natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By a letter dated 8 July 2011 and addressed to the Commission, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint.
Pritožnik je v pismu Komisiji z dne 8. julija 2011 uradno umaknil svojo pritožbo.
In this respect it is noted that Commission did not identify any reason to indicate that termination would not be in the Union interest, nor was any such reason raised by interested parties.
V zvezi s tem je treba omeniti, da Komisija ni našla nobenega razloga, ki bi kazal na to, da zaključek postopka ni v interesu Unije, niti takih razlogov niso izpostavile zainteresirane strani.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the present proceeding should be terminated.
Komisija je zato menila, da je ta postopek treba zaključiti.
No comments were received indicating that such termination would not be in the Union interest.
Komisija ni prejela nobene pripombe, ki bi kazala, da tak zaključek ni v interesu Unije.
The Commission therefore concludes that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of certain graphite electrode systems originating in the People’s Republic of China should be terminated,
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da je treba protidampinški postopek za uvoz v Unijo nekaterih sistemov grafitnih elektrod s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske zaključiti –
The anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain graphite electrodes of a kind used for electric furnaces, with an apparent density of 1,5 g/cm3 or more and an electrical resistance of 7 μΩ.m or less originating in the People’s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code ex85451100 and nipples used for such electrodes currently falling within CN code ex85459090, is hereby terminated.
Protidampinški postopek za uvoz nekaterih grafitnih elektrod, ki se uporabljajo za električne peči, z navidezno gostoto 1,5 g/cm3 ali več in električnim uporom 7 μΩ.m ali manj s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, trenutno uvrščenih v oznako KN ex85451100, in šob, ki se uporabljajo za take elektrode in so trenutno uvrščene v oznako KN ex85459090, se zaključi.
The Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Ta sklep začne veljati dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
OJ C 343, 17.12.2010, p. 24.
UL C 343, 17.12.2010, str. 24.
appointing three German members and four German alternate members of the Committee of the Regions
o imenovanju treh nemških članovin štirih nemških nadomestnih članov Odbora regij
Three members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Karl-Heinz KLÄR, Ms Kerstin KIESSLER and Mr Rolf HARLINGHAUSEN.
Zaradi konca mandata Karla-Heinza KLÄRA, Kerstin KIESSLER in Rolfa HARLINGHAUSENA so se sprostila tri mesta članov Odbora regij.
Four alternate members’ seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Nicole MORSBLECH, Mr Peter STRAUB, Mr Michael GWOSDZ and Ms Jacqueline KRAEGE,
Zaradi konca mandata Nicole MORSBLECH, Petra STRAUBA, Michaela GWOSDZA in Jacqueline KRAEGE so se sprostila štiri mesta nadomestnih članov Odbora regij –
Dr Eva QUANTE-BRANDT, Staatsrätin, Mitglied des Senats der Freien Hansestadt Bremen,
dr. Eva QUANTE-BRANDT, Staatsrätin, Mitglied des Senats der Freien Hansestadt Bremen,
on partial privatisation measure C 15/10 (ex NN 21/10) implemented by Greece for Mont Parnès casino
o ukrepu delne privatizacije C 15/10 (ex NN 21/10), ki ga je Grčija izvedla za igralnico Mont Parnès
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments [1],
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenima določbama, in ob upoštevanju teh pripomb [1],
By letter of 23 June 2002, Egnatia AE, which following a merger has since been taken over by Athinaiki Techniki and which is a member of the Casino Attikis consortium (‘CA’ or ‘the complainant’), submitted a complaint to the European Commission about an alleged breach of EU internal market rules, concerning an allegedly non-transparent and discriminatory tender procedure followed by the Greek authorities in the sale of 49 % of the capital of Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (‘Mont Parnès casino’) to the successful bidder, the Hyatt Regency consortium (‘HR’ or ‘the alleged beneficiary’) [2].
Z dopisom z dne 23. junija 2002 je podjetje Egnatia AE, katerega vodenje je po združitvi prevzelo podjetje Athinaiki Techniki in ki je član konzorcija Casino Attikis (v nadaljnjem besedilu: podjetje CA ali pritožnik), Evropski komisiji predložilo pritožbo glede domnevne kršitve pravil EU o notranjem trgu v zvezi z domnevno nepreglednim in diskriminacijskim javnim razpisom, ki so ga grški organi uporabili pri prodaji 49 % kapitala igralnice Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (v nadaljnjem besedilu: igralnica Mont Parnès) uspešnemu ponudniku, tj. konzorciju Hyatt Regency (v nadaljnjem besedilu: podjetje HR ali domnevni upravičenec) [2].
By letter of 3 October 2002 the European Commission’s Internal Market Directorate-General (‘DG Internal Market’) transferred a copy of the file to the Competition Directorate-General (‘DG Competition’) for a parallel analysis of the case under EU State aid rules.
Z dopisom z dne 3. oktobra 2002 je Generalni direktorat Evropske komisije za notranji trg (v nadaljnjem besedilu: GD za notranji trg) posredoval kopijo dokumenta Generalnemu direktoratu za konkurenco (v nadaljnjem besedilu: GD za konkurenco), da bi ta opravil vzporedno analizo zadeve na podlagi pravil EU o državni pomoči.
By e-mail of 9 December 2002 the legal representative of the complainant provided the relevant Commission departments with additional explanations on the case.
Z elektronsko pošto z dne 9. decembra 2002 je odvetnik pritožnika zadevnim oddelkom Komisije predložil dodatna pojasnila v zvezi z zadevo.
By letter of 24 January 2003 the Commission communicated the State aid complaint to the Greek authorities and invited Greece to clarify the issues it brought forward.
Z dopisom z dne 24. januarja 2003 je Komisija grškim organom posredovala pritožbo v zvezi z državno pomočjo in pozvala Grčijo k pojasnitvi izpostavljenih vprašanj.
The Greek authorities replied on 4 March 2003.
Grški organi so odgovorili 4. marca 2003.
On 27 January 2003 Commission staff met the legal representative of the complainant.
27. januarja 2003 se je osebje Komisije sestalo z odvetnikom pritožnika.
On 12 February 2003 and 22 August 2003 the legal representative of the alleged beneficiary submitted supporting documents to the Commission services.
12. februarja 2003 in 22. avgusta 2003 je odvetnik domnevnega upravičenca službam Komisije predložil dokazila.
By letters of 31 March 2003 and 16 May 2003 the complainant submitted supplementary information to DG Competition.
Z dopisoma z dne 31. marca 2003 in z dne 16. maja 2003 je pritožnik GD za konkurenco predložil dodatne informacije.
On 10 April 2003 Commission staff met the representative of the alleged beneficiary.
10. aprila 2003 se je osebje Komisije sestalo z odvetnikom domnevnega upravičenca.
During the period between 15 July 2003 and 16 September 2003 the Commission had several exchanges with the complainant regarding the separate assessment of the State aid issues, and it drew the attention of the complainant to its decision-making practice according to which the disposal of a public asset in the context of a tendering procedure does not constitute State aid where the procedure has been carried out transparently and without discrimination.
V obdobju od 15. julija 2003 do 16. septembra 2003 je Komisija s pritožnikom izmenjala več mnenj v zvezi z ločeno oceno vprašanj državne pomoči in pritožnika opozorila na svojo prakso odločanja, v skladu s katero odsvojitev javne dobrine v okviru postopka javnega razpisa ne pomeni državne pomoči, če ta postopek poteka pregledno in nediskriminacijsko.
Consequently, the Commission informed the complainant that it would not take a position until DG Internal Market had completed its examination of the procedure for the award of the public contract.
Zato je Komisija pritožnika obvestila, da ne bo zavzela stališča, dokler GD za notranji trg ne zaključi svoje ocene postopka oddaje javnega naročila.
By letters of 22 January 2004 and 4 August 2004 DG Internal Market closed the investigation, considering that there was no defect in the procedure for awarding the contract.
Z dopisoma z dne 22. januarja 2004 in z dne 4. avgusta 2004 je GD za notranji trg zaključil preiskavo, pri čemer je podal mnenje, da v postopku oddaje naročila ni bilo nobenih pomanjkljivosti.
By letter of 2 June 2004 DG Competition informed the complainant that it had closed the State aid complaint pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [3].
Z dopisom z dne 2. junija 2004 je GD za konkurenco obvestil pritožnika, da je končal postopek v zvezi s pritožbo glede državne pomoči v skladu s členom 20(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES [3].
On 18 February 2005 the complainant brought an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision to close the case before the Court of First Instance (now the General Court).
Pritožnik je 18. februarja 2005 vložil tožbo za razveljavitev sklepa Komisije, da se zadeva zaključi, pri Sodišču prve stopnje (zdaj Splošno sodišče).
By order of 26 September 2006, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible since it considered that the letter did not constitute an act open to challenge under Article 230 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) (now Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) [4].
S sklepom z dne 26. septembra 2006 je Sodišče prve stopnje zavrnilo tožbo kot nesprejemljivo, pri čemer je navedlo mnenje, da dopis ni izpodbojni akt v skladu s členom 230 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti (Pogodbe ES) (zdaj člen 263 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU)) [4].
On 18 December 2006 the complainant brought an appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Justice.
18. decembra 2006 je pritožnik pri Sodišču vložil pritožbo zoper sklep Sodišča prve stopnje.
By judgment of 17 July 2008 [5], the Court of Justice set aside the order; it found that the contested act did constitute an act open to challenge that was not in conformity with the Commission’s obligations under the Procedural Regulation, and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance.
S sodbo z dne 17. julija 2008 [5] je Sodišče razveljavilo sklep. Sklenilo je, da je izpodbijani akt izpodbojni akt, ki ne izpolnjuje obveznosti Komisije v skladu s postopkovno uredbo, in zadevo napotilo nazaj na Sodišče prve stopnje.
By letter of 26 September 2008 DG Competition withdrew the closure letter of 2 June 2004 and reopened the case.
Z dopisom z dne 26. septembra 2008 je GD za konkurenco preklical dopis z dne 2. junija 2004 o zaključku postopka in obnovil zadevo.
By order of 29 June 2009 the Court of First Instance found that since the letter had been withdrawn there was no longer any need to issue a decision [6].
S sklepom z dne 29. junija 2009 je Sodišče prve stopnje na podlagi preklica dopisa ugotovilo, da sprejetje sklepa ni več potrebno [6].
This order of the Court of First Instance was appealed by the complainant on 7 September 2009, on the grounds that the Court should have deemed the withdrawal of the letter unlawful and should have annulled it.
Pritožnik se je 7. septembra 2009 pritožil na ta sklep Sodišča prve stopnje na podlagi utemeljitve, da bi moralo Sodišče obravnavati preklic dopisa kot nezakonit in ga razveljaviti.
By e-mail of 11 September 2009 the complainant supplied further information to the Commission.
Z elektronsko pošto z dne 11. septembra 2009 je pritožnik predložil Komisiji nadaljnje informacije.
On 14 October 2009 Commission staff met representatives of the complainant.
14. oktobra 2009 se je osebje Komisije sestalo s predstavniki pritožnika.
After this meeting, the complainant supplied further information to the Commission in several exchanges.
Po tem sestanku je pritožnik pri več izmenjavah informacij predložil Komisiji nadaljnje informacije.
By letter dated 21 October 2009 the Commission requested additional information from Greece.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 21. oktobra 2009 zaprosila Grčijo za dodatne informacije.
By judgment of 6 May 2010 the Court of Justice responded to a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC (now Article 267 TFEU) from the Simvoulio tis Epikreatias (‘Council of State’), in particular concerning the application of the EU public procurement rules to the tendering procedure in question.
S sodbo z dne 6. maja 2010 se je Sodišče odzvalo na predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 Pogodbe ES (zdaj člena 267 PDEU), ki ga je predložil Simvoulio tis Epikreatias (državni svet), zlasti v zvezi z uporabo pravil EU o oddaji javnih naročil pri zadevnem postopku javnega razpisa.
The Court of Justice concluded, inter alia, that, taken as a whole, a contract such as the one to be awarded following the tender in question did not fall within the scope of the Directives on public contracts [7].
Sodišče je med drugim sklenilo, da, obravnavano kot celota, naročilo, kot je to, ki se bo oddalo po zadevnem razpisu, ne spada na področje uporabe direktiv o javnih naročilih [7].
In addition, the Court noted that this conclusion did not preclude the fact that such a contract must observe the basic rules and general principles of the Treaty, in particular those on freedom of establishment and free movement of capital.
Poleg tega je Sodišče navedlo, da ta sklep ni izključeval dejstva, da mora tako naročilo spoštovati osnovna pravila in splošna načela Pogodbe, zlasti tista v zvezi s svobodo ustanavljanja in prostim pretokom kapitala.
By letter of 6 July 2010 the Commission informed Greece that it had decided to open the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the measure (the ‘opening decision’).
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 6. julija 2010 obvestila Grčijo, da se je v zvezi z ukrepom odločila za začetek postopka iz člena 108(2) PDEU (v nadaljnjem besedilu: odločitev o začetku postopka).
The Commission’s decision to open the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [8].
Odločitev Komisije o začetku postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [8].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo svoje pripombe o ukrepu.
Following the opening of the procedure, the Commission received comments from two interested parties, namely the representatives of the alleged beneficiary (Athens Resort Casino Holdings [9], on behalf of HR) [10] and from representatives of the complainant (Club Hotel Casino Loutraki, on behalf of CA) [11].
Po začetku postopka je Komisija prejela pripombe dveh zainteresiranih strani, in sicer pripombe predstavnikov domnevnega upravičenca (Athens Resort Casino Holdings [9] v imenu podjetja HR) [10] in predstavnikov pritožnika (Club Hotel Casino Loutraki v imenu podjetja CA) [11].
By letter of 6 August 2010, Greece submitted its comments.
Grčija je svoje pripombe predložila z dopisom z dne 6. avgusta 2010.
The comments of both interested parties were sent by letter of 29 October 2010 to Greece, which reacted by letter of 25 November 2010.
Pripombe obeh zainteresiranih strani so bile poslane Grčiji z dopisom z dne 29. oktobra 2010, na katerega je Grčija odgovorila z dopisom z dne 25. novembra 2010.
On 16 December 2010 [12], the Court of Justice ruled that the General Court (formerly the Court of First Instance) had been wrong in determining that there was no case to answer in the original challenge to the Commission’s ‘administrative closure’ of the case.
Sodišče je 16. decembra 2010 [12] razsodilo, da je bil sklep Splošnega sodišča (nekdanje Sodišče prve stopnje) v zvezi s prvotnim izpodbijanjem sklepa Komisije o „administrativnem zaključku“ zadeve, da je zadeva brezpredmetna, napačen.
In October 2001 the Greek authorities initiated a procedure for the award of a public contract with a view to disposing of 49 % of the capital of Mont Parnès casino [13].
Grški organi so oktobra 2001 sprožili postopek oddaje javnega naročila z namenom prevzema 49 % kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès [13].
There were two competing applicants, namely ‘Kazino Attikis’ (Casino Attikis or CA) and the consortium named Hyatt Regency — Elliniki Technodomiki (the Hyatt Regency consortium or HR), both of which were selected to participate in the second stage of the tendering procedure [14], under the terms of the relevant national provisions.
Konkurirala sta dva ponudnika, in sicer Kazino Attikis (igralnica Attikis ali podjetje CA) in konzorcij Hyatt Regency – Elliniki Technodomiki (konzorcij Hyatt Regency ali podjetje HR), pri čemer sta bila oba izbrana za sodelovanje v drugi fazi postopka oddaje javnega naročila [14] ob upoštevanju zadevnih nacionalnih določb.
Following proceedings which it is alleged were invalid, the contract was awarded to HR.
Po postopkih, ki so bili domnevno neveljavni, se je naročilo oddalo podjetju HR.
The following paragraphs 26 to 29 describe the events leading to this award, according to the information available to the Commission.
Naslednje uvodne izjave 26 do 29 na podlagi informacij, ki so na voljo Komisiji, opisujejo dogodke, ki so privedli do te oddaje naročila.
Such a new bid would have to be at least equal to the initially higher bid increased by 1 % [15].
Ta nova ponudba bi morala biti vsaj enaka prvotno višji ponudbi, povečani za 1 % [15].
This subsequent bidding would carry on indefinitely in separate rounds, until one of the bidders withdrew, in which case the last bidder would be declared the provisional highest bidder.
To naknadno zbiranje ponudb bi se v ločenih krogih izvajalo za nedoločen čas, dokler eden od ponudnikov ne bi odstopil, pri čemer bi se zadnji ponudnik razglasil za začasno najboljšega ponudnika.
The minutes naming the provisional highest bidder would be submitted by the Tender Committee to the Board of Directors of the Hellenic Tourism Development Authority (ETA).
Razpisni odbor bi zapisnik, v katerem je naveden začasni najboljši ponudnik, predložil upravnemu odboru helenskega organa za razvoj turizma (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ETA).
During the first round, the two candidates submitted their bids at the same time, in sealed envelopes, on 31 May 2002, at the headquarters of ETA.
V prvem krogu sta kandidata na sedežu ETA v zapečatenih ovojnicah istočasno predložila svoji ponudbi, in sicer 31. maja 2002.
CA’s bid was EUR 91183652, whereas the HR’s bid was EUR 80075000. However, the envelope of the latter contained, apart from its bid, a statement disputing the lawfulness of the participation by the CA consortium in the tendering procedure.
Ponudba podjetja CA je bila 91183652 EUR, ponudba podjetja HR pa 80075000 EUR. Vendar je ovojnica slednjega podjetja poleg ponudbe vsebovala tudi izjavo, ki je spodbijala zakonitost sodelovanja konzorcija CA v postopku javnega razpisa.
CA objected to this statement, claiming that the formulation of reservations rendered HR’s financial bid inadmissible.
Podjetje CA je tej izjavi ugovarjalo, pri čemer je navedlo, da je finančna ponudba podjetja HR zaradi oblikovanja pridržkov nesprejemljiva.
CA’s objection was rejected by the Objections Committee, which considered that HR’s statement did not affect the validity of its bid.
Odbor za ugovore je zavrnil ugovor podjetja CA in navedel, da izjava podjetja HR ne vpliva na veljavnost njegove ponudbe.
In the second round, HR submitted in a sealed envelope its bid of EUR 92105888, again accompanied by the same written statement.
V drugem krogu je podjetje HR v zapečateni ovojnici predložilo ponudbo v znesku 92105888 EUR, kateri je ponovno priložilo enako pisno izjavo.
After the completion of the second round, the legal representative of CA submitted an envelope with the financial bid for the third round, and also submitted a separate statement to the Board of Directors of ETA on violation of the terms of the tender with regard to the validity requirements of the tender.
Po zaključku drugega kroga je odvetnik podjetja CA predložil ovojnico s finančno ponudbo za tretji krog, upravnemu odboru ETA pa ločeno izjavo o kršitvi pogojev javnega razpisa v zvezi z zahtevami glede veljavnosti javnega razpisa.
The Tender Committee rejected this submission on the grounds that it would be admissible only if submitted in the form of an objection, falling within the competence of the Objections Committee.
Razpisni odbor je zavrnil predložitev izjave z utemeljitvijo, da bi bila sprejemljiva le, če bi bila predložena v obliki ugovora v pristojnosti odbora za ugovore.
When they returned within the 5 minutes, they stated that they did not intend to submit an objection and they submitted their bid.
Ko so se po petih minutah vrnili, so navedli, da ne nameravajo predložiti ugovora, in predložili ponudbo.
Subsequently, HR submitted an objection and requested that the third round of bids be deemed inadmissible on the grounds that CA had submitted a bid which they had withdrawn and then re-submitted.
Podjetje HR je potem predložilo ugovor in zahtevalo, da se tretji krog ponudb obravnava kot nesprejemljiv, ker je podjetje CA predložilo ponudbo, ki jo je zatem umaknilo in ponovno predložilo.
HR’s objection was accepted by the Objections Committee and CA’s bid [16] was excluded from the procedure.
Odbor za ugovore je sprejel ugovor podjetja HR in ponudba podjetja CA [16] je bila izključena iz postopka.
After excluding CA’s third-round bid, the Tender Committee forwarded [17] to the Board of Directors of ETA a copy of the minutes of its eighth meeting, at which it had named HR first provisional highest bidder (with a bid of EUR 92105888) and CA second provisional highest bidder.
Po izključitvi ponudbe podjetja CA v tretjem krogu je razpisni odbor upravnemu odboru ETA poslal [17] kopijo zapisnika s svojega osmega sestanka, na katerem je imenoval podjetje HR za prvega začasnega najboljšega ponudnika (s ponudbo v znesku 92105888 EUR) in podjetje CA za drugega začasnega najboljšega ponudnika.
Thereafter, on 5 June 2002, the Managing Director of ETA and the legal representative of Kantor Capital, economic adviser in charge of the proceedings, were authorised to ask HR to improve its bid.
Po tem sta bila 5. junija 2002 direktor ETA in odvetnik podjetja Kantor Capital, ekonomski svetovalec, odgovoren za postopke, pooblaščena, da pozoveta podjetje HR k izboljšanju ponudbe.
HR subsequently raised the proposed amount to EUR 110 million. On 12 June 2002, CA submitted to the Board of Directors of ETA a letter containing a bid of EUR 162 million, but it was subsequently rejected because it was made after the tender procedure had closed.
Podjetje HR je predlagani znesek zvišalo na 110 milijonov EUR. Podjetje CA je 12. junija 2002 upravnemu odboru ETA predložilo dopis s ponudbo v znesku 162 milijonov EUR, ki pa je bila zavrnjena, ker je bila predložena po zaključku postopka javnega razpisa.
Finally, the HR bid was improved still further, rising to the sum of EUR 120 million [19].
Nazadnje je podjetje HR dodatno izboljšalo ponudbo, pri čemer jo je zvišalo na 120 milijonov EUR [19].
DECISION TO OPEN THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION
ODLOČITEV O ZAČETKU FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
The Commission opened the formal investigation because it was not able to allay its doubts as to whether the stake of 49 % in the capital of Mont Parnès casino was sold by the Greek State to the highest bidder in a sale procedure that met the requirements of openness, transparency and non-discrimination.
Komisija je začela formalni postopek preiskave, ker se ni mogla znebiti dvomov, ali je grška država 49-odstotni delež kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès prodala najboljšemu ponudniku v prodajnem postopku, ki je izpolnjeval zahteve glede odprtosti, preglednosti in nediskriminacije.