natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Nadalje, pružanjem pravne sigurnosti tim odredbama i zaštitom mogućnosti poreznih obveznika da plate porez, promiče se ulaganje privatnog sektora u javnu infrastrukturu, a tako i proširenje porezne osnovice i prikupljanje većih poreznih prihoda.
Thus the relevant measures are justified by the logic of the system.
Prema tome, relevantne mjere opravdane su logikom sustava.
Absence of an assessment regarding the conditions relevant to distortion of competition and effect on trade
Nepostojanje procjene uvjeta relevantnih za narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja i učinak na trgovinu
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.
Grčka nadležna tijela i društvo PCT tvrde da Komisija nije utvrdila usluge i zemljopisna tržišta koji su mjerodavni za ocjenu tržišnog natjecanja, nije analizirala uvjete tržišnog natjecanja na mjerodavnim tržištima i nije utvrdila da su konkurentne luke EU-a navedene u odluci o pokretanju postupka stvarni ili potencijalni konkurenti luke Pirej i društva PCT.
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.
Oni dalje tvrde da Komisija nije analizirala mjerodavna tržišta na kojima posluje kontejnerski terminal društva PCT te uvjete tržišnog natjecanja na mjerodavnom tržištu.
Such examination would demonstrate that the fiscal provisions at stake do not have an adverse effect on competition and trade in the EU.
Takva bi analiza pokazala da predmetne fiskalne odredbe nemaju negativan utjecaj na tržišno natjecanje i trgovinu u EU-u.
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.
U pogledu uvjeta tržišnog natjecanja na tržištu, oni tvrde da na temelju presude WAM [30] sama činjenica da postoji trgovina kontejnerskim teretom između država članica EU-a i da se različite luke natječu u pružanju usluga kontejnerskih luka ne znači automatski da svaka potpora dodijeljena operatoru luke ispunjuje kriterij utjecaja na trgovinu i/ili narušavanja tržišnog natjecanja iz članka 107. stavka 1.
Thus they argue that the Commission did not analyse the effect of the fiscal provisions on competition and trade in the relevant markets.
UFEU-a. Oni stoga tvrde da Komisija nije analizirala učinke fiskalnih odredbi na tržišno natjecanje i trgovinu na mjerodavnim tržištima.
PCT provided more detailed comments as regards the above argumentation.
Društvo PCT dostavilo je podrobne primjedbe u vezi s navedenim tvrdnjama.
Definition of the relevant market
Definicija mjerodavnog tržišta
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.
U odnosu na definiciju mjerodavnog tržišta, društvo PCT upućuje na odluke Komisije u području spajanja [31] kako bi moglo tvrditi da postoje dva različita mjerodavna tržišta lučkih usluga kontejnerskog terminala promet prema unutrašnjosti i prekrcajni promet.
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].
Ono također tvrdi da se čini da je Komisija, u odnosu na promet prema unutrašnjosti, u svojoj odluci o pokretanju postupka smatrala da su zemljopisnim područjem primjene tržišta obuhvaćeni „Grčka i istočno Sredozemlje”, ali nije objasnila zašto ga definira drugačije od grčkog Povjerenstva za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja, koje je odlučilo da je zemljopisno područje primjene tržišta usluga utovara i istovara u odnosu na promet prema unutrašnjosti ograničeno na središnju i južnu Grčku. [32].
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.
Nadalje, društvo PCT tvrdi da, s gledišta ponude i potražnje, srednja i južna Grčka čine zemljopisno tržište koje se razlikuje od sjevernog dijela Grčke zbog a) sposobnosti lučkog kontejnerskog terminala društva PCT da prihvati znatno veću količinu prometa luke u Solunu i od bilo koje druge grčke luke te pod konkurentnijim uvjetima zbog velikog tehničkog kapaciteta, b) koncentracije industrije, trgovine i stanovništva većinom u širem području oko Arene i općenito u središnjem/južnom dijelu zemlje, c) grčke topografije zbog koje prijevoz kontejnera između luke Soluna na sjeveru Grčke i srednjeg i južnog dijela zemlje i obrnuto podrazumijeva dodatne troškove.
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.
U pogledu usluga pretovara kontejnera, društvo PCT upućuje na odluke Maersk/ECT i Hutchinson/Evergreen Commission u kojima je Komisija definirala istočno Sredozemlje i područje oko Crnog Mora mjerodavnim tržištem za kontejnerske usluge prekrcaja.
It also considers that the Commission in its opening decision considers the geographic scope of the market as encompassing ‘Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean’.
Ono također smatra da Komisija u svojoj odluci o pokretanju postupka smatra da su zemljopisnim područjem primjene tržišta obuhvaćene „Grčka i istočni Mediteran”.
Competitive conditions in the relevant market
Tržišno natjecanje na mjerodavnom tržištu
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.
U pogledu prekrcajnog prometa, društvo PCT tvrdi da se kontejnerski terminal ne natječe na tržištu s lukama EU-a za pružanje usluga prihvata kontejnerskog prekrcajnog prometa u istočnom Sredozemlju, osim terminala za kontejnere pristaništa I društva PPA.
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.
Nadalje, tvrdi da Komisija nije objasnila zašto smatra da u državama članicama EU-a [33] na ovom tržištu postoje različite luke koje se natječu s kontejnerskom lukom društva PCT.
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].
Društvo PCT smatra da je Komisijina izjava da se „…Luka u Solunu, luka u Costanza u Rumunjskoj, luka Koper u Sloveniji i niz luka u Italiji mogu smatrati izravnim konkurentima” u suprotnosti s nalazima Komisije u predmetu C 21/2009 [34].
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.
Luka Italija i luka Koper u Sloveniji ne nalaze se u segmentu tržišta istočnog Sredozemlja koje je, prema društvu PCT, utvrdila Komisija već na tržištu srednjeg Sredozemlja.
Moreover, transhipment traffic destined for the hinterland covered by these ports (‘catchment area’) is not handled presently through Piraeus port [35].
Nadalje, prekrcajni promet usmjeren prema unutrašnjosti koji je obuhvaćen tim lukama („područje prihvata”) trenutačno ne prolazi kroz luku Pirej [35].
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].
S gledišta ponude, društvo PCT tvrdi da bi se te luke u određenoj mjeri mogle smatrati zamjenskim lukama za lučki kontejnerski terminal društva PCT jer bi mogle opsluživati određene vrste kontejnerskih brodova koje bi mogla opsluživati kontejnerska luka društva PCT, ali ne sve vrste brodova zbog nedovoljne dubine mora i kapaciteta dizalica [36].
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.
S gledišta potražnje, te se luke ne mogu smatrati zamjenama za luku Pirej iz sljedećih razloga: (a) luka Pirej nudi najkraće i najjeftinije [37] zaobilaženje osi Sueskog kanala/Gibraltarskog prolaza koji su glavni put za pomorski prijevoz kontejnera u Sredozemnom moru [38], (b) Pirej nudi najniže cijene pogonskog ulja u svijetu, (c) Constanza bi posebno donosila dodatne troškove pilota u tjesnacima Dardaneli i Bospor.
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.
S obzirom na navedeno, društvo PCT tvrdi da se luke navedene u odluci o pokretanju postupka ne mogu smatrati stvarnim ili potencijalnim zamjenskim lukama za kontejnersku luku društva PCT u pogledu pružanja usluga prihvata prekrcajnog prometa u istočnom Sredozemlju.
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].
Osim toga, društvo PCT upućuje na odluku Komisije koja se odnosi na ulaganja u luku Pirej u kojoj je Komisija smatrala da je tržišno natjecanje između određenih luka i luke Pirej neznatno [39].
Moreover, it argues that the Commission failed to analyse the effect of the fiscal provisions on competition and trade in the relevant markets.
Nadalje, tvrdi da Komisija nije analizirala učinke fiskalnih odredbi na tržišno natjecanje i trgovinu na mjerodavnim tržištima.
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.
Osim toga, za ocjenjivanje tog učinka trebalo bi analizirati istovjetne porezne sustave koji se primjenjuju na mjerodavnim tržištima jer druge luke možda uživaju slične ili istovjetne fiskalne pogodnosti.
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.
Tvrdi isto da je na predmetnim tržištima konkurent društva PCT samo društvo PPA, koje upravlja kontejnerskim terminalom na pristaništu 1 u luci Pirej.
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].
Međutim, u odnosu na društvo PPA, Komisija je potvrdila da će se davanjem koncesije društvu PCT povećati tržišno natjecanje na tržištu usluga prihvata za kontejnerski promet u luci Pirej [40].
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.
U pogledu mogućih konkurenata koji bi mogli nastati privatizacijom društva PPA i drugih grčkih luka, društvo PCT tvrdi da grčki upravitelji luka kojima nisu dodijeljene slične koncesije nisu u sličnom položaju i stoga ne može nastati konkurentna prednost ili narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja zbog predmetnih fiskalnih pogodnosti.
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.
Također tvrdi da Komisija ne spominje dokaze da bi drugi upravitelji luka bili zainteresirani za poduzimanje većih ulaganja u stvaranje glavnog lučkog kontejnerskog terminala u Grčkoj.
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].
Društvo PCT tvrdi da je mala vjerojatnost da bi nastalo takvo tržišno natjecanje jer niti jedna druga postojeća luka u Grčkoj ne bi imala značajke Pireja [41].
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.
I konačno, u pogledu tržišnog natjecanja s društvom PPA, tvrdi da je stajalište Komisije netočno jer se društvo PCT već natječe na tržištu s kontejnerskim terminalom pristaništa I društva PPA i učinak koncesije bilo je otvaranje tržišta, a ne narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja.
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.
U tom pogledu isto tvrdi da društvo PPA ima koristi od određenih zakonski odredbi fiskalne prirode, u svjetlu čega je donošenje nekih od predmetnih fiskalnih odredbi bilo nužan mehanizam kako društvo PCT ne bi bilo u nepovoljnom položaju na tržištu.
On the comparison of the alleged State aid measures with similar provisions in other contracts of big infrastructure projects [42]
O usporedbi navodnih mjera državne potpore sa sličnim odredbama u drugim ugovorima o velikim infrastrukturnim projektima [42]
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.
Grčka nadležna tijela i društvo PCT navode da su odredbe slične odredbama članaka 2. i 3. Zakona bile uključene u grčke zakone kojima je potvrđeno nekoliko javnih infrastrukturnih projekata te u Zakon 3389/2005 o javno-privatnim partnerstvima.
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.
Budući da je Komisija analizirala te zakone u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 1. UFEU-a i odlučila da zbog njih ne nastaje državna potpora, zaključkom da odredbe u korist društva PCT čine selektivnu mjeru i da se njima dodjeljuje neopravdana prednost obuhvaćena člankom 107. stavkom 1. UFEU-a ugrozila bi se pravna sigurnost i to bi bilo protivno praksi Komisije i prethodnim izjavama o primjeni takvih odredbi na javne infrastrukturne projekte u Grčkoj.
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.
U vezi s predmetom zračne luke Atena [43], u kojem je Komisija smatrala da su se fiskalne povlastice primjenjivale na usluge zračne luke koje u to vrijeme nisu bile liberalizirane, oni tvrde da se isti zaključak može donijeti i u pogledu infrastrukturnih usluga luke u predmetnom slučaju.
Moreover the Greek authorities retain their argumentation that the Commission examined the said provisions in that case.
Nadalje, grčka nadležna tijela ostaju pri svojim tvrdnjama da je Komisija u predmetnom slučaju razmotrila navedene odredbe.
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.
U vezi s predmetom o atenskoj obilaznici [44] i predmetom o nadvožnjaku autoceste Rio Antirrio, Komisija je prema njihovom mišljenju pažljivo razmotrila financijske doprinose javnog i privatnog sektora troškovima projekta i predmetne fiskalne odredbe.
The Commission then concluded that the amount of the public sector contribution (in the form of grants and state guarantees) was determined as ‘market price’ (i.e. the lowest amount of the public sector contribution required) through an open, non-discriminatory and competitive tender.
Komisija je zatim zaključila da je iznos doprinosa javnog sektora (u obliku bespovratnih sredstava i državnih jamstava) utvrđen kao „tržišna cijena” (tj. najniži potrebni iznos doprinosa javnog sektora) u otvorenom, nediskriminacijskom i konkurentnom natječaju.
In the Athens Ring Road decision the Commission concluded that the fiscal provisions constituted a clarification of the applicable tax regime, the absence of which could risk jeopardising the success of the project and did not consider them as part of the remuneration of the concessionaire.
U odluci u predmetu o atenskoj obilaznici, Komisija je zaključila da fiskalne odredbe čine pojašnjenje primjenjivog poreznog sustava i da bi bez njih bio ugrožen uspjeh projekta i nije ih smatrala dijelom naknade koncesionara.
Any financial value that might be associated with the application of the fiscal provisions adopted could not have been considered as part of the public sector contribution, since it could have been determined with accuracy only upon the expiry of the concession period.
Financijska vrijednost koja se mogla povezati s primjenom donesenih fiskalnih odredbi nije se mogla smatrati doprinosom javnog sektora jer se mogla točno utvrditi tek nakon isteka razdoblja trajanja koncesije.
These provisions were only the necessary clarifications so that private investors would not be discouraged in particular as regards this type of non-viable construction projects of high risk.
Te su odredbe bile samo nužno pojašnjenje kako se ne bi obeshrabrili prihvatni ulagači, posebno u slučaju ovakve vrste neodrživih i visokorizičnih građevinskih projekata.
Thus PCT cannot be distinguished from the concessionaires in these cases, as these provisions were in all cases a ‘clarification’ and not a ‘remuneration’ as the Commission considered in its opening decision.
Stoga se društvo PCT ne može razlikovati od koncesionara u tim slučajevima jer su te odredbe u svim slučajevima bile „pojašnjenje”, a ne „naknada”, kako je Komisija smatrala u svojoj odluci o pokretanju postupka.
Moreover, the case-law [45] the Commission mentions in its opening decision as regards the fact that its silence of the Commission on specific measures does not mean that they have been approved [46], cannot be applied in notified cases as the ones invoked by the Greek authorities and PCT.
Nadalje, sudska praksa [45] koju Komisija spominje u svojoj odluci o pokretanju postupka u odnosu na činjenicu da neizjašnjavanje Komisije u pogledu određenih mjera ne znači da su one odobrene [46], ne može se primjenjivati u prijavljenim slučajevima kao što su oni koje spominju grčka nadležna tijela i društvo PCT.
Concerning the subsequent State aid decisions on the rest of the infrastructure projects, the Commission did not need to refer in detail to the fiscal provisions in question because it did not change its position expressed in Rio Antirrio Motorway bridge and Athens Ring Road cases [47].
U odnosu na naknadne odluke o državnim potporama u odnosu na ostale infrastrukturne projekte, Komisija nije morala detaljno spominjati predmetne fiskalne odredbe jer nije promijenila svoje stajalište izraženo u predmetima o nadvožnjaku autoceste Rio Antirrio i o atenskoj zaobilaznici [47].
They argue that the issue that arises is whether in the light of the Commission's approval in the above past decisions, the fiscal provisions at stake can be considered as consistent with State aid rules and not whether these provisions are concerned by the Commission's past assessment, as indicated in the opening decision.
Oni tvrde da se javlja pitanje mogu li se, u svjetlu Komisijinog odobrenja u navedenim prethodnim odlukama, predmetne fiskalne odredbe smatrati spojivima s pravilima o državnim potporama, a ne jesu li te odredbe obuhvaćene prethodnom procjenom Komisije, kako je navedeno u odluci o pokretanju postupka.
Moreover, had these provisions been included in the tender documents of this concession, the Commission would have concluded the same as in the past Commission decisions.
Nadalje, da su te odredbe bile uključene u natječajnu dokumentaciju za dodjelu koncesije, Komisija bi zaključila isto kao i u prethodnim odlukama.
They also argue that the distinction made by the Commission in its opening decision between the current case and the previous cases is based upon a technicality, i.e. the adoption of the fiscal provisions in Law 3755/2009 as opposed to including them in the concession contract.
Oni također tvrde da Komisija u svojoj odluci o pokretanju postupka navodi samo formalnu razliku između trenutačnog slučaja i prethodnih slučajeva, odnosno, donošenje fiskalnih odredbi u Zakonu 3755/2009 u odnosu na njihovo uključivanje u ugovor o koncesiji.