natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By electronic mail of 28 August 2003, the representative of [Athinaïki Techniki] stated, in essence, that the complaint relating to the existence of State aid was concerned with factors separate from the procedure for the award of the public contract and that, consequently, the services of the DG for “Competition” should not wait for the conclusions of the DG for the “Internal Market”.
[Athinaïki Techniki] esindaja täpsustas 28. augusti 2003. aasta elektronkirjaga sisuliselt, et kaebus riigiabi olemasolu kohta puudutab riigihankemenetluse eri elemente ja et järelikult ei pea konkurentsi peadirektoraat siseturu peadirektoraadi järeldusi ära ootama.
By letter of 16 September 2003, the ser -vices of the DG for “Competition” reiterated the wording of the letter of 15 July 2003 but nonetheless invited [Athinaïki Techniki] to provide them with additional information concerning any other aid which was not connected with the tendering of the casino.
Konkurentsi peadirektoraadi talitused kordasid 16. septembri 2003. aasta kirjaga oma 15. juuli 2003. aasta kirjas öeldut, paludes siiski [Athinaïki Technikil] edastada neile lisateavet iga muu abi kohta peale kasiino enampakkumisega seonduva abi.
A member of the Casino Attikis consortium, Egnatia SA, which, following a merger, was succeeded by [Athinaïki Techniki] lodged complaints, respect -ively, with the Commission’s Directorate General (DG) for the “Internal Market” and DG for “Competition”.
Konsortsiumi Casino Attikis liige Egnatia SA, kelle õigusjärglane pärast liitumist on [Athinaïki Techniki], esitas kaebused vastavalt komisjoni siseturu peadirektoraadi talitustele ja konkurentsi peadirektoraadile.
The former was called upon to take a view on the lawfulness of the contested procedure in the light of Community law on public contracts, whereas the latter received a complaint concerning State aid which was alleged to have been granted to the Hyatt consortium in the context of that same procedure.
Esimesel palus ta avaldada seisukoht vaidlusaluse menetluse eeskirjadele vastavuse kohta riigihangetealaste ühenduse õigusnormide seisukohast, samas kui teisele esitati kaebus sama menetluse raames kontsernile Hyatt Consortium väidetavalt antud riigiabi kohta.
By letter of 15 July 2003, the DG for “Competition” drew the attention of
Siseturu peadirektoraadi talitused teatasid 22. jaanuari ja 4. augusti 2004. aasta kirjadega [Athinaïki Technikile], et nad ei kavatse neile esitatud kahe kaebuse uurimist jätkata.
By letters of 22 January and 4 August 2004, the services of the DG for the “Internal Market” informed [Athinaïki Techniki] that they did not intend to continue the examination of the two complaints which had been addressed to them.
Konkurentsi peadirektoraat tuletas 15. juuli 2003. aasta kirjaga [Athinaïki
7 to provide an adequate statement of reasons in the context of each of those pleas.
niki heitis kummagi väite raames ette ka põhjenduse puudumist.
By letter of 2 December 2004 …, the DG for “Competition” informed [Athinaïki Techniki] that, by letter of 16 September 2003, the Commission had informed it that, “on the basis of the information in its possession, there [were] insufficient grounds for continuing to examine that case”.
Konkurentsi peadirektoraat teatas 2. detsembri 2004. aasta kirjaga […] [Athinaïki Technikile], et komisjon oli talle 16. septembri 2003. aasta kirjaga teatanud, et „tema käsutuses oleva teabe põhjal ei ole piisavalt põhjust selle asja uurimist jätkata”.
The letter [of 2 December 2004] also stated that, “in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, the Commission [had], for the purposes of further administrative action, closed the file on the case on 2 June 2004”.’
[2. detsembri 2004. aasta] kirjas oli ühtlasi täpsustatud, et „uurimise jätkamist õigustava lisateabe puudumisel lõpetas komisjon asja halduslikult 2. juunil 2004”.”
By letter of 1 March 2005, the Registrar of the Court of First Instance informed Athinaïki Techniki that he had noted that the version of the application sent by fax on 11 February 2005 was not a completely identical copy of the signed original lodged on 18 February 2005 and that the date to be taken into consideration as that on which that document was lodged was, accordingly, that on which the original was delivered.
Esimese Astme Kohtu sekretär teatas 1. märtsi 2005. aasta kirjaga Athinaïki Technikile, et ta oli tuvastanud, et 11. veebruaril 2005 faksiga saadetud hagiavalduse versioon ei olnud 18. veebruaril 2005 esitatud allkirjastatud originaaliga täielikult samane ning et järelikult loetakse selle dokumendi esitamise kuupäevaks originaali esitamise kuupäev.
By letter of 16 March 2005, Athinaïki Techniki’s representative explained to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance that when the application was sent by fax the last page of it had been damaged and he had therefore had to replace it but had not altered its content.
Athinaïki Techniki esindaja selgitas 16. märtsi 2005. aasta kirjas Esimese Astme Kohtu sekretärile, et hagiavalduse faksimisel sai selle viimane lehekülg kannatada, nii et ta pidi selle asendama, aga et ta ei ole selle sisu muutnud.
On 11 February 2005, Athinaïki Techniki sent the Registry of the Court of First Instance a copy of the application by fax.
Athinaïki Techniki saatis 11. veebruaril 2005 Esimese Astme Kohtu kantseleisse faksiga hagiavalduse koopia.
On 18 February 2005, the signed original of the application was lodged with that Registry.
18. veebruaril 2005 esitati selle kohtu kantseleisse allkirjastatud hagiavalduse originaal.
By separate document registered at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 21 April 2005, the Commission, pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, raised an objection of inadmissibility.
Komisjon esitas Esimese Astme Kohtu kantseleis 21. aprillil 2005 registreeritud eraldi avaldusega Esimese Astme Kohtu kodukorra artikli 114 lõike 1 alusel vastuvõetamatuse vastuväite.
By order of 8 September 2005, the Court of First Instance granted the application of Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon 30 for leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission.
Esimese Astme Kohus rahuldas 8. septembri 2005. aasta määrusega Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochoni 30taotluse astuda menetlusse komisjoni nõuete toetuseks.
In that application initiating proceedings, Athinaïki Techniki applied for the annulment of the Commission’s decision to close the file on its complaint and for the Commission to be ordered to bear the costs.
Selles menetluse algatamise dokumendis palus Athinaïki Techniki tühistada komisjoni otsuse kaebuse menetlemise lõpetamise kohta ja mõista kohtukulud välja komisjonilt.
In support of its application, it relied on two pleas in law alleging infringement, first, of the Commission’s obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure and, secondly, of the provisions of Article 87(1) EC.
Oma hagiavalduse põhjenduseks esitas ta kaks väidet, mis tulenevad esiteks komisjoni ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise kohustuse rikkumisest ja teiseks EÜ artikli 87 lõike 1 sätete rikkumisest. Athinaïki Tech-
30 — ‘Athens Resort Casino’.
30 – Edaspidi „Athens Resort Casino”.
The Court of First Instance then held that:
Seejärel otsustas Esimese Astme Kohus:
In support of its objection of inadmissibility, the Commission put forward two pleas, alleging, first, the late lodgment of the application and, secondly, the nonactionable nature of the letter of 2 December 2004 and the non-existence of a decision.
Komisjon esitas oma vastuvõetamatuse vastuväite põhjenduseks kaks väidet, millest esimene tuleneb hagiavalduse hilinemisest ning teine 2. detsembri 2004. aasta kirja vaidlustamatusest ja sellest, et otsust ei ole tehtud.
The Court of First Instance, in the contested order, examined only the second plea.
Esimese Astme Kohus uuris vaidlustatud kohtumääruses ainult seda teist väidet.
It declared that it was well founded for the following reasons.
Ta luges selle põhjendatuks järgmistel põhjustel.
‘29 In the present case, the contested letter, which was addressed solely to [Athinaïki Techniki], informed it, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation No 659/1999, that, on the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission considered that there were insufficient grounds for taking a view on the case which was submitted to it in the complaint.
„29 Käesoleval juhul teatas vaidlustatud kiri, mis oli adresseeritud ainult [Athinaïki Technikile], talle määruse nr 659/1999 artikli 20 alusel, et komisjon leidis tema käsutuses oleva teabe põhjal, et ei ole piisavalt põhjuseid tolles kaebuses esitatud asja üle otsustamiseks.
In [that letter], the Commission then stated that, in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, it had, for the purposes of further administrative action, closed the file on Athinaïki Techniki’s complaint on 2 June 2004.
Komisjon märkis seejärel [selles kirjas], et kuna ta ei saanud lisateavet, mis õigustaks uurimise jätkamist, lõpetas ta Athinaïki Techniki kaebuse menetlemise halduslikult 2. juunil 2004.
The Commission therefore did not define its final position on the classification and the compatibility with the common market of the measure forming the subjectmatter of Athinaïki Techniki’s complaint.
Komisjon ei võtnud seega Athinaïki Techniki kaebuse esemeks oleva meetme kvalifitseerimise ja ühisturuga kokkusobivuse osas lõplikku seisukohta.
The Court of First Instance cited the first and second sentences of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999.
Esimese Astme Kohus tsiteeris määruse nr 659/1999 artikli 20 lõike 2 esimest ja teist lauset.
It noted that, according to settled caselaw, the only decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment within the meaning of Article 230 EC are measures the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.
Ta tuletas meelde, et väljakujunenud kohtupraktika kohaselt saab tühistamishagi EÜ artikli 230 tähenduses esitada vaid toimingute või otsuste peale, mis tekitavad selliseid siduvaid õiguslikke tagajärgi, mis mõjutavad hageja huve, tuues kaasa selge muutuse tema õiguslikus olukorras.
30 It follows that the contested letter does not constitute a decision within the meaning of Article 25 of Regulation No 659/1999 and that it has no legal effect.
30 Sellest tulenevalt ei ole vaidlustatud kiri otsus määruse nr 659/1999 artikli 25 tähenduses ja see ei tekita õiguslikke tagajärgi.
That letter is therefore not actionable under Article 230 EC.’
Selle kirja vastu ei saa seega EÜ artikli 230 alusel hagi esitada.”
The Court of First Instance then dismissed Athinaïki Techniki’s argument that the nonactionable nature of a letter rejecting a complaint has the effect of
Esimese Astme Kohus lükkas seejärel tagasi Athinaïki Techniki argumendi, et kaebuse rahuldamatajätmise kirja vaidlustamatus jätab hallatavad ilma juurdepääsust
It stated that, under Article 25 of that regulation, decisions adopted by the Commission in the field of State aid are addressed to the Member States, including where those decisions are taken following a complaint concerning aid allegedly contrary to the Treaty, and that it is the decision addressed to the Member State and not the letter addressed to the complainant which must, where appropriate, be the subject of an action for annulment.
Ta märkis, et selle määruse artikli 25 alusel on komisjoni riigiabialased otsused adresseeritud liikmesriikidele ka juhul, kui need on tehtud pärast kaebuse esitamist väidetavalt asutamislepinguga vastuolus oleva abi peale, ning et tühistamishagi saab vajadusel esitada liikmesriigile adresseeritud otsuse vastu, mitte kaebajale saadetud kirja vastu.
A — The procedure before the Court and the forms of order sought by the parties depriving citizens of access to Community justice.
A. Menetlus Euroopa Kohtus ja poolte nõuded ühenduse õigusemõistmisele.
It explained, first, that a complainant may provide additional information in order to support his complaint and that, in the event that that information is inadequate, the Commission is then required to define its position on the measure in question by means of an actionable decision.
Ta märkis esiteks, et kaebaja saab esitada oma kaebuse põhjenduseks lisateavet ja et juhul, kui sellest teabest piisab, on komisjon kohustatud võtma seisukoha kõnealuse meetme osas aktiga, mida saab vaidlustada.
It argued, secondly, that it is also open to the complainant to bring an action for failure to act under the third subparagraph of Article 232 EC.
Teiseks väitis ta, et hagejal on ka võimalus esitada tegevusetushagi EÜ artikli 232 kolmanda lõigu alusel.
Athinaïki Techniki brought an appeal against the contested order by application dated 18 December 2006, lodged with the Registry on 21 December 2006.
Athinaïki Techniki esitas 18. detsembri 2006. aasta hagiavaldusega, mis laekus kohtukantseleisse 21. detsembril 2006, vaidlustatud kohtumääruse peale apellatsioonkaebuse.
The Commission and Athens Resort Casino, the intervener, lodged their responses, respectively, on 5 February and 15 March 2007.
Komisjon ja menetlusse astuja Athens Resort Casino esitasid vastused vastavalt 5. veebruaril ja 15. märtsil 2007.
None of the parties requested a hearing.
Ükski pooltest ei nõudnud kohtuistungit.
Finally, it responded to the line of argument that a letter closing a file issued in a procedure relating to the application of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC is in the nature of a decision.
Lõpuks vastas Esimese Astme Kohus argumentidele, mille kohaselt ei ole EÜ artiklite 81 ja 82 rakendamist käsitlevas menetluses väljastatud kiri menetluse lõpetamise kohta oma olemuselt otsus.
It stated that, unlike the rules governing that procedure, Regulation No 659/1999 conferred no procedural rights on complainants prior to the initiation of the formal investigation procedure.
Ta märkis, et vastupidiselt selle menetluse eeskirjadele ei anna määrus nr 659/1999 kaebajatele mingeid menetluslikke õigusi enne ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamist.
By letters dated 15 October 2007, the Court invited the parties to express their views, in writing, on the relevance for the outcome of the dispute of:
Euroopa Kohus kutsus 15. oktoobri 2007. aasta kirjadega pooli avaldama kirjalikult seisukohta küsimuses, kas vaidluse lahendamiseks on asjakohased:
The Court of First Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible and ordered Athinaïki Techniki to pay the costs.
Esimese Astme Kohus jättis hagi vastuvõetamatuse tõttu rahuldamata ja mõistis kohtukulud välja Athinaïki Technikilt.
— the principles arising from the judgment in Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France;
eespool viidatud kohtuotsusest komisjon vs. Sytraval ja Brink’s France tulenevad põhimõtted;
It explains that, in the field of State aid, the Commission takes a decision when it defines its final and reasoned position on the classification of the measure complained of.
Ta märgib, et kui komisjon võtab riigiabi valdkonnas kaebuse esemeks oleva meetme osas lõpliku ja põhjendatud seisukoha, teeb ta otsuse.
Athinaïki Techniki submits that the final nature of the closure of the file on a complaint is not called into question by the fact that it is open to the complainant to produce new information.
Athinaïki Techniki väidab kaebuse menetlemise lõpetamise lõplikkuse kohta, et seda ei mõjuta kaebajale jäetud võimalus esitada uusi elemente.
The appellant requests the Court to set aside the contested order, grant the forms of order sought by it at first instance and order the Commission and the intervener to pay the costs.
Apellant palub Euroopa Kohtul vaidlustatud kohtumäärus tühistada, rahuldada tema esimeses kohtuastmes esitatud nõuded ja mõista kohtukulud välja komisjonilt ja menetlusse astujalt.
The Commission and Athens Resort Casino submit that the Court should dismiss the appeal as unfounded and order the appellant to pay the costs.
Komisjon ja Athens Resort Casino paluvad jätta apellatsioonkaebus põhjendamatuse tõttu rahuldamata ja mõista kohtukulud välja hagejalt.
It states, with regard to the statement of reasons, that the disputed closure of the file must be placed in its context.
Põhjendatuse kohta märgib ta, et vaidlusalust lõpetamist tuleb vaadelda selle kontekstis.
It takes the view that, in the present case, the Commission closed the file on the complaint on the basis of the reasoning that no State aid was granted at the time of the award of a public contract, since the procedure for the award of the public contract in question is transparent and non-discriminatory.
Käesoleval juhul lõpetas komisjon tema arvates kaebuse menetlemise arutluskäigu põhjal, mille kohaselt ei ole riigihankelepingu sõlmimisel tegemist riigiabi andmisega, kui kõnealune hankemenetlus on läbipaistev ja mittediskrimineeriv.
The laconic nature of the Commission’s letter of 2 December 2004 was thus intentional because, if it had set out that statement of reasons therein, it would have been evident that the closure of the file on the complaint was in the nature of a decision.
Komisjon oli 2. detsembri 2004. aasta kirjas seega meelega lakooniline, sest kui ta oleks selle põhjenduse seal ära märkinud, oleks kaebuse menetlemise lõpetamise otsuse iseloom ilmselge.
The Court of First Instance’s ana -lysis was therefore purely formalistic, in that it concerned itself with the wording of that letter, without taking into account its scope and the context of the case.
Esimese Astme Kohtu analüüs on tema arvates seega puhtformaalne, sest see lähtub mainitud kirja sõnastusest, võtmata arvesse selle ulatust ja kohtuasja konteksti.
B — Pleas in law and arguments of the parties
B. Poolte väited ja argumendid
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance erred in law in ruling, in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the contested order, that the closure by the Commission of the file on the complaint does not constitute a decision.
Apellant väidab, et Esimese Astme Kohus rikkus õigusnormi, kui ta otsustas vaidlustatud kohtumääruse punktides 29 ja 30, et kaebuse menetlemise lõpetamine komisjoni poolt ei kujuta endast otsust.
The Commission disputes that line of argument.
Komisjon vaidleb sellele argumendile vastu.
It submits that the letter of 2 December 2004 contains merely a notice sent to Athinaïki Techniki pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation No 659/1999.
Ta väidab, et 2. detsembri 2004. aasta kiri sisaldab ainult teavet, mis edastati Athinaïki Technikile vastavalt määruse nr 659/1999 artiklile 20.
It states that that notice was effected in order to avoid using the decisionmaking mechanism
Ta tõstab esile, et niisugune teavitamine on ette nähtud
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-521/06 P in the absence of any significant and detailed evidence.
KOHTUJURIST BOT’ ETTEPANEK – KOHTUASI C-521/06 P selleks, et vältida otsustusmehhanismi kasutamist tõsiste ja üksikasjalike elementide puudumisel.
Athens Resort Casino also submits that the letter of 2 December 2004 does not constitute an actionable decision for reasons identical to those put forward by the Commission.
Athens Resort Casino väidab samuti, et 2. detsembri 2004. aasta kiri ei ole vaidlustatav akt samadel põhjustel, mis esitas komisjon.
It also argues that Athinaïki Techniki’s application before the Court of First Instance is inadmissible, because the original of the application was received by the Registry only on 18 February 2005.
Ta väidab lisaks, et Athinaïki Techniki hagi on Esimese Astme Kohtus vastuvõetamatu, sest selle originaal saabus kohtukantseleisse alles 18. veebruaril 2005.
The Commission also argues that under Article 25 of Regulation No 659/1999, decisions in matters of State aid are addressed to the Member States and that it is those decisions which, where appropriate, may be challenged by the ‘parties concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and not the letter informing them of the content of such decisions.
Komisjon selgitab ühtlasi, et määruse nr 659/1999 artikli 25 alusel on riigiabialased otsused adresseeritud liikmesriikidele ja et „asjassepuutuvad isikud” EÜ artikli 88 lõike 2 tähenduses saavad vajadusel vaidlustada just neid otsuseid, mitte kirja, milles neid teavitatakse otsuste sisust.
The Commission also argues that the distinction between decisions and letters of notification is to be found in the caselaw, both in the field of State aid and in the field of competition.
Komisjon väidab samuti, et otsustel ja teavituskirjadel tehakse kohtupraktikas vahet nii riigiabi kui ka konkurentsi valdkonnas.
In response to the question raised by the Court, all the parties argued that the prin -ciples established in the judgment in Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France are relevant in the present dispute.
Vastuseks Euroopa Kohtu küsimusele teatasid kõik pooled, et eespool viidatud kohtuotsuses komisjon vs. Sytraval ja Brink’s France sedastatud põhimõtted on käesolevas kohtuvaidluses asjassepuutuvad.
It also points out that the letter of 2 December 2004 is signed by an official of the institution, not by one of its members, and that that letter does not set out the reasons for closing the file on the complaint.
Ta märgib ühtlasi, et 2. detsembri 2004. aasta kirja on allkirjastanud selle institutsiooni ametnik, mitte liige ja et selles kirjas ei esitata kaebuse menetlemise lõpetamise põhjuseid.
The appellant added that, in accordance with those principles, it must be regarded as being a ‘party concerned’ within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC and as being directly and individually concerned, in so far as its market position has been substantially affected by the aid to which its complaint relates.
Apellant lisas, et nende põhimõtete kohaselt tuleb teda pidada „asjassepuutuvaks isikuks” EÜ artikli 88 lõike 2 tähenduses ning otseselt ja isiklikult puudutatuks, kuivõrd tema kaebuse esemeks olev abi mõjutab oluliselt tema turupositsiooni.
It also stated that a complainant, in the event of the closure of the file on its complaint in the context of the procedure relating to the application of Articles 81 EC
Ta märkis samuti, et kaebajal on kaebuse menetlemise lõpetamise korral EÜ artiklite 81 ja 82 rakendamise ning dum-
The appellant argued that such a right should exist a fortiori in matters relating to State aid, in so far as the Commission has exclusive competence in that field and the initiation of a formal investigation procedure does not depend on an assessment of appropriateness.
Apellant väitis, et selline õigus peaks a fortiori olema ka riigiabi vallas, kuna komisjonil on selles valdkonnas ainupädevus ja ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamine ei sõltu otstarbekusest.
inferred that the rejection of complaints in the context of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC is in the nature of a decision from the regulations codifying procedure in that field.
se otsustuslik laad tuletati kohtupraktikas määrustest, millega kodifitseeriti sellealane menetlus.
34 It argued that Regulation No 659/1999 contains no comparable provisions.
34 Ta väitis, et määrus nr 659/1999 ei sisalda võrreldavaid sätteid.
It pointed out that that regulation does not give complainants standing to bring proceedings and provides that all decisions are to be addressed to the Member State from which the measure at issue originates.
Ta tuletas meelde, et see määrus ei näe ette kaebajate staatust ning sätestab, et kõik otsused on adresseeritud kõnealuse meetme võtnud liikmesriigile.
The Commission, for its part, inferred from the principles established by the judgment in Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France that the closure of the file on a complaint is not a decision.
Komisjon järeldas ent eespool viidatud kohtuotsuses komisjon vs. Sytraval ja Brink’s France sedastatud põhimõtetest, et kaebuse menetlemise lõpetamine ei ole otsus.
The Commission stated that its analysis also applies to the rules applicable in matters relating to anti-dumping.
Komisjon märkis, et sama kehtib ka dumpinguvastaste eeskirjade kohta.
Athens Resort Casino’s answers were the same as those of the Commission.
Athens Resort Casino andis samad vastused mis komisjon.