natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De græske myndigheder og Mont Parnès hævder, at Loutraki ved at indgive en klage til Kommissionen kun 15 år efter vedtagelsen af foranstaltningen (i 1995) misbrugte sin ret til at klage til Kommissionen for at forsvare sine egne interesser og rettigheder under statsstøttebestemmelserne i EUF-traktaten.
The principle that a right should not be exercised abusively: the Greek authorities and Mont Parnès contend that because Loutraki only lodged a complaint with the Commission 15 years after the adoption of the measure in dispute (in 1995), it is an abusive exercise of its right to have recourse to the Commission to seek the defence of its interests (and rights) arising from the provisions on State aid in the TFEU.
Med hensyn til beregningen af det beløb, der skal tilbagebetales, bestrider de græske myndigheder og Mont Parnès den af Loutraki foreslåede beregningsmetode, i henhold til hvilken forskellen i afgift pr. kunde, der betales af kasinoer med hhv. lav og høj entrépris, skal ganges med antallet af kunder i de begunstigede kasinoer.
On the calculation of the amount to be recovered, the Greek authorities and Mont Parnès contest the calculation proposed by Loutraki (difference in tax levied per customer between the higher priced and lower priced casinos, multiplied by the number of customers entering the beneficiary casinos).
De mener, at beregningen er fejlbehæftet og vilkårlig, da det ikke er sikkert, at de påståede begunstigede kasinoer i Mont Parnès, Thessaloniki og på Korfu [44] med en højere entrépris ville have samme kundekreds.
Such calculation would be flawed and arbitrary as it is not certain that with a higher ticket price the alleged beneficiary casinos of Mont Parnès, Thessaloniki and Corfu [44] would have the same amount of clientele.
Bemærkninger fra Loutraki
Comments from Loutraki
Loutraki hævder, at foranstaltningerne under den nationale lovgivning udgør afgiftsmæssig forskelsbehandling, der begunstiger visse kasinoer, da den afgift på 80 % af entréprisen, som skal betales til staten, anvendes på et forskelligt afgiftsgrundlag, nemlig de to forskellige entrépriser, der er fastsat af staten.
Loutraki argues that the measures provided by national legal provisions constitute a fiscal discrimination in favour of certain casinos insofar as the requirement to remit to the State the uniform 80 % levy on admission in casinos applies to a different tax basis – the two different admission prices set by the State.
Entréprisen til de begunstigede kasinoer er betydeligt lavere end prisen til de andre kasinoer (6 EUR i stedet for 15 EUR), hvilket udgør et indtægtstab for staten, og da dette skaber konkurrencefordrejning, udgør det statsstøtte.
As the admission price for the beneficiary casinos is significantly inferior to that of the other casinos (EUR 6 instead of EUR 15), this constitutes a loss of revenues for the State and thus amounts to State aid, in light of the distortion of competition it creates.
Loutraki anfører videre, at foranstaltningen ikke er objektivt begrundet, da indførelsen af en lavere entrépris for de begunstigede kasinoer rent faktisk strider mod den sociale målsætning og mod begrundelsen for og karakteren af at fastsætte en entrépris for kasinoer, som blev drøftet i statsrådets dom nr. 4027/1998.
Loutraki further argues that the measure is not objectively justified, as the imposition of a lower price of admission tickets in the beneficiary casinos is actually contrary to the social objective and the justification and characteristics of the setting of a price of admission tickets to casinos as described by the Judgement No 4027/1998 of the Greek Council of State.
Loutraki påstår, at det ikke med rimelighed kan påstås, at man kan sikre administrativ kontrol og social beskyttelse ved at opkræve forskellige priser på adgangsbilletter — i kasinoet i Mont Parnès, der kun ligger ca. 20 km fra Athens centrum, koster billetten 6 EUR, mens den i Loutraki, der ligger omkring 85 km fra Athens centrum, koster 15 EUR. I kasinoet i Thessaloniki, der kun ligger ca. 8 km fra Thessaloniki centrum, er billetprisen 6 EUR, mens den i Chalkidiki, omkring 120 km fra Thessaloniki centrum, koster 15 EUR.
Loutraki contends that it cannot be reasonably argued that administrative control and social protection could be achieved by different prices of admission tickets – in casino Mont Parnès, only ca. 20 km from Athens city centre, by a ticket of EUR 6 while in casino Loutraki, ca. 85 km from Athens city centre, by a ticket of EUR 15, or respectively, in casino Thessaloniki, only ca. 8 km from Thessaloniki city centre (also at EUR 6), as opposed to casino Chalcidice, ca. 120 km from Thessaloniki city centre (at EUR 15).
Loutraki bemærker, at Grækenland tidligere har påstået, at den reducerede entrépris på 6 EUR var begrundet med de enkelte kasinoers særlige forhold, der navnlig vedrører geografisk placering (som er bestemmende for visse økonomiske, sociale, demografiske og andre specifikke særtræk), men at kasinoet på Korfu, da det blev privatiseret i august 2010, begyndte at opkræve en entrépris på 15 EUR uden forklaring på, hvorfor disse særlige forhold ikke længere gjorde sig gældende.
Loutraki observes that, although Greece had previously argued that the reduced price of admission tickets of EUR 6 is justified in consideration of special circumstances applicable to each beneficiary casino, mainly related to the geographical situation of each casino (which determines certain economic, social, demographic and other specificities), nevertheless, in August 2010, the Corfu Casino passed to EUR 15 upon its privatisation, without any explanation as to why the abovementioned special circumstances no longer applied.
Med hensyn til størrelsen af det beløb, der skal tilbagebetales, fastholder Loutraki, at denne sum er forskellen mellem den afgift, der opkræves pr. kunde, ganget med antallet af kunder i de begunstigede kasinoer.
On the quantification of the amount to be recovered, Loutraki maintains that this amount is the difference in tax levied per customer multiplied by the number of customers entering the beneficiary casinos.
Med hensyn til de særskilte foranstaltninger, som Grækenland og Mont Parnès henviser til, og som efter deres mening begunstiger Loutraki, og her især at Loutraki angiveligt skulle betale en mindre andel af den årlige bruttofortjeneste til staten end de andre kasinoer, hævder Loutraki, at man i praksis har betalt det samme beløb som konkurrenterne i henhold til en særlig aftale med myndighederne.
As concerns the separate measures invoked by Greece and Mont Parnès, which would allegedly favour Loutraki (mainly that Loutraki would pay a lower proportion of annual gross profits to the State as compared to other casinos), Loutraki sustains that in practice it has paid the same amount as its competitors under a separate agreement with the authorities.
V. VURDERING
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
Foranstaltningen består af afgiftsmæssig forskelsbehandling til fordel for bestemte kasinoer, som de græske myndigheder har indført, samtidig med at de anvender en række bestemmelser [45], der fastlægger en afgift på 80 % af entréprisen til kasinoer og forskellige regulerede priser for offentligt ejede og privatejede kasinoer, nemlig 6 EUR for offentligt ejede kasinoer og 15 EUR for privatejede kasinoer, hvorved privatejede kasinoer stilles ringere i konkurrencen [46].
The measure under assessment is the fiscal discrimination that the Greek authorities have put into place in favour of certain casinos through the implementation of simultaneous legal provisions [45] concerning both the fixing of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of admission tickets in casinos, and the setting of two unequal regulated prices of admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively for publicly and privately owned casinos, thereby placing the latter at a competitive disadvantage [46].
Statsstøtte som omhandlet i artikel 107, stk. 1, i EUF-traktaten
Presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU
I EUF-traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, hedder det, at »bortset fra de i traktaterne hjemlede undtagelser er statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med fællesmarkedet i det omfang, den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne«. (58) Kommissionen vil følgelig vurdere, om foranstaltningen opfylder alle fire betingelser for at udgøre statsstøtte efter artikel 107, stk. 1.
The Commission will assess hereunder whether the contested measure fulfils the four cumulative conditions to constitute a State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Den indrømmede fordel
Presence of advantage
For at udgøre statsstøtte skal en foranstaltning give modtagerne en fordel, som mindsker de byrder, der normalt belaster deres budget.
In order to constitute State aid, a measure must confer on beneficiaries an advantage which relieves them of charges that are normally borne from their budgets.
De græske myndigheder har for det første anført, at foranstaltningen ikke er omfattet af bestemmelserne om statsstøtte, fordi alle kasinoer, der opererer i Grækenland, skal betale samme procentuelle afgift til staten, nemlig 80 % af værdien af hver entrébillet, mens forskelselementet opstår med den prispolitik, der blev fastlagt med lovgivning fra 1994 og 1995, hvor entréprisen til kasinoer, der har fået licens i henhold til lov 2206/1994, fastsættes til 15 EUR.
Regarding this, the Greek authorities argued, firstly, that, as the level of the contribution that all casinos operating in Greece must pay to the State is uniform (i.e. 80 % of the value of each admission ticket), whereas the element of difference in treatment comes from the pricing policy set in 1994-95 by legal provisions (setting the level of the price of admission tickets at EUR 15 for casinos to be licensed under the provisions of Law 2206/1994), such measure may not be covered by State aid rules.
De græske myndigheder påstår også, at entréprisen kun er en administrativ kontrolforanstaltning og ikke er en afgift, idet fastsættelsen af en entrépris til kasinoer i henhold til statsrådets dom nr. 4025/1998 har en social karakter og ikke er en afgiftsforanstaltning.
The Greek authorities also contended that the admission charge constitutes only a measure of administrative control, without having a fiscal character since, as, according to the Decision of the Greek Council of State 4025/1998 (the supreme administrative court), the setting of a price of admission tickets in casinos has a social character and does not constitute a tax measure.
For det første skal det påpeges, at fastsættelse af priser i lov 2206/1994 ikke uden problemer kan beskrives som en typisk prisfastsættelsespolitik, da alle kasinoer ser ud til frit at kunne fastsætte lavere entrépriser eller endog tilbyde gratis adgang, selvom de i alle tilfælde skal betale 80 % af entréprisens værdi til staten, uanset hvilket beløb de rent faktisk opkræver af kunden.
It should however be noted first that the setting of prices by the Law 2206/1994 may not be easily qualified as a typical pricing policy, since all casinos appear to be free to charge consumers a lower price of admission tickets, or even grant free admission, though in all cases they remain subject to the obligation to pay to the State 80 % of the respective value of the admission tickets issued, regardless of what was actually charged to the consumers.
Under alle omstændigheder er det under anvendelsen af EU's statsstøttebestemmelser irrelevant, om foranstaltningen er en afgifts- eller prisfastsættelsesforanstaltning, da artikel 7 anvendes på støtte »under enhver tænkelig form«, der giver en fordel.
Anyway, in applying the EU rules on State aid, it is irrelevant whether the measure under assessment is of a pricing or tax nature, since Article 107 of the TFEU applies to aid measures ‘in any form whatsoever’ that provide an advantage.
Det forhold, at det primære mål ikke er at skabe indtægter for staten, er ikke i sig selv nok til, at en sådan foranstaltning ikke bliver klassificeret som statsstøtte.
The fact that its primary aim was not to generate fiscal revenues is not in itself sufficient to allow such a measure to escape the qualification of State aid.
Selv hvis det godtages, at fastsættelsen af en entrépris til kasinoer kan have en social målsætning, skal spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt dette udgør en fordel og dermed statsstøtte, vurderes i lyset af følgerne for de enkelte virksomheder for at fastslå, om nogle virksomheder bidrager mindre til de offentlige indtægter.
Even admitting that the setting of a price of admission tickets in casinos may have a social objective, the question of whether it constitutes an advantage amounting to State aid must be assessed in terms of effects, at the level of individual companies with a view to determining whether some companies contribute less to public revenues.
Eftersom fritagelse fra at anvende den generelle entrépris på 15 EUR er blevet tildelt individuelt til bestemte kasinoer, og især at afgiften på 80 % skal betales til staten på grundlag af den lavere pris, som disse kasinoer skal opkræve (i princippet, jf. ovenfor), får disse kasinoer en fordel.
The fact that the exemption from the application of the general price of admission tickets of EUR 15 was granted individually to specific casinos, and in particular the fact that the levy of 80 % is to be paid to the State on the basis of the lower price which those casinos must – in principle (see above) ask, shows that an advantage is granted to those casinos.
Kommissionen anerkender medlemsstaternes ret til at definere en foranstaltning som en afgiftsforanstaltning eller tilsvarende i henhold til deres egen nationale lovgivning.
The Commission recognises the right of Member States to define under national law the qualification of a measure as being of a tax nature or otherwise.
Kommissionens vurdering sigter på ingen måde mod at fortolke national lov.
The Commission’s assessment is not in any way directed at interpreting national law.
Men denne foranstaltning muliggør en regelmæssig, løbende betaling til staten af 80 % af prisen på alle entrébilletter solgt af alle kasinoer.
However, the measure has the effect of enabling a regular continuous payment to the State of 80 % of the correspondent price of all the admission tickets issued by each casino.
Desuden bemærker Kommissionen, at de skyldige beløb i henhold til national lov (især lov 2206/1994 og ministerbeslutning af 1995) skal indbetales til de relevante skattekontorer [47].
Additionally, the Commission observes that according to national law (in particular the Law 2206/1994 and the Ministerial Decision of 1995), the respective amounts are deposited with the competent income tax office [47].
Mens klassificeringen af foranstaltningen efter national lov ikke derfor påvirkes, bemærker Kommissionen, at foranstaltningens virkninger svarer til virkningerne af en afgiftsforanstaltning.
In consideration of the above, and without it affecting in any way the qualification of the measure under national law, the Commission observes that the measure under assessment has effects similar to those of a fiscal measure.
Følgelig vil Kommissionen udelukkende i denne beslutning og i vurderingen under EU's statsstøttelovgivning betegne foranstaltningen som en afgiftsforanstaltning, en afgift eller beskatning.
Therefore, for the sole purposes of this Decision and insofar as its assessment under EU State aid law is concerned, the Commission shall refer to the measure as a ‘fiscal measure’ or a ‘tax’ in the current Decision.
Foranstaltningen, nemlig afgiftsforskelsbehandling, der skyldes den samlede virkning af en ensartet afgift på ulige, regulerede entrépriser, giver statsejede kasinoer i Grækenland en fordel sammenlignet med privatejede kasinoer.
The measure under assessment, namely the fiscal discrimination produced by the joint effect of a uniform admission tax applied to unequal regulated prices of admission tickets, is placing the casinos owned by the State in Greece at an advantage over those privately owned.
Den samlede virkning af de to statslige tiltag er, at statsejede kasinoer kun betaler 4,80 EUR (80 % af 6 EUR) i afgift pr. billet, mens de privatejede kasinoer skal betale en afgift pr. person på 12 EUR (80 % af 15 EUR) [48].
The joint effect of the two State actions makes that, while the privately owned casinos must pay to the State an admission tax of EUR 12 (80 % × 15) per person, the casinos owned by the State only pay EUR 4,8 (80 % × 6) [48].
Med denne foranstaltning fjerner den græske stat en byrde fra de offentlige kasinoer, som de ellers skulle have båret, hvis beskatningen havde været ikkediskriminerende og konkurrenceneutral.
By this measure the Greek State relieves the public casinos from a burden that otherwise they should bear if a non-discriminatory and competitive-neutral taxation were enforced.
Ikkediskriminerende og konkurrenceneutral beskatning blev i princippet indført i Grækenland med lov 2206/1994 om etablering, indretning, drift og tilsyn af kasinoer, der fastsætter entréprisen til 15 EUR og statsafgiften til 80 % heraf.
This non-discriminatory and competitive neutral taxation was, in principle, established in Greece by Law 2206/1994 on the creation, organisation, functioning and control of casinos which set at EUR 15 the price of admission tickets and at 80 % of that level the admission tax burden due to the State.
Men den græske stat har ikke anvendt dette ikkediskriminerende, konkurrenceneutrale afgiftssystem på de offentlige kasinoer (eller det privatejede kasino i Thessaloniki, som blev behandlet på samme måde), men har i stedet tilladt dem kun at betale 4,80 EUR i entréafgift. Ordningen har følgelig begunstiget disse virksomheder.
However, by not enforcing this non-discriminatory and competitive neutral taxation in respect of the public casinos (and the assimilated private casino of Thessaloniki) and instead allowing them to pay only EUR 4,8 as admission tax, the Greek State has favoured these undertakings.
Disse kasinoer har skullet bære en mindre afgiftsbyrde pr. person ud af deres samlede indtægter.
These casinos have effectively paid a lower fiscal burden per person out of their respective total income.
Deres samlede indtægter omfatter ikke kun entréindtægter (dvs. udelukkende fra entrébilletter), men også deres øvrige indtægtskilder såsom hasardspil, overnatning, bar- og restaurationsydelser, underholdning osv.
The Commission notes that this total income includes not only their admissions revenue (revenues made solely from the price of admission tickets), but also that from their other sources of income, such as gambling, accommodation, bar and restaurant services, shows etc. (total revenues).
Ifølge fast retspraksis omfatter begrebet statsstøtte ikke kun positive fordele, men også indgreb, der under forskellige former letter de byrder, som normalt belaster en virksomheds budget, og derved, uden at være tilskud i ordets egentlige forstand, er af samme art og har tilsvarende virkninger [49].
It is settled case-law that the concept of aid includes not only positive benefits, but also measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in nature and have the same effect [49].
En sådan fordel kan gives som mange forskellige former for reduktion af virksomhedens skattebyrde, herunder gennem en reduktion af afgiftsgrundlaget.
The advantage may be provided through a reduction in the undertaking’s tax burden in various ways, including a reduction in the tax base.
I denne sag har kasinoerne på Korfu og i Mont Parnès og Thessaloniki (og indtil 1999 også kasinoet på Rhodos) [50] fået en fordel svarende til en reduktion i afgiftsgrundlaget, da der som forklaret ovenfor er indført bestemmelser, som kun gælder for disse kasinoer, i henhold til hvilke de skal betale en afgift pr. person, der er fastsat på et lavere grundlag end afgiftsgrundlaget for andre kasinoer.
In this case, the casinos Corfu, Mont Parnès and Thessaloniki (as well as Rhodes casino, until 1999 [50]), benefit from an advantage similar to a reduction in the tax base, since, as previously explained, ad hoc provisions specific to these casinos set the tax which they must pay per admission at a lower level compared to that imposed on other casinos.
De græske myndigheder har fremført, at den direkte begunstigede af den lavere afgift er kunden.
The Greek authorities observed that the direct beneficiary of a lower tax burden is the customer.
Men selv hvis man kan påstå, at kunderne også får fordel af den reducerede afgiftsbyrde pr. entrébillet, eftersom de betaler en lavere samlet pris, hindrer dette ikke foranstaltningen i at give en fordel til de relevante virksomheder, i dette tilfælde de begunstigede kasinoer, eftersom de betaler et lavere afgiftsbeløb pr. kunde.
However, even if it could be argued that the customer is also a beneficiary of a reduced tax burden per admission, since he pays a total lower price, this fact does not preclude the measure from providing an advantage to the relevant undertakings, in this case the beneficiary casinos, since they have to pay a lower amount of fiscal charges per customer received.
Det fremgår af sager om afgifter, at fritagelse fra afgifter, som betales nominelt af kunden, men opkræves af leverandøren, potentielt kan udgøre statsstøtte i lighed med andre incitamenter til kunder til at købe bestemte goder og tjenesteydelser [51].
In fact, as shown in fiscal cases, derogations from taxes nominally paid by the consumer but collected by the supplier may potentially constitute State aid, as may other incentives to consumers to purchase particular products and services [51].
I overensstemmelse med hidtidig praksis mener Kommissionen, at afgiftsreduktioner for kunder kan udgøre statsstøtte til virksomheder, hvis reduktionen er betinget af brug af et bestemt gode eller en bestemt tjenesteydelse af en bestemt virksomhed [52].
In line with past practice [52], the Commission believes that reductions in taxes on consumers can constitute State aid to undertakings when the reduction is conditional on the use of a particular good or service from a particular undertaking.
Argumentet om, at den direkte begunstigede er kunden, er således ikke til hinder for, at der kan bestå statsstøtte.
The argument that the direct beneficiary is the customer is not therefore an obstacle to a finding of State aid.
I lyset af de græske kasinoers almindelige kommercielle praksis med at give gratis adgang og selv betale entréafgiften til staten (80 % af billettens nominelle værdi) er fordelen for de offentlige kasinoer ved afgiftsforskelsbehandlingen endnu større, da entréprisen til de privatejede kasinoer er meget højere, og afgiften er 12 EUR, end den er for de offentligt ejede kasinoer, som kun skal finansiere 4,80 EUR ud af de samlede indtægter af deres erhvervsaktiviteter.
Furthermore, given the customary commercial practice followed by casinos in Greece to waive the price of the admission tickets while paying to the State the admission tax (80 % of the face value of the admission tickets), the advantageous effect of the fiscal discrimination in favour of the public casinos is further reinforced, since the cost of the admission is notably higher for the private casinos with a higher admission tax of EUR 12 than for the public ones that only have to finance EUR 4,8 out of total revenue of their business.
De græske myndigheder påstår, at praksis med at tillade de begunstigede kasinoer at anvende gratis entrébilletter på bestemte ugedage kun er noget, der sker undtagelsesvist.
The Greek authorities claimed that the practice of the beneficiary casinos of granting free admission on certain week days is exceptional.
Men dette er specifikt tilladt efter national lovgivning (ministerbeslutningen fra 1995).
It remains the case that it is specifically provided for in the national law (Ministerial Decree of 1995).