natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For this they refer to the Adria-Wien [26], Regione Sardegna [27] and British Aggregates [28] judgments arguing that the Court did not pronounce itself against these objectives, but simply assessed whether the measures at stake were selective.
Lisaks tagavad need meetmed õiguskindluse ja kaitsevad maksumaksja maksude tasumise võimekust, millega edendatakse erasektori investeeringuid avalikku taristusse ja seeläbi maksubaasi laiendamist ja suurema maksutulu kogumist.
PCT's legal and factual situation in light of the objective of the measure concerned
Seega on kõnealused meetmed süsteemi loogika kohaselt põhjendatud.
The Greek authorities and PCT argue that in light of the objective of the successful implementation of public infrastructure projects PCT and the other undertakings assuming big infrastructure projects are in a different legal and factual situation than other undertakings.
Konkurentsi moonutamise ja kaubanduse mõjutamisega seotud tingimuste hindamise puudumine
On this basis, they argue that the Commission has overlooked in its opening decision the circumstances/particular characteristics of these projects.
Kreeka ametiasutused ja PCT väidavad, et komisjon ei teinud kindlaks konkurentsi hindamiseks olulisi teenuseid ega geograafilisi turge, ei analüüsinud vastavatel turgudel valitsevaid konkurentsitingimusi ning ei teinud kindlaks, kas menetluse algatamise otsuses nimetatud konkureerivad ELi sadamad on Pireuse sadama ja PCT tegelikud või potentsiaalsed konkurendid.
The tax treatment accorded to PCT and others in comparable situation cannot give a competitive advantage over other undertakings which do not receive such treatment, since the two types of undertakings do not compete in respect of the performance of the public infrastructure projects concerned.
Lisaks väidavad nad, et komisjon ei uurinud turgu, kus PCT konteineriterminal tegutseb, ega selle turu konkurentsitingimusi.
All the undertakings which are implementing such projects are equally subject to this scheme and no one is to be excluded, and there are no limitations set as regards the region or sector of application, budget or time limits.
Selline uurimine näitaks, et kõnealused maksustamissätted ei avalda ELis konkurentsile ja kaubandusele kahjulikku mõju.
Thus there is no de facto selectivity.
Seoses turul valitsevate konkurentsitingimustega väidavad nad, et WAMi kohtuotsuse [30] põhjal ei tähenda asjaolu, et ELi liikmesriikide vahel kaubeldakse konteinerlastiga ning erinevad sadamad konkureerivad üksteisega konteinerlasti käitlemise teenuste pärast, automaatselt seda, et igasugune sadamaoperaatorile antav abi vastab ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõikes 1 sätestatud kaubanduse kahjustamise ja/või konkurentsi moonutamise kriteeriumile.
Moreover, the Greek authorities have not retained any discretionary power as to how to apply these fiscal provisions that have been systematically introduced in all public infrastructure projects for several years.
Seega nad väidavad, et komisjon ei analüüsinud maksustamissätete mõju asjaomaste turgude konkurentsile ja kaubandusele.
Logic of the tax system
PCT esitas seoses eespool esitatud põhjendusega üksikasjalikumaid märkusi.
The Greek authorities and PCT argue that the fiscal provisions in question and the scheme of which they are part are consistent with the basic or guiding principles governing the relevant Greek tax rules, since they (a) are intended to pursue a public policy objective consistent with the basic principles of the general tax system, in particular the principle of proportionality, the economy and the revenue raising objective of the tax system and key policies of Greece regarding the creation of public infrastructure; (b) aim to ensure that objectively different situations are treated differently, thus applying the principles of equality and proportionality and ensuring that the results intended by the tax system are not distorted; (c) are applied upon the basis of objective criteria; (d) are designed specifically as the legislative mechanism addressing key financial concerns arising in the implementation of public infrastructure projects, which risk jeopardising the private sector participation [29].
Asjaomase turu määratlus
Moreover by providing legal certainty through these provisions, and thus by safeguarding the ability of the taxpayer to pay tax, private sector investment in public infrastructure and thus the extension of the tax base and the collection of increased tax revenue is promoted.
Seoses asjaomase turu määratlusega osutab PCT komisjoni otsustele ettevõtete ühinemise valdkonnas [31] ja väidab, et konteineriterminali sadamateenustel on kaks erinevat asjaomast turgu: tagamaavedu ja ümberlaadimine.
Thus the relevant measures are justified by the logic of the system.
Ta väidab veel seoses tagamaaveoga, et komisjon näib pidavat turu geograafiliseks ulatuseks „Kreekat ja Vahemere idaosa”, kuid ei põhjenda, miks ta määratleb seda teisiti kui Kreeka konkurentsiamet, mille otsuse kohaselt piirdub tagamaaveoga seotud stividoriteenuste turu geograafiline ulatus Kesk- ja Lõuna-Kreekaga [32].
Absence of an assessment regarding the conditions relevant to distortion of competition and effect on trade
Lisaks väidab PCT, et Kreeka kesk- ja lõunaosa on nii pakkumise kui ka nõudluse poolest Kreeka põhjaosast erinev geograafiline turg, sest a) PCT konteineriterminali läbilaskevõime on palju suurem kui Thessaloniki sadamal või mis tahes muul Kreeka sadamal ning tänu suuremale tehnilisele võimekusele on sellel konkurentsivõimelisemad tingimused, b) tööstus, kaubandus ja rahvastik on koondunud põhiliselt Ateena piirkonda ja üldisemalt riigi kesk- ja lõunaossa, c) Kreeka topograafia tõttu põhjustab konteinervedu Kreeka põhjaosas asuva Thessaloniki sadama ning riigi kesk- ja lõunaosa vahel lisakulusid.
The Greek authorities and PCT argue that the Commission failed to identify the services and geographic markets which are relevant to the competitive assessment, did not analyse the conditions of competition in the relevant markets and did not establish that the competing EU ports mentioned in the opening decision are actual or potential competitors of the Port of Piraeus and PCT.
Seoses konteinerite ümberlaadimisteenustega osutab PCT komisjoni otsustele juhtumite Maersk/ECT ja Hutchinson/Evergreen kohta, milles komisjon määratles konteinerite ümberlaadimisteenuste asjaomase geograafilise turuna Vahemere idaosa ja Musta mere piirkonna.
They further argue that the Commission failed to examine the relevant market in which PCT's container terminal operates as well the competitive conditions in the relevant market.
Samuti leiab ta, et komisjon käsitab menetluse algatamise otsuses turu geograafilise ulatusena „Kreekat ja Vahemere idaosa”.
Such examination would demonstrate that the fiscal provisions at stake do not have an adverse effect on competition and trade in the EU.
Konkurentsitingimused asjaomasel turul
Concerning the competitive conditions in the market, they argue that on the basis of the WAM judgement [30] the mere fact that there is container cargo traded between EU Member States and that there are various ports which compete with each other on the provision of container port facility services does not automatically mean that any aid given to a port operator meets the criterion on effect on trade and/or distortion of competition set out in Article 107(1) TFEU.
Seoses ümberlaadimisega väidab PCT, et PCT konteineriterminal ei konkureeri Vahemere idaosas merekonteinerite ümberlaadimise stividoriteenuste osutamisel muude ELi sadamatega peale PPA esimese kai konteineriterminali.
Thus they argue that the Commission did not analyse the effect of the fiscal provisions on competition and trade in the relevant markets.
Veel väidab ta, et komisjon ei selgitanud, miks tema hinnangul on sellel turul mitmeid ELi liikmesriikides asuvaid sadamaid [33], mis konkureerivad PCT konteineriterminaliga.
PCT provided more detailed comments as regards the above argumentation.
PCT hinnangul on komisjoni väide, et „… Thessaloniki sadamat, Rumeenia Constanta sadamat, Sloveenia Koperi sadamat ja mitmeid Itaalia sadamaid võib pidada otsesteks konkurentideks”, vastuolus komisjoni järeldustega juhtumi C 21/2009 kohta [34].
Definition of the relevant market
Itaalia sadamad ja Sloveenia Koperi sadam ei asu Vahemere idaosas, mille komisjon PCT väitel turuna määratles, vaid Vahemere keskosas.
Concerning the definition of the relevant market, PCT refers to Commission decisions in the area of mergers [31] in order to argue that there are two distinct relevant markets for container terminal port services; hinterland traffic and transhipment traffic.
Lisaks ei liigu nimetatud sadamate teenindavale tagamaale („teeninduspiirkond”) suunduvad ümberlaaditavad konteinerid praegu läbi Pireuse sadama [35].
It also argues that concerning the hinterland traffic, the Commission in its opening decision appears to consider that the geographic scope of the market encompasses ‘Greece and Eastern Mediterranean’, without explaining why it defines it differently than the Hellenic Competition Commission, which ruled that the geographic scope of the market for stevedoring services as regards hinterland traffic is limited to central and southern Greece [32].
PCT väidab, et pakkumise poolelt vaadates võib nimetatud sadamaid pidada teatud määral PCT konteineriterminali asendajaks, sest nad suudaksid teenindada teatud tüüpi konteinerlaevu, mida võib teenindada ka PCT konteinerisadam, aga nad ei suudaks teenindada kõiki laevu, sest neil on väiksem meresügavus ja kraanavõimsus [36].
Moreover, PCT argues that both from a supply and demand side perspective, the central and southern part of Greece constitute a geographic market which is distinct from the northern part of Greece, due to: (a) the capability of PCT's container port terminal to handle a far greater volume of traffic than the Thessaloniki port and any other Greek port, and under more competitive terms given its greater technical capacity; (b) the concentration of industry, commerce and the population principally in the wider Athens area and generally the central/southern part of the country; (c) the topography of Greece which dictates the additional cost of transporting container traffic between the Thessaloniki port in the northern part of Greece and the central and southern parts of the country and vice versa.
Nõudluse poolelt vaadates ei saa nimetatud sadamaid käsitada Pireuse sadama asendajana järgmistel põhjustel: a) Pireus võimaldab kõige lühemat ja soodsamat [37] kõrvalekallet Suessi-Gibraltari teljelt, mis on Vahemere peamine merekonteinerite veotee [38]; b) Pireuse sadamas on maailma kõige soodsamad punkrikütuse hinnad; c) Constanta sadama kasutamisega kaasneks lootsiteenuse lisakulu Dardanellide ja Bosporuse väinades.
Concerning the transhipment container services, PCT refers to the Maersk/ECT and Hutchinson/Evergreen Commission decisions where the Commission identified, as relevant geographic market for the transhipment container services, the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea area.
PCT väidab, et eespool nimetatud asjaolusid arvesse võttes ei saa menetluse algatamise otsuses nimetatud sadamaid käsitada PCT konteinerisadama tegelike või potentsiaalsete asendajatena ümberlaadimise stividoriteenuste osutamisel Vahemere idaosas.
It also considers that the Commission in its opening decision considers the geographic scope of the market as encompassing ‘Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean’.
Lisaks osutab PCT Pireuse sadama investeeringutega seotud komisjoni otsusele, milles komisjon leidis, et kindlate sadamate ja Pireuse sadama vaheline konkurents on väike [39].
Competitive conditions in the relevant market
Ta väidab veel, et komisjon ei analüüsinud maksustamissätete mõju asjaomaste turgude konkurentsile ja kaubandusele.
As regards transhipment traffic, PCT argues the PCT container terminal does not compete with EU ports on the provision of stevedoring services for deep-sea container transhipment traffic in the Eastern Mediterranean, other than PPA's Pier I container terminal.
Lisaks eeldaks kõnealuse mõju hindamine vastavatel turgudel kehtivate samaväärsete maksusüsteemide hindamist, sest muudele sadamatele võivad kehtida samalaadsed või samaväärsed maksustamissätted.
Moreover it argues that the Commission did not explain why it considers that there are various ports in EU Member States [33] in this market that compete with PCT's container terminal port.
Ta väidab samuti, et asjaomastel turgudel on PCT ainus konkurent PPA, kes käitab Pireuse sadama esimese kai konteineriterminali.
According to PCT the Commission's statement that ‘… the port of Thessaloniki, the port of Constanza in Romania, the port of Koper in Slovenia and a number of ports in Italy may be considered as direct competitors’ contradicts the Commission's findings in case C 21/09 [34].
Seoses PPAga on komisjon tunnistanud, et PCT kontsessioon suurendab Pireuse sadamas konkurentsi konteinervedude stividoriteenuste pärast [40].
The ports of Italy and the port of Koper in Slovenia are not located in the eastern Mediterranean segment of the market that the Commission identified according to PCT, but rather in the central Mediterranean one.
Seoses võimalike konkurentide tekkimisega PPA ja muude Kreeka sadamate erastamise tagajärjel väidab PCT, et ilma samasuguse kontsessioonita Kreeka sadamaoperaatorid ei ole samalaadses olukorras ning seega ei tulene kõnealustest maksustamissätetest mingit konkurentsieelist ega -moonutust.
Moreover, transhipment traffic destined for the hinterland covered by these ports (‘catchment area’) is not handled presently through Piraeus port [35].
Samuti väidab ta, et komisjon ei osuta mingitele tõenditele, mille kohaselt teised sadamaoperaatorid oleksid huvitatud Kreekasse suure konteineriterminali rajamiseks suure investeeringu tegemisest.
From a supply-side perspective, PCT argues that these ports could be considered to some extent as substitutes for PCT's container port terminal, as they could service some of the types of container ship that the PCT container port could service, but not all, due to the fact that they have a smaller sea depth and crane capacity [36].
PCT väitel on sellise konkurentsi tekkimine äärmiselt vähe tõenäoline, sest ühelgi Kreeka olemasoleval sadamal ei oleks kõiki Pireuse sadama omadusi [41].
From a demand-side perspective, these ports cannot be considered as substitutes for the Piraeus port, as: (a) Piraeus offers the shortest and cheapest [37] deviation from the Suez/Gibraltar axis which represents the principal deep-sea container shipping lines in the Mediterranean Sea [38]; (b) Piraeus offers the lowest bunker oil prices at a worldwide level; (c) Constanza in particular would involve additional costs of pilots in the Dardanelles and Bosphorus.
Lõpuks väidab PCT seoses PPA poolt lähtuva konkurentsiga, et komisjoni seisukoht on ebaõige, sest PCT konkureerib juba praegu PPA esimese kai konteineriterminaliga ning kontsessiooni tulemuseks on turu avamine konkurentsile, mitte konkurentsi moonutamine.
In view of the above, PCT argues that the ports mentioned in the opening decision cannot be considered as actual or potential substitutes for the PCT container port as regards the provision of stevedoring services for transhipment traffic in the eastern Mediterranean.
Seoses sellega väidab ta samuti, et PPA suhtes kehtivad teatud maksustamisalased õigussätted, mille valguses peeti mõnede vaatlusaluste maksustamissätete vastuvõtmist vajalikuks mehhanismiks, mis hoiaks ära PCT sattumise ebasoodsamasse konkurentsiolukorda.
In addition PCT refers to the Commission decision relevant to investments in the port of Piraeus, where the Commission considered that the competition between specific ports and the Port of Piraeus is insignificant [39].
Väidetava riigiabi meetmete võrdlus muude suurte taristuprojektide lepingutes sisalduvate samalaadsete sätetega [42]
Moreover, it argues that the Commission failed to analyse the effect of the fiscal provisions on competition and trade in the relevant markets.
Kreeka ametiasutused ja PCT ütlevad, et ratifitseerimisseaduse artiklites 2 ja 3 esitatud sätetega sarnaseid sätteid leidub mitmetes Kreeka seadustes, millega on ratifitseeritud üksikuid avaliku taristu projekte, samuti avaliku ja erasektori partnerlust käsitlevas seaduses nr 3389/2005.
Moreover the assessment of this effect would require an examination of the equivalent tax systems applying within the relevant markets as other ports may benefit from similar or equivalent fiscal provisions.
Kuna komisjon uuris nimetatud seadusi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 alusel ja otsustas, et need ei ole põhjustanud riigiabi andmist, siis ohustaks järeldus, et PCT jaoks soodsad maksustamissätted kujutavad endast valikulist meedet ja annavad ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 kohaldamisalasse kuuluva põhjendamatu eelise, õiguskindlust ning oleks vastuolus komisjoni tava ja varasemate avaldustega seoses selliste sätete kohaldamisega Kreeka avaliku taristu projektide suhtes.
It also argues that PCT only faces competition in the markets concerned from PPA, which operates the Pier I container terminal at the Piraeus port.
Nad väidavad seoses Ateena rahvusvahelise lennujaama juhtumiga [43], milles komisjon leidis, et maksustamissätteid kohaldati sel ajal veel vabaks laskmata lennujaamateenuste suhtes, sama järelduse saab teha ka käesoleva juhtumi puhul sadama taristuteenuste kohta.
However as regards PPA, the Commission has recognised that the concession to PCT will increase competition for stevedoring services for container traffic in the port of Piraeus [40].
Samuti jäävad Kreeka ametiasutused oma väite juurde, et komisjon uuris kõnealuseid sätteid seoses eespool nimetatud juhtumiga.
As far as the potential competitors that may result from the privatisation of PPA and other Greek ports, PCT argues that the Greek port operators that are not entrusted with a similar concession are not in a similar position, thus no competitive advantage nor a distortion of competition arise from the fiscal provisions at stake.
Seoses Ateena ringtee juhtumiga [44] ja Rio Antirrio maanteesilla juhtumiga uuris komisjon nende väitel hoolikalt avaliku ja erasektori rahalist panust projekti kuludesse ja sellega seotud maksustamissätteid.
It also argues that the Commission does not refer to any evidence that other port operators would be interested in undertaking a major investment to establish a major container port terminal in Greece.
Seejärel tegi komisjon järelduse, et avaliku sektori panuse summa (toetuste ja riigigarantii kujul) määrati kindlaks „turuhinnaga” (st väikseim vajalik avaliku sektori panuse summa), kasutades avatud mittediskrimineerivat võistupakkumist.
According to PCT it is highly unlikely that such competition would arise, since no other existing port in Greece would combine Piraeus's characteristics [41].
Ateena ringteed käsitlevas otsuses järeldas komisjon, et maksustamissätted kujutavad endast kohaldatava maksurežiimi selgitust, mille puudumine võiks ohustada projekti elluviimist, ega käsitanud neid kontsessionääri tasu osana.
Finally as regards competition from PPA, it argues that the Commission's view is inaccurate, as PCT already faces competition from PPA's Pier I container terminal and the effect of the concession is the opening of the market to competition and not a distortion of competition.
Vastu võetud maksustamissätete kohaldamisega seotud võimalikku rahalist väärtust ei oleks saanud käsitada avaliku sektori panuse osana, sest selle suuruse oleks saanud täpselt kindlaks teha alles pärast kontsessiooniperioodi lõppu.
In this respect it also argues that PPA benefits from certain legislative provisions of fiscal nature, in the light of which the adoption of some of the fiscal provisions as stake was seen as a necessary mechanism for ensuring that PCT was not put in a competitive disadvantage.
Kõnealused sätted olid üksnes vajalikud selgitused, millega leevendati erainvestorite kõhklusi seoses selliste suure riskiga mittetasuvate ehitusprojektidega.
On the comparison of the alleged State aid measures with similar provisions in other contracts of big infrastructure projects [42]
Seega ei saa PCTd eristada kõnealuste juhtumite kontsessionääridest, sest kõigil juhtudel kujutasid sätted endast „selgitust”, mitte „tasu”, nagu leidis komisjon oma menetluse algatamise otsuses.
The Greek authorities and PCT indicate that similar provisions to those of Article 2 and 3 of the Law were included in the Greek laws that ratified several individual public infrastructure projects as well as Law 3389/2005 concerning Public Private Partnerships.
Lisaks ei saa komisjoni menetluse algatamise otsuses nimetatud kohtupraktikat [45], mille alusel komisjon väidab, et meetmete mittekäsitlemine komisjoni poolt ei tähenda nende heakskiitmist [46], kohaldada teavitatud juhtudel nii, nagu Kreeka ametiasutuste ja PCT poolt aluseks võetud kohtupraktikat.
As the Commission examined those laws under Article 107(1) TFEU and decided that they did not give rise to State aid, a conclusion that the fiscal provisions in favour of PCT constitute a selective measure and confer an undue advantage falling within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU would jeopardise legal certainty and would be contrary to the Commission's practice and previous statements concerning the application of such provisions to public infrastructure projects in Greece.
Ülejäänud taristuprojekte käsitlevate hilisemate riigiabi otsuste puhul ei olnud komisjonil vaja esitada üksikasjalikku viidet kõnealustele maksustamissätetele, sest ta ei muutnud oma seisukohta, mida ta väljendas Rio Antirrio maanteesilla ja Ateena ringtee juhtumite kohta [47].
Concerning the Athens International airport case [43], where the Commission considered that the fiscal provisions applied in respect of airport services that were not liberalised at the time, they argue that the same conclusion can also be drawn for port infrastructure services in the current case.
Nad väidavad, et küsimus seisneb selles, kas komisjoni poolt eespool nimetatud varasematele otsustele heakskiidu andmise valguses saab kõnealuseid maksustamissätteid pidada riigiabi eeskirjadele vastavaks, mitte selles, kas kõnealuseid sätteid on käsitletud komisjoni varasemas hinnangus, nagu on märgitud menetluse algatamise otsuses.
Moreover the Greek authorities retain their argumentation that the Commission examined the said provisions in that case.
Kui kõnealused sätted oleksid sisaldunud käsitletava kontsessiooni hankedokumentides, oleks komisjon teinud samasuguse järelduse nagu oma varasemates otsustes.
Concerning the Athens Ring Road case [44] and the Rio Antirrio Motorway Bridge case, according to them the Commission examined carefully the public and private sector financial contributions to the costs of the project as well as the fiscal provisions concerned.
Nad väidavad samuti, et komisjoni menetluse algatamise otsuses tehtud eristus praeguse juhu ja varasemate juhtude vahel põhineb formaalsusel ehk maksustamissätete vastuvõtmisel seadusega nr 3755/2009 nende kontsessioonilepingusse lisamise asemel.