natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products [4] is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Sklep št. 768/2008/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. julija 2008 o skupnem okviru za trženje proizvodov [4] je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
Decision No 768/2008/EC sets out common principles and reference provisions for future legislation harmonising the conditions for the marketing of products and a reference text for existing legislation.
Sklep št. 768/2008/ES določa skupna načela in referenčne določbe za prihodnjo zakonodajo, ki usklajuje pogoje za trženje proizvodov ter referenčno besedilo za obstoječo zakonodajo.
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 repeals Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community [5] which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Uredba (ES) št. 764/2008 razveljavlja Odločbo št. 3052/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 13. decembra 1995 o vzpostavitvi postopka izmenjave informacij o nacionalnih ukrepih, ki odstopajo od načela prostega pretoka blaga v Skupnosti [5], ki je vključena v Sporazum EGP.
The EEA Agreement should therefore be amended to take account of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008.
Sporazum EGP bi bilo treba spremeniti, da se upošteva Uredba (ES) št. 764/2008.
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 repeals Council Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 of 8 February 1993 on checks for conformity with the rules on product safety in the case of products imported from third countries [6] which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Uredba (ES) št. 765/2008 razveljavlja Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 339/93 z dne 8. februarja 1993 o preverjanju skladnosti s pravili o varnosti proizvodov za izdelke, uvožene iz tretjih držav [6], ki je vključena v Sporazum EGP.
The EEA Agreement should therefore be amended to take account of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008.
Sporazum EGP bi bilo treba spremeniti, da se upošteva Uredba (ES) št. 765/2008.
Decision No 768/2008/EC repeals Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonization directives [7] which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Sklep št. 768/2008/ES razveljavlja Sklep Sveta 93/465/EGS z dne 22. julija 1993 o modulih za različne faze postopkov ugotavljanja skladnosti in o pravilih za pritrditev in uporabo znaka skladnosti CE, ki so namenjeni uporabi v direktivah o tehnični uskladitvi [7], ki je vključen v Sporazum EGP.
The EEA Agreement should therefore be amended to take account of Decision No 768/2008/EC.
Sporazum EGP bi bilo treba spremeniti, da se upošteva Sklep št. 768/2008/ES.
The position of the Union in the EEA Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft Decision,
Zato bi moralo stališče Unije v Skupnem odboru EGP temeljiti na priloženem osnutku sklepa –
The position to be taken by the Union in the EEA Joint Committee on the proposed amendment to Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement shall be based on the draft Decision of the EEA Joint Committee attached to this Decision.
Stališče Unije v Skupnem odboru EGP o predlagani spremembi Priloge II (Tehnični predpisi, standardi, preskušanje in certificiranje) k Sporazumu EGP temelji na osnutku sklepa Skupnega odbora EGP, priloženega temu sklepu.
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 98 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, kakor je bil spremenjen s Protokolom o prilagoditvi Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma EGP,
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State [1] is to be incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA Agreement’).
Uredbo (ES) št. 764/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. julija 2008 o določitvi postopkov za uporabo nekaterih nacionalnih tehničnih pravil za proizvode, ki se zakonito tržijo v drugi državi članici [1], je treba vključiti v Sporazum o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP).
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products [2] is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Uredbo (ES) št. 765/2008 Evropskega Parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. julija 2008 o določitvi zahtev za akreditacijo in nadzor trga v zvezi s trženjem proizvodov [2] je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products [3] is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Sklep št. 768/2008/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. julija 2008 o skupnem okviru za trženje proizvodov [3] je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
Decision No 768/2008/EC sets out common principles and reference provisions for future legislation harmonizing the conditions for the marketing of products and a reference text for existing legislation.
Sklep št. 768/2008/ES določa skupna načela in referenčne določbe za prihodnjo zakonodajo, ki usklajuje pogoje za trženje proizvodov ter referenčno besedilo za obstoječo zakonodajo.
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 repeals Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community [4] which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Uredba (ES) št. 764/2008 razveljavlja Odločbo št. 3052/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 13. decembra 1995 o vzpostavitvi postopka izmenjave informacij o nacionalnih ukrepih, ki odstopajo od načela prostega pretoka blaga v Skupnosti [4], ki je vključena v Sporazum EGP.
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 repeals Council Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 of 8 February 1993 on checks for conformity with the rules on product safety in the case of products imported from third countries [5] which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Uredba (ES) št. 765/2008 razveljavlja Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 339/93 z dne 8. februarja 1993 o preverjanju skladnosti s pravili o varnosti proizvodov za izdelke, uvožene iz tretjih držav [5], ki je vključena v Sporazum EGP.
Decision No 768/2008/EC repeals Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are intended to be used in the technical harmonization directives [6] which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
Sklep št. 768/2008/ES razveljavlja Sklep Sveta 93/465/EGS z dne 22. julija 1993 o modulih za različne faze postopkov ugotavljanja skladnosti in o pravilih za pritrditev in uporabo znaka skladnosti CE, ki so namenjeni uporabi v direktivah o tehnični uskladitvi [6], ki je vključen v Sporazum EGP.
Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,
Zato bi bilo treba ustrezno spremeniti Prilogo II k Sporazumu EGP –
the following shall be added at the end of Article 4(2):
na koncu člena 4(2) se doda naslednje:
“Liechtenstein shall also have recourse to the national accreditation body of Switzerland for the product sectors covered by the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment and in respect of which EU and Swiss requirements are deemed equivalent pursuant to Article 1(2) and (3) of that Agreement”.
‚Lihtenštajn bi moral imeti poleg tega možnost, da se obrne na nacionalni akreditacijski organ v Švici za sektorje proizvodov, ki jih pokriva Sporazum med Evropsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo o vzajemnem priznavanju ugotavljanja skladnosti in v smislu katerega se zahteve EU in Švice štejejo za enakovredne v skladu s členom 1(2) in (3) navedenega sporazuma‘;
Products exported from Liechtenstein to the other Contracting Parties may be subjected to border controls according to Articles 27-29.’;
za proizvode, izvožene iz Lihtenštajna v druge države pogodbenice, se lahko izvede mejna kontrola v skladu s členi 27–29.“;
The Regulation shall only apply to products covered by Article 8(3) of the Agreement.
Uredba se uporablja le za proizvode iz člena 8(3) Sporazuma.
The Regulation shall not apply to Liechtenstein in relation to products covered by Annex I, Chapters XII and XXVII of Annex II and Protocol 47 to the Agreement, as long as the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is extended to Liechtenstein.’;
Uredba se ne uporablja za Lihtenštajn v zvezi s proizvodi iz Priloge I, poglavij XII in XXVII Priloge II ter Protokola 47 Sporazuma, vse dokler se Sporazum med Evropsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo o trgovini s kmetijskimi proizvodi uporablja tudi za Lihtenštajn.“;
the following shall be inserted in point 3h (Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council):
za točko 3h (Direktiva 2001/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta) se vstavi naslednje:
32008 R 0765: Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30).’.
32008 R 0765: Uredba (ES) št. 765/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. julija 2008 (UL L 218, 13.8.2008, str. 30).“.
The texts of Regulations (EC) No 764/2008 and (EC) No 765/2008 and Decision No 768/2008/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.
Besedila uredb (ES) št. 764/2008 in (ES) št. 765/2008 ter Sklepa št. 768/2008/ES v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavijo v Dodatku EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, so verodostojna.
This Decision shall enter into force on …, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee [7].
Ta sklep začne veljati …, pod pogojem, da so bila Skupnemu odboru EGP predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma EGP [7].
Done at Brussels, .
V Bruslju,
on the State aid C 85/01 on ad hoc measures implemented by Portugal in favour of RTP
o državni pomoči C 85/2001 o začasnih ukrepih, ki jih je Portugalska izvajala v korist RTP
(notified under document C(2011) 9429)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2011) 9429)
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above [2] and having regard to their comments,
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi določbami [2], in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb,
By three complaints submitted in 1993, 1996 and 1997 by the commercial broadcaster Sociedade Independente de Comunicação SA (SIC), the Commission was informed that Portugal had implemented a number of ad hoc measures and annual compensation measures in favour of the Portuguese public broadcaster, Radiotelevisão Portuguesa SA (RTP).
Komisija je bila s tremi pritožbami, ki jih je v letih 1993, 1996 in 1997 vložil komercialni izdajatelj televizijskega programa Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S. A. (v nadaljnjem besedilu: komercialna televizija SIC) obveščena, da je Portugalska izvajala določeno število začasnih ukrepov in ukrepov letnih denarnih nadomestil v korist portugalskega javnega izdajatelja televizijskega programa Radiotelevisão Portuguesa, S. A. (v nadaljnjem besedilu: javna televizija RTP).
By letter dated 15 November 2001, the Commission informed Portugal that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of a number of the ad hoc measures granted to RTP.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 15. novembra 2001 Portugalsko obvestila, da se je v zvezi s številnimi začasnimi ukrepi, ki so bili odobreni javni televiziji RTP, odločila uvesti postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.
The Commission’s Decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Sklep Komisije o začetku postopka preiskave je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti [3].
Subsequently, Article 1 of Commission Decision 2005/406/EC of 15 October 2003 on ad hoc measures implemented by Portugal for RTP [3], found that certain of those measures, namely the State aid of PTE 68006 million granted by Portugal to RTP in the form of an agreement with the social security scheme in 1993, capital injections in the period 1994 to 1997 and a loan in 1998 to be compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty [4].
Komisija je nato v členu 1 Odločbe Komisije 2005/406/ES z dne 15. oktobra 2003 o začasnih ukrepih, ki jih je izvajala Portugalska za RTP [4], ugotovila, da so nekateri od teh ukrepov, in sicer državna pomoč v višini 68006 milijonov PTE, ki jo je Portugalska javni televiziji RTP dodelila v obliki pogodbe s shemo socialne varnosti v letu 1993, kapitalskih injekcij v obdobju 1994–1997 in posojila v letu 1998, združljiva s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES.
In addition, Article 2 of that Decision stated that certain measures did not contain State aid, namely the exemption from registration charges, the payment for the hiving-off of the television broadcasting network, the facilities granted for payment of the annual fee for the use of the television broadcasting network, the protocol on cinema promotion, the bond issue and the restructuring plan for the period 1996 to 2000.
Poleg tega člen 2 te odločbe navaja, da nekateri ukrepi ne pomenijo državne pomoči, in sicer oprostitev plačila registracijskih taks, plačilo za odcepitev oddajnega omrežja, odobrena sredstva za plačila letnih pristojbin za uporabo oddajnega omrežja, protokol o spodbujanju kinematografov, izdaja obveznic in načrt prestrukturiranja za obdobje 1996–2000.
On 26 June 2008, the Court of First Instance in Case T-442/03 [5] annulled part of Decision 2005/406/EC on two grounds.
26. junija 2008 je Sodišče prve stopnje v zadevi T-442/03 [5] razveljavilo del Odločbe 2005/406/ES iz dveh razlogov.
It annulled Article 2 of that Decision insofar as it found that the ‘exemption from registration charges’ does not constitute State aid.
Razveljavilo je tisti del člena 2 Odločbe, v katerem je bilo ugotovljeno, da „oprostitev plačila notarskih stroškov in stroškov registracije“ ne pomeni državne pomoči.
The Court found that the Commission’s task was to establish, in relation to the ad hoc advantage consisting of the exemption from payment of the registration charges and fees relating to its transformation into a public limited company (hereafter ‘temporary exemption’), whether it was compatible with the logic of the Portuguese system for the transformation of public undertakings into public limited companies to occur by legislation, or whether the recourse to legislation was a derogation which was intended to confer an advantage on public undertakings in relation to other undertakings.
Sodišče je menilo, da bi morala Komisija v zvezi z začasno prednostjo v obliki oprostitve plačila registracijskih taks in pristojbin v zvezi s preoblikovanjem javne televizije RTP v delniško družbo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: začasna oprostitev) ugotoviti, ali je skladno z logiko portugalskega pravnega sistema, da se preoblikovanje javnih podjetij v delniške družbe izvede z zakonom, oziroma ali sklicevanje na ta zakon pri izvajanju tega preoblikovanja pomeni izjemo, ki javnim podjetjem daje prednost pred drugimi podjetji.
For the permanent advantage resulting from an unlimited exemption from registration charges and other charges in respect of any act of inscription, registration or annotation granted to RTP (hereafter ‘permanent exemption’), the Court found that while it is not unlikely that the exemption in reality was not permanent (see paragraphs 73 and 79 of the judgment), that would not alter the finding that the general nature of that exemption had not been demonstrated by the Commission.
Glede trajne prednosti na podlagi neomejene oprostitve plačila registracijskih taks in drugih stroškov v zvezi z vpisom, registracijo ali zaznambo, ki je bila dodeljena javni televiziji RTP (v nadaljnjem besedilu: trajna oprostitev), je Sodišče menilo, da oprostitev morda res ni trajna (glej uvodni izjavi 73 in 79), vendar to ne spremeni ugotovitve, da Komisija ni dokazala splošne narave te oprostitve.
The Court further found that while it might be that RTP was transformed by Portugal into public limited company because that was considered necessary for the fulfilment of the public service remit, this was not accompanied by sufficient evidence.
Sodišče je nadalje menilo, da je bilo preoblikovanje javne televizije RTP v delniško družbo morda res izvedeno zato, ker se je to zdelo nujno za opravljanje nalog javne službe, vendar glede tega niso bila predložena ustrezna dokazila.
The Court dismissed the applications as regards the finding in Decision 2005/406/EC not to classify the 1994 bond issue and the payment facilities for the license fee as State aid.
Sodišče je zavrnilo zahteve glede ugotovitve iz Odločbe 2005/406/ES v zvezi z neopredelitvijo izdaje obveznic leta 1994 in plačila pristojbin kot državne pomoči.
As regards the compatibility of the State aid measures (Article 1 of Decision 2005/406/EC), the Court found that the Commission could not rely on the public service reports and the data contained therein, without having an external audit for those reports, as required by national law.
Glede združljivosti ukrepov državne pomoči (člen 1 Odločbe 2005/406/ES) je Sodišče ugotovilo, da se Komisija ni mogla zanašati na poročila o izvajanju javne službe in podatke iz teh poročil, ker za ta poročila ni bila izvedena zunanja revizija, kakor to zahteva nacionalna zakonodaja.
The Commission was therefore not entitled to conclude that the State aid measures were compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 86(2) of the Treaty (now 106(2) TFEU and the ‘internal market’) [6].
Zato Komisija ni mogla upravičeno sklepati, da so bili ukrepi državne pomoči združljivi s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 86(2) Pogodbe (zdaj člena 106(2) PDEU in „notranjim trgom“) [6].
The Court annulled Article 1 of the Decision 2005/406/EC.
Sodišče je razveljavilo člen 1 Odločbe 2005/406/ES.
Following the judgment of the Court in Case T-442/03, the Commission drew the attention of interested parties to the fact that the Commission’s investigation in this case had been reopened and invited comments from third parties [7].
Po sodbi Sodišča v zadevi T-442/03 je Komisija zainteresirane strani obvestila, da je preiskava Komisije v tej zadevi ponovno odprta in tretje osebe pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe [7].
By letter registered on 15 December 2011, Portugal exceptionally agreed that this Decision be adopted in English as its authentic language.
Z dopisom, evidentiranim 15. decembra 2011, se je Portugalska izjemoma strinjala, da se ta sklep sprejme v angleščini kot edinem verodostojnem jeziku.
This Decision only deals with the ad hoc measures covered by the Decision to open the formal investigation proceedings.
Ta sklep obravnava samo začasne ukrepe iz sklepa o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave.
Some of the measures, which were declared not to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC Treaty in Decision 2005/406/EC, have not been annulled by the Court in Case T-442/03 and Article 2 of Decision 2005/406/EC has therefore become final.
Nekaterih ukrepov, ki jih je Komisija v Odločbi 2005/406/ES razglasila za ukrepe, ki ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, Sodišče v zadevi T-442/03 ni razveljavilo, zato je člen 2 Odločbe 2005/406/ES postal pravnomočen.
In addition, on 4 July 2006, the Commission adopted a Decision regarding RTP’s financing restructuring agreement, in Case NN 31/06 [9].(12) However, in order to have a complete ‘picture’ of the financial relations between Portugal and RTP during the period covered by the Commission’s investigation in this Case, the Commission must consider not only the ad hoc measures, but also the financial support granted to RTP by means of annual compensation payments.
Poleg tega je Komisija 4. julija 2006 sprejela sklep glede sporazuma javne televizije RTP o financiranju prestrukturiranja v zadevi NN 31/06 [9].(12) Da pa bi imela Komisija celovit pregled finančnega razmerja med Portugalsko in javno televizijo RTP za obdobje, ki ga obsega preiskava Komisije v tej zadevi, mora poleg začasnih ukrepov upoštevati tudi finančno podporo, ki je bila javni televiziji RTP dodeljena z izplačili letnih denarnih nadomestil.
Therefore, this Decision refers to the annual compensation payments to the extent necessary to clarify the Commission’s reasoning on the ad hoc measures.
Zato ta sklep obravnava letna denarna nadomestila v obsegu, potrebnem za obrazložitev ugotovitev Komisije glede začasnih ukrepov.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUES AT STAKE
PODROBEN OPIS ZADEVNIH UKREPOV
A. MEASURES IN FAVOUR OF RTP
A. UKREPI V KORIST JAVNE TELEVIZIJE RTP
DESCRIPTION OF THE RECIPIENT RTP
A.1 OPIS JAVNE TELEVIZIJE RTP, PREJEMNICE DRŽAVNE POMOČI
RTP (at the time Rádio e Televisão Portuguesa SARL) was set up as a public limited company by deed of 15 December 1955, following the decision of Portugal to establish a broadcasting company that would be entrusted with the concession for the provision of the public service of television broadcasting [10].
Javna televizija RTP (takrat Rádio e Televisão Portuguesa, S.A.R.L) je bila ustanovljena kot javna delniška družba z aktom dne 15. decembra 1955 po odločitvi Portugalske o ustanovitvi javne družbe, ki bi ji podelila koncesijo za zagotavljanje storitev javne radiotelevizije [10].
The public service concession contract was signed on 16 January 1956.
Pogodbo o koncesiji za opravljanje javne službe so podpisali dne 16. januarja 1956.
By Decree-Law No 674-D/75 of 2 December 1975, RTP was nationalised.
Z uredbo z zakonsko močjo št. 674-D/75 z dne 2. decembra 1975 je bila javna televizija RTP nacionalizirana.
That Decree-Law converted RTP into a public undertaking with the name ‘Radiotelevisão Portuguesa EP’, to which all the legal rights and obligations of its predecessor were transferred under the Decree-Law.
S to uredbo z zakonsko močjo je bila javna televizija RTP preoblikovana v javno družbo z imenom „Radiotelevisão Portuguesa, E.P.“, na podlagi uredbe z zakonsko močjo pa so bile nanjo prenesene vse zakonite pravice in obveznosti njenega predhodnika.
RTP had a monopoly position on the national broadcasting market until the 1980s.
Javna televizija RTP je imela monopolni položaj na radiodifuzijskem trgu vse do osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja.
It operated two television channels, RTP1 and RTP2.
Oddajala je dva kanala, RTP1 in RTP2.
In the 1990s, it started facing competition from commercial broadcasters after Portugal granted licences in February 1992 to SIC and the commercial broadcaster TVI to broadcast on a third and fourth channel respectively [11].
Potem ko je Portugalska februarja 1992 komercialnima televizijama SIC in TVI odobrila dovoljenja za oddajanje na tretjem oziroma četrtem kanalu [11], se je v devetdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja začela soočati s konkurenco komercialnih izdajateljev televizijskih programov.
Law No 21/92 of 14 August 1992 converted RTP, EP into a public limited company with the name ‘Radiotelevisão Portuguesa SA’ and approved its new statutes.
Javna televizija RTP je bila 14. avgusta 1992 z Zakonom št. 21/92 preoblikovana v javno delniško družbo z imenom „Radiotelevisão Portuguesa, S. A.“, poleg tega pa je bil s tem zakonom odobren njen statut.