natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Letter from Portugal of 30 June 1999.
Dopis Portugalske z dne 30. junija 1999.
Broadcasting Communication, paragraph 40.
Sporočilo o radiodifuziji, odstavek 40.
For 1992, a public service report was not available, but also not legally required, as it was only the old public service contract which stipulated that requirement.
Za leto 1992 poročilo o izvajanju javne službe ni bilo na voljo, vendar ni bilo niti zakonsko zahtevano, saj je to zahtevo navajala šele stara pogodba o izvajanju javne službe.
However, also for the year 1992 the auditors come to the conclusion that there was no infringement of the legislation valid at the time.
Vendar pa so za leto 1992 revizorji prav tako ugotovili, da ni bilo nobene kršitve zakonodaje, ki je veljala v tistem času.
Neither do they find any overcompensation.
Prav tako niso ugotovili nobenega primera prekomernega nadomestila.
Synthesis report of the external audits, point 1.4(b).
Zbirno poročilo zunanjih revizij, točka 1.4b.
The translation reflects the Portuguese original, which speaks of ‘concession contracts’.
Prevod je v skladu s portugalskim izvirnikom, ki navaja „pogodbi o koncesiji“.
The concession contracts are identical with the public service contracts, i.e. the old and the new public service contract as referred to throughout the decision, see also footnote 26 of this Decision.
Pogodbi o koncesiji sta enaki pogodbama o izvajanju javne službe, tj. stari in novi pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe, kot sta navedeni v celotnem sklepu, glej tudi opombo 26 tega sklepa.
For 1994, a value of PTE 14034734000 was found which was found to exceed the amount allocated by the Government, but according to clause 15.4 no further compensation could be claimed than the PTE 7145 million granted, as shown in Table 1 of this Decision.
Za leto 1994 je bil ugotovljen znesek v višini 14034734000 PTE, za katerega je bilo ugotovljeno, da presega znesek, ki ga je dodelila vlada, vendar javna televizija RTP v skladu s klavzulo 15.4 razen dodeljenih 7145 milijonov PTE ni mogla zahtevati dodatnega nadomestila, kot je prikazano v preglednici 1 tega sklepa.
For 1996, an amount of PTE 14594568000 was found, which was above the amount allocated of PTE 14500 million.
Za leto 1996 je bil ugotovljen znesek v višini 14594568000 PTE, kar je presegalo znesek 14500 milijonov PTE.
For the year 1997 a value of 11752261000 was found which compares to PTE 10350 million of actual allocation.
Za leto 1997 je bil ugotovljen znesek v višini 11752261000 PTE, dejansko nadomestilo pa je znašalo 10350 milijonov EUR.
Page 23 of the synthesis report on all the audits.
Stran 23 zbirnega poročila o vseh revizijah.
Submission from Portugal of 25 August 2011.
Pripombe Portugalske z dne 25. avgusta 2011.
See also recitals 27 and 116 of the Commission Decision in Case NN 31/06.
Glej tudi uvodni izjavi 27 in 116 Odločbe Komisije v zadevi NN 31/06.
It should be noted that according to Portugal, the dimension of this criticism is much smaller as of the amount of EUR 53 million, only 4 million were lost.
Opozoriti je treba, da je po mnenju Portugalske razsežnost te kritike precej manjša, saj so bili od 53 milijonov EUR izgubljeni samo 4 milijoni EUR.
See paragraphs 194 et seq. and in particular paragraphs 201 and 203 of the Judgment in Case T-442/03.
Glej točko 194 in naslednje ter zlasti točki 201 in 203 sodbe v zadevi T-442/03.
Broadcasting Communication, paragraphs 57 and 58.
Glej Sporočilo o radiodifuziji, odstavka 57 in 58.
The operating costs of the first and second channel under the old public service contract correspond to the financing costs and the costs of correspondence where other operators were also set up.
Stroški poslovanja prvega in drugega kanala v skladu s staro pogodbo za izvajanje javne službe ustrezajo stroškom financiranja in stroškom razlike v primerjavi z drugimi operaterji.
For 1992, the registration charges of PTE 11000000 will have to be taken into account, see recital 210 of this Decision below.
Za leto 1992 je treba upoštevati registracijske takse v višini 11000000 PTE, glej uvodno izjavo 210 tega sklepa.
Broadcasting Communication, paragraph 58.
Sporočilo o radiodifuziji, odstavek 58.
Recital 91 of the decision initiating the procedure in this case.
Uvodna izjava 91 sklepa o začetku preiskave v tej zadevi.
It should be pointed out that in 1993 the complainant SIC also alleged a violation of Article 86(1) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 90), now Article 106(1) TFEU as regards the legal structure put in place by the Portuguese State on the advertising market and RTP’s programme acquisition policy (see also Commission Decision 89/536/EEC of 17 September 1989).
Treba je poudariti, da je pritožnik, komercialna televizija SIC, v letu 1993 domneval tudi kršitev člena 86(1) Pogodbe ES (prej člena 90), zdaj člena 106(1) PDEU glede pravne strukture, ki jo je portugalska država vzpostavila na trgu oglaševanja, in politike za pridobivanje programov, ki jo je izvajala javna televizija RTP (glej tudi Odločbo Komisije 89/536/EGS z dne 17. septembra 1989).
Subsequently, the Commission assessed these allegations under Article 86(1).
Zato je Komisija te trditve ocenila na podlagi člena 86(1).
Reference in this regard is made to the facts part of the decision, which outlines the implementation for each of the measures.
Sklicevanje se nanaša na tisti del sklepa, ki navaja dejstva in opisuje izvajanje vsakega ukrepa.
The Commission received comments from the complainant on 10 March 2009, which were forwarded to Portugal on 8 April 2009.
Komisija je 10. marca 2009 prejela pripombe pritožnika, ki jih je 8. aprila 2009 posredovala Portugalski.
Further comments from the complainant were received on 17 June 2009, which were forwarded to Portugal on 28 July 2009.
Nadaljnje pripombe pritožnika je prejela 17. junija 2009, Portugalski pa jih je posredovala 28. julija 2009.
Portugal replied to both sets of comments by letters dated 7 and 8 September 2009.
Portugalska je na oba sklopa pripomb odgovorila z dopisoma z dne 7. in 8. septembra 2009.
Portugal sent further information to the Commission on 23 February 2010, 4 March 2010 and 15 April 2010.
Portugalska je poslala Komisiji dodatne informacije 23. februarja 2010, 4. marca 2010 in 15. aprila 2010.
The Commission sent an information request to Portugal on 10 May 2010, requesting in particular that independent external audits of the public service reports for the period from 1992 to 1997 be conducted.
Komisija je 10. maja 2010 Portugalski poslala zahtevo po informacijah, v kateri je zahtevala zlasti neodvisne zunanje revizije poročil o izvajanju javne službe za obdobje 1992–1997.
Portugal replied to the Commission’s request for information by letter dated 8 June 2010 and submitted the requested external audits on the public service reports by letter dated 12 August 2010.
Portugalska je na zahtevo Komisije po informacijah odgovorila z dopisom z dne 8. junija 2010, zahtevane zunanje revizije poročil o izvajanju javne službe pa je predložila z dopisom z dne 12. avgusta 2010.
Further information by Portugal was submitted by letter dated 29 September 2010.
Portugalska je dodatne informacije predložila z dopisom z dne 29. septembra 2010.
A meeting took with Portugal on 29 March 2011 and further information was supplied by Portugal to the Commission on 17 June 2011, 25 August 2011 and 26 October 2011.
Komisija se je 29. marca 2011 sestala s Portugalsko, ki je Komisiji predložila dodatne informacije 17. junija 2011, 25. avgusta 2011 in 26. oktobra 2011.
Those measures concern 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 production, the bond issue and the restructuring plan for the period from 1996 to 2000.
Ti ukrepi se nanašajo na plačilo za odcepitev oddajnega omrežja, odobrena sredstva za plačila letnih pristojbin za uporabo oddajnega omrežja, protokol o kinematografski produkciji, izdajo obveznic in načrt prestrukturiranja za obdobje 1996–2000.
However, as required by the Court in Case T-442/03, the Commission will make a new assessment as regards the temporary and permanent exemption from notarial deed charges as well as registration charges and publication costs.
Vendar pa bo Komisija v skladu z zahtevo Sodišča v zadevi T-442/03 izvedla novo oceno začasne in trajne oprostitve plačila notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks in stroškov objave.
This Decision focuses on the financial relation between RTP and Portugal in the period from 1992 to 1998 with regard to the agreement with the social security scheme in 1993, the capital injections during the period from 1994 to 1997 and the loan of in the year 1998.
Ta sklep se osredotoča na finančno razmerje med javno televizijo RTP in Portugalsko v obdobju 1992–1998 v zvezi s pogodbo s shemo socialne varnosti iz leta 1993, kapitalskimi injekcijami v obdobju 1994–1997 in posojilom iz leta 1998.
This Decision does not deal with the questions of the legal classification and compatibility with the Treaty of the annual compensation payments granted to RTP, which has been dealt with in the Commission’s Decision of 22 March 2006 in Case No E 14/05 [8].
Ta sklep ne obravnava vprašanja pravne opredelitve izplačila letnih denarnih nadomestil, odobrenih javni televiziji RTP, in njihove skladnosti s Pogodbo, kar je Komisija obravnavala v svojem sklepu z dne 22. marca 2006 v zadevi št. E 14/05 [8].
The Social Security administration’s interpretation was laid down in Article 2(e) of Implementing Decree No 12/83 of 12 February 1983.
Razlaga uprave za socialno varnost je bila opredeljena v členu 2(e) Izvedbene uredbe št. 12/83 z dne 12. februarja 1983.
In order to avoid legal proceedings, the two parties reached an agreement under which the Social Security administration would waive its interest claim for late payment and accept a rescheduled payment of the debt.
Da bi se izognili pravnim postopkom, sta stranki dosegli dogovor, v skladu s katerim se je uprava za socialno varnost odpovedala svoji terjatvi za plačilo zamudnih obresti in se strinjala z odloženim plačilom dolga.
RTP also had produced the public service reports for all the years, with the exception of the public service report 1992, as the obligation to have external audits was first stated in the old public service contract dating from 1993.
Javna televizija RTP je pripravila tudi poročila o izvajanju javne službe za vsa ta leta, razen za leto 1992, ker je bila obveznost glede zunanjih revizij prvič navedena v stari pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe iz leta 1993.
Portugal claims that for the years 1995 to 1998 a legally independent auditor issued a favourable and autonomous opinion on the public service reports [37].
Portugalska trdi, da je za leta od 1995 do 1998 pravno neodvisen revizor izdal pozitivno in neodvisno mnenje o poročilih o izvajanju javne službe [37].
In 2010, Portugal submitted more comprehensive external audits of the public service reports for the period from 1992 to 1997 to the Commission.
V letu 2010 je Portugalska Komisiji predložila celovitejše zunanje revizije poročil o izvajanju javne službe za obdobje 1992–1997.
The external audits of the public service reports for that period were organised by the national media regulator, Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (ERC).
Zunanje revizije poročil o izvajanju javne službe za to obdobje je organiziral nacionalni regulativni organ za medije, Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (v nadaljnjem besedilu: regulativni organ ERC).
An external audit on the public service report was already in existence for the year 1998.
Zunanja revizija poročila o izvajanju javne službe za leto 1998 je že bila opravljena.
That external audit for the year 1998 was carried out by BDO Binder, an external auditor the ‘BDO Binder report’) [39].
To zunanjo revizijo za leto 1998 je izvedlo podjetje BDO Binder, zunanji revizor (v nadaljnjem besedilu: poročilo revizorja BDO Binder) [39].
The audits also state that ‘with regard to the correspondence between the public service tasks provided and the compensation of the ‘real and actual costs’, there are no materially relevant distortions which affect compliance with the legislation in force at the time’.
Revizije tudi navajajo, da „glede povezave med nalogami javne službe in nadomestila za ‚dejanske stroške‘ ni nobenih bistvenih izkrivljanj, ki bi vplivala na skladnost s takrat veljavno zakonodajo“.
For all years, the synthesis report finds that the compensation payment by Portugal was less than the amounts indicated in every public service report.
Za vsa zadevna leta je bilo v zbirnem poročilu ugotovljeno, da je bilo denarno nadomestilo Portugalske manjše od zneskov, navedenih v vsakem poročilu o izvajanju javne službe.
SIC commented that the scope of the exemption is not limited to the transformation of RTP in 1992.
Komercialna televizija SIC je pojasnila, da obseg oprostitve ni omejen na preoblikovanje javne televizije v letu 1992.
On the basis of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 RTP enjoys a general exemption from the payment of taxes and rights for any kind of inscription and registry.
Na podlagi člena 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92 je javna televizija RTP deležna splošne oprostitve plačila pristojbin in stroškov za kateri koli vpis in registracijo.
According to the findings in the BDO Binder report, this was not respected for the year 1998.
V skladu z ugotovitvami iz poročila revizorja BDO Binder v letu 1998 ta omejitev ni bila upoštevana.
SIC also quoted the finding in that report that certain assets had not been accounted for, which SIC seems to take as proof that the respective investments for these assets have not been made.
Komercialna televizija SIC je navedla tudi ugotovitev iz tega poročila, da nekatera sredstva niso bila knjižena, kar komercialna televizija SIC šteje za dokaz, da zadevne naložbe v ta sredstva niso bile izvedene.
Following the annulment of Article 1 and part of Article 2 of Decision 2005/406/EC by the Court in Case T-442/03, SIC argues that the Commission must in this Decision also take into account the report of the Portuguese Court of Auditors (Tribunal de Contas, hereafter referred to as Court of Auditors) of June 2002 (No 8/2002), which according to SIC had the objective duty to examine RTP’s management and its provision of public television service in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and economy and which dealt with the period 1997 to 2000.
Ker je Sodišče v sodbi T-442/03 razveljavilo člen 1 in del člena 2 Odločbe 2005/406/ES, komercialna televizija SIC trdi, da mora Komisija v tem sklepu upoštevati tudi poročilo portugalskega računskega sodišča (Tribunal de Contas, v nadaljnjem besedilu: računsko sodišče) iz junija 2002 za obdobje 1997–2000 (št. 8/2002), ki je imelo po mnenju komercialne televizije SIC objektivno dolžnost, da preuči upravljanje javne televizije RTP ter učinkovitost, uspešnost in gospodarnost njenega izvajanja nalog javne televizije.
However, that period was extended to 1993.
Vendar je bilo obdobje revizije razširjeno do leta 1993.
Summarising the findings of the report, SIC underlines that there was a lack of strategy for defining RTP’s programmes and internal board directives concerning cost limits were not observed and annual budget drawn up were not complied with.
Ob povzemanju ugotovitev poročila je komercialna televizija SIC poudarila, da za določanje programov javne televizije RTP ni bilo ustrezne strategije, notranje direktive glede omejitve stroškov in letni proračun pa niso bili upoštevani.
SIC also stated that the Court of Auditors points out that Portugal has not yet specified that the award of State aid is related to RTP’s actual compliance with its public service obligation.
Komercialna televizija SIC je tudi trdila, da po mnenju računskega sodišča Portugalska še ni določila, da je dodelitev državne pomoči povezana z dejanskim izpolnjevanjem obveznosti javne televizije RTP kot javne službe.
Portugal argues that RTP was not exempted from the payment of registration charges on the basis of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92, outside the 1992 transformation.
Portugalska je trdila, da javna televizija RTP razen ob preoblikovanju v letu 1992 ni bila oproščena plačila registracijskih taks na podlagi člena 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92.
Portugal also argues that the classification of Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 as a permanent exemption from charges is due to a linguistic misunderstanding.
Portugalska je tudi trdila, da je opredelitev člena 11(2) Zakona 21/92 kot podlage za trajno oprostitev plačila stroškov posledica jezikovnega nesporazuma.
This meant, according to Portugal, that RTP was not exempted from registration charges outside the context of the 1992 transformation operations except for those concerning the 1992 transformation.
Po mnenju Portugalske je to pomenilo, da javna televizija RTP ni oproščena plačila registracijskih taks pri dejavnostih zunaj okvira preoblikovanja v letu 1992, razen če se te dejavnosti nanašajo na preoblikovanje v letu 1992.
Portugal also provided documentation for several situations in which RTP has paid registration charges.
Portugalska je predložila tudi dokumentacijo za več primerov, v katerih je javna televizija RTP plačala registracijske takse.
Portugal claims that the derogation provided for in Article 2(1)(d) applied to RTP, as RTP was the subject of state intervention and experienced various vicissitudes under the management of an administrative commission appointed by the Government in 1977 [54].
Portugalska trdi, da je odstopanje iz člena 2(1)(d) veljalo za javno televizijo RTP, saj je bila ta predmet državnega posredovanja in je pod upravljanjem upravnega sveta, ki ga je vlada imenovala leta 1977 [54], izkusila različne spremembe.
Portugal argues that the general nature of the derogation is underlined by the fact that an arrangement has also been made with one of the interested parties on the basis of Decree Law No 411/91.
Portugalska trdi, da je splošna narava odstopanja poudarjena z dejstvom, da je bil z eno zainteresirano stranjo prav tako sklenjen dogovor na podlagi Uredbe z zakonsko močjo št. 411/91.
Portugal argues that the Commission should take into account in this Decision the 20/98 Report of the Court of Auditors instead of the 8/2002 audit report, as the 20/98 audit report covers the RTP ‘s economic and financial situation for the period from 1994 to 1996.
Poročilo po mnenju Portugalske ni pomembno, razen tega, da je pomenilo neodvisno revizijo podjetja in potrdilo izkaze Portugalske ter da ni odkrilo nobenih nepravilnosti.
The 20/98 audit report concluded that the criteria used to finance the public service are more clearly defined in the new public service contract than under the old public service contract, which is disputed by the later 8/2002 Report.
Portugalska trdi, da bi morala Komisija v tem sklepu namesto poročila revizijskega sodišča št. 8/2002 upoštevati poročilo o reviziji št. 20/98, saj slednje obravnava ekonomski in finančni položaj javne televizije RTP v obdobju 1994–1996. V poročilu o reviziji št. 20/98 je bilo ugotovljeno, da merila za financiranje javne službe v stari pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe niso tako jasno opredeljena kot v novi pogodbi o izvajanju javne službe, v kasnejšem poročilu 8/2002 pa je ta ugotovitev izpodbijana.
In the following, the State aid character of the loan of 1998, the settlement on the rescheduling of debt and interest waiver and the capital injections 1994-97 will be examined.
V nadaljevanju bodo obravnavani značaj državne pomoči posojila iz leta 1998, dogovor o odlogu plačila dolga in odpoved zamudnim obrestim ter kapitalske injekcije v obdobju 1994–1997.
Likewise, the presence of State resources in the exemptions from notarial deed charges, registration charges and publications costs will be assessed.
Ocenjena bo tudi prisotnost državnih sredstev pri oprostitvi plačila notarskih stroškov, registracijskih taks in stroškov objave.
This principle was introduced into the Portuguese Constitution in 1982, that is to say, long before the transformation of RTP in 1992 took place.
To načelo je bilo v portugalsko ustavo uvedeno leta 1982, torej precej pred preoblikovanjem javne televizije RTP leta 1992.
Portugal claims that Article 11(2) of Law No 21/92 does not actually grant a permanent exemption to RTP, but that it was only intended to cover the same situation as before in relation to the temporary exemption, namely the transformation of RTP into a public limited company in 1992.
Portugalska trdi, da člen 11(2) Zakona št. 21/92 javni televiziji RTP dejansko ne dodeljuje trajne oprostitve, ampak je bil namenjen isti zadevi kot prej začasna oprostitev, tj. preoblikovanju javne televizije RTP v javno delniško družbo leta 1992.
Portugal also claims that on several occasions RTP paid notarial registration charges.
Portugalska tudi trdi, da je javna televizija RTP že večkrat plačala notarske registracijske takse.
Contrary to a temporary exemption from registration charges, a permanent exemption cannot also be justified by the equivalence of acts doctrine which, due to the legislative adoption process, dispensed with the requirement of a notarial deed and its publication when RTP was transformed in 1992.
V nasprotju z začasno oprostitvijo plačila stroškov registracije trajne oprostitve ni mogoče utemeljiti z doktrino enakovrednosti aktov, s katero je bila ob preoblikovanju javne televizije RTP leta 1992 zaradi postopka sprejetja zakonodaje ukinjena zahteva po sestavi notarskega zapisa in njegovi objavi.
Compliance with the nature and logic of the Portuguese legal system could be accepted for the temporary exemption because in the concrete case of RTP’s transformation into a public limited company could only be achieved, as demonstrated, by a decree-law.
Skladnost z naravo in logiko portugalskega pravnega sistema je mogoče sprejeti za začasno oprostitev, ker je bilo v tem določenem primeru preoblikovanje javne televizije RTP v javno delniško družbo, kot je bilo prikazano, mogoče samo z uredbo z zakonsko močjo.
Although RTP was subject to a special management regime in 1977 [69], that regime came to an end with the adoption of the 1980 statutes, whereas the debt to the social security scheme was ‘built up’ in the period from 1983 to 1989.
Čeprav je bil za javno televizijo RTP v letu 1977 uveden poseben režim upravljanja [69], se je ta režim končal s sprejetjem statuta leta 1980, dolg shemi za socialno varnost pa se je „nakopičil“ v obdobju 1983–1989.
The Commission considers that the debt regularisation for RTP cannot be considered part of a general regime under Law No 411/91, as RTP did not meet the criteria laid down in that Law for such authorisation.
Komisija meni, da reguliranja dolga javne televizije RTP ni mogoče šteti za del splošnega režima v okviru Zakona št. 411/91, saj javna televizija RTP ni izpolnjevala meril, ki jih ta zakon določa za tako odobritev.
Furthermore, the debt with the social security scheme ‘built up’ in the period from 1983 to 1989 and a rescheduling arrangement was agreed only in 1993.
Poleg tega se je dolg shemi socialne varnosti „nakopičil“ v obdobju 1983–1989, dogovor o odlogu plačila dolga pa je bil sklenjen šele v letu 1993.
Under the same conditions, a private creditor would not have allowed a similar accumulation of outstanding debt over such a long period without initiating collection procedures.
Zasebni upnik pod enakimi pogoji ne bi dovolil podobnega nabiranja neporavnanega dolga v tako dolgem obdobju, ne da bi sprožil postopke za izterjavo dolga.
That is to say, external audits on the fulfilment by RTP of the public service obligations were carried out for the years 1992 to 1997.
Zunanje revizije izpolnjevanja obveznosti javne službe s strani javne televizije RTP so bile torej izvedene za leta 1992–1997.
For the year 1992, the external audit was carried out despite the absence of a public service report.
Za leto 1992 je bila zunanja revizija izvedena kljub temu, da za to leto ni bilo poročila o izvajanju javne službe.