natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In relation to that element, Casino Loutraki asks the Commission to provide all information and evidence needed in order to establish that the practice of granting free tickets was common and extensive and went beyond the objectives of the exception provided for in the 1995 Ministerial Decision.
Meetme konkreetne vorm ei ole samuti oluline, et määrata kindlaks, kas see annab ettevõtjale eelise.
Casino Loutraki contends that the measure also fulfils the other State aid criteria and is not compatible with the internal market and that, therefore, the Commission should adopt a new final decision finding that the measure has been unlawfully put into effect in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU and ordering recovery of the advantage.
Riigiabi mõiste seisukohast ei ole oluline üksnes positiivse majandusliku eelise andmine, vaid eelis võib seisneda ka majanduslikest koormistest vabastamises.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
Viimane on lai kategooria, mis hõlmab ettevõtja eelarvet tavaliselt koormavate mis tahes kulude vähendamist.
According to Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the provision of certain goods shall be incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States.
See hõlmab kõiki olukordi, kus ettevõtjad vabastatakse oma majandustegevuse otsestest kuludest.
For a measure to be categorised as aid within the meaning of that provision, all the conditions set out in that provision must be fulfilled.
Üldkohus leidis 2014. aasta kohtuotsuses, et avalik-õiguslike ja eraõiguslike kasiinode sissepääsu suhtes diferentseeritud maksumääraga maksu kehtestamine Kreekas ei kujuta endast maksu vähendamist avalik-õiguslike kasiinode heaks, mis tekitaks eelise Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
First, there must be an intervention by the State or through State resources.
Üldkohus märkis: „vaidlustatud meetmest tuleneb, et summad, mille kasiinod maksavad riigile maksuna sissepääsutasudelt, kujutavad endast teatavat protsenti summast, mille iga kasiino saab sissepääsutasudena.
Second, the intervention must be liable to affect trade between the Member States.
Ka ei ole kõne all olev meede […] sarnane maksubaasi alandamisega, kuna summad, mille iga kasiino peab riigile maksma, moodustavad 80 % sissenõutud sissepääsutasude kogusummast. […] [K]una riigile tasumisele kuuluv 80 % maks, mida tuleb tasuda kõigil kasiinodel, arvutatakse protsentuaalselt sissepääsutasuna müüdud piletite müügist tegelikult saadud summast, „ei ole asjaolu, et arutusel olevast meetmest tulenevalt maksavad kasiinod, kellele on ette nähtud 6-eurone sissepääsutasu, riigile vähem maksu kui kasiinod, kellele on sissepääsutasuna ette nähtud 15 eurot, piisav selle tuvastamiseks, et esimesse kategooriasse kuuluvatel kasiinodele on antud eelis.“
Third, it must confer a selective advantage on the recipient.
Euroopa Kohus kinnitas 2015. aasta määruses neid põhjendusi, märkides, et „Üldkohus tugines põhjendatult asjaolule, et kahe Kreeka riigile tagasi makstava absoluutse summa erinevus vastab samale protsentuaalsele osale eri summadest, mida kahe kategooria kasiinod on saanud“.
Fourth, it must distort or threaten to distort competition.
Eeltoodut silmas pidades teeb komisjon järelduse, et kõnealune meede ei anna eelist Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
As regards the third condition for a finding of aid, a distinction is made between the conditions of advantage and selectivity to ensure that not all State measures that confer an advantage (i.e. that improve an undertaking's net financial position) constitute State aid, but only those which grant such an advantage in a selective manner to certain undertakings or certain categories of undertakings or to certain economic sectors.
Euroopa Kohus kinnitas 2015. aasta määruses neid põhjendusi, märkides, et kuna „Üldkohus leidis õigesti, et üksnes erinevus riigile pääsme kohta makstud summade vahel ei anna eelist kasiinodele, mille sissepääsutasu on kuus eurot“, ei saa tasuta pääsmete andmise tava seda eelist suurendada.
An advantage is any economic benefit which an undertaking could not have obtained under normal market conditions, that is to say in the absence of State intervention.
Eeltoodut silmas pidades teeb komisjon järelduse, et tasuta pääsmete andmise tava ei anna eelist Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Only the effect of the measure on the undertaking is relevant, and not the cause or the objective of the State intervention.
Lisaks väidab kaebuse esitaja, et kasiinode sissepääsutasude süsteem Kreekas toob kaasa avalik-õiguslike kasiinode suurema atraktiivsuse klientide jaoks, tulenevalt väiksemast seadusega sätestatud sissepääsutasust ja suuremast kogutulust (st muude tuluallikate loomine, nagu hasartmängud, majutamine, baari- ja restoraniteenused), mis saadakse lisaklientidelt, kelle on ligi meelitanud väiksem sissepääsutasu.
Whenever the financial situation of an undertaking is improved as a result of State intervention on terms differing from normal market conditions, an advantage is present.
Nii nagu tasuta piletite puhul, arvestades et kasiinode sissepääsutasude süsteem Kreekas ei anna iseenesest eelist avalik-õiguslikele kasiinodele, ei saa väita, et suurem atraktiivsus või lisatulu lisaklientidelt, kelle meelitavad ligi väiksemad sissepääsutasud, annab nimetatud eelise.
The latter is a broad category which comprises any mitigation of charges normally included in the budget of an undertaking.
Seega teeb komisjon järelduse, et kaebuse esitaja väidetavat eelist, isegi kui tõendataks selle olemasolu, ei anta riigi ressurssidest Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
This covers all situations in which economic operators are relieved of the inherent costs of their economic activities.
Kuna meede peab selleks, et see kujutaks endast riigiabi, vastama kumulatiivselt kõikidele Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõikes 1 sätestatud tingimustele, ei ole vaja analüüsida, kas muud tingimused on käesoleval juhul täidetud.
In the 2014 judgment, the General Court held that the differentiated tax levied on admissions to public casinos and private casinos in Greece did not constitute a tax reduction to the benefit of public casinos giving rise to an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.
JÄRELDUS
According to the General Court, ‘it is apparent from the measure in question that the amounts paid to the State by the casinos in respect of public fees on the admission tickets are simply a proportion of what each casino receives as admission fees. Accordingly, […] the measure under examination does not amount to a reduction in the tax base, since the sums to be paid by each casino amount to 80 % of all admission fees actually collected. […] [S]ince the levy of 80 % paid to the State by all of the casinos is calculated in proportion to what they actually received in admission fees on the tickets sold’, ‘the fact that, as a result of the measure under examination, the casinos charging an admission fee of EUR 6 pay less to the State than the casinos charging an admission fee of EUR 15 is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an advantage in favour of the casinos falling within the first category.’.
Eeltoodut silmas pidades teeb komisjon järelduse, et kasiinode sissepääsutasude pealt makstavate maksude arvestamise süsteem, mis kehtis kuni 2012. aasta novembrini, ei kujuta endast abi Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses,
In the 2015 order, the Court of Justice upheld that reasoning stating that ‘the General Court was justified in relying on the fact that the difference between the two absolute amounts to be paid back to the Greek State corresponds to the same percentage of the different amounts received by the two categories of casinos’.
ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the measure in question does not confer an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Artikkel 1
As regards the practice of granting free tickets, in the 2014 judgment the General Court held that ‘the casinos charging an admission fee of EUR 6 are placed at an advantage, since they pay less in fees to the State than the casinos charging an admission fee of EUR 15 in respect of the same admission fee received (EUR 0).’.
Kasiinode sissepääsutasude pealt makstavate maksude arvestamise süsteem, mis kehtis kuni 2012. aasta novembrini, ei kujuta endast abi Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
However, it subsequently held that since the system of admission fees to casinos in Greece does not confer an advantage on casinos which charge an entrance fee of EUR 6, the system of free tickets cannot be considered to reinforce the advantage granted by that system.
Artikkel 2
It then held that ‘[s]ince the casino admission fees system does not confer an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU as regards admission tickets sold, and since the Member State concerned can permit tickets to be issued free of charge for specific and justified reasons, such as for promotional purposes and for reasons of social obligation, it is reasonable for that Member State to require — as an additional condition — that the fees it would otherwise have been paid are also paid to it in the case of free tickets.’.
Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Kreeka Vabariigile.
Consequently, the General Court excluded the existence of a separate and specific advantage deriving from the practice of granting free tickets.
Brüssel, 9. august 2018
In the 2015 order, the Court of Justice upheld that reasoning stating that since ‘the General Court correctly held that the sole difference between the sums paid to the State per admission ticket sold confers no advantage on the casinos for which an entry fee of EUR 6 applies’ the practice of granting free tickets cannot reinforce that advantage.
Komisjoni nimel
In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the practice of granting free tickets does not confer an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Margrethe Vestager
Finally, the complainant claims that the system of admission fees to casinos in Greece results in the public casinos' higher attractiveness for customers as a result of the lower regulated admission fee and a higher total income (i.e. the generation of other sources of income, such as gambling, accommodation, bar and restaurant services) resulting from the additional customers attracted by the lower admission fee.
ELT C 235, 31.8.2010, lk 3.
Just like for the free tickets, given that the system of admission fees to casinos in Greece does not itself confer an advantage on public casinos, any increased attractiveness or additional revenue from additional customers attracted by the lower admission fee cannot be said to give rise to an advantage.
Consortium – Loutraki S.A. – Club Hotel Casino Loutraki S.A.
In any event, even if such an advantage could be shown to exist, only advantages granted directly or indirectly through State resources can constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
(Κοινοπραξια Δ.Α.Ε.Τ. – Λουτρακι Α.Ε. – Κλαμπ Οτελ Λουτρακι Α.Ε.), Voukourestiou 11, Akti Poseidonos 48, Loutraki, Ateena 10671, Kreeka.
According to the Court of Justice, a negative indirect effect on State revenues stemming from regulatory measures does not constitute a transfer of State resources where it is an inherent feature of the measure.
Mont Parnèsi kasiino, Elliniko Kasino Parnithas A.E., Agiou Konstantinou 49, 15124 Marousi Attikis, Kreeka.
For example, national regulation which sets a minimum price for certain goods does not entail the transfer of State resources.
Thessaloníki kasiino, Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki A.E., Agiou Konstantinou 49, 15124 Marousi Attikis, Kreeka ja Thessaloníki-Polygyrou tänava 13 kilomeeter, 55103 Thessaloniki, Kreeka.
Whereas a loss of State resources is involved in the differentiated tax remitted to the Greek State by public and private casinos, no loss of State resources is involved in the mere fact that public casinos were allowed to charge a lower admission fee than private casinos.
Komisjoni 24. mai 2011. aasta otsus 2011/716/EL (ELT L 285, 1.11.2011, lk 25).
Consequently, the Commission concludes that the advantage claimed by the complainant, even if it were shown to exist, is not granted from State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Kohtuotsus, Üldkohus, 11. september 2014 riigiabi kohta, mida Kreeka andis teatavatele Kreeka kasiinodele (riigiabi C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09)), Kreeka vs. komisjon, kohtuasi T-425/11, ECLI:EU:T:2014:768.
Since a measure needs to fulfil all four cumulative conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU to constitute State aid, there is no need to examine whether the other conditions are fulfilled in the present case.
Kohtu määrus, 22. oktoober 2015, Euroopa Komisjon vs. Kreeka, kohtuasi C-530/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:727.
CONCLUSION
Kolme kasiinot juhiti EOT klubidena seaduse nr 1624/1951, dekreedi nr 4109/1960 ja seaduse nr 2160/1993 alusel.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the system of levies on admissions to casinos in Greece that existed until November 2012 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,
EOT kui Kérkyra ja Mont Parnèsi kasiino pidaja õigusjärglane tegutses hiljem seaduste nr 2636/1998 ja 2837/2000 alusel Elliniki Etaireia Touristikis Anaptyxis (Kreeka turismi arendamise ettevõte, ETA), mis kuulus täielikult Kreeka riigile.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
ETA juhtis mõlema kasiino tegevust seni, kuni nad said seaduse nr 3139/2003 alusel litsentsi.
Article 1
Rhodose kasiino tegevust juhtis ETA seni, kuni kasiino sai 1996. aastal litsentsi.
The system of levies on admissions to casinos in Greece that existed until November 2012 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Täpsemalt on EOT peasekretäri otsused (välja antud kooskõlas seadusega nr 1624/1951 ja dekreediga nr 4109/1960) järgmised: EOT 21. novembri 1991. aasta otsus nr 535633 (millega kehtestatakse Mont Parnèsi kasiino sissepääsutasuks 2000 Kreeka drahmi); EOT 24. märtsi 1992. aasta otsus nr 508049 (millega kehtestatakse Kérkyra ja Rhodose kasiino sissepääsutasuks 1500 Kreeka drahmi); EOT 24. novembri 1997. aasta otsus nr 532691 (millega suurendati Kérkyra kasiino sissepääsutasu 2000 Kreeka drahmini).
Article 2
Seadus nr 2206/1994 kasiinode loomise, töökorralduse, haldamise ja järelevalve ning muude küsimuste kohta, Νόμος 2206, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 62 – 20.4.1994.
This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.
Ministri 16. novembri 1995. aasta otsus Y.A 1128269/1226/0015/ΠΟΛ.1292 – ΦΕΚ 982/B'/1995.
Done at Brussels, 9 August 2018.
Ministri 1995. aasta otsuse § 1: „Kasiinoettevõtjad (seadus nr 2206/1994) on alates 15. detsembrist 1995 kohustatud väljastama pääsme ühe inimese kohta vastavalt järgmiste paragrahvide erisätetele.“
For the Commission
Ministri 1995. aasta otsuse § 5: „Ühtne mänguautomaatide ja mängulaudade alale pääsme hind on viis tuhat (5000) Kreeka drahmi.“
Member of the Commission
Ministri 1995. aasta otsuse § 7 lõige 1: „20 % pääsme koguväärtusest jääb kasiinoettevõtjale tasuna pääsme väljastamise eest ja kulude katmiseks, sh tasutav käibemaks; ülejäänud osa on riigile tasutav maks.“
OJ C 235, 31.8.2010, p. 3.
Ministri 1995. aasta otsuse § 6: „Kui kasiino ei võta kas reklaami eesmärgil või sotsiaalse kohustuse täitmiseks sissepääsutasu, väljastab ta maksumärgiga kassaaparaadist eriseeria või eritotalisaatori pääsme, millel on märge „tasuta“. “
Consortium — Loutraki S.A. — Club Hotel Casino Loutraki S.A.
Ministri 1995. aasta otsuse § 7 lõige 2: „Tasuta pääsmetelt tuleb tasuda riiklik maks asjaomasel päeval kehtiva pääsmehinna alusel, mis on sätestatud käesoleva otsuse §-s 5.“
(Κοινοπραξια Δ.Α.Ε.Τ.- Λουτρακι Α.Ε.- Κλαμπ Οτελ Λουτρακι Α.Ε.), Voukourestiou 11, Akti Poseidonos 48, Loutraki, Athens 10671, Greece.
Ministri 1995. aasta otsuse § 10 lõige 1: „Riiklik maks tasutakse ja eelmisel kuul kogutud riikliku maksu aruanne esitatakse asjaomasele tulumaksuametile iga kuu kümnendaks kuupäevaks.“
Casino Mont Parnès, société anonyme ‘Elliniko Kasino Parnithas A.E.’, Agiou Konstantinou 49, 15124 Marousi Attikis, Greece .
Ministri 1995. aasta otsuse § 8 lõiked 1 ja 2: „Võttes arvesse § 2–7, on [kasiinoettevõtjatel] mutatis mutandis lubatud väljastada pikaajalisi pääsmeid kehtivusega 15 või 30 järjestikust päeva või üks kalendrikuu (vastavalt vajadusele).
Casino Thessaloniki, ‘Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki A.E.’, Agiou Konstantinou 49, 15124 Marousi Attikis, Greece and 13th km Thessaloniki-Polygyrou Street, 55103 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Selliste pikaajaliste pääsmete väärtuselt võib teha allahindlust järgmiselt:
Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ L 285, 1.11.2011, p. 25).
30 päeva või kuu aega kehtivate pääsmete puhul 50 % 30 päevapääsme koguväärtusest.“
Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014, Hellenic Republic v European Commission, Case T-425/11, ECLI:EU:T:2014:768.
Seadus nr 1624/1951 Kreeka turismiameti loomist käsitleva seaduse nr 1565/1950 ratifitseerimise, muutmise ja täiendamise kohta, Νόμος 1624, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 7 – 8.1.1951.
Order of the Court of 22 October 2015, European Commission v Hellenic Republic, Case C-530/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:727.
Dekreet nr 4109/1960, millega muudetakse ja täiendatakse Kreeka turismiametit käsitlevaid õigusakte ja teatavaid muid sätteid, Νομοθετικό Διάταγμα 4109, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 153 – 29.9.1960.
The three casinos operated as service clubs of the EOT based on Law 1624/1951, Decree 4109/1960 and Law 2160/1993.
Seadus nr 2160/1993 turismi ja muude küsimuste kohta, Νόμος 2160, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 118 – 19.7.1993.
The EOT was later replaced in the operation of the casinos of Corfu and Mont Parnès by the Hellenic Tourism Development company (ETA), fully owned by the Greek State, under Laws 2636/1998 and 2837/2000, until the grant of licenses to the above mentioned two casinos by virtue of Law 3139/2003 (the Casino in Rhodes was operated by the EOT until it was granted a license in 1996).
Seadus nr 2687/1953 investeeringute ja väliskapitali kaitse kohta, Νομοθετικό Διάταγμα 2687, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 317 – 10.11.1953.
Ministerial Decision Y.A 1128269/1226/0015/ΠΟΛ.1292/16.11.1995 – ΦΕΚ 982/B'/1995.
Vt menetluse algatamise otsuse punktid 16, 17 ja 18.
Paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995: ‘Casino operators (Law 2206/1994) are obliged from 15 December 1995 to issue an admission ticket to each person according to specific provisions included in the following paragraphs.’
Mont Parnèsi kasiinot käitas Elliniko Kasino Parnithas A.E.
Paragraph 5 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995: ‘The uniform ticket price for entering the areas of “slot machines” or “table games” shall amount to five thousand ( 5000) drachmas.’
(EKP), mis loodi 2001. aastal ETA tütarettevõtjana ja kuulus täielikult Kreeka riigile.
The first subparagraph of paragraph 7 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995 states the following: ‘From the total value of the ticket a percentage of twenty percent (20 %) shall be appropriated by the casino undertaking as fees for issuing the ticket and covering its expenses, in which the appropriate VAT is included, while the remaining amount shall be considered public fee.’.
Ametliku uurimismenetluse käigus Kreeka ametiasutuste esitatud teabe põhjal erastati Kérkyra kasiino 30. augustil 2010, mil kogu Elliniki Kazino Kerkyras AE (EKK) aktsiakapital müüdi pärast rahvusvahelist pakkumismenetlust V&T Corfu Ependyseis Casino AE-le, mille asutas edukas pakkuja konsortsium Vivere Entertainment Emporiki & Symmetochon AE – Theros International Gaming Inc.
Paragraph 6 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995 states the following: ‘To record the admission of a person, from which the Casino refrains from requesting an price of admission for reasons of promotion or social obligation, the Casino shall issue tickets from a special batch or a special counter of the tax records cash register labelled “Honoris Causa”/ “Free admission”. ’.
EKK oli loodud 2001. aastal ETA tütarettevõtjana.
The second subparagraph of paragraph 7 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995 states the following: ‘For tickets issued under the label “Honoris Causa”/ “Free admission” public fees shall be paid based on of the value of the tickets for that day as established in paragraph 5 of the present decision. ’
Ministri 29. mai 1996. aasta otsuse nr Τ/633 alusel.
The first subparagraph of paragraph 10 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995 states the following: ‘The public fees shall be deposited at the competent income tax office by the tenth day of each month by submitting a statement concerning the fees collected during the previous month.’.
Seadus nr 4093/2012, 12. novembri 2012. aasta ametlik teataja I 222.
The first and second subparagraphs of paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995 states the following: ‘As provided under the aforementioned paragraphs 2 to 7, it is allowed [for casino operators] to issue long term tickets valid for fifteen or thirty consecutive days or one calendar month, as appropriate.
Vt menetluse algatamise otsuse punktid 19–23.
A discount can be granted on the value of the above mentioned long term tickets, as follows:
Vt menetluse algatamise otsuse punktid 26, 27, 28 ja 37.
Forty percent (40 %) of the total value of fifteen daily tickets for the tickets valid for 15 days.
Vt menetluse algatamise otsuse punktid 24–29.
In case these tickets are issued for a calendar period of two weeks, the last two weeks of each month covers the period from the 16th day until the end of the month.
Vt menetluse algatamise otsuse punktid 30, 31 ja 32.
Fifty percent (50 %) of the total value of thirty daily tickets for the tickets valid for thirty days or a month’.
Nõukogu 22. märtsi 1999. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 659/1999, millega kehtestatakse üksikasjalikud eeskirjad Euroopa liidu toimimislepingu artikli 108 kohaldamiseks (EÜT L 83, 27.3.1999, lk 1).
Law 1624/1951 ratifying, amending and supplementing Law 1565/1950 on the creation of the Hellenic Tourism Organisation, Νόμος 1624, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 7 - 8.1.1951.
Vt menetluse algatamise otsuse punktid 34 ja 35.
Decree 4109/1960 amending and supplementing legislation regarding the Hellenic Tourism Organisation and certain other provisions, Νομοθετικό Διάταγμα 4109, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 153 - 29.9.1960.
Vt menetluse algatamise otsuse punktid 36, 37 ja 38.
Law 2160/1993 on tourism and other matters, Νόμος 2160, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 118 - 19.7.1993.
Vt menetluse algatamise otsuse punktid 39 ja 40.
Law 2687/1953 on investment and protection of foreign capital, Νομοθετικό Διάταγμα 2687, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 317 - 10.11.1953.
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 21. detsember 2016, liidetud kohtuasjad C-20/15 P ja C-21/15 P, komisjon vs. World Duty Free Group, ECLI:EU:C:2016:981, punkt 53 ja selles viidatud kohtupraktika.
The Casino Thessaloniki was declared to benefit from the provisions of Law 2687/1953 according to the Presidential Decree Π.Λ.
Vt kohtuasjad C-20/15 P ja C-21/15 P, komisjon vs. World Duty Free Group, ECLI:EU:C:2016:981, punkt 56, ja kohtuasi C-6/12, P Oy, ECLI:EU:C:2013:525, punkt 18.
290/1995 (approving a foreign capital investment by Hyatt Regency Hotel and Tourism Enterprise, Προεδρικό Διάταγμα 290, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 163 - 9.8.1995) which assimilated it to the casinos of Mont Parnès and Corfu.
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 11. juuli 1996, SFEI jt, C-39/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, punkt 60; kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 29. aprill 1999, Hispaania vs. komisjon, C-342/96, ECLI:EU:C:1999:210, punkt 41.
See paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the Opening Decision.
Kohtuotsus, Euroopa Kohus, 2. juuli 1974, Itaalia vs. komisjon, 173/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:71, punkt 13.