natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Til støtte for deres påstand om, at der ikke havde fundet uregelmæssigheder sted i udbudsproceduren, henviser de græske myndigheder til flere afgørelser fra nationale retter, der analyserede lovligheden af udbudsproceduren efter national ret.
To reinforce their claim that no irregularities occurred in the tender procedure, the Greek authorities point to several rulings by national courts which analysed the lawfulness of the tender procedure under national law.
Hidtil har de nationale retter ikke konstateret nogen uregelmæssigheder i udbudsproceduren og har derfor afvist de forskellige begæringer fra CA om spørgsmålet [23].
To date, the national courts have found no irregularities in the tender and have therefore rejected the various applications made by CA on the subject [23].
Blandt de nationale retters afgørelser, der bekræfter, at udbudsproceduren var forløbet korrekt, henviser de græske myndigheder navnlig til følgende:
Among the findings of the national courts, confirming the correctness of the tender, the Greek authorities refer more particularly to the following:
Sager ved civilretterne
Litigation before the civil courts:
I dom 8118/2002 [24] afviste Athens ret i første instans en anmodning fra CA og traf følgende afgørelse:
In its judgement 8118/2002 [24], the Athens Court of First Instance rejected an application made by CA and ruled that:
Udbudskomitéen og klagekomitéen fandt med rette, at HR's bud i første og anden runde var i overensstemmelse med indkaldelserne af bud.
The Tender Committee and the Objections Committee rightly held that HR’s first- and second-round bids were in conformity with the invitations to tender.
Den erklæring fra HR, som var vedlagt dets bud, anfægtede ikke den betingelsesløse karakter af dets bud.
HR’s statement attached to its bids had not affected the unconditional nature of its bids,
CA indgav et bud kl. 15.30, dvs. ved begyndelsen af tredje runde, som fastsat af udbudskomitéen ved afslutningen af anden runde.
CA submitted a bid at 15.30, i.e. at the beginning of the third round, as laid down by the Tender Committee at the end of the second round.
Buddet blev trukket tilbage af CA's repræsentant af egen fri vilje og drift, selv om formanden for udbudskomitéen forsøgte at få ham til at afholde sig herfra.
The bid was taken back by CA’s representative, of his own will and motion, even though the chairman of the Tender Committee tried to deter him from doing so.
Hvis formanden for udbudskomitéen udtrykkeligt havde advaret CA's repræsentant mod at trække buddet tilbage, ville dette have resulteret i forskelsbehandling til fordel for CA på bekostning af HR.
If the chairman of the Tender Committee had explicitly warned CA’s representative about taking back the bid, this would have resulted in discriminatory treatment in favour of CA and against HR.
Klagekomitéen anså med rette CA's andet bud i tredje runde for at være antageligt.
CA’s second bid in the third round was rightly considered inadmissible by the Objections Committee.
Hver tilbudsgiver kunne kun afgive ét bud i hver runde.
Each bidder could tender only one bid in each round.
Hvis CA's andet bud i tredje runde var blevet anset for antageligt, ville dette endvidere have ført til en overtrædelse af gennemsigtighedsprincippet.
Moreover, if CA’s second bid in the third round had been deemed admissible, this would have resulted in a violation of the principle of transparency.
CA's repræsentant tog CA's første lukkede kuvert tilbage, forlod det sted, hvor udbuddet fandt sted, og fremlagde ved sin tilbagekomst en lukket kuvert, der ikke med sikkerhed kunne siges at være den samme som den første kuvert [25].b) Sager ved forvaltningsretterne
CA’s representative took back CA’s first sealed envelope, left the venue where the tender was taking place and on his return presented a sealed envelope, which could not be verified as being the same as the first envelope [25].(b) Litigation before the administrative courts
Ifølge de græske myndigheder verserer der for øjeblikket en sag ved statsrådet (den øverste forvaltningsret) vedrørende en anden begæring fra CA med påstand om, at udbudsproceduren var ulovlig [26].
According to the Greek authorities, a case is currently before the Council of State (Supreme Administrative Court) concerning another application made by CA alleging the unlawfulness of the tender procedure [26].
Den endelige dom er endnu ikke afsagt, men de græske myndigheder bemærker, at den refererende dommer har foreslået, at CA's begæring afvises som uantagelig af kompetencemæssige grunde og som ubegrundet i substansmæssig henseende [27].
The final judgment is currently pending; however the Greek authorities observe that the Judge Rapporteur has proposed that CA’s application should be dismissed as inadmissible on grounds of jurisdiction and unfounded on grounds of substance [27].
Straffesager
Criminal litigation
Som følge af en sag, som CA i 2002 anlagde mod medlemmer af udbudskomitéen, klagekomitéen, ETA, det konsulentfirma, der foretog vurderingen (American Appraisal Hellas Ltd), og den finansielle rådgiver (Kantor) vedrørende deres adfærd under udbudsproceduren, udstedte rådet af appelretsdommere, som fik sagen forelagt til pådømmelse, en frifindelseskendelse [28] og fastslog nærmere bestemt,
Following an action filed in 2002 by CA against members of the Tender Committee, the Objections Committee, ETA, the evaluation consultant (American Appraisal Hellas Ltd) and the financial advisor (Kantor), concerning their behaviour during the tender procedure, the Council of Court of Appeals Judges, to which the case was forwarded for adjudication, issued an acquitting order [28] and found, more particularly, that:
at hverken klagekomitéens første eller anden afgørelse var ulovlig, og at der ikke var fundet noget fyldestgørende bevis på, at dens medlemmer havde begået fejl.
Neither the first nor the second decision of the Objections Committee were unlawful and no adequate evidence was found of any misconduct on the part of its members.
Ved at afvise CA's indvending i første og anden runde og ved til gengæld at acceptere HR's indvending i tredje runde, overtrådte medlemmerne af klagekomitéen ikke vilkårene i indkaldelserne af bud og behandlede ikke de to tilbudsgivere forskelligt
The members of the Objections Committee, by overruling CA’s objection in the first and second round and accepting on the other hand HR’s objection in the third round, did not infringe the terms of the invitations to tender and did not treat the two bidders differently.
at udbudskomitéens afgørelser ikke var ulovlige, og at medlemmerne af udbudskomitéen ikke behandlede de to tilbudsgivere forskelligt; endvidere var udbudskomitéen ifølge vilkårene i indkaldelserne af bud forpligtet til at tage klageudvalgets afgørelser til følge
The decisions of the Tender Committee were not unlawful and the members of the Tender Committee did not treat the two bidders differently; furthermore the Tender Committee was obliged, according to the terms of the invitations to tender, to adhere to the findings of the Objections Committee.
at ETA's repræsentant ikke overtrådte de relevante nationale bestemmelser ved at anmode den første foreløbigt højest bydende (HR) om at forhøje sit finansielle bud; ETA's repræsentant havde ikke tilladelse til at indlede forhandlinger og havde ikke beføjelse til at annullere eller aflyse udbudsproceduren.
ETA’s representative did not infringe the relevant national provisions by asking the first provisional highest bidder (HR) to increase its financial bid; ETA’s representative was not authorised to enter into negotiations and did not have the power to cancel or call off the bidding procedure.
Ovennævnte frifindelseskendelse blev endvidere indbragt for de nationale domstole [29], og for ganske nylig afsagde Athens appelret en dom, der frifandt alle de tiltalte (dom 466/2011).
The above acquitting order was further challenged before the national courts [29] and very recently the Appeal Court of Athens delivered a judgment acquitting all the persons charged (judgment 466/2011).
Dommens fulde tekst er endnu ikke til rådighed.
The full text of this judgment is not yet available.
På baggrund af alle ovenstående bemærkninger fastholder de græske myndigheder, at den vurderede foranstaltning ikke involverede statsstøtte i henhold til artikel 107 i TEUF.
In conclusion, in consideration of all the above observations, the Greek authorities maintain that the measure under assessment does not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.
Ved brev af 4. august 2010 meldte repræsentanter for den påståede støttemodtager (dvs. Athens Resort Casino Holdings på HR's vegne) sig som interesseret part i Kommissionens behandling af sagen.
By letter of 4 August 2010, representatives of the alleged beneficiary (i.e. Athens Resort Casino Holdings on behalf of HR) intervened in the Commission proceedings as an interested party.
Den påståede støttemodtager fremsatte de samme bemærkninger som Grækenland, der er sammenfattet i afsnit 4.
The alleged beneficiary submitted the same comments as Greece, which are summarised in the Section 4.
Endvidere anfører den påståede støttemodtager, at den pris, der reelt blev betalt for andelen i kasinoet, var på 120 mio. EUR, dvs. 10 mio. EUR højere end tidligere oplyst [30].
In addition, the alleged beneficiary states that the price actually paid for the stake in the casino was EUR 120 million, EUR 10 million higher than previously understood [30].
Prisen var derfor endnu højere end den faglige vurdering på 95,4 mio. EUR, der var blevet foretaget (men ikke offentliggjort), inden udbudsproceduren blev iværksat.
It was also therefore even further above the professional valuation of EUR 95,4 million that had been made (but not made known) before the tendering procedure was launched.
Den påståede støttemodtager anfører endvidere, at ETA ikke blot ikke var forpligtet til, men heller ikke havde nogen ret til at rette en opfordring til den foreløbigt anden højest bydende, fordi det ville have indebåret, at man havde indledt nye budrunder i strid med betingelserne i indkaldelserne af bud.
The alleged beneficiary further argues that ETA was not only not obliged, but also had no right to call on the provisional second highest bidder, because that would have meant beginning new rounds of bidding, in breach of the terms of the invitations to tender.
Den påståede støttemodtager hævder, at der ikke var nogen fare for, at CA's bud på 162 mio. EUR uden for udbudsproceduren ville blive taget alvorligt, og at det kun blev afgivet for at udløse annullation af udbudsproceduren.
It further claims that the bid of EUR 162 million by CA outside the tendering procedure was at no risk of being taken seriously, and was submitted only to trigger the cancellation of the tender procedure.
Den påståede støttemodtager bekræfter, at man givet ville have anfægtet enhver beslutning om at acceptere dette bud, hvorved man ville have risikeret, at hele proceduren var blevet annulleret.
It confirms that it would certainly have contested any decision to accept this bid, risking the cancellation of the entire procedure.
Den påståede støttemodtager peger i den forbindelse også på udtalelsen fra det juridiske statsråd, der bekræftede, at CA's bud ikke kunne tages i betragtning eller accepteres [31].
In this respect, it also points to the opinion of the Legal Council of State, which confirmed that the CA bid could not be taken into account or be accepted [31].
For så vidt angår konkurrencefordrejning og følgerne for samhandelen, sætter den påståede støttemodtager også spørgsmålstegn ved Kommissionens antagelse i beslutningen om at indlede undersøgelsesproceduren om, at hasardspil er en verdensomspændende forretning, og at de virksomheder, der er aktive på dette område, udøver en økonomisk aktivitet på et internationalt marked.
The alleged beneficiary also calls into question the supposition made by the Commission in the opening decision, regarding distortion of competition and effect on trade, that gambling is a worldwide business and the companies in this field exercise an economic activity in an international market.
Den påståede støttemodtager hævder, at Mont Parnès ikke opererer internationalt, men kun lokalt og derfor ikke konkurrerer med kasinoer i udlandet.
The alleged beneficiary claims that Mont Parnès is not active internationally but operates only locally and is therefore not in competition with casinos abroad.
Ved brev af 29. september 2010 meldte Club Hotel Casino Loutraki AE sig (på CA's vegne) [32] som interesseret part i Kommissionens behandling af sagen.
By letter of 29 September 2010, Club Hotel Casino Loutraki AE (on behalf of CA) [32] intervened in the Commission proceedings as an interested party.
I dette brev anfører Club Hotel Casino Loutraki AE, at der med hensyn til beregningen af den påståede støtte også bør tages hensyn til forskellen mellem buddene og den stadfæstende lovs indvirkning på køberens forpligtelser i henhold til betingelserne i den offentlige udbudsprocedure.
In that letter it argues that, as regards the quantification of the alleged aid, account should also have been taken of the difference between the bids and the impact of the ratifying law on the obligations of the purchaser under the terms of the public tender procedure.
Eksistensen af statsstøtte i forbindelse med afhændelsen af aktier ved kommercielt salg
The existence of State aid in the disposal of shares by trade sale
Det hedder i artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF, 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 det indre marked, i det omfang den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
Article 107(1) TFEU states that, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States.
I overensstemmelse med EU-Domstolens faste retspraksis [33] og Kommissionens regler og beslutningspraksis vedrørende statsstøtte i forbindelse med privatisering [34] er der, når en medlemsstat køber eller sælger virksomheder, ikke tale om en fordel, hvis medlemsstatens adfærd er forenelig med en privat markedsøkonomisk investors adfærd.
In accordance with the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the EU [33] and Commission rules and practice on State aid in the context of privatisations [34], when a Member State purchases or sells shares of undertakings, no advantage is present if the Member State’s behaviour is consistent with that of a private market economy investor.
Navnlig når salget af aktier finder sted på børsen, antages det generelt, at det sker på markedsbetingelser, og at det ikke indebærer nogen fordel.
In particular, when the sale of shares takes place on the stock exchange, it is generally assumed to be on market conditions and not to involve any advantage.
Når afhændelsen finder sted ved et kommercielt salg, kan det antages, at det ikke indebærer nogen fordel, hvis følgende betingelser er opfyldt: for det første skal aktieposten sælges ved et åbent og gennemsigtigt udbud, der gennemføres på konkurrencemæssige vilkår og ikke medfører forskelsbehandling; for det andet må der ikke være knyttet betingelser dertil, som ikke er normal praksis i tilsvarende transaktioner mellem private parter, og som vil kunne reducere salgsprisen; for det tredje skal virksomheden sælges til den højestbydende, og for det fjerde skal tilbudsgiverne have tilstrækkelig tid og tilstrækkelige oplysninger til, at de kan foretage en passende vurdering af de aktiver, som deres tilbud vedrører.
However, when the disposal is carried out through a trade sale, it can be assumed that no advantage is involved if the following conditions are fulfilled: first, the shareholding is sold by a competitive tender that is open to all comers, transparent and non-discriminatory; second, no conditions are attached which are not customary in comparable transactions between private parties and which are capable of potentially reducing the sales price; third, the shareholding is sold to the highest bidder; and fourth, bidders must be given enough time and information to carry out a proper valuation of the assets at the basis of their bid.
Med andre ord, når privatiseringen gennemføres ved et kommercielt salg, er kriteriet for, om en transaktion vedrørende statslige aktiver indebærer en fordel, om en markedsøkonomisk aktør ville have opført sig på samme måde i en tilsvarende situation, dvs. om virksomheden ville være blevet solgt til samme pris.
In other words, when the privatisation is carried out by trade sale, the benchmark for assessing whether a transaction concerning State assets involves an advantage is whether a market economy operator placed in a similar situation would have behaved in the same way, i.e. would have sold the company at the same price.
Betragtninger, der ikke er af økonomisk art, såsom industripolitiske forhold, hensyn til beskæftigelsen eller målsætninger for regionaludviklingen, og som en markedsøkonomisk investor ikke ville gøre sig, vil ikke kunne godtages som begrundelse for at acceptere en lavere pris, men derimod være en indikator for, at der foreligger støtte.
Non-economic considerations, such as for example industrial policy reasons, employment considerations or regional development objectives, which would not be entertained by a market economy operator, cannot be taken into account as reasons for accepting a lower price and, on the contrary, point to the existence of an advantage.
Kommissionen har gentagne gange redegjort for dette princip, som er blevet stadfæstet konsekvent af Retten og Domstolen [35].
This principle has been repeatedly explained by the Commission and consistently confirmed by the Court [35].
Hvis ikke alle ovennævnte betingelser er opfyldt, mener Kommissionen derfor, at det offentlige salg skal undersøges nærmere, for at det kan fastslås, om det omfatter statsstøtte og derfor skal anmeldes.
Therefore, if any of the above requirements are not met, the Commission considers that the public sale must be examined for possible aid implications and, thus, must be notified.
Ved at overholde disse krav er det muligt at sikre, at staten opnår den højeste pris for sine aktiver, dvs. markedsprisen, og at der derfor ikke er tale om nogen fordel.
By respecting these requirements, it is possible to ensure that the State obtains the highest price, i.e. the market price for its assets and therefore that no advantage is involved.
Salget af 49 % af kapitalen i Casino Mont Parnès
The sale of the 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parnès casino
Da Kommissionen indledte undersøgelsesproceduren i henhold til artikel 108, stk. 2, i TEUF, var den i tvivl om, hvorvidt salget af Casino Mont Parnès fandt sted efter en åben, gennemsigtig og ikke-diskriminerende udbudsprocedure.
When opening the proceedings under Article 108(2) TFEU, the Commission had doubts whether the sale of Mont Parnès casino was conducted within an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure.
Ud fra de oplysninger, der var til rådighed på dette tidspunkt, fandt Kommissionen, at det var meget vanskeligt at afgøre, om der var tale om ulovlig forskelsbehandling, og om der blev betalt en markedspris eller ej.
According to the information available at that stage, the Commission considered that there were significant difficulties in determining whether any preferential treatment was unlawfully granted and also whether a market price was or was not paid.
Kommissionen var usikker på, om uregelmæssigheder i udbudsproceduren kunne have resulteret i statsstøtte.
The Commission was concerned that irregularities in the tendering procedure might have resulted in State aid.
Kommissionen foretog dernæst en vurdering af de relevante kendsgerninger som led i den formelle undersøgelse.
The Commission then carried out an assessment of the relevant facts within the framework of the formal investigation.
Denne vurdering byggede på det bevismateriale, der var til rådighed om foranstaltningen.
This assessment is based on the body of evidence available in respect of the measure.
I de forskellige faser af proceduren har Kommissionen modtaget oplysninger om de mange retssager på nationalt plan, ifølge hvilke den oprindelige udbudsprocedure bør stå ved magt.
During the various stages of the procedure, the Commission has received information about the many legal actions at national level that vindicate the original tendering procedure.
Kommissionen bemærker, at de forskellige retsafgørelser på nationalt plan indtil videre ikke synes at understøtte bemærkningerne fra sagsøger om uregelmæssigheder og forskelsbehandling i udbudsproceduren (jf. også punkt 41-46 ovenfor).
The Commission notes that, to date, the various court rulings at national level do not appear to support the observations made by the complainant about irregularities and unequal treatment in the tender procedure (see also paragraphs 41 to 46 above).
De nationale retter synes snarere hidtil at have bekræftet, at udbudsproceduren var lovlig og ikke-diskriminerende på grundlag af nationale regler.
The national courts rather appear to have so far confirmed the lawfulness and the non-discriminatory nature of the tender procedure, based on national rules.
Selv om Kommissionens vurdering ikke afhænger af de nationale retters afgørelser, kan den tage disse afgørelser i betragtning som en faktor i sin analyse.
Although the Commission’s assessment is not dependent on the findings of national courts, it may take such findings into consideration as one factor in its analysis.
Kommissionen bemærker dog, at den aktuelle vurdering ikke på nogen måde har til formål at fortolke den nationale lovgivning, hvilket udelukkende henhører under medlemsstatens kompetence.
The Commission however notes that the present assessment is not in any way intended to interpret national law, which is solely the competence of the Member State.
I den forbindelse finder Kommissionen, at udbudsprocedurens lovlighed ifølge national ret som beskrevet og begrundet i den omfattende og indgående undersøgelse, som de forskellige nationale retter har foretaget indtil nu, giver et vigtigt fingerpeg om, at udbudsproceduren er korrekt og ikke-diskriminerende.
In this context, the Commission considers that the lawfulness of the tender procedure under national law, as described and justified through the extensive in-depth examination performed by the various national courts so far, constitutes a significant indication of the correctness and the non-discriminatory nature of the tender procedure.
Kommissionen kan i sin vurdering i henhold til EU's statsstøtteregler blandt andre faktorer tage hensyn til denne klare bekræftelse af, at udbudsproceduren var åben, betingelsesløs og ikke-diskriminerende efter de nationale regler
This apparent validation of the tender under national rules can be taken into account by the Commission, among other factors, in its assessment under EU State aid rules that the bidding procedure was open, unconditional and non-discriminatory.
Med hensyn til det spørgsmål, der blev rejst i beslutningen om at indlede undersøgelsesproceduren, om at en af tilbudsgiverne syntes at have overtrådt reglen i indkaldelsen af bud vedrørende den mindste forhøjelse i forhold til det foregående bud, bemærker Kommissionen, at dette spørgsmål er blevet løst, eftersom den krævede forhøjelse var på 1 % og ikke 10 %, sådan som Kommissionen havde fået oplyst.
As regards the question raised in the opening decision that one of the bids seemed to breach the rule in the invitation to tender concerning the minimum increase over the previous bid, the Commission notes that this issue has been resolved, since the required increase was 1 % and not 10 % as the Commission had been given to understand.
Derfor finder Kommissionen, at reglerne i udbudsproceduren var overholdt i denne henseende.
Therefore the Commission considers that the rules of the tender procedure were complied with in this regard.