natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the Court noted that this conclusion did not preclude the fact that such a contract must observe the basic rules and general principles of the Treaty, in particular those on freedom of establishment and free movement of capital.
Lisaks märkis kohus, et eeltoodud järeldus ei välista seda, et sellise lepingu puhul peab järgima aluslepingu põhinorme ja üldpõhimõtteid, eelkõige neid, mis kehtivad asutamisvabaduse ja kapitali vaba liikumise valdkonnas.
By letter of 6 July 2010 the Commission informed Greece that it had decided to open the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the measure (the ‘opening decision’).
Komisjon teavitas Kreekat 6. juuli 2010. aasta kirjaga otsusest algatada seoses kõnealuse meetmega EL toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõikes 2 sätestatud menetlus (edaspidi „menetluse algatamise otsus”).
The Commission’s decision to open the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [8].
Komisjoni otsus menetluse algatamise kohta avaldati Euroopa Liidu Teatajas [8].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.
Komisjon kutsus huvitatud isikuid üles esitama meetme kohta märkusi.
Following the opening of the procedure, the Commission received comments from two interested parties, namely the representatives of the alleged beneficiary (Athens Resort Casino Holdings [9], on behalf of HR) [10] and from representatives of the complainant (Club Hotel Casino Loutraki, on behalf of CA) [11].
Pärast menetluse algatamist laekusid komisjonile märkused kahelt huvitatud isikult, nimelt väidetava abisaaja esindajatelt (Athens Resort Casino Holdings, [9] HRi nimel) [10] ja kaebuse esitaja esindajatelt (Club Hotel Casino Loutraki, CA nimel) [11].
By letter of 6 August 2010, Greece submitted its comments.
Kreeka esitas oma märkused 6. augusti 2010. aasta kirjaga.
The comments of both interested parties were sent by letter of 29 October 2010 to Greece, which reacted by letter of 25 November 2010.
Mõlema huvitatud isiku märkused edastati 29. oktoobri 2010. aasta kirjaga Kreekale, kes vastas 25. novembril 2010. aastal.
On 16 December 2010 [12], the Court of Justice ruled that the General Court (formerly the Court of First Instance) had been wrong in determining that there was no case to answer in the original challenge to the Commission’s ‘administrative closure’ of the case.
Euroopa Kohus otsustas 16. detsembril 2010, [12] et Üldkohus (varem Esimese Astme Kohus) eksis, langetades otsuse, mille kohaselt puudub alus menetleda uurimise nn administratiivset lõpetamist komisjoni poolt.
In October 2001 the Greek authorities initiated a procedure for the award of a public contract with a view to disposing of 49 % of the capital of Mont Parnès casino [13].
Kreeka ametiasutused algatasid 2001. aasta oktoobris riigihankemenetluse, et müüa 49 % osalus kasiino Mont Parnès kapitalis [13].
There were two competing applicants, namely ‘Kazino Attikis’ (Casino Attikis or CA) and the consortium named Hyatt Regency — Elliniki Technodomiki (the Hyatt Regency consortium or HR), both of which were selected to participate in the second stage of the tendering procedure [14], under the terms of the relevant national provisions.
Konkureerisid kaks kandidaati: Kazino Attikis (edaspidi „Casino Attikis” või „CA”) ja konsortsium Hyatt Regency – Elliniki Technodomiki (edaspidi „konsortsium Hyatt Regency” või „HR”), kes mõlemad valiti vastavalt asjakohastele siseriiklikele õigusnormidele osalema hankemenetluse teises etapis [14].
Following proceedings which it is alleged were invalid, the contract was awarded to HR.
Väidetavalt nõuetevastase menetluse tulemusel sõlmiti hankeleping Hyatt Regency konsortsiumiga.
The following paragraphs 26 to 29 describe the events leading to this award, according to the information available to the Commission.
Punktides 26–29 kirjeldatakse sündmusi, mille tulemusel komisjonile kättesaadava teabe kohaselt see hankeleping sõlmiti.
Such a new bid would have to be at least equal to the initially higher bid increased by 1 % [15].
Uus pakkumus peaks olema algsest kõige kõrgemast pakkumusest vähemalt 1 % võrra suurem [15].
This subsequent bidding would carry on indefinitely in separate rounds, until one of the bidders withdrew, in which case the last bidder would be declared the provisional highest bidder.
Selline edasine pakkumine jätkuks eraldiseisvates voorudes seni, kuni üks pakkujatest loobub ja viimane pakkuja kuulutataks esialgselt kõige kõrgema hinna pakkujaks.
The minutes naming the provisional highest bidder would be submitted by the Tender Committee to the Board of Directors of the Hellenic Tourism Development Authority (ETA).
Hankekomisjon esitaks esialgse kõige kõrgema hinna pakkuja nime sisaldava protokolli Kreeka turismiarenguameti (edaspidi „ETA”) direktorite nõukogule.
During the first round, the two candidates submitted their bids at the same time, in sealed envelopes, on 31 May 2002, at the headquarters of ETA.
Esimeses voorus esitasid kaks kandidaati oma pakkumused suletud ümbrikutes ETA peakontoris 31. mail 2002. aastal samaaegselt.
CA objected to this statement, claiming that the formulation of reservations rendered HR’s financial bid inadmissible.
CA esitas sellele avaldusele vastuväite, märkides, et reservatsioonide esitamine muutis HRi rahalise pakkumuse vastuvõetamatuks.
CA’s objection was rejected by the Objections Committee, which considered that HR’s statement did not affect the validity of its bid.
Vastuväidete komisjon lükkas CA vastuväite tagasi põhjendusega, et HRi avaldus ei mõjutanud tema pakkumuse kehtivust.
In the second round, HR submitted in a sealed envelope its bid of EUR 92105888, again accompanied by the same written statement.
Teises voorus esitas HR suletud ümbrikus oma pakkumuse summas 92105888 eurot ning lisas oma pakkumusele sama kirjaliku avalduse.
After the completion of the second round, the legal representative of CA submitted an envelope with the financial bid for the third round, and also submitted a separate statement to the Board of Directors of ETA on violation of the terms of the tender with regard to the validity requirements of the tender.
Pärast teise vooru lõppemist esitas CA seaduslik esindaja ümbriku rahalise pakkumusega kolmanda vooru jaoks ning samuti eraldi avalduse ETA direktorite nõukogule hankemenetluse tingimuste rikkumise kohta seoses pakkumuse kehtivustingimustega.
The Tender Committee rejected this submission on the grounds that it would be admissible only if submitted in the form of an objection, falling within the competence of the Objections Committee.
Hankekomisjon lükkas selle avalduse tagasi põhjendusega, et see oleks vastuvõetav ainult siis, kui see esitataks vastuväite kujul ja kuuluks seega vastuväidete komisjoni pädevusse.
When they returned within the 5 minutes, they stated that they did not intend to submit an objection and they submitted their bid.
Viie minuti pärast naastes ütles CA esindaja, et ei kavatse vastuväidet esitada, ning esitas CA pakkumuse.
Subsequently, HR submitted an objection and requested that the third round of bids be deemed inadmissible on the grounds that CA had submitted a bid which they had withdrawn and then re-submitted.
Järgnevalt esitas HR vastuväite ja nõudis, et kolmanda vooru pakkumused loetaks vastuvõetamatuks põhjusel, et CA esitas pakkumuse, mille võttis tagasi ja esitas seejärel uuesti.
HR’s objection was accepted by the Objections Committee and CA’s bid [16] was excluded from the procedure.
Vastuväidete komisjon aktsepteeris HRi vastuväidet ja CA pakkumus [16] kõrvaldati menetlusest.
After excluding CA’s third-round bid, the Tender Committee forwarded [17] to the Board of Directors of ETA a copy of the minutes of its eighth meeting, at which it had named HR first provisional highest bidder (with a bid of EUR 92105888) and CA second provisional highest bidder.
Pärast CA kolmanda vooru pakkumuse eemaldamist edastas [17] hankekomisjon ETA direktorite nõukogule koopia oma 8. koosoleku protokollist, milles nimetati HR esialgseks kõige kõrgema hinna pakkujaks (pakkumusega 92105888 eurot) ja CA suuruselt teise hinna pakkujaks.
Thereafter, on 5 June 2002, the Managing Director of ETA and the legal representative of Kantor Capital, economic adviser in charge of the proceedings, were authorised to ask HR to improve its bid.
Seejärel lubati 5. juunil 2002. aastal ETA tegevdirektoril ja Kantor Capitali seaduslikul esindajal, kes on menetluse eest vastutav majandusnõunik, paluda HRil oma pakkumust suurendada.
Finally, the HR bid was improved still further, rising to the sum of EUR 120 million [19].
Lõpuks suurendas HR oma pakkumust 120 miljoni euroni [19].
DECISION TO OPEN THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION
OTSUS AMETLIKU UURIMISMENETLUSE ALGATAMISE KOHTA
The Commission opened the formal investigation because it was not able to allay its doubts as to whether the stake of 49 % in the capital of Mont Parnès casino was sold by the Greek State to the highest bidder in a sale procedure that met the requirements of openness, transparency and non-discrimination.
Komisjon algatas ametliku uurimismenetluse, kuna ei suutnud hajutada oma kahtlusi, kas Kreeka riik müüs 49 % osaluse kasiino Mont Parnès kapitalis kõige kõrgema hinna pakkujale sellise müügimenetluse käigus, mis vastas avatuse, läbipaistvuse ja mittediskrimineerimise nõuetele.
In particular, the Commission was not sure whether or not during the sale procedure there was any preferential treatment unlawfully granted to the buyer and consequently whether a market price was or was not paid.
Eelkõige ei olnud komisjon kindel, kas müügimenetluse ajal ei toimunud ostja ebaseaduslikku sooduskohtlemist, ja kas sellest tulenevalt maksti tehingu eest turuhinda või mitte.
The Commission considered that the exclusion of CA from the tender, and of CA’s bid of EUR 162 million made after the tender procedure, might be evidence of a sale below value and therefore of the existence of aid in the form of foregone State resources.
Komisjon leidis, et CA eemaldamine hankemenetlusest ja CA 162 miljoni euro suurune pakkumus, mis esitati pärast hankemenetlust, võib tõestada vara müüki selle väärtusest madalama hinnaga ja seetõttu abi olemasolu riigi ressursside kaotuse kaudu.
COMMENTS FROM GREECE
KREEKA MÄRKUSED
By letter of 6 August 2010 Greece submitted its observations.
Kreeka esitas oma märkused 6. augusti 2010. aasta kirjaga.
Greece contests the existence of State aid on the grounds that the tender procedure for the sale of its stake in the capital of Mont Parnès casino was run in accordance with the applicable legislation, and that the 49 % stake in the casino was sold at market price.
Kreeka vaidlustab riigiabi olemasolu, väites, et hankemenetlus riigi osaluse müümiseks kasiino Mont Parnès kapitalis viidi läbi vastavalt kohaldatavatele õigusnormidele ning et 49 % osalus kasiinos müüdi turuhinnaga.
The Greek authorities first of all emphasise that the selection of the participants in the tender and the whole tendering procedure was entirely lawful and conducted in accordance with the rules on invitations to tender [20], which are governed by the legislation in force, and that those invitations to tender had been accepted by both candidates in the tender without reservation.
Kreeka ametiasutused rõhutavad eelkõige, et hankemenetluses osalejate valimine ja kogu hankemenetlus oli läbinisti seaduslik ja viidi läbi vastavalt pakkumiskutsetes [20] esitatud eeskirjadele, mida reguleeritakse kehtivate õigusaktidega, ning et mõlemad hankemenetluses osalevad kandidaadid nõustusid nende pakkumiskutsetega reservatsioonideta.
The Greek authorities also explain that the statement by HR, contained in the envelope of HR’s financial bid in both the first and second rounds of the bidding procedure, did not affect the validity of its financial bids, but concerned only the participation per se of CA in the tender procedure, and thus HR’s financial bids were quite rightly deemed lawful by the Objections Committee.
Kreeka ametiasutused selgitavad ka, et HRi avaldus, mis sisaldus nii HRi esimese kui ka teise pakkumisvooru ümbrikus, ei mõjutanud tema pakkumuste kehtivust, vaid käsitles ainult CA osalemist hankemenetluses, ning seetõttu pidas vastuväidete komisjon HRi rahalist pakkumust põhjendatult seaduslikuks.
The Greek authorities further argue in more detail that the bid submitted by CA in the third round of the tendering procedure, which the complainant claims was EUR 107 million, was excluded because the envelope had been removed from sight of the Tender Committee.
Kreeka ametiasutused väidavad veelgi üksikasjalikumalt, et hankemenetluse kolmandas voorus CA esitatud pakkumus, mis kaebuse esitaja väitel oli 107 miljonit eurot, kõrvaldati menetlusest seetõttu, et ümbrik viidi hankekomisjoni vaateväljast ära.
In these circumstances, the Committee could not be sure that the bid had not been changed.
Nende asjaolude korral ei saanud hankekomisjon olla kindel, et pakkumust ei olnud muudetud.
In any case, the re-submission of the bid would mean a second submission in the same round, which was against the rules.
Igal juhul tähendanuks pakkumuse uuesti esitamine selle teistkordset esitamist samas voorus, ja see on eeskirjade vastane.
The Greek authorities explain that the second-round bid made by HR of EUR 92105888, up from the initial bid of EUR 91183652 made by CA in the first round, was in line with the tender rules, since according to the terms of the invitations to tender, each new bid had to be increased by 1 %, not 10 % as was assumed in the Commission’s opening decision.
Kreeka ametiasutused selgitavad, et teises voorus HRi poolt summas 92105888 eurot tehtud pakkumus, mis oli suurem CA poolt algselt tehtud 91183652 euro suurusest pakkumusest, oli kooskõlas hankemenetluse eeskirjadega, kuna vastavalt pakkumiskutse tingimustele pidi iga uus pakkumus olema suurem 1 % ja mitte 10 % võrra, nagu oli eeldatud komisjoni menetluse algatamise otsuses.
Therefore, the rules of the tender were respected in this regard.
Seega peeti hankemenetluse eeskirjadest kinni.
The Greek authorities also argue that CA’s last bid of EUR 162 million — the amount which the CA claimed it was prepared to pay — is invalid, because it was made after and outside the tender procedure.
Kreeka ametiasutused väidavad ka, et CA viimane pakkumus summas 162 miljonit eurot – summa, mida CA oli väidetavalt valmis maksma – oli kehtetu, kuna see esitati pärast ja väljaspool hankemenetlust.
To accept this bid would have meant breaching the principle of legality, given that the purpose of a public bidding procedure is not only to serve the financial interest of the State, but also to serve the broader public interest, i.e. to secure the highest possible price while observing the principle of legality (i.e. the rules of law laid down in the rules on invitations to tender and tender dossiers and other applicable legislation).
Selle pakkumuse vastuvõtmine oleks tähendanud seaduslikkuse põhimõtte rikkumist, arvestades, et avaliku pakkumise eesmärk ei ole mitte ainult teenida riigi majandushuve, vaid ka laiemat avalikku huvi, st kindlustada kõrgeim võimalik hind, järgides samal ajal seaduslikkuse põhimõtet (st õigusnorme, mis on sätestatud pakkumiskutseid ja hankedokumente käsitlevates eeskirjades ning muudes kohaldatavates õigusaktides).
Furthermore, the Greek authorities confirm [21] that the price finally paid (EUR 120 million) was reasonable as it was 25,5 % higher than the expert valuation of EUR 95,4 million that had been made prior to the tendering procedure by the independent appraiser and kept sealed until the end of the procedure.
Lisaks kinnitavad Kreeka ametiasutused, [21] et lõpuks makstud hind (120 miljonit eurot) oli mõistlik, kuna see oli 25,5 % kõrgem kui eksperdihinnanguga määratud hind 95,4 miljonit eurot, mille määras sõltumatu hindaja enne hankemenetlust ning mida hoiti suletuna kuni menetluse lõpuni.
They state that this valuation — even though not necessary because of the tendering procedure — was requested to safeguard Greece’s interests even further [22].
Kreeka ametiasutused väidavad, et seda hinnangut – kuigi see ei olnud hankemenetluse puhul vajalik – nõuti Kreeka huvide täiendavaks kaitsmiseks [22].
As regards the assertions by the complainant that the original terms of the invitations to tender were improved by the subsequent Law No 3139/2003 confirming the privatisation, the Greek authorities explain that the notices of invitation to tender were not amended either by Law 3139/2003 or in any other way.
Kaebuse esitaja väitele, mille kohaselt pakkumismenetluse teadaannete algseid tingimusi parandati hilisema erastamist kinnitava seadusega nr 3139/2003, vastavad Kreeka ametiasutused, et pakkumismenetluse teadaandeid ei muudetud seadusega nr 3139/2003 ega ka mis tahes muul viisil.
According to Greece, that Law simply regulates various authorisations linked to the investment and to the running of the casino, and includes measures for the protection of workers after the privatisation.
Kreeka väitel reguleeritakse seadusega lihtsalt erinevaid investeerimise ja kasiino käitamisega seotud lubasid ning seadus sisaldab meetmeid töötajate kaitsmiseks pärast erastamist.
HR was not relieved by that Law of the obligation to invest EUR 44 million in Mont Parnès casino, and the contractual clause in the contract on the return to HR of 70 % of the price in the event of an operating licence being granted to another casino before 2012 was already an explicit provision of the invitations to tender.
Selle seaduse kohaselt ei vabastatud HRi kohustusest investeerida kasiinosse Mont Parnès 44 miljonit eurot, ning lepingus sisalduv punkt 70 % hinna tagastamisest HRile juhul, kui tegevusluba antakse mõnele teisele kasiinole enne 2012. aastat, oli sõnaselge sättena välja toodud juba pakkumiskutsetes.
The Greek authorities therefore observe that the sale price represents the market value of the 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parnès casino.
Seepärast märgivad Kreeka ametiasutused, et müügihind on kasiino Mont Parnès kapitali 49 % suuruse osa turuväärtus.
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.
Selleks et veelgi tõestada, et hankemenetluse käigus ei toimunud eeskirjade mis tahes eiramist, osutavad Kreeka ametiasutused siseriiklike kohtute mitmele otsusele, milles analüüsiti hankemenetluse seaduslikkust siseriiklike õigusnormide alusel.
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].
Seni ei ole siseriiklikud kohtud leidnud hankemenetluses ühtegi eeskirjade rikkumist ning on seepärast CA sellekohased avaldused tagasi lükanud [23].
Among the findings of the national courts, confirming the correctness of the tender, the Greek authorities refer more particularly to the following:
Siseriiklike kohtute nende järelduste hulgast, mis kinnitavad hankemenetluse korrektsust, viitavad Kreeka ametiasutused konkreetselt järgnevatele:
Litigation before the civil courts:
Kohtuvaidlused tsiviilkohtutes
In its judgement 8118/2002 [24], the Athens Court of First Instance rejected an application made by CA and ruled that:
Ateena Esimese Astme Kohus lükkas oma otsuses nr 8118/2002 [24] tagasi CA avalduse ja otsustas, et:
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.
hankekomisjon ja vastuväidete komisjon nentisid põhjendatult, et HRi esimese ja teise vooru pakkumused olid vastavuses pakkumiskutsetega.
HR’s statement attached to its bids had not affected the unconditional nature of its bids,
HRi pakkumustele lisatud avaldus ei mõjutanud tema pakkumuste tingimusteta iseloomu;
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.
CA esitas pakkumuse kell 15.30, st kolmanda vooru alguses, nagu hankekomisjon oli teise vooru lõpus ette näinud.
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.
CA esindaja võttis pakkumuse tagasi ise ja omal soovil, kuigi hankekomisjoni esimees püüdis teda takistada seda tegemast.
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.
Kui hankekomisjoni esimees oleks sõnaselgelt CA esindajat pakkumuse tagasivõtmise eest hoiatanud, oleks selle tulemuseks olnud diskrimineeriv kohtlemine CA kasuks ja HRi vastu;
CA’s second bid in the third round was rightly considered inadmissible by the Objections Committee.
CA kolmanda vooru teine pakkumus loeti vastuväidete komisjoni poolt põhjendatult vastuvõetamatuks.
Each bidder could tender only one bid in each round.
Iga pakkuja võis ühes voorus esitada vaid ühe pakkumuse.
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.
Kui CA kolmanda vooru teine pakkumus oleks loetud vastuvõetavaks, oleks sellega rikutud läbipaistvuse põhimõtet.
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
CA esindaja võttis CA esimese suletud ümbriku tagasi, lahkus pakkumise toimumise kohast ja esitas tagasi tulles suletud ümbriku, mille puhul ei olnud võimalik tõendada, et tegemist oli esialgse ümbrikuga [25].b) Kohtuvaidlused halduskohtutes
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].
Kreeka ametiasutuste väitel on Riiginõukogus (kõrgeim halduskohus) hetkel menetlemisel teine CA taotlus, mis käsitleb hankemenetluse väidetavat ebaseaduslikkust [26].
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].
Lõplikku otsust ei ole seni veel tehtud; Kreeka ametiasutused märgivad siiski, et ettekandev kohtunik tegi ettepaneku jätta CA taotlus läbi vaatamata, kuna see on kohtualluvuse alusel vastuvõetamatu ja sisult põhjendamatu [27].
Criminal litigation
Kriminaalkohtuvaidlus
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:
Pärast seda, kui CA esitas 2002. aastal hankekomisjoni, vastuväidete komisjoni, ETA, hindamiskonsultandi (American Appraisal Hellas Ltd) ja finantsnõustaja (Kantor) vastu hagi, mis käsitles nende käitumist hankemenetluse jooksul, väljastas apellatsioonikohtu kohtunike nõukogu, kellele juhtum otsuse tegemiseks edastati, otsuse, [28] ning leidis, et:
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.
vastuväidete komisjoni esimene ega ka teine otsus ei olnud ebaseaduslik ning komisjoni liikmete mis tahes üleastumiste kohta ei leitud mingeid adekvaatseid tõendeid.
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.
CA vastuväidete mittearvestamisega esimeses ja teises voorus ning teisest küljest HRi kolmandas voorus esitatud vastuväite aktsepteerimisega ei rikkunud vastuväidete komisjoni liikmed pakkumiskutsete tingimusi ega kohelnud kahte pakkujat erinevalt;