natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, ‘public service broadcasting must be able to continue to provide a wide range of programming in accordance with its remit as defined by the Member States in order to address society as a whole; in this context it is legitimate for public service broadcasting to seek to reach wide audiences’.
Ne nazadnje „mora biti javna radiodifuzija zmožna še naprej zagotavljati širok razpon programskih vsebin v skladu s svojo odgovornostjo, kakor je opredeljena v državah članicah, da bi se obračala na družbo kot na celoto; v tem okviru javna radiodifuzija legitimno poskuša doseči širše občinstvo“.
Given these characteristics, which are peculiar to the broadcasting sector, a public service mandate encompassing ‘a wide range of programming in accordance with its remit’, as stated by the Resolution on public service broadcasting, can in principle be considered as legitimate, as aiming at a balanced and varied programming, capable of preserving a certain level of audience for public broadcasters and, thus, of ensuring the accomplishment of the mandate, i.e. the fulfilment of the democratic, social and cultural needs of the society and the guaranteeing of pluralism.
Glede na te značilnosti, ki so lastne radiodifuznemu sektorju, je mandat javne storitve, ki vsebuje „širok razpon programskih vsebin v skladu z njeno odgovornostjo“, kakor je navedeno v Resoluciji o javni radiodifuziji, načeloma mogoče obravnavati kot legitimen, saj je usmerjen v uravnotežene in raznolike programske vsebine, zmožne ohranjanja določene ravni občinstva za javne radiodifuzne organizacije in tako zagotavljanja uresničevanja mandata, tj. izpolnjevanja demokratičnih, socialnih in kulturnih potreb družbe ter zagotavljanja pluralizma.
It should be noted that commercial broadcasters, of whom a number are subject to public service requirements, also play a role in achieving the objectives of the Resolution on public service broadcasting to the extent that they contribute to pluralism, enrich cultural and political debate and widen the choice of programmes.
Omeniti je treba, da imajo tudi komercialne radiodifuzne hiše, med katerimi jih je kar nekaj takšnih, da zanje veljajo zahteve za javne storitve, tolikšno vlogo pri doseganju ciljev Resolucije o javni radiodifuziji, da prispevajo k pluralizmu, bogatijo kulturno in politično razpravo ter širijo izbiro programov.
The legal context
Pravno ozadje
The application of the State aid rules to public service broadcasting has to take into account a wide number of different elements.
Pri uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za javno radiodifuzijo je treba upoštevati številne različne elemente.
The EEA Agreement includes Article 61 on State aid as well as Article 59(2) on the application of the rules of the EEA Agreement and the competition rules, in particular, to services of general economic interest.
Sporazum EGP vključuje člen 61 o državni pomoči in člen 59(2) o uporabi pravil Sporazuma EGP in pravil o konkurenci, zlasti za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena.
Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement establishes the rules of procedure in State aid cases.
Protokol 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču določa pravila postopka v primerih državne pomoči.
For the European Communities, the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced a specific provision (Article 16 of the EC treaty) on services of general economic interest and an interpretative protocol on the system of public service broadcasting.
Za Evropske skupnosti je Amsterdamska pogodba uvedla posebno določbo (člen 16 Pogodbe ES) o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena in razlagalni protokol o sistemu javne radiodifuzije.
The Treaty of Maastricht had already introduced an Article which defines the role of the Community in the field of culture (Article 151 of the EC Treaty) and a possible compatibility clause for State aid aimed at promoting culture (Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty).
Maastrichtska pogodba je že uvedla člen, ki opredeljuje vlogo skupnosti na področju kulture (člen 151 Pogodbe ES) in določilo o možni združljivosti za državno pomoč, namenjeno promociji kulture (člen 87(3)(d) Pogodbe ES).
The EEA Agreement does not contain a ‘cultural exemption’ similar to Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Ttreaty.
Sporazum EGP ne vsebuje „kulturne izjeme“, podobne členu 87(3)(d) Pogodbe ES.
However, this does not mean that an exemption for such measures is excluded.
Vendar to ne pomeni, da izvzetje za takšne ukrepe ni dopuščeno.
As accepted by the authority in previous cases, such support measures might be approved on cultural grounds on the basis of article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement [8].
Kakor je v prejšnjih primerih sprejel nadzorni organ, se takšni podporni ukrepi lahko odobrijo zaradi kulturnih razlogov na podlagi člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP [8].
Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities [9] as amended by Directive 97/36/EC [10], has been incorporated into Annex X of the EEA Agreement [11].
Direktiva 89/552/EGS z dne 3. Oktobra 1989 o usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o opravljanju dejavnosti razširjanja televizijskih programov [9], kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/36/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [10], je bila vključena v Prilogo X k Sporazumu EGP [11].
Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings [12], as amended by Directive 2000/52/EC [13] of 26 July 2000, was incorporated into the legal framework of the EEA Agreement by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 6/2001 [14].
Direktiva 80/723/EGS z dne 25. junija 1980 o preglednosti finančnih odnosov med državami članicami in javnimi podjetji ter finančni preglednosti v nekaterih podjetjih [12], kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Komisije 2000/52/ES z dne 26. julija 2000 [13], je bila vključena v pravni okvir Sporazuma EGP z odločitvijo Skupnega odbora EGP št. 6/2001 [14].
These rules are subject to interpretation by the EFTA Court within the ‘EFTA pillar’ and by the European Court of Justice and the European Court of First Instance within the ‘Community pillar’.
Za ta pravila velja razlaga Sodišča EFTE znotraj „stebra EFTE“ ter Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in Evropskega sodišča prve stopnje znotraj „stebra Skupnosti“.
The Authority has also adopted several guidelines on the application of the State aid rules which correspond to similar communications issued by the EC Commission.
Nadzorni organ je sprejel tudi več smernic o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči, ki ustrezajo podobnim sporočilom, ki jih je izdala Evropska komisija.
Applicability of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Uporaba člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP
The State aid character of State financing of public service broadcasters
Značaj državne pomoči pri državnem financiranju javnih radiodifuznih organizacij
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement states: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between the Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement’.
Člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP navaja: „Razen če ta sporazum ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodelijo države članice ES ali države EFTE, oziroma kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z delovanjem tega sporazuma, če škodi trgovini med pogodbenicami.“
The effect of State intervention, not its purpose, is the decisive element in any assessment of its State aid content under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Pri vsaki oceni obsega državne pomoči v skladu s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP je odločilni element učinek državnega posega in ne njegov namen.
State financing of public service broadcasters is normally to be regarded as State aid, inasmuch as it meets the above criteria.
Državno financiranje javnih radiodifuznih organizacij se navadno obravnava kot državna pomoč, če izpolnjuje zgornja merila.
Public service broadcasters are normally financed out of the State budget or through a levy on TV-set holders.
Javne radiodifuzne organizacije so navadno financirane iz državnega proračuna ali iz dajatve, ki jo plačujejo imetniki televizijskih sprejemnikov.
In certain specific circumstances, the State makes capital injections or debt cancellations in favour of public service broadcasters.
V nekaterih posebnih okoliščinah država zagotovi kapitalske injekcije ali prekliče dolgove v korist javnih radiodifuznih organizacij.
These financial measures are normally attributable to the public authorities and involve the transfer of State resources.
Te finančne ukrepe je običajno mogoče pripisati javnim oblastem, vključujejo pa prenos državnih sredstev.
Moreover, and to the extent that such measures fail to satisfy the market economy investor test, in accordance with Chapter 19 of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines on public authorities’ holdings and Chapter 20 concerning the application of State aid provisions to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector [15], they favour in most cases only certain broadcasters and may thereby distort competition.
Če ti ukrepi ne prestanejo tržno-gospodarskega preskusa investitorja v skladu s poglavjem 19 Smernic Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči glede matičnih družb javnih oblasti in poglavja 20 o uporabi določb o državni pomoči za javna podjetja v proizvodnem sektorju [15], dajejo javne oblasti večinoma prednost zgolj nekaterim radiodifuznim organizacijam in lahko s tem izkrivljajo konkurenco.
Naturally, the existence of State aid will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and depends also on the specific nature of the funding [16].
Seveda bo treba obstoj državne pomoči oceniti po posamičnih primerih, odvisen pa je tudi od posebne narave financiranja [16].
As the European Court of Justice has observed: ‘When aid granted by the State or through State resources strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade the latter must be regarded asaffected by that aid’ [17]. Thus, State financing of public service broadcasters can generally be considered to affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je izjavilo: „Kadar pomoč, dodeljena s strani države ali prek državnih virov, okrepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki tekmujejo v prometu znotraj Skupnosti, za zadnja velja, da so zaradi te pomoči prizadeta.“ [17] Tako za državno financiranje javnih radiodifuznih organizacij lahko na splošno velja, da vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
This is clearly the position as regards the acquisition and sale of programme rights, which often takes place at an international level.
Takšno je očitno stanje glede pridobivanja in prodaje programskih pravic, kar se pogosto dogaja na mednarodni ravni.
Advertising, too, in the case of public broadcasters who are allowed to sell advertising space, has a cross-border effect, especially for homogeneous linguistic areas across national boundaries.
Pri javnih radiodifuznih organizacijah, ki jim je dovoljeno prodajati oglaševalski prostor, ima tudi oglaševanje čezmejni učinek, zlasti na homogena jezikovna območja prek nacionalnih meja.
Moreover, the ownership structure of commercial broadcasters may extend to more than one EEA State.
Poleg tega se lastniška struktura komercialnih radiodifuznih organizacij lahko razteza na več kot eno državo EGP.
According to the case-law of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance [18], in general any transfer of State resources to a certain undertaking has to be regarded as State aid (provided that all the conditions for the application of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty are fulfilled).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in Sodišča prve stopnje [18] je treba na splošno vsak prenos državnih virov v določeno podjetje obravnavati kot državno pomoč (če so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji za uporabo člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES).
However, as the European Court of Justice has decided in its judgment concerning Altmark Trans GmbH [19] (hereinafter referred to as the Altmark judgment) that ‘where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so that those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favorable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them, such a measure is not caught by Article 92(1) [now Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty]’.
Vendar pa je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti v svoji sodbi glede Altmark Trans GmbH [19] (v nadaljnjem besedilu „sodba Altmark“) odločilo, da „kadar je treba ukrep države obravnavati kot kompenzacijo za storitve, ki so jih opravila podjetja, ki so prejela pomoč, da bi izpolnila obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev, tako da ta podjetja niso deležna dejanske finančne prednosti in jih ukrep posledično ne postavlja v ugodnejši konkurenčni položaj v primerjavi s konkurenčnimi podjetji, takšen ukrep ni zajet v členu 92(1) [sedaj člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES]“.
According to the Altmark judgment of the European Court of Justice, the four conditions below must however be satisfied for such a compensation to escape the classification as State aid:
V skladu s sodbo Altmark Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti morajo biti izpolnjeni spodnji štirje pogoji, da se takšna kompenzacija ne uvrsti med državne pomoči:
first, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined,
prvič, podjetje, ki je prejelo pomoč, mora dejansko imeti obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev, ki jih mora izpolniti, in obveznosti morajo biti jasno opredeljene,
second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner, to avoid it conferring an economic advantage which may favour the recipient undertaking over competing undertakings,
drugič, parametri, na podlagi katerih se izračuna kompenzacija, morajo biti objektivno in pregledno vnaprej določeni, da bi se izognili podelitvi ekonomske ugodnosti, ki lahko podjetje, ki pomoč prejme, postavi v ugodnejši položaj kot konkurenčna podjetja,
third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations,
tretjič, kompenzacija ne sme preseči zneska, ki je potreben za pokritje vseh stroškov ali dela stroškov, nastalih pri izpolnjevanju obveznosti iz izpolnjevanja javnih storitev, ob upoštevanju ustreznih prejemkov in primernega dobička za izpolnjevanje teh obveznosti,
fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations’.
četrtič, kadar podjetje, ki mora izpolniti obveznosti iz javnih storitev, v določenem primeru ni izbrano v skladu s postopkom javnih naročil, ki bi omogočil izbiro ponudnika, ki lahko opravi te storitve po najnižjih stroških za Skupnost, je treba stopnjo potrebne kompenzacije določiti na podlagi analize stroškov, ki bi jih imelo takšno podjetje, dobro upravljano in ustrezno opremljeno s prevoznimi sredstvi, pri izpolnjevanju potrebne zahteve iz obveznosti izvajanja javne storitve, ob upoštevanju ustreznih prejemkov in primernega dobička za izpolnjevanje obveznosti.“
The Authority will take this interpretation of the European Court of Justice into account, when it assesses public service compensation payments under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ bo upošteval to razlago Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, ko bo ocenjeval plačila kompenzacij za javne storitve po členu 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
State support which fulfills the above mentioned criteria, does therefore not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and does not need to be notified to the Authority.
Državna podpora, ki izpolnjuje zgoraj navedena merila, torej ni državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP in je ni treba prijaviti Nadzornemu organu.
Nature of the aid: existing aid as opposed to new aid
Narava pomoči: obstoječa in nova pomoč
The funding schemes currently in place in most of the EFTA States were introduced a long time ago.
Programi financiranja, ki se trenutno uporabljajo v večini držav EFTE, so bili uvedeni že pred časom.
As a first step, therefore, the Authority must determine whether these schemes may be regarded as ‘existing aid’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement [20].
Zato je prvi korak Nadzornega organa, da določi, ali naj se ti programi obravnavajo kot „obstoječa pomoč“ v smislu člena 1(1) iz Dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču [20].
Existing aid is regulated by Article 1(1) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement which states that: ‘The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall, in cooperation with the EFTA States, keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States.
Obstoječo pomoč ureja člen 1(1) iz dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču, ki navaja: „Nadzorni organ EFTA v sodelovanju z državami EFTE stalno pregleduje vse sisteme pomoči, ki obstajajo v teh državah.
It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the EEA Agreement’.
Tem državam predlaga vse ustrezne ukrepe, ki so potrebni zaradi postopnega razvoja ali delovanja Sporazuma EGP.“
Pursuant to Article 1(b)(i) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, existing aid includes ‘all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in the respective EFTA States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the EEA Agreement’.
V skladu s členom 1(b)(i) iz dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču, obstoječa pomoč vključuje „vso pomoč, ki je v zadevnih državah EFTE obstajala pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP, to je programe pomoči in individualno pomoč, ki so začeli veljati pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP in se uporabljajo tudi po začetku njegove veljave“.
Pursuant to Article 1(b)(v) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, existing aid also includes ‘aid which is deemed to be an existing aid because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, and subsequently became an aid due to the evolution of the European Economic Area and without having been altered by the EFTA State (…)’.
V skladu s členom 1(b)(v) iz dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču obstoječa pomoč vključuje tudi „pomoč, ki šteje za obstoječo pomoč, ker je mogoče ugotoviti, da v času, ko je začela veljati, ni pomenila pomoči in je posledično postala pomoč zaradi razvoja Evropskega gospodarskega prostora in ne da bi jo država EFTE spremenila […]“.
In accordance with Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement and the case-law of the European Court of Justice [21], the Authority must verify whether or not the legal framework under which the aid is granted has changed since its introduction.
V skladu s Protokolom 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču ter sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti [21] mora Nadzorni organ preveriti, ali se je pravni okvir, po katerem se dodeljuje pomoč, od njene uvedbe spremenil ali ne.
The Authority must take into account all the legal and economic elements related to the broadcasting system of a given EFTA State.
Nadzorni organ mora upoštevati vse pravne in ekonomske elemente, ki so povezani z radiodifuznim sistemom določene države EFTE.
Although the legal and economic elements relevant for such an assessment present common features in all EEA States, the Authority believes that a case-by-case approach is the most appropriate.
Čeprav pravni in ekonomski elementi, ki so pomembni za takšno oceno, predstavljajo skupne značilnosti v vseh državah EGP, Nadzorni odbor meni, da je najbolj ustrezen pristop po posamičnih primerih.
Assessment of the compatibility of State aid under Articles 61(2) and 61(3) of the EEA Agreement
Ocena skladnosti državne pomoči po členu 61(2) in (3) Sporazuma EGP
State aid to public broadcasters must be examined by the Authority in order to determine whether or not it can be found compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ mora preveriti državno pomoč javnim radiodifuznim organizacijam, da ugotovi, ali je skladna z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
The derogations listed in Article 61(2) and Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement can be applied.
Uporabiti je mogoče odstopanja, navedena v členu 61(2) in (3) Sporazuma EGP.
The EEA Agreement does not contain a provision corresponding to Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty which obliges the EC Commission to take cultural aspects into account in its actions under other provisions, nor does it contain a cultural exemption similar to Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty.
Sporazum EGP ne vsebuje določbe, ustrezne členu 151(4) Pogodbe ES, ki Komisijo ES zavezuje, da v svojih ukrepih v skladu z drugimi določbami upošteva kulturne vidike, prav tako pa tudi ne vsebuje kulturne izjeme, podobne členu 87(3)(d) Pogodbe ES.
This does not, however, mean that the application of the State aid rules does not leave any room for the consideration of cultural aspects.
Vendar pa to ne pomeni, da uporaba pravil o državni pomoči ne pušča nobenega prostora za upoštevanje kulturnih vidikov.
In this respect, it should be recalled that the Authority established in a decision regarding State aid for film production and film-related activities in Norway, that film support measures might be approved on cultural grounds under the application of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, provided that this approach takes the criteria developed by the EC Commission sufficiently into account and that the approach does not deviate from the EC Commission’s practice prior to the adoption of Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty.
V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da je Nadzorni organ v odločbi glede državne pomoči za filmsko produkcijo in s filmom povezane dejavnosti na Norveškem določil, da je zaradi kulturnih razlogov mogoče odobriti ukrepe v podporo filmu v skladu z uporabo člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP, če ta pristop dovolj upošteva merila, ki jih je razvila Komisija ES, in če ta pristop ne odstopa od prakse Komisije ES pred sprejetjem člena 87(3)(d) Pogodbe ES.
Secondly, it should be noted that the EC Commission in its decision NN 49/97 and N 357/99 regarding a support package for Irish film and television production, explicitly stressed that the introduction of Articles 151(1) and 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty did not necessarily reflect a change in the EC Commission’s policy towards the cultural sector.
Drugič, kot je treba omeniti, je Komisija ES v svojih odločbah NN 49/97 in N 357/99 glede podpornega paketa za irsko filmsko in televizijsko produkcijo izrecno poudarila, da uvedba členov 151(1) in 87(3)(d) Pogodbe ES ni nujno odrazila spremembe v politiki Komisije ES glede kulturnega sektorja.