natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
SIC points out that according to the public service contracts, RTP is required to respect advertising limits and can e.g. only show a certain number of minutes of advertising per hour.
Poudarila je, da bi morala javna televizija RTP v skladu s pogodbama o izvajanju javne službe upoštevati omejitve glede oglaševanja in npr. na uro predvajati samo določeno število minut oglasov.
SIC pointed to the Portuguese Court of Auditor’s general findings on the public service contracts, which give an incentive to RTP to disregard efficiency and effectiveness in RTP’s management, which goes along with a vague and non-specific public service remit.
Komercialna televizija SIC je opozorila na splošne ugotovitve portugalskega računskega sodišča glede pogodb o izvajanju javne službe, ki javno televizijo RTP spodbujata k neučinkovitemu in neuspešnemu upravljanju, kar je povezano z nejasnimi in neopredeljenimi nalogami javne službe.
Exemption from notarial charges and registration charges/publication costs
Oprostitev plačila notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks/stroškov objave
On the exemption from notarial charges, registration charges and publication costs, Portugal agues that, since the transformation of the public undertaking into a public limited company (sociedade anónima) had to be carried out by legislative act, no basis existed for the collection of the taxes and emoluments related to formalisation by notarial deed of that transformation, nor to its registration and publication.
Glede oprostitve plačila notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks in stroškov objave Portugalska trdi, da za pobiranje pristojbin, povezanih z uradno potrditvijo preoblikovanja javnega podjetja v javno delniško družbo (sociedade anónima) z notarskim zapisom oziroma njeno registracijo in objavo, ni bilo nobene osnove, saj je bilo to preoblikovanje izvedeno z zakonodajnim aktom.
The transformation of RTP into a public limited company was carried out in 1992 in order to bring it under private law and the way in which it operates closer to that of private operators.
Preoblikovanje javne televizije RTP v javno delniško družbo leta 1992 je bilo izvedeno zato, da bi televizija spadala pod zasebno pravo in da bi se način njenega delovanja približal načinu delovanja zasebnih operaterjev.
It was considered necessary to equip RTP with the means and conditions to allow it to best fulfil its public service objectives in a market that was increasingly open to competition.
Javni televiziji RTP je bilo treba dati na voljo vsa sredstva in pogoje, ki ji bi omogočili, da kar najbolje izpolni svoje cilje javne službe na trgu, ki je vedno bolj odprt za konkurenco.
The aim was to give RTP’s operations and management the same flexibility afforded to ‘normal’ companies, operating under private commercial law.
Cilj je bila enaka prožnost delovanja in upravljanja javne televizije RTP, kot jo imajo „običajna“ podjetja, ki delujejo na podlagi zasebnega gospodarskega prava.
According to Portugal, the public limited company format was less cumbersome than the State control procedures that previously applied to RTP as a public undertaking, thus offering it better conditions for developing television channels and their programming.
Po mnenju Portugalske je bilo pri obliki javne delniške družbe prisotnih manj ovir kot pri postopkih državnega nadzora, ki so prej veljali za javno televizijo RTP kot javno podjetje, zaradi česar je imela televizija boljše pogoje za razvoj televizijskih kanalov in njihovih programskih vsebin.
Temporary tax exemption provided for in Article 11(1) of Law No 21/92
Začasna oprostitev plačila davka v skladu s členom 11(1) Zakona št. 21/92
Portugal argues that the transformation of RTP by law in 1992, with the consequence that no ‘notarial deed’ for the formalisation of that act was necessary, was in line with the nature and logic of the Portuguese legal system.
Portugalska trdi, da je bilo preoblikovanje javne televizije RTP z zakonom leta 1992, zaradi česar ni bil potreben „notarski zapis“ za potrditev tega dejanja, v skladu z naravo in logiko portugalskega pravnega sistema.
In that regard Portugal recalls that RTP had been established as a public undertaking in 1975 by way of legislation, namely, by the Decree-Law No 674-D/75.
Glede tega Portugalska opozarja, da je bila javna televizija RTP leta 1975 kot javno podjetje ustanovljena z zakonodajo, tj. Uredbo z zakonsko močjo št. 674-D/75.
Therefore, as specifically required by Law 84/88 that governed the transformation of public undertakings into public limited companies, such acts had to be carried out also by way of legislation.
Kot to izrecno zahteva Zakon št. 84/88, ki je urejal preoblikovanje javnih podjetij v javne delniške družbe, so morala biti taka dejanja prav tako izvedena z zakonodajo.
Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Law No 84/88, which is a general law on the transformation of public undertakings (see above recital 25), the legislative act that provided for the transformation of the public undertaking had to approve the statutes of the public limited company resulting from the transformation.
V skladu s členom 3(2) splošnega zakona o preoblikovanju javnih podjetij, tj. Zakona št. 84/88 (glej uvodno izjavo 25), je moral zakonodajni akt, ki je omogočil preoblikovanje javnega podjetja, odobriti statut javne delniške družbe, ki je nastala s preoblikovanjem.
This was, moreover, in line with the principle of the equivalence of acts, according to which legislative acts may only be amended, suspended or revoked by acts having an equivalent ranking within the hierarchy of legal acts.
Poleg tega je bilo to v skladu z načelom enakovrednosti aktov, v skladu s katerim se lahko zakonodajni akt spremeni, začasno prekliče ali razveljavi samo z akti, ki so v hierarhiji pravnih aktov enakovredni zakonodajnemu aktu.
Portugal points out that the principle of the equivalence of acts is provided for in the Portuguese Constitution (currently Article 112(5) or Article 115(5) of the Constitution at the time when RTP was transformed in 1992) which states that ‘no law shall create other categories of legislation, or grant other types of act the power to interpret, integrate, modify, suspend or revoke any of its provisions with any external effect’.
Portugalska je poudarila, da je enakovrednost aktov določena v portugalski ustavi (sedanji člen 112(5) oziroma člen 115(5) ustave v času preoblikovanja javne televizije RTP leta 1992), ki navaja, da „noben zakon ne more ustanoviti drugih kategorij zakonodaje ali dati pristojnost drugim vrstam aktom, da katero koli njegovo določbo razlagajo, vključijo, spremenijo, začasno prekličejo ali razveljavijo s kakršnim koli zunanjim učinkom“.
The application of this principle to the transformation of public undertakings is supported by legal authors [50].
Uporabo tega načela pri preoblikovanju javnih podjetij podpirajo avtorji na področju prava [50].
Portugal also refers to a number of judgments of its Constitutional Court which reiterate the interpretation that a law may only be interpreted by another law [51] and not by an act with a different and inferior ranking within the hierarchy of legal acts.(83) Portugal argues that the transformation of RTP into a public limited company by Law No 21/92 was carried out in compliance with that general scheme of Portuguese law and could not lawfully have been carried out simply under private law in the form of a notarial deed.
Portugalska se sklicuje tudi na številne sodbe svojega ustavnega sodišča, v katerih se ponavlja razlaga, da je zakon mogoče razložiti samo z drugim zakonom [51] in ne z aktom, ki ni enakovreden zakonu v hierarhiji pravnih aktov.(83) Portugalska trdi, da je bilo preoblikovanje javne televizije RTP v javno delniško družbo z Zakonom št. 21/92 izvedeno v skladu s splošno shemo portugalske zakonodaje in ne bi moglo biti zakonito izvedeno na podlagi zasebnega prava v obliki notarskega zapisa.
Portugal also quotes several examples of other public undertakings transformed by legislative act into public limited companies [52].
Portugalska je navedla tudi več primerov drugih javnih podjetij, ki so bila z zakonodajnim aktom preoblikovana v javne delniške družbe [52].
Portugal refers to Decree law No 267/76 of 8 April 1976 which established for the first time a general scheme for public undertakings.
Portugalska se je sklicevala na Uredbo z zakonsko močjo št. 267/76 z dne 8. aprila 1976, s katero je bila prvič vzpostavljena splošna shema za javna podjetja.
That decree-law established that public undertakings could only be created by way of a decree-law, which must approve their statutes.
Ta uredba z zakonsko močjo je določala, da je lahko javna družba ustanovljena samo z uredbo z zakonsko močjo, ki mora odobriti tudi statut družbe.
That applied also to subsequent alterations of the statutes.
To je veljalo tudi za poznejše spremembe statuta družbe.
Portugal further refers to Law No 84/88 of 20 July 1988 (see recital 25 of this Decision) which stipulated that a decree-law was necessary to transform public undertakings into public limited companies and that it also should approve the statutes of the public undertaking.
Portugalska se je nadalje sklicevala na Zakon št. 84/88 z dne 20. julija 1988 (glej uvodno izjavo 25 tega sklepa), ki je navajal, da je za preoblikovanje javne družbe v javno delniško družbo potrebna uredba z zakonsko močjo, ki mora odobriti tudi statut javne družbe.
Portugal consequently concludes that for the transformation of RTP in 1992 first a decree-law was necessary and that secondly also the statutes could only be approved by law and not by notarial deed.
Portugalska je nato sklenila, da je bila za preoblikovanje javne televizije RTP v letu 1992 potrebna uredba z zakonsko močjo ter da je bil statut lahko odobren samo z zakonom in ne z notarskim zapisom.
In addition, Law No 58/90 of 7 September 1990 required public service television to be provided by operators owned exclusively or in majority by public entities, and the statutes of such operators had to be approved by decree-law.
Poleg tega je Zakon št. 58/90 z dne 7. septembra 1990 zahteval, da javno televizijo zagotavljajo operaterji, ki so izrecno ali večinsko v lasti javnih subjektov, statute teh operaterjev pa mora odobriti uredba z zakonsko močjo.
As regards the ‘registration charges’, Portugal observes that while the registration of the statutes approved by Law No 21/92 was exempted from such charges, the registration formalities still had to be carried out ‘ex officio’.
Glede „registracijskih taks“ Portugalska ugotavlja, da je bila registracija statuta, odobrenega z Zakonom št. 21/92, sicer oproščena plačila takih stroškov, vendar je bilo treba formalnosti registracije še vedno opraviti „po uradni dolžnosti“.
Registration formalities were considered necessary because the Commercial Registration Code (Código do Registo Comercial) requires acts relating to companies to be registered and published.
Formalnosti registracije so bile potrebne, ker Zakonik o sodnem registru (Código do Registo Comercial) zahteva, da so akti podjetij registrirani in objavljeni.
According to Portugal, the value of the registration charges is 11000 contos [53] which equals PTE 11000000.
Po mnenju Portugalske stroški registracije znašajo 11000 contov [53], kar je enako 11000000 PTE.
Regarding the publication requirement, Portugal stresses that since RTP’s statutes were published in the Diário da República as an Annex to Law No 21/92 which approved them, that requirement was fulfilled.
Glede zahteve po objavi Portugalska poudarja, da je bil statut javne televizije RTP v Diário da República objavljen kot priloga k Zakonu št. 21/92, s katerim je bil statut odobren, zato je bila ta zahteva izpolnjena.
Permanent tax exemption in accordance with Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92
Trajna oprostitev plačila davka v skladu s členom 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92
With regards to SIC’s comments concerning Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, Portugal replied that the Portuguese legislator did not reserve specified tax benefits in business transformation or restructuring operations for public undertakings.
Glede pripomb komercialne televizije SIC v zvezi s členom 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92 je Portugalska odgovorila, da portugalski zakonodajalec posebnih davčnih ugodnosti pri preoblikovanju poslovanja ali prestrukturiranju ni omejil na javna podjetja.
Instead of stipulating that the decree law was sufficient for all legal purposes and any acts necessary to regularise ‘the situation’ (that is to say the 1992 transformation, own emphasis added), Article 11(2) provided that RTP would be exempted from any charges and fees that gave effect to the acts in the property registers.
Člen 11(2) namreč ni navajal, da uredba z zakonsko močjo zadošča za vse pravne namene in vsa dejanja za ureditev „zadeve“ (tj. preoblikovanje v letu 1992, poudarek je dodan), ampak je določal, da je javna televizija RTP oproščena plačila vseh stroškov in pristojbin, potrebnih za vpis, registracijo ali zaznambo v registre premoženja.
Settlement between the Social Security and RTP on the rescheduling of debt and the waiver of interest
Dogovor med upravo za socialno varnost in javno televizijo RTP o odlogu plačila dolga in odpovedi zamudnim obrestim
Portugal claims that the background of the initial settlement between the Social Security administration and RTP on the rescheduling of debt and the waiver of interest and fines was a legal dispute on the constitutionality of Implementing Decree No 12/83 regarding mandatory social security deductions on remuneration for overtime.
Portugalska trdi, da je ozadje prvotnega dogovora med upravo za socialno varnost in javno televizijo RTP o odlogu plačila dolga ter odpovedi zamudnim obrestim in globam pravni spor glede ustavnosti Izvedbene uredbe št. 12/83 o obveznih odtegljajih za socialno varnost pri plačilih za nadurno delo.
The settlement acknowledged RTP’s interpretation that the remuneration was not subject to social security deductions, which was supported by a tax expert.
Z dogovorom je bila potrjena razlaga javne televizije RTP, da se za plačilo za nadurno delo prispevki za socialno varnost ne odtegnejo, kar je potrdil tudi davčni strokovnjak.
Secondly, Portugal claims that the formal authorisation of this settlement by the Portuguese government did not confer a specific financial advantage on RTP compared to other undertakings under similar circumstances under Decree Law No 411/91.
Portugalska tudi trdi, da s tem, ko je portugalska vlada uradno odobrila ta dogovor, javni televiziji RTP v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji v podobnih okoliščinah ni bila dodeljena posebna finančna ugodnost na podlagi Uredbe z zakonsko močjo št. 411/91.
As regards the loan, Portugal commented that the technical conditions attached to it provided that the financial operation should carry interest calculated according to market criteria.
Portugalska je glede posojila pojasnila, da so tehnični pogoji, ki so bili priloženi posojilu, določali, da se mora finančni posel obrestovati v skladu s tržnimi merili.
Capital injections in the period 1994 to 1998
Kapitalske injekcije v obdobju 1994–1998
Portugal argued that the capital injections in the period 1994 to 1998 constituted an instrument for financing the costs of providing a public television service, together with payment of the compensatory allowances.
Portugalska je trdila, da so kapitalske injekcije v obdobju 1994–1998 skupaj z izplačili kompenzacijskih nadomestil pomenile instrument za financiranje stroškov za zagotavljanje storitev javne televizije.
The financing model/overcompensation
Model financiranja/prekomerna nadomestila
According to Portugal, the financing model chosen to compensate RTP for its public service costs proved inadequate and led to trading deficits.
Po mnenju Portugalske se je model financiranja, izbran za izplačevanje nadomestil javni televiziji RTP za njene stroške javne službe, izkazal za neustreznega in je prinesel velike izgube.
Firstly, the compensatory allowances were always calculated at below the real needs of public service television financing.
Prvič, znesek izračuna kompenzacijskih nadomestil je bil vedno manjši od dejanskih potreb financiranja javne televizije.
Secondly, Portugal systematically paid the allowances late.
Drugič, Portugalska je z izplačili nadomestil vedno zamujala.
RTP then had to resort to bank financing in order to meet its operating expenditure but could not include the interest and amortisation charges in the calculation of the public service cost.
Da bi lahko plačevala svoje stroške poslovanja, se je morala javna televizija RTP zateči k bančnim posojilom, vendar obresti in amortizacije ni mogla vključiti v izračun stroškov javne službe.
Thirdly, RTP had to pay value added tax (VAT) to the State on the allowances, thereby reducing the net amount of the compensatory allowances.
Tretjič, javna televizija RTP je morala državi na nadomestila plačevati davek na dodano vrednost (DDV), zaradi česar je bil neto znesek kompenzacijskih nadomestil nižji.
Portugal claims that: (i) the tax exemptions (i.e. exemption from notarial deed charges, registration charges and publication costs); (ii) the facilities for the payment of the tax on the use of the broadcasting network; (iii) the rescheduling of the debt to the social security scheme; (iv) the payment for the hiving-off of the television network; (v) the protocol on cinema promotion; and (vi) the loan taken out by RTP in 1998 do not fall within the concept of State aid.
Portugalska trdi, da: (i) davčna oprostitev (tj. oprostitev plačila notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks in stroškov objave), (ii) sredstva za plačilo pristojbine za uporabo oddajnega omrežja, (iii) odlog plačila dolga shemi socialne varnosti, (iv) plačilo za odcepitev televizijskega omrežja, (v) protokol o spodbujanju kinematografov in (vi) posojilo, ki ga je javna televizija RTP prejela v letu 1998, ne spadajo v pojem državne pomoči.
As regards the compatibility of the other measures, Portugal argued that they should be regarded as compensation for public service costs and therefore not as State aid [55] or, alternatively, their compatibility with Union legislation should be assessed in the light of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 106(2) TFEU).
Glede združljivosti drugih ukrepov je Portugalska trdila, da bi jih bilo treba upoštevati kot nadomestilo za stroške javne službe in ne kot državno pomoč [55], ali pa bi bilo treba njihovo združljivost z zakonodajo Unije oceniti ob upoštevanju člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES (zdaj člena 106(2) PDEU).
As regards calculation of the overcompensation, Portugal argued that:
Glede izračuna prekomernih nadomestil je Portugalska trdila, da:
the inclusion in 1996 of the operating costs of RTP 2 as reimbursable public service costs was based on the new public service contract, according to which compensation for RTP 2’s operating costs under the Contract took effect from 1 January 1996 onwards [56];
je vključitev stroškov poslovanja kanala RTP 2 v letu 1996 kot povračljivih stroškov javne službe temeljila na novi pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe, v skladu s katero je izplačilo nadomestila za stroške poslovanja kanala RTP 2 na podlagi pogodbe začelo veljati od 1. januarja 1996 dalje [56];
the loan of PTE 20000 million should not be regarded as compensation since it was granted on market terms;
se posojilo v višini 20 milijard PTE ne sme upoštevati kot nadomestilo, ker je bilo odobreno pod tržnimi pogoji;
the capital increases were also designed to finance investments and not simply to provide financial compensation for reimbursable public service costs.
so bila tudi povečanja kapitala načrtovana za financiranje naložb in ne samo za finančno nadomestilo povračljivih stroškov javne službe.
The State’s obligation as shareholder to participate in the financing of investments deemed to be necessary is laid down in the public service contracts [57];
Obveznost države kot delničarja, da sodeluje pri financiranju naložb, za katere velja, da so potrebne, je določena v pogodbah o izvajanju javne službe [57];
the compensation payments were subject to VAT, with the result that the net value received by RTP was lower;
je bilo treba na denarna nadomestila plačati DDV, zaradi česar je bila neto vrednost, ki jo je prejela javna televizija RTP, nižja;
under the new public service contract, the public service costs were reimbursable only up to the allotted budget.
so bili stroški javne službe v skladu z novo pogodbo o izvajanju javne službe povrnjeni samo do odobrenega proračuna.
Taking into account the matters the foregoing, Portugal concluded that the financial compensation for RTP’s public service obligations should not be regarded as excessive or inappropriate.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega je Portugalska sklenila, da se finančno nadomestilo za obveznosti, ki jih je imela javna televizija RTP kot javna služba, ne bi smelo obravnavati kot prekomerno ali neustrezno.
Absence of external audits
Pomanjkanje zunanjih revizij
As regards the absence of external audits, Portugal argues that the Commission had already taken a position on RTP’s financial situation, also covering the period from 1992 to1998, without requiring an external audit of the public service in its Decisions of 2006 in case E 14/05 and NN 31/06 and those decisions were not challenged in Court.
Glede pomanjkanja zunanjih revizij Portugalska trdi, da se je Komisija že opredelila glede finančnega položaja javne televizije RTP, pri čemer je prav tako zajela obdobje 1992–1998 in v svojih odločbah iz leta 2006 v zadevi E 14/2005 in zadevi NN 31/2006 ni zahtevala zunanje revizije javne službe, ti dve odločbi pa na sodišču nista bili izpodbijani.
Portugal argues that, in particular, the Commission already took the Court of Auditors Report No 8/2002 into account in Decision NN 31/06.
Portugalska trdi zlasti, da je Komisija v odločbi NN 31/2006 že upoštevala poročilo računskega sodišča št. 8/2002.
It further underlines that the Commission concluded in Decision NN 31/06 that RTP’s financial situation from 1992 to 1998 resulted from the chronic under-financing of its public service activities.
Nadalje je poudarila, da je Komisija v odločbi NN 31/2006 sklenila, da je bil finančni položaj javne televizije RTP v obdobju 1992–1998 posledica stalnega pomanjkanja financiranja njenih dejavnosti javne službe.
In Decision NN 31/06, the Commission based its finding on an external report, namely the PriceWaterhouse Cooper report of 2005 and on the externally audited annual accounts of RTP which Portugal considers to be the only relevant accounts.
V odločbi NN 31/2006 je Komisija svojo ugotovitev utemeljila na podlagi zunanjega poročila, tj. poročila podjetja PriceWaterhouse Cooper iz leta 2005, in zunanje revidiranih letnih računovodskih izkazov javne televizije RTP, za katere Portugalska meni, da so edini relevantni.
Portugal also reiterates that the public service reports for the period from 1993 to 1998 were audited by RTP’s company auditors [58].
Portugalska je ponovila, da so poročila o izvajanju javne službe v obdobju 1993–1998 revidirali revizorji javne televizije RTP [58].
However, Portugal later submitted external audits of the public service reports for the period from 1992 to 1998, together with a final summarising report covering all of those years.
Vendar pa je Portugalska kasneje predložila zunanje revizije poročil o izvajanju javne službe za obdobje 1992–1998, skupaj s končnim zbirnim poročilom, v katerem so bila zajeta vsa ta leta.
The external audits were organised by the independent Media Authority, Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (ERC), which asked the external auditors, Pedro Roque [59] to carry out the external audits.
Zunanje revizije je organiziral neodvisni organ za medije, Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (ERC), ki je za zunanje revizije zaprosil zunanjega revizorja, tj. družbo Pedro Roque [59].
Portugal replied in greater detail to some of SIC’s allegations on specific points.
Portugalska je podrobneje odgovorila na nekatere trditve komercialne televizije SIC glede nekaterih točk.