prava, in da je podjetju dodelila prednost.
There is no evidence to suggest that all the other laws in place before RTP’s transformation (see recitals 84 to 86 of this Decision) were for the purpose of creating a pecuniary advantage for public undertakings by avoiding notarial deeds (and the respective costs) applying to private transactions.
Nobenega dokaza ni, da so bili vsi drugi zakoni, ki so veljali pred preoblikovanjem javne televizije RTP (glej uvodne izjave 84–86 tega sklepa), oblikovani zato, da bi javnim podjetjem dodelili denarno korist v obliki izogibanja notarskim zapisom (in s tem povezanim stroškom), ki veljajo za zasebne transakcije.
In particular, Law No 84/88 which allowed public undertakings to be transformed into public limited companies by decree-law, reflected the constitutional and legal principles in force at the relevant time.
Zlasti Zakon št. 84/88, ki je omogočal preoblikovanje javnih podjetij v javne delniške družbe, je odražal ustavna in pravna načela, ki so veljala v zadevnem obdobju.
Conclusion: Taking those matters into consideration, the exemption from the requirement to carry out the RTP transformation via a notarial deed (and thus incur the respective costs) does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Sklepna ugotovitev: ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega oprostitev zahteve glede preoblikovanja javne televizije RTP z notarskim zapisom (in s tem plačila zadevnih stroškov) ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Exemption from registration charges and publication costs: It is necessary to assess whether RTP enjoyed a benefit by not paying any costs linked to the registration of the company in the commercial registry and the publication of the notarial deed.
Oprostitev plačila registracijskih taks in stroškov objave: oceniti je treba, ali je imela javna televizija RTP korist od tega, da ji ni bilo treba plačati nobenih stroškov, povezanih z registracijo podjetja v trgovinskem zakoniku in objavo notarskega zapisa.
In accordance with Portuguese law in force at the time, a notarial deed which formalised the setting up of a company governed by private law and its articles of association had to be published in the Diário da República by the Registrar in charge of the Commercial Registry in order to make third parties aware of the contents of those documents.
V skladu s takrat veljavno portugalsko zakonodajo je moral sodni tajnik, zadolžen za trgovinski register, v Diário da República objaviti notarski zapis, s katerim sta bila uradno potrjena ustanovitev podjetja zasebnega prava in njegov statut, ter tako tretje osebe obvestiti o vsebini teh dokumentov.
RTP did not incur these publication costs since the mandatory publication in the Diário da República of Law No 21/92 ensured that the act of transformation of RTP and the contents of its new articles of association were afforded the necessary publicity.
Javna televizija RTP teh stroškov objave ni imela, saj je bilo z obvezno objavo Zakona št. 21/92 v Diário da República zagotovljeno, da je bila javnost seznanjena s preoblikovanjem javne televizije RTP in vsebino njenega novega statuta.
There is no indication that the Portugal chose to transform RTP into a public limited company by way of Law No 21/92 in order to grant RTP an advantage in the form of savings in registration and publication costs.
Nič ne kaže na to, da se je Portugalska odločila preoblikovati javno televizijo RTP v javno delniško družbo na podlagi Zakona št. 21/92 zato, da bi bila javni televiziji RTP dodeljena prednost v obliki prihranka pri plačilu registracijskih taks in stroškov objave.
It was rather that a second publication of RTP’s statutes would have been entirely meaningless as the transparency and publicity requirements were already fulfilled through the publication of Law No 21/92 in the Diário da República.
Verjetneje je, da bi bila druga objava statuta RTP popolnoma nepotrebna, saj so bile zahteve glede preglednosti in objave že izpolnjene z objavo Zakona št. 21/92 v Diário da República.
While the registration is done with a view to later publication and the two measures are linked, it is questionable whether the exemption from registration charges can also be justified by the nature and logic of the Portuguese legal system and the mandatory conversion of RTP by way of legislation.
Ker je registracija dokončna zaradi poznejše objave in sta ta dva ukrepa povezana, je vprašljivo, ali je mogoče oprostitev plačila registracijskih taks prav tako upravičiti z naravo in logiko portugalskega pravnega sistema in obveznim preoblikovanjem javne televizije RTP z zakonodajo.
Portugal does not dispute that the registration was still required by the Commercial Companies Code.
Portugalska ne oporeka dejstvu, da je Zakon o trgovinskih družbah še vedno zahteval registracijo.
As Portugal stated: ‘registration was not dispensed with, it was only that no deed was needed, but that the decree-law constituted a sufficient document for registration purposes’.
Kot je navedla Portugalska: „registracija je bila potrebna, vendar ni bil potreben notarski zapis in uredba z zakonsko močjo je zadoščala za namene registracije“.
This also follows from Article 3(3) of Law No 84/88, (see recital 25 of this Decision).
To sledi tudi iz člena 3(3) Zakona št. 84/84 (glej uvodno izjavo 25 tega sklepa).
In addition, Portugal emphasised that in order for RTP to register in the future all other acts relating to the company, the fact of its creation (i.e. the result of the 1992 transformation into a public limited company) needed to be registered [66] If however, registration is necessary, then the Commission sees no reason why RTP should not have to bear the corresponding charges.
Poleg tega je Portugalska poudarila, da je morala biti ustanovitev javne televizije RTP, da bi lahko v prihodnosti registrirala vse druge akte, povezane z družbo (tj. zaradi preoblikovanja v javno delniško družbo leta 1992), registrirana [66]. Če je registracija potrebna, Komisija ne vidi nobenega razloga, zakaj javna televizija RTP ne bi mogla kriti zadevnih stroškov.
Conclusion: It should be concluded that the exemption of RTP from the requirement of a notarial deed (including notarial costs), as well as the exemption from the requirement for publication and the respective publication costs according to Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Sklepna ugotovitev: skleniti je treba, da oprostitev zahteve po sestavi notarskega zapisa (vključno z oprostitvijo plačila notarskih stroškov), ki je bila dodeljena javni televiziji RTP, kot tudi oprostitev zahteve po objavi in plačila zadevnih stroškov objave v skladu s členom 11(1) Zakona št. 21/92, ne pomenita državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.