français   |   site map    |   EBU Lounge   |   eurovision.net    |  search   advanced search
  HomePage > The Union > EBU News > Archives > 2003
  About the EBU   
    Offices   
    Governance   
    Media Centre   
    Publications   
      EBU viewpoint   
      Technical Review   
      SIS reports   
    Calendar   
  Members   
  Radio   
  EurovisionTV   
  Eurovision Operations   
  Legal & Public Affairs   
  Technical   
  HR & Training   
  SIS   
  Contact us   
 
Public service and State aid

On July 24, 2003, the European Court of Justice laid down four conditions that must be satisfied so that financial compensation, which is intended to pay for public service obligations, is not classified as State aid. 

This decision may be of some importance in the public service broadcasting sector where such funding compensates for fulfilment of the public service remit.

Legislating on the case of a German transport company that had not, contrary to another company, obtained licences and subsidies for transporting passengers by bus, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) referred to the Court of Justice to find out whether the subsidies granted to a company were considered to be State aid prohibited by the EC Treaty.

The Court pointed out that for a State measure to be classifiable as State aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty, it must be capable of being regarded as an “advantage” conferred on the recipient company that it would not have obtained under normal market conditions. 

The Court held that there is no such “advantage” where a State financial measure must be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient company in order to discharge public service obligations. 

However, four conditions must be satisfied. 

  • First, the recipient company must actually have public service obligations to discharge and those obligations must be clearly defined.
  • Secondly, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner.
  • Thirdly, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit.
  • Fourthly, when the company is not chosen in a public procurement procedure, the level of compensation must be determined by a comparison with an analysis of the costs that a typical transport company would incur (taking into account the receipts and a reasonable profit from discharging the obligations).

If these four conditions are satisfied, a company has not enjoyed a real financial “advantage” which would have the effect of putting it in a more favourable competitive position than the companies competing with it, so that there is no case of State aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty. 

Reference : http://curia.eu.int/fr/actu/communiques/index.htm 

Press releases 2003 :

Nº 64/2003: 24 July 2003 Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans et Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg 

For further information: 

Jacques Briquemont
Head of Public Affairs,
Tel: +32 2 286 91 11
Mob: +32 475 84 02 45
briquemont@ebu.ch



© EBU 2005
Latest update 08.11.2005