natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Casino Loutraki observes that, although Greece had previously argued that the reduced price of admission tickets of EUR 6 is justified in consideration of special circumstances applicable to each beneficiary casino, mainly related to the geographical situation of each casino (which determines certain economic, social, demographic and other specificities), nevertheless, in August 2010, the Corfu Casino passed to EUR 15 upon its privatisation, without any explanation as to why the abovementioned special circumstances no longer applied.
UFEU-a i naložiti povrat prednosti.
As concerns the separate measures invoked by Greece and Mont Parnès, which would allegedly favour Casino Loutraki (mainly that Casino Loutraki would pay a lower proportion of annual gross profits to the State as compared to other casinos), Casino Loutraki asserts that in practice it has paid the same amount as its competitors under a separate agreement with the authorities.
OCJENA MJERE
In its new submission of 14 April 2017, following the annulment of the 2011 Final Decision by the General Court, Casino Loutraki emphasises that the advantage conferred by the measure in question consists in the higher attractiveness of the beneficiary casinos, as well as the resulting inflation of the beneficiaries' total income.
U skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 1.
According to Casino Loutraki, the Commission should establish such an advantage and adopt a new final decision finding that the measure concerned has conferred such an advantage to the beneficiaries, taking into account all information submitted by the Greek authorities during the procedure prior to the 2011 Final Decision.
UFEU-a svaka potpora koju dodijeli država članica ili koja se dodjeljuje putem državnih sredstava u bilo kojem obliku koja narušava ili prijeti da će narušiti tržišno natjecanje stavljanjem određenih poduzetnika ili proizvodnje određene robe u povoljniji položaj nespojiva je s unutarnjim tržištem u mjeri u kojoj utječe na trgovinu među državama članicama.
In addition, Casino Loutraki contends that the extensive practice of the beneficiary casinos to grant free tickets constitutes an independent, third element of the advantage conferred.
Kako bi se mjera smatrala potporom u smislu te odredbe, moraju biti ispunjeni svi uvjeti iz te odredbe.
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.
Prvo, mora se dodijeliti intervencijom države ili iz državnih sredstava.
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.
Drugo, ta intervencija mora biti takva da može utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
Treće, zbog nje mora nastati selektivna prednost za primatelja.
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.
Četvrto, mora narušavati ili prijetiti da će narušiti tržišno natjecanje.
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.
Kad je riječ o trećem uvjetu za utvrđivanje postojanja potpore, pravi se razlika između uvjeta prednosti i selektivnosti kako bi se osiguralo da ne čine sve državne mjere kojima se dodjeljuje prednost (npr. one kojima se poboljšava neto financijski položaj poduzetnika) državnu potporu, nego samo one kojima se na selektivan način daje prednost određenim poduzetnicima ili kategorijama poduzetnika odnosno određenim gospodarskim sektorima.
First, there must be an intervention by the State or through State resources.
Prednost je svaka gospodarska korist koju poduzetnik ne bi mogao ostvariti u uobičajenim tržišnim uvjetima, odnosno bez intervencije države.
Second, the intervention must be liable to affect trade between the Member States.
Relevantan je jedino učinak mjere na poduzetnika, a ne uzrok ili cilj intervencije države.
Third, it must confer a selective advantage on the recipient.
Prednost je prisutna kad god se financijska situacija poduzetnika poboljša kao rezultat intervencije države u uvjetima koji se razlikuju od uobičajenih tržišnih uvjeta.
Fourth, it must distort or threaten to distort competition.
Da bi se to procijenilo, financijsku situaciju poduzetnika nakon uvođenja mjere trebalo bi usporediti s financijskom situacijom u kojoj bi bio da mjera nije poduzetaPresuda Suda od 2. srpnja 1974., Italija protiv Komisije, 173/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:71, točka 13.
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.
S obzirom na to da je važan jedino učinak mjere na poduzetnika, nije važno je li prednost obvezna za poduzetnika u smislu da je on ne može izbjeći ili odbiti.
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.
Točan oblik mjere isto tako nije važan da bi se utvrdilo dodjeljuje li se njome prednost poduzetniku.
Only the effect of the measure on the undertaking is relevant, and not the cause or the objective of the State intervention.
Ne samo da je dodjela pozitivne gospodarske prednosti relevantna za pojam državne potpore, nego i smanjenje gospodarskog opterećenja može predstavljati prednost.
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.
Potonje je široka kategorija koja sadržava svako smanjenje naknada koje su obično uključene u proračun poduzetnika.
To assess this, the financial situation of the undertaking following the measure should be compared with its financial situation if the measure had not been takenJudgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 1974, Italy v Commission, 173/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:71, paragraph 13.
To obuhvaća sve situacije u kojima su gospodarski subjekti oslobođeni od sastavnih troškova svojih gospodarskih djelatnosti.
Since only the effect of the measure on the undertaking matters, it is irrelevant whether the advantage is compulsory for the undertaking in that it could not avoid or refuse it.
U presudi iz 2014.
The precise form of the measure is also irrelevant in establishing whether it confers an advantage on the undertaking.
Opći je sud utvrdio da različita porezna opterećenja na cijene ulaznica za javna i privatna kasina u Grčkoj ne čine smanjenje poreza u korist javnih kasina na temelju kojeg nastaje prednost za potrebe članka 107. stavka 1.
Not only the granting of positive economic advantages is relevant for the notion of State aid, but relief from economic burdens can also constitute an advantage.
UFEU-a.
The latter is a broad category which comprises any mitigation of charges normally included in the budget of an undertaking.
Opći sud navodi da „iz predmetne mjere proizlazi da su iznosi koje su kasina isplaćivala državi na temelju poreza na ulaznice samo razmjeran dio onoga što svaki kasino naplati prodajom ulaznica.
This covers all situations in which economic operators are relieved of the inherent costs of their economic activities.
Slijedom toga, […] mjera koja je predmet spora ne znači smanjenje porezne osnovice s obzirom na to da su iznosi koje svaki kasino treba isplatiti razmjerni svoti od 80 % ukupnog iznosa stvarno prodanih ulaznica. […] [S] obzirom na to da je porez od 80 % koji su sva kasina isplaćivala državi izračunan razmjerno iznosima koje su kasina stvarno naplatila prodajom ulaznica”, „činjenica da zbog učinka ispitivane mjere kasina koja naplaćuju ulaznicu po cijeni od 6 eura državi isplaćuju manje iznose od onih koje joj isplaćuju kasina koja naplaćuju ulaznice po cijeni od 15 eura nije dovoljna da bi se utvrdilo postojanje prednosti u odnosu na kasina iz prve kategorije”.
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.
U rješenju iz 2015.
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.’.
Sud je potvrdio ta razmatranja i naveo da se „Opći sud opravdano oslonio na činjenicu da razlika između dvaju apsolutnih iznosa koje je potrebno vratiti Grčkoj odgovara istom postotku različitih iznosa koje su primile dvije kategorije kasina”.
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’.
S obzirom na navedeno Komisija zaključuje da se predmetnom mjerom ne dodjeljuje prednost za potrebe članka 107. stavka 1.
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.
UFEU-a.
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).’.
Kad je riječ o dijeljenju besplatnih ulaznica, Opći sud u presudi iz 2014. utvrdio je da su „kasina koja naplaćuju ulaznice po cijeni od 6 eura u prednosti jer od primljene cijene ulaznica (koja je jednaka nuli) državi isplaćuju niži iznos od onoga koji isplaćuju kasina koja naplaćuju ulaznice po cijeni od 15 eura”.
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.
Međutim, kasnije je utvrdio da se, s obzirom na to da na temelju sustava naplaćivanja ulaznica za kasina u Grčkoj ne nastaje prednost za kasina koja naplaćuju ulaznice po cijeni od 6 EUR, ne može smatrati da je sustavom besplatnih ulaznica pojačana prednost nastala na temelju tog sustava.
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.’.
Zatim je utvrdio da „s obzirom na to da sustav naplaćivanja ulaznica u kasina ne daje prednost u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
Consequently, the General Court excluded the existence of a separate and specific advantage deriving from the practice of granting free tickets.
UFEU-a kada je riječ o prodanim ulaznicama te da predmetna država članica može dopustiti izdavanje besplatnih ulaznica iz točno određenih i opravdanih razloga kao što su promotivne akcije i društvene obveze, razumno je da država članica kao dodatni uvjet odredi da joj iznosi koji bi joj inače bili isplaćeni budu isplaćeni i u slučaju besplatnih ulaznica”.
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.
Stoga je Opći sud isključio mogućnost postojanja zasebne i posebne prednosti koja proizlazi iz prakse dijeljenja besplatnih ulaznica.
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.
U rješenju iz 2015.
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.
Sud je potvrdio ta razmatranja i naveo da se, s obzirom na to da je „Opći sud pravilno utvrdio da na temelju same razlike između iznosa plaćenih državi po prodanoj ulaznici ne nastaje prednost za kasina na koja se primjenjuje cijena ulaznica od 6 EUR”, praksom dijeljenja besplatnih ulaznica ne može pojačati ta prednost.
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.
S obzirom na navedeno Komisija zaključuje da se praksom dijeljenja besplatnih ulaznica ne dodjeljuje prednost za potrebe članka 107. stavka 1.
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.
UFEU-a.
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.
Naposljetku, podnositelj pritužbe tvrdi da iz sustava naplaćivanja ulaznica za kasina u Grčkoj proizlazi veća privlačnost javnih kasina za posjetitelje zbog niže zakonske cijene ulaznice i većih ukupnih prihoda (tj. stvaranje drugih izvora prihoda, kao što su usluge igara na sreću, smještaja, bara i restorana) koji nastaju na temelju većeg broja posjetitelja koje je privukla niža cijena ulaznica.
For example, national regulation which sets a minimum price for certain goods does not entail the transfer of State resources.
Kao i u slučaju besplatnih ulaznica, s obzirom na to da sustav naplaćivanja ulaznica za kasina u Grčkoj sam po sebi ne prouzročuje prednost za javna kasina, ne može se reći da bi bilo kakvo povećanje privlačnosti ili prihoda na temelju većeg broja posjetitelja koje je privukla niža cijena ulaznica prouzročilo prednost.
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.
U svakom slučaju, čak i kad bi se moglo dokazati postojanje takve prednosti, samo prednost dodijeljena izravno ili neizravno putem državnih sredstava može činiti potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
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.
UFEU-a.
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.
Sud navodi da se negativan neizravan učinak na državne prihode koji proizlaze iz regulatornih mjera ne smatra prijenosom državnih sredstava ako je riječ o sastavnoj značajki mjere.
CONCLUSION
Na primjer, nacionalni propis kojim se određuje najmanja cijena za određenu robu ne podrazumijeva prijenos državnih sredstava.
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,
Iako različite stope poreza koji javna i privatna kasina prosljeđuju Grčkoj uključuju gubitak državnih sredstava, gubitak državnih sredstava ne proizlazi iz same činjenice da su javna kasina mogla naplaćivati nižu cijenu ulaznica od privatnih kasina.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
U skladu s tim Komisija zaključuje da prednost koju navodi podnositelj pritužbe, čak i ako se dokaže njezino postojanje, nije dodijeljena iz državnih sredstava u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
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.
Budući da neka mjera mora ispuniti sva četiri kumulativna uvjeta utvrđena u članku 107. stavku 1.
Article 2
UFEU-a kako bi se smatrala državnom potporom, nema potrebe za ispitivanjem jesu li ostali uvjeti ispunjeni u ovom slučaju.
This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.
ZAKLJUČAK
Done at Brussels, 9 August 2018.
S obzirom na prethodno navedeno Komisija zaključuje da sustav poreza na ulaznice za kasina u Grčkoj koji je postojao do studenoga 2012. ne čini potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
For the Commission
UFEU-a,
OJ C 235, 31.8.2010, p. 3.
Članak 1.
Consortium — Loutraki S.A. — Club Hotel Casino Loutraki S.A.
Sustav poreza na ulaznice za kasina u Grčkoj koji je postojao do studenoga 2012. ne čini državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
(Κοινοπραξια Δ.Α.Ε.Τ.- Λουτρακι Α.Ε.- Κλαμπ Οτελ Λουτρακι Α.Ε.), Voukourestiou 11, Akti Poseidonos 48, Loutraki, Athens 10671, Greece.
Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije.
Casino Mont Parnès, société anonyme ‘Elliniko Kasino Parnithas A.E.’, Agiou Konstantinou 49, 15124 Marousi Attikis, Greece .
Članak 2.
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.
Ova je Odluka upućena Helenskoj Republici.
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).
Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu 9. kolovoza 2018.
Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014, Hellenic Republic v European Commission, Case T-425/11, ECLI:EU:T:2014:768.
Za Komisiju
Order of the Court of 22 October 2015, European Commission v Hellenic Republic, Case C-530/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:727.
Članica Komisije
The three casinos operated as service clubs of the EOT based on Law 1624/1951, Decree 4109/1960 and Law 2160/1993.
SL C 235, 31.8.2010., str. 3.
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).
Konzorcij – Loutraki S.A.– Club Hotel Casino Loutraki S.A.
More precisely, the decisions of the General Secretary of EOT (issued in accordance with Law 1624/1951 and Decree 4109/1960) are: EOT decision 535633/21.11.1991 (setting the price of admission tickets to the Mont Parnès Casino at 2000 drachmas); EOT decision 508049/24.3.1992 (setting the price of admission tickets to the Corfu and Rhodes Casinos at 1500 drachmas); EOT decision 532691/24.11.1997 (adjusting the price of admission tickets to the Corfu Casino to 2000 drachmas).
(Κοινοπραξια Δ.Α.Ε.Τ.– Λουτρακι Α.Ε.– Κλαμπ Οτελ Λουτρακι Α.Ε.), Voukourestiou 11, Akti Poseidonos 48, Loutraki, Atena 10671, Grčka.
Law 2206/1994 on the creation, organisation, operation and control of casinos and other matters, Νόμος 2206, Δημοσιεύθηκε στο ΦΕΚ 62 - 20.4.1994.
Kasino Mont Parnès, société anonyme „Elliniko Kasino Parnithas A.E.”, Agiou Konstantinou 49, 15124 Marousi Attikis, Grčka .
Ministerial Decision Y.A 1128269/1226/0015/ΠΟΛ.1292/16.11.1995 – ΦΕΚ 982/B'/1995.
Kasino Thessaloniki, „Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki A.E.”, Agiou Konstantinou 49, 15124 Marousi Attikis, Grčka i 13. km ulice Thessaloniki-Polygyrou, 55103 Solun, Grčka.
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.’
Odluka 2011/716/EU o državnoj potpori određenim grčkim kasinima C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) koju je provela Helenska Republika (SL L 285, 1.11.2011., str. 25.).
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.’
Presuda Općeg suda od 11. rujna 2014., Helenska Republika protiv Europske komisije, predmet T-425/11, ECLI:EU:T:2014:768.
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.’.
Rješenje Suda od 22. listopada 2015., Europska komisija protiv Helenske Republike, predmet C-530/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:727.
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”. ’.
Tri su kasina poslovala kao klubovi EOT-a na temelju Zakona 1624/1951, Odluke 4109/1960 i Zakona 2160/1993.
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. ’
EOT je kasnije kao upravitelja kasina Corfu i Mont Parnès zamijenilo grčko društvo za razvoj turizma (ETA), koje je u stopostotnom vlasništvu Grčke, u skladu sa zakonima 2636/1998 i 2837/2000, do izdavanja odobrenja za obavljanje djelatnosti dvama navedenim kasinima na temelju Zakona 3139/2003 (kasinom Rodos upravljao je EOT dok mu 1996. nije izdano odobrenje za obavljanje djelatnosti).