natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular, when the sale of shares takes place on the stock exchange, it is generally assumed to be on market conditions and not to involve any advantage.
Kadar poteka prodaja delnic na borzi, se na splošno zlasti predvideva, da se uporabljajo tržni pogoji in da ne vključuje nobenega dajanja prednosti.
However, when the disposal is carried out through a trade sale, it can be assumed that no advantage is involved if the following conditions are fulfilled: first, the shareholding is sold by a competitive tender that is open to all comers, transparent and non-discriminatory; second, no conditions are attached which are not customary in comparable transactions between private parties and which are capable of potentially reducing the sales price; third, the shareholding is sold to the highest bidder; and fourth, bidders must be given enough time and information to carry out a proper valuation of the assets at the basis of their bid.
Vendar, kadar se odsvojitev izvede s prodajo, je mogoče predvidevati, da prednost ni vključena, če so izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji: prvič, imetništvo delnic se proda na podlagi konkurenčnega javnega razpisa, ki je odprt za vse, pregleden in nediskriminacijski; drugič, na prodajo se ne vežejo pogoji, ki niso običajni v primerljivih transakcijah med zasebniki in ki bi lahko potencialno znižali prodajno ceno; tretjič, imetništvo delnic se proda najboljšemu ponudniku; ter četrtič, ponudniki morajo imeti na voljo dovolj časa in informacij, da lahko opravijo ustrezno oceno premoženja, ki je podlaga njihovi ponudbi.
In other words, when the privatisation is carried out by trade sale, the benchmark for assessing whether a transaction concerning State assets involves an advantage is whether a market economy operator placed in a similar situation would have behaved in the same way, i.e. would have sold the company at the same price.
Z drugimi besedami, kadar se privatizacija izvede s prodajo, temelji ocena, ali transakcija, ki se nanaša na državno premoženje, vključuje prednost, na tem, ali bi udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu v podobnem položaju ravnal enako, tj. ali bi prodal podjetje po isti ceni.
Non-economic considerations, such as for example industrial policy reasons, employment considerations or regional development objectives, which would not be entertained by a market economy operator, cannot be taken into account as reasons for accepting a lower price and, on the contrary, point to the existence of an advantage.
Kot razlogi za sprejem nižje cene se ne smejo upoštevati negospodarski premisleki, na primer razlogi industrijske politike, zaposlitveni premisleki ali cilji regionalnega razvoja, ki jih udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu ne bi upošteval in ki nasprotno kažejo na obstoj prednosti.
This principle has been repeatedly explained by the Commission and consistently confirmed by the Court [35].
To načelo je Komisija že večkrat pojasnila, Sodišče pa ga je dosledno potrjevalo [35].
Therefore, if any of the above requirements are not met, the Commission considers that the public sale must be examined for possible aid implications and, thus, must be notified.
Če ni izpolnjena katera koli od navedenih zahtev, je treba po mnenju Komisije javno prodajo pregledati zaradi morebitnih posledic pomoči in jo je zato treba priglasiti.
By respecting these requirements, it is possible to ensure that the State obtains the highest price, i.e. the market price for its assets and therefore that no advantage is involved.
Z izpolnjevanjem teh zahtev je mogoče zagotoviti, da bo država za svoje premoženje dosegla najvišjo ceno, tj. tržno ceno, in tako ne bo vključena nobena prednost.
The sale of the 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parnès casino
Prodaja 49-odstotnega deleža kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès
When opening the proceedings under Article 108(2) TFEU, the Commission had doubts whether the sale of Mont Parnès casino was conducted within an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure.
Ob sprožitvi postopkov v skladu s členom 108(2) PDEU Komisija ni bila prepričana, ali se je prodaja igralnice Mont Parnès izvedla na podlagi odprtega, preglednega in nediskriminacijskega postopka javnega razpisa.
According to the information available at that stage, the Commission considered that there were significant difficulties in determining whether any preferential treatment was unlawfully granted and also whether a market price was or was not paid.
Na podlagi informacij, ki so bile takrat na voljo, je Komisija oblikovala mnenje, da so bile pri ugotavljanju, ali je bilo prisotno kakršno koli nezakonito prednostno obravnavanje in ali se je tržna cena plačala ali ne, prisotne velike težave.
The Commission was concerned that irregularities in the tendering procedure might have resulted in State aid.
Komisija je bila zaskrbljena, da bi lahko nepravilnosti v postopku javnega razpisa povzročile državno pomoč.
The Commission then carried out an assessment of the relevant facts within the framework of the formal investigation.
Komisija je potem v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave izvedla oceno pomembnih dejstev.
This assessment is based on the body of evidence available in respect of the measure.
Ta ocena temelji na dokazih, ki so na voljo v zvezi z ukrepom.
During the various stages of the procedure, the Commission has received information about the many legal actions at national level that vindicate the original tendering procedure.
Komisija je v različnih fazah postopka prejela informacije o številnih sodnih postopkih na nacionalni ravni, ki zagovarjajo prvotni postopek javnega razpisa.
The Commission notes that, to date, the various court rulings at national level do not appear to support the observations made by the complainant about irregularities and unequal treatment in the tender procedure (see also paragraphs 41 to 46 above).
Komisija ugotavlja, da se zdi, da dosedanje različne sodbe sodišča na nacionalni ravni ne podpirajo pripomb, ki jih je pritožnik predložil glede nepravilnosti in neenakega obravnavanja v postopku javnega razpisa (glej tudi uvodne izjave 41 do 46).
The national courts rather appear to have so far confirmed the lawfulness and the non-discriminatory nature of the tender procedure, based on national rules.
Pravzaprav se zdi, da nacionalna sodišča zaenkrat potrjujejo zakonitost in nediskriminacijsko naravo postopka javnega razpisa na podlagi nacionalnih predpisov.
Although the Commission’s assessment is not dependent on the findings of national courts, it may take such findings into consideration as one factor in its analysis.
Čeprav ocena Komisije ni odvisna od ugotovitev nacionalnih sodišč, lahko te ugotovitve upošteva kot enega od dejavnikov pri svoji analizi.
The Commission however notes that the present assessment is not in any way intended to interpret national law, which is solely the competence of the Member State.
Vendar Komisija navaja, da namen te ocene nikakor ni razlagati nacionalno zakonodajo, ker je to v izključni pristojnosti države članice.
In this context, the Commission considers that the lawfulness of the tender procedure under national law, as described and justified through the extensive in-depth examination performed by the various national courts so far, constitutes a significant indication of the correctness and the non-discriminatory nature of the tender procedure.
V zvezi s tem Komisija meni, da je zakonitost postopka javnega razpisa na podlagi nacionalne zakonodaje, kot je opisana in utemeljena v obsežni poglobljeni preiskavi, ki so jo do zdaj opravila različna nacionalna sodišča, pomemben dokaz pravilnosti in nediskriminacijske narave postopka javnega razpisa.
This apparent validation of the tender under national rules can be taken into account by the Commission, among other factors, in its assessment under EU State aid rules that the bidding procedure was open, unconditional and non-discriminatory.
Komisija lahko med drugimi dejavniki to očitno potrditev javnega razpisa na podlagi nacionalnih predpisov upošteva pri svoji oceni v skladu s pravili EU o državni pomoči, da je bil postopek zbiranja ponudb odprt, brezpogojen in nediskriminacijski.
As regards the question raised in the opening decision that one of the bids seemed to breach the rule in the invitation to tender concerning the minimum increase over the previous bid, the Commission notes that this issue has been resolved, since the required increase was 1 % and not 10 % as the Commission had been given to understand.
V zvezi z vprašanjem, izpostavljenim v odločitvi o začetku postopka, da naj bi ena od ponudb kršila pravilo javnega razpisa v zvezi z minimalnim zvišanjem glede na prejšnjo ponudbo, Komisija ugotavlja, da se je to vprašanje rešilo, saj je zahtevano zvišanje znašalo 1 % in ne 10 %, kot je bilo prvotno sporočeno Komisiji.
Therefore the Commission considers that the rules of the tender procedure were complied with in this regard.
Zato Komisija meni, da so se pravila postopka javnega razpisa v zvezi s tem izpolnjevala.
As regards the alleged different treatment of the various objections made during the tender procedure, the Commission also notes that the Greek authorities have given an acceptable explanation for the exclusion of CA’s bid from the tender procedure in light of the applicable rules that forbid a second submission in the same bidding round.
V zvezi z domnevnim različnim obravnavanjem ugovorov, predloženih med postopkom javnega razpisa, Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da so grški organi na podlagi veljavnih pravil, ki prepovedujejo drugo predložitev v istem krogu zbiranja ponudb, zagotovili sprejemljivo pojasnilo za izključitev ponudbe podjetja CA iz postopka javnega razpisa.
As regards the alleged unequal treatment of the various bids made after the tender procedure, the Commission considers that the difference in treatment between negotiating the price upwards with the successful bidder while refusing to consider the complainant’s bid of EUR 162 million may, given the existing doubts about the latter’s legality, be accepted as permissible practice in a tender procedure.
V zvezi z domnevnim neenakim obravnavanjem različnih ponudb, predloženih po postopku javnega razpisa, Komisija meni, da se različno obravnavanje v smislu pogajanj za zvišanje cene z najboljšim ponudnikom na eni strani in zavrnitve ponudbe pritožnika v znesku 162 milijonov na drugi na podlagi obstoječih dvomov glede zakonitosti slednje lahko obravnava kot sprejemljiva praksa v postopku javnega razpisa.
Furthermore, the Commission cannot lend credibility to the complainant’s inadmissible bid of EUR 162 million because it was made only after the tender procedure and in breach of its procedural rules.
Poleg tega Komisija nesprejemljive ponudbe pritožnika v znesku 162 milijonov EUR ne more razglasiti za verodostojno, ker je bila predložena šele po zaključku postopka javnega razpisa in je s tem kršila njegova postopkovna pravila.
As regards the suggestion that the whole procedure could have been cancelled, it has been stated by the Greek authorities that this would have meant re-running the procedure, potentially risking a further reduction in the price to be obtained.
V zvezi s predlogom, da bi se celoten postopek lahko preklical, so grški organi navedli, da bi to pomenilo ponovitev celotnega postopka, s čimer bi se verjetno tvegalo nadaljnje znižanje cene.
The Greek authorities have also stated that the terms of reference of the public procurement contract were not amended by Law 3139/2003 or in any other way.
Grški organi so tudi navedli, da se formalni pogoji javnega naročila niso spremenili z zakonom št. 3139/2003 ali na kak drug način.
As regards the price obtained, the Commission notes that the price finally paid for the casino of EUR 120 million [36], while still short of the inadmissible bid of EUR 162 million that the complainant claims to have been ready to make after its exclusion from the procedure, is however higher than both the highest bid of EUR 107 million the complainant appears to have tendered and, by an even greater margin (25,5 %), the expert valuation of the stake at EUR 95,4 million made in advance of the procedure.
V zvezi z doseženo ceno Komisija ugotavlja, da je cena, ki se je nazadnje plačala za igralnico v znesku 120 milijonov EUR [36], čeprav je nižja od nesprejemljive ponudbe v znesku 162 milijonov EUR, za katero pritožnik trdi, da jo je bil pripravljen plačati po izključitvi iz postopka, kljub temu višja od najvišje ponudbe v znesku 107 milijonov EUR, ki jo je pritožnik predvidoma ponudil, in za celo še večji odstotek (25,5 %) višja od strokovne ocene deleža, tj. 95,4 milijona EUR, opravljene pred postopkom.
Following the opening of the formal investigation, the Greek authorities addressed the preliminary doubts expressed by the Commission in the opening decision in a satisfactory manner.
Po začetku formalne preiskave so grški organi zadovoljivo obravnavali predhodne dvome, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka.
In particular, the Commission has not found evidence that allows the conclusion that preferential treatment was given to the alleged beneficiary leading to the granting of any advantage.
Komisija zlasti ni odkrila dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče sklepati, da se je domnevni upravičenec prednostno obravnaval in mu je bila s tem zagotovljena prednost.
By selling its share in the casino to the highest bidder in an open, unconditional and non-discriminatory bidding procedure, Greece is assumed to have obtained the highest price on the market and not to have foregone State resources.
Predvideva se, da je Grčija s prodajo svojega deleža v igralnici najboljšemu ponudniku na podlagi odprtega, brezpogojnega in nediskriminacijskega postopka zbiranja ponudb pridobila najvišjo tržno ceno in se ni odrekla državnim sredstvom.
The Commission can therefore accept that, under similar circumstances, a market economy operator would have sold the relevant stake in the Casino at a similar price.
Zato lahko Komisija sklene, da bi udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu v podobnem položaju prodal zadevni delež v igralnici po podobni ceni.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the sale by the Greek State of its 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parnès casino does not entail any advantage and hence does not constitute State aid.
Komisija torej meni, da prodaja 49-odstotnega deleža kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès s strani grške države ne daje nikakršne prednosti in zato ne pomeni državne pomoči.
The Commission finds that the sale by the Greek State of its 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parnès casino does not constitute aid,
Komisija ugotavlja, da prodaja 49-odstotnega deleža kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès s strani grške države ne pomeni državne pomoči –
The sale by the Greek State of its 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parnès casino does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Prodaja 49-odstotnega deleža kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès s strani grške države ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
OJ C 233, 28.8.2010, p. 11.
UL C 233, 28.8.2010, str. 11.
The successful bidder in the tender was the consortium Hyatt Regency (70 %) — Elliniki Technodomiki (30 %).
Uspešni ponudnik v razpisu je bil konzorcij Hyatt Regency (70 %) – Elliniki Technodomiki (30 %).
OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
UL L 83, 27.3.1999, str. 7.
Case T-94/05 Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission [2006] ECR II-73.
Zadeva T-94/05, Athinaiki Techniki AE proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2006, str. II-73.
Case C-521/06 Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission [2008] ECR I-5829.
Zadeva C-521/06, Athinaiki Techniki AE proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2008, str. I-5829.
Case T-94/05 Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission (OJ C 233, 26.9.2009, p. 14).
Zadeva T-94/05 Athinaiki Techniki AE proti Komisiji (UL C 233, 26.9.2009, str. 14).
Joined Cases C-145/08 and C-149/08 Club Hotel Loutraki and Others (OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 2).
Združeni zadevi C-145/08 in C-149/08, Club Hotel Loutraki in drugi (UL C 179, 3.7.2010, str. 2).
The Court observed that the contract had as its main object the acquisition of 49 % of the capital of Mont Parnès casino and as ancillary object, indivisibly linked with that main object, the supply of services and the performance of works.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da je bil glavni cilj naročila pridobitev 49 % kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès, njegov dodatni cilj, ki je z glavnim neločljivo povezan, pa opravljanje storitev in izvajanje del.
The company constituted under private law Athens Resort Casino AE which, as licence-holder, currently operates Mont Parnès casino, was set up in 2003 by the eventual successful bidder in the tender (Hyatt Regency — Elliniki Technodomiki).
Podjetje je v skladu z zasebnim pravom Athens Resort Casino AE, ki kot imetnik dovoljenja trenutno vodi igralnico Mont Parnès, in ga je leta 2003 ustanovil končni uspešni ponudnik razpisa (Hyatt Regency – Elliniki Technodomiki).
70 % of Athens Resort Casino is owned by Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE (formerly Hyatt Regency Xenodocheiaki kai Touristiki Thessaloniki AE) and the remaining 30 % by Ellaktor AE (formerly Elliniki Technodomiki AE).
70 % igralnice Athens Resort je v lasti podjetja Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE (nekdanje podjetje Hyatt Regency Xenodocheiaki kai Touristiki Thessaloniki AE), preostalih 30 % pa v lasti podjetja Ellaktor AE (nekdanje podjetje Elliniki Technodomiki AE).
By letter of 4 August 2010.
Z dopisom z dne 4. avgusta 2010.
By e-mail from their legal representative of 29 September 2010.
Z elektronsko pošto odvetnika z dne 29. septembra 2010.
Case C-362/09 P Athinaiki Techniki AE v Commission (OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p. 12).
Zadeva C-362/09 P Athinaiki Techniki AE proti Komisiji (UL C 55, 19.2.2011, str. 12).
‘Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE — Invitation to tender for privatisation — October 2001’ (the original invitation to tender).
„Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE – javni razpis za privatizacijo – oktober 2001“ (prvotni javni razpis).
Supplementary invitation to stage 2 of the tender (April 2002).
Dodaten razpis za drugo fazo postopka oddaje naročil (april 2002).
As was clarified after the opening decision, which referred to a percentage of 10 %.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno po odločitvi o začetku postopka, ki se je skliceval na 10 %.
CA states that its bid was EUR 107 million.
Podjetje CA navaja, da je njegova ponudba znašala 107 milijonov EUR.
Under cover of letter ref. 38/3.6.2002.
Z dopisom ref. 38/3.6.2002.
According to the information provided by the Greek authorities, the sealed envelope is still in the ETA safe, in order to protect the right of CA to exhaust all national and European legal remedies.
Glede na informacije grških organov je zapečatena ovojnica še vedno shranjena v sefu ETA, da bi se zavarovala pravica podjetja CA do izčrpanja vseh nacionalnih in evropskih pravnih sredstev.
According to information received after the opening of the bids, see footnote 24 below.
V skladu z informacijami, prejetimi po odprtju ponudb; glej sprotno opombo 24 spodaj.
The initial invitation and the supplementary invitation for stage 2.
Prvotni razpis in dodatni razpis za drugo fazo.
Also with reference to a financial report of August 2002 made by Kantor (financial expert), sent by the Greek authorities after the opening decision.
Pri čemer se sklicujejo tudi na finančno poročilo iz avgusta 2002, ki ga je pripravil Kantor (strokovnjak za finance) in ki so ga grški organi predložili po odločitvi o začetku postopka.
The Greek authorities sent a copy of that valuation to the Commission after the opening decision.
Grški organi so Komisiji po sprejetju odločitve o začetku postopka poslali kopijo te ocene.
The Greek authorities referred to the following national court decisions: judgment 8118/2002 of the single-member First Instance Court of Athens; judgment 3350/2002 of the multi-member First Instance Court of Athens; judgment 1649/2007 of the Areios Pagos (Supreme Civil Court); judgment 8101/2009 of the multi-member First Instance Court of Athens; judgment 754/2002 of the Committee for Suspensions of the Council of State; judgment 3243/2004 of Council of State (Chamber D); judgment 606/2008 of Council of State (Plenary Session); order 437/2007 of the Council of Court of Appeals Judges of Athens; judgment 1531/2008 of the Areios Pagos; order 800/2009 of the Council of Court of Appeals Judges of Athens; extracts of judgment 466/2011 of the Appeal Court of Athens (three-member chamber for felonies).
Grški organi so se sklicevali na naslednje odločitve nacionalnih sodišč: sodba št. 8118/2002 enočlanskega prvostopenjskega sodišča v Atenah; sodba št. 3350/2002 veččlanskega prvostopenjskega sodišča v Atenah; sodba št. 1649/2007 vrhovnega civilnega sodišča Areios Pagos; sodba št. 8101/2009 veččlanskega prvostopenjskega sodišča v Atenah; sodba št. 754/2002 odbora državnega sveta za prekinitve; sodba št. 3243/2004 državnega sveta (senat D); sodba št. 606/2008 državnega sveta (plenarno zasedanje); sklep št. 437/2007 sveta sodnikov pritožbenega sodišča v Atenah; sodba št. 1531/2008 vrhovnega sodišča Areios Pagos; sklep 800/2009 sveta sodnikov pritožbenega sodišča v Atenah; izvleček sodbe št. 466/2011 pritožbenega sodišča v Atenah (tričlanski senat za kazniva dejanja).
Judgment 8118/2002 of the First Instance Court of Athens, rejecting an application made by CA, where CA argued essentially that the declaration of HR as provisional highest bidder was the result of the unlawful decisions of the Tender Committee and the Objections Committee, whereby HR’s first- and second-round bids were deemed admissible and, on the other hand, CA’s third-round bid inadmissible.
Sodba št. 8118/2002 prvostopenjskega sodišča v Atenah, ki zavrača tožbo podjetja CA, v kateri to podjetje zlasti navaja, da je razglasitev podjetja HR kot začasnega najboljšega ponudnika temeljila na nezakonitih sklepih razpisnega odbora in odbora za ugovore, pri čemer sta se ponudbi podjetja HR v prvem in drugem krogu obravnavali kot sprejemljivi, ponudba podjetja CA v tretjem krogu pa kot nesprejemljiva.
The Commission observes that, as presented, this case does not appear to affect the findings of judgment 8118/2002 of the First Instance Court of Athens; so far, this pending case appears to have discussed mainly procedural issues (e.g. administrative or civil jurisdiction, legal standing of the applicants).
Komisija ugotavlja, da zadeva, kot je bila predstavljena, verjetno ne vpliva na ugotovitve sodbe št. 8118/2002 prvostopenjskega sodišča v Atenah. Zdi se, da je ta nerešena zadeva zaenkrat obravnavala predvsem postopkovna vprašanja (npr. upravno ali civilno sodno pristojnost, pravni status pritožnikov).
This pending case concerns an application by CA for annulment of the act of the Inter-ministerial Committee on Privatisation by which the tender was awarded to HR.
Ta nerešena zadeva se nanaša na tožbo podjetja CA za razveljavitev akta medresorskega odbora o privatizaciji, s katerim se je naročilo oddalo podjetju HR.
It alleges that the Tender had been initiated by ETA without legal authorisation; the decisions of the committees of the tender procedure, whereby HR’s first- and second-round bids were deemed admissible and CA’s third-round bid inadmissible, were unlawful; the tender was unlawfully awarded; ETA unlawfully negotiated the terms of the contract with HR; the principle of fair treatment of the bidders had been violated to the detriment of CA; the contract between ETA and HR should have been audited before being signed by the Court of Auditors; the contract between ETA and HR was not ratified by law.
V njej obtožuje, da je ETA sprožil postopek javnega razpisa brez zakonskega pooblastila; da so bili sklepi odborov za postopek javnega razpisa, v skladu s katerimi sta se ponudbi podjetja HR iz prvega in drugega kroga obravnavali kot sprejemljivi, ponudba podjetja CA iz tretjega kroga pa kot nesprejemljiva, nezakoniti; da je bila oddaja naročila nezakonita; da se je ETA nezakonito dogovoril o pogojih naročila s podjetjem HR; da se je načelo poštene obravnave ponudnikov kršilo v škodo podjetja CA; da bi bilo treba pogodbo med ETA in podjetjem HR revidirati, preden jo je podpisalo Računsko sodišče in da pogodba med ETA in podjetjem HR ni bila ratificirana z zakonom.