natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The authorities and Mont Parnès further draw the attention of the Commission to other differences between casinos in terms of various fiscal/regulatory measures.
Organi in Mont Parnès so Komisijo opozorili tudi na druge razlike med igralnicami, za katere veljajo različni davčni in ureditveni ukrepi.
Thus, these differences which allegedly favour Loutraki (the complainant) would counter-balance the advantages that the beneficiaries enjoy due to the lower price of admission tickets.
Navajajo, da te razlike zagotavljajo prednost pritožniku, tj. Loutrakiju, in izničijo prednosti, ki jih imajo upravičenci zaradi nižje vstopnine.
The main measure invoked is that each casino pays a proportion of annual gross profits to the State but under the law the proportion is lower for Loutraki than for others.
Vsaka igralnica plača del letnih bruto prihodkov državi; glavni ukrep, naveden v tem sklepu, je, da se po zakonu od igralnice v Lutrakiju zahteva nižji delež kot od drugih.
On this point however, the Commission firstly observes that these other measures invoked by the Greek authorities and Mont Parnès, in case of existence, might constitute a separate aid measure in favour of Loutraki, if all conditions provided by the applicable EU State aid law are met.
Komisija zlasti poudarja, da če dejansko obstajajo drugi ukrepi, ki jih navajajo grški organi in Mont Parnès, ti lahko predstavljajo ločen ukrep pomoči v korist Loutrakija, če so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji veljavne zakonodaje EU o državni pomoči.
In any event these measures are distinct from the measure under assessment and therefore they are not covered by the present Decision.
Vendar pa se v vsakem primeru razlikujejo od zadevnega ukrepa in ne spadajo na področje uporabe tega sklepa.
Finally, Greece has indicated that it is examining a potential change of the pricing policy of casinos, in order to eliminate discriminations between casinos.
Grčija je navedla, da razmišlja o možnosti spremembe svoje politike določanja cen za igralnice, da bi odpravila diskriminacijo med njimi.
However, it has not yet informed the Commission of the implementation of any such change.
Vendar pa Komisije še ni obvestila o izvajanju kakršne koli take spremembe.
The Greek authorities and Mont Parnès did not submit any observations concerning the compatibility and the legality of the aid.
Grški organi in Mont Parnès niso predložili nobenih pripomb glede združljivosti in zakonitosti katere koli pomoči.
On the quantification and recovery of the aid
Določitev višine pomoči in njena izterjava
The Greek Authorities and Mont Parnès contend by way of subsidiary argument that even if it were found that the measure under assessment is unlawful and incompatible State aid, any recovery of that aid would run counter to:
Poleg tega grški organi in Mont Parnès trdijo, da četudi bi se ugotovilo, da zadevni ukrep pomeni nezakonito in nezdružljivo državno pomoč, bi bilo vračilo te pomoči v nasprotju z dvema načeloma: Bilo bi v nasprotju z načelom razumnih pričakovanj državljanov.
The principle of reasonable confidence of the subject of administration: the issue of the price of admission tickets to the casinos, and particularly the extent to which this price of admission tickets is a financial burden on the casinos, was brought before the Council of State approximately 15 years ago [43].
Vprašanje vstopnine za igralnice in predvsem obseg, v katerem bi morala biti vstopnina finančna obremenitev za igralnice, je obravnaval državni svet pred približno 15 leti [43].
The Council of State ruled, under national law, that the price of admission tickets did not have a fiscal nature, which indirectly shows that it was not a financial burden on the casinos.
Državni svet je v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo odločil, da vstopnina ni v obliki davka, kar je posredno pokazalo, da ne predstavlja finančne obremenitve za igralnice.
Therefore, the beneficiary casinos could reasonably base their conduct on the assumption that there could be no question of State aid arising from differentiation in these prices, which are not considered a financial burden under national law.
Upravičene igralnice bi tako lahko razumno ukrepale na podlagi predpostavke, da državna pomoč ne izhaja iz razlik med temi cenami, ki se v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo niso štele za ekonomsko obremenitev. Bilo bi v nasprotju z načelom, da se pravice ne sme zlorabljati.
The principle that a right should not be exercised abusively: the Greek authorities and Mont Parnès contend that because Loutraki only lodged a complaint with the Commission 15 years after the adoption of the measure in dispute (in 1995), it is an abusive exercise of its right to have recourse to the Commission to seek the defence of its interests (and rights) arising from the provisions on State aid in the TFEU.
Grški organi in Mont Parnès trdijo, da je Loutraki zato, ker je pri Komisiji vložil pritožbo šele petnajst let po sprejetju zadevnega ukrepa (leta 1995), zlorabljal svojo pravico, da zaprosi Komisijo, da brani njegove interese in pravice v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči iz PDEU.
On the calculation of the amount to be recovered, the Greek authorities and Mont Parnès contest the calculation proposed by Loutraki (difference in tax levied per customer between the higher priced and lower priced casinos, multiplied by the number of customers entering the beneficiary casinos).
Glede izračuna zneska, ki ga je treba vrniti, so grški organi in Mont Parnès izpodbijali izračun, ki ga je predlagal Loutraki in po katerem se razlika v davku na stranko, ki ga plačujejo igralnice z višjimi in nižjimi cenami, pomnoži s številom strank.
Such calculation would be flawed and arbitrary as it is not certain that with a higher ticket price the alleged beneficiary casinos of Mont Parnès, Thessaloniki and Corfu [44] would have the same amount of clientele.
Trdijo, da je izračun pomanjkljiv in arbitraren, saj ni nujno, da bi imele domnevne upravičene igralnice, tj. igralnica Mont Parnès ter igralnici v Solunu in na Krfu [44], ob višjih cenah vstopnic enako število strank.
Comments from Loutraki
Pripombe, ki jih je predložil Loutraki
Loutraki argues that the measures provided by national legal provisions constitute a fiscal discrimination in favour of certain casinos insofar as the requirement to remit to the State the uniform 80 % levy on admission in casinos applies to a different tax basis – the two different admission prices set by the State.
Loutraki trdi, da ukrep, določen v nacionalni zakonodaji, pomeni davčno diskriminacijo v korist nekaterih igralnic, v kolikor se enotna dajatev na vstopnine v višini 80 %, ki jo je treba plačati državi, uporablja za različne davčne osnove, tj. dve različni ceni vstopnic, ki jih je določila država.
As the admission price for the beneficiary casinos is significantly inferior to that of the other casinos (EUR 6 instead of EUR 15), this constitutes a loss of revenues for the State and thus amounts to State aid, in light of the distortion of competition it creates.
Vstopnina za upravičene igralnice je znatno nižja od cene za druge igralnice (6 EUR namesto 15 EUR), kar predstavlja izgubo prihodka za državo in zaradi izkrivljanja konkurence, ki jo povzroča, pomeni državno pomoč.
Loutraki further argues that the measure is not objectively justified, as the imposition of a lower price of admission tickets in the beneficiary casinos is actually contrary to the social objective and the justification and characteristics of the setting of a price of admission tickets to casinos as described by the Judgement No 4027/1998 of the Greek Council of State.
Loutraki nadalje trdi, da ukrep ni objektivno utemeljen, saj je uvedba nižje cene za vstopnino za upravičene igralnice dejansko v nasprotju s socialnim ciljem ter z upravičenostjo in značilnostmi določanja višine vstopnine za igralnice, ki je bilo obravnavano v sodbi državnega sveta št. 4027/1998.
Loutraki contends that it cannot be reasonably argued that administrative control and social protection could be achieved by different prices of admission tickets – in casino Mont Parnès, only ca. 20 km from Athens city centre, by a ticket of EUR 6 while in casino Loutraki, ca. 85 km from Athens city centre, by a ticket of EUR 15, or respectively, in casino Thessaloniki, only ca. 8 km from Thessaloniki city centre (also at EUR 6), as opposed to casino Chalcidice, ca. 120 km from Thessaloniki city centre (at EUR 15).
Loutraki navaja, da ni mogoče razumno trditi, da je upravni nadzor in socialno zaščito mogoče doseči z zaračunavanjem različnih cen za vstopnice – v igralnici Mont Parnès, ki je od središča Aten oddaljena samo okoli 20 km, je vstopnina 6 EUR, medtem ko je cena v igralnici v Lutrakiju, ki se nahaja okoli 85 km od središča Aten, 15 EUR; v igralnici v Solunu, ki je od središča mesta oddaljena samo okoli 8 km, je vstopnina 6 EUR, medtem ko znaša vstopnina v igralnici v kraju Halkidiki, okoli 120 km od središča Soluna, 15 EUR.
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.
Loutraki ugotavlja, da je Grčija predhodno trdila, da so znižano vstopnino v višini 6 EUR upravičevale posebne okoliščine vseh upravičenih igralnic, kar se nanaša predvsem na geografski položaj (ki je določal nekatere ekonomske, socialne, demografske in druge posebne značilnosti), vendar pa je igralnica na Krfu po privatizaciji avgusta 2010 začela zaračunavati 15 EUR, ne da bi pojasnila, zakaj posebne okoliščine ne veljajo več.
On the quantification of the amount to be recovered, Loutraki maintains that this amount is the difference in tax levied per customer multiplied by the number of customers entering the beneficiary casinos.
Glede določitve višine zneska za vračilo Loutraki meni, da je zadevni znesek razlika davka, obračunanega na stranko, pomnožena s številom strank v upravičenih igralnicah.
As concerns the separate measures invoked by Greece and Mont Parnès, which would allegedly favour Loutraki (mainly that Loutraki would pay a lower proportion of annual gross profits to the State as compared to other casinos), Loutraki sustains that in practice it has paid the same amount as its competitors under a separate agreement with the authorities.
Glede ločenih ukrepov, ki sta jih navedla Grčija in Mont Parnès in ki po njunem mnenju zagotavljajo koristi Loutrakiju, predvsem domnevnega plačevanja manjšega deleža letnega bruto dobička, Loutraki trdi, da v skladu z ločenim sporazumom z organi v praksi plačuje enak znesek kot konkurenti.
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
V. OCENA
The measure under assessment is the fiscal discrimination that the Greek authorities have put into place in favour of certain casinos through the implementation of simultaneous legal provisions [45] concerning both the fixing of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of admission tickets in casinos, and the setting of two unequal regulated prices of admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively for publicly and privately owned casinos, thereby placing the latter at a competitive disadvantage [46].
Zadevni ukrep obsega davčno diskriminacijo v korist nekaterih igralnic, ki so jo grški organi začeli izvajati s sočasno uporabo številnih določb [45], ki določajo enotno dajatev v višini 80 % vstopnine za igralnice in različne regulirane cene za igralnice v javni in zasebni lasti, in sicer 6 EUR za igralnice v javni lasti in 15 EUR za igralnice v zasebni lasti, s čimer postavljajo igralnice v zasebni lasti v podrejen konkurenčni položaj [46].
Presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU
Obstoj državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU
In order to ascertain whether a measure constitutes a State aid caught by the provisions of the TFEU, the Commission has to assess whether it fulfils the conditions of its Article 107(1).
Da bi ugotovila, ali ukrep pomeni državno pomoč iz Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU), mora Komisija oceniti, ali izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 107(1) te pogodbe.
This Article states that ‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
Člen 107(1) navaja, da „razen če Pogodbi ne določata drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
The Commission will assess hereunder whether the contested measure fulfils the four cumulative conditions to constitute a State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Komisija bo ustrezno ocenila, ali sporni ukrep izpolnjuje vse štiri zahtevane pogoje, da bi lahko pomenil državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1).
Presence of advantage
Selektivna prednost
In order to constitute State aid, a measure must confer on beneficiaries an advantage which relieves them of charges that are normally borne from their budgets.
Da bi ukrep pomenil državno pomoč, mora upravičencem nuditi ugodnost oprostitve dajatev, ki običajno bremenijo njihov proračun.
Regarding this, the Greek authorities argued, firstly, that, as the level of the contribution that all casinos operating in Greece must pay to the State is uniform (i.e. 80 % of the value of each admission ticket), whereas the element of difference in treatment comes from the pricing policy set in 1994-95 by legal provisions (setting the level of the price of admission tickets at EUR 15 for casinos to be licensed under the provisions of Law 2206/1994), such measure may not be covered by State aid rules.
Grški organi so trdili, da ukrep ne sodi v področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči, ker je stopnja prispevka, ki ga morajo vse igralnice, ki delujejo v Grčiji, plačevati državi, enotna in znaša 80 % vrednosti vsake vstopnice, medtem ko element razlikovanja pri obravnavanju izhaja iz politike določanja cen, določene v letih 1994 in 1995 z zakonodajo, ki je na podlagi zakona 2206/1994 določila vstopnino za igralnice na 15 EUR.
The Greek authorities also contended that the admission charge constitutes only a measure of administrative control, without having a fiscal character since, as, according to the Decision of the Greek Council of State 4025/1998 (the supreme administrative court), the setting of a price of admission tickets in casinos has a social character and does not constitute a tax measure.
Grški organi so tudi trdili, da je vstopnina samo upravni nadzorni ukrep in po svoji naravi ni davek, saj ima določanje višine vstopnine za igralnice v skladu s sodbo št. 4025/1998 državnega sveta socialni značaj in ni davčni ukrep.
It should however be noted first that the setting of prices by the Law 2206/1994 may not be easily qualified as a typical pricing policy, since all casinos appear to be free to charge consumers a lower price of admission tickets, or even grant free admission, though in all cases they remain subject to the obligation to pay to the State 80 % of the respective value of the admission tickets issued, regardless of what was actually charged to the consumers.
Treba je predvsem poudariti, da določanja cen v skladu z zakonom 2206/1994 ni mogoče enostavno opisati kot značilne politike določanja cen, saj se zdi, da lahko vse igralnice prosto zaračunajo potrošnikom nižjo vstopnino ali celo odobrijo prost vstop, čeprav v vseh primerih za njih velja obveznost plačila 80 % vrednosti izdanih vstopnic državi, ne glede na to, kaj je bilo dejansko zaračunano potrošniku.
Anyway, in applying the EU rules on State aid, it is irrelevant whether the measure under assessment is of a pricing or tax nature, since Article 107 of the TFEU applies to aid measures ‘in any form whatsoever’ that provide an advantage.
V vsakem primeru pri uporabi pravil EU o državni pomoči ni pomembno, ali je zadevni ukrep davek ali ukrep določanja cen, saj se člen 107 uporablja za pomoč „v kakršni koli obliki“, ki zagotavlja ugodnost.
The fact that its primary aim was not to generate fiscal revenues is not in itself sufficient to allow such a measure to escape the qualification of State aid.
Dejstvo, da njegov osnovni cilj ni ustvariti davčni prihodek, samo po sebi ne zadostuje, da se tak ukrep ne bi štel za državno pomoč.
Even admitting that the setting of a price of admission tickets in casinos may have a social objective, the question of whether it constitutes an advantage amounting to State aid must be assessed in terms of effects, at the level of individual companies with a view to determining whether some companies contribute less to public revenues.
Četudi se priznava, da ima lahko določanje višine vstopnine za igralnice socialni cilj, je treba vprašanje, ali pomeni korist, ki pomeni državno pomoč, oceniti v smislu učinkov na posamezna podjetja, da se določi, ali nekatera podjetja prispevajo manj k javnemu prihodku.
The fact that the exemption from the application of the general price of admission tickets of EUR 15 was granted individually to specific casinos, and in particular the fact that the levy of 80 % is to be paid to the State on the basis of the lower price which those casinos must – in principle (see above) ask, shows that an advantage is granted to those casinos.
Glede na to, da je bila izjema od uporabe splošne vstopnine v višini 15 EUR odobrena individualno nekaterim igralnicam in zlasti da je treba državi plačati dajatev v višini 80 % na podlagi nižje cene, ki jo te igralnice morajo zaračunati (načeloma, glej zgoraj), je tem igralnicam zagotovljena korist.
The Commission recognises the right of Member States to define under national law the qualification of a measure as being of a tax nature or otherwise.
Komisija priznava pravico držav članic, da opredelijo ukrep kot davčni ukrep ali kako drugače v skladu z njihovo nacionalno zakonodajo.
The Commission’s assessment is not in any way directed at interpreting national law.
Ocena Komisije nikakor ni namenjena razlagi nacionalne zakonodaje.
However, the measure has the effect of enabling a regular continuous payment to the State of 80 % of the correspondent price of all the admission tickets issued by each casino.
Vendar pa je učinek tega ukrepa ta, da omogoča redno plačevanje 80 % cene vsake vstopnice, ki jo izda vsaka igralnica, državi.
Additionally, the Commission observes that according to national law (in particular the Law 2206/1994 and the Ministerial Decision of 1995), the respective amounts are deposited with the competent income tax office [47].
Poleg tega Komisija navaja, da je treba v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo (zlasti zakonom 2206/1994 in ministrskim odlokom iz leta 1995) dolgovane zneske plačati pri ustreznem davčnem uradu [47].
In consideration of the above, and without it affecting in any way the qualification of the measure under national law, the Commission observes that the measure under assessment has effects similar to those of a fiscal measure.
Ker to ne vpliva na opredelitev ukrepa po nacionalni zakonodaji, Komisija ugotavlja, da ima ukrep podobne učinke kot davčni ukrep.
Therefore, for the sole purposes of this Decision and insofar as its assessment under EU State aid law is concerned, the Commission shall refer to the measure as a ‘fiscal measure’ or a ‘tax’ in the current Decision.
V skladu s tem bo Komisija izključno za namene tega sklepa in ocene v skladu z zakonodajo EU o državni pomoči v tem sklepu ukrep imenovala „davčni ukrep“, „davek“ ali „obdavčitev“.
The measure under assessment, namely the fiscal discrimination produced by the joint effect of a uniform admission tax applied to unequal regulated prices of admission tickets, is placing the casinos owned by the State in Greece at an advantage over those privately owned.
Zadevni ukrep, tj. davčna diskriminacija, ki jo ustvarja skupni učinek enotnega davka na vstopnino, ki se uporablja za različne regulirane vstopnine, zagotavlja igralnicam v Grčiji, ki so v lasti države, prednost pred tistimi v zasebni lasti.
The joint effect of the two State actions makes that, while the privately owned casinos must pay to the State an admission tax of EUR 12 (80 % × 15) per person, the casinos owned by the State only pay EUR 4,8 (80 % × 6) [48].
Skupni učinek obeh državnih ukrepov je, da medtem ko morajo igralnice v zasebni lasti plačevati državi davek na vstopnino v višini 12 EUR na osebo (80 % od 15 EUR), igralnice, ki so v lasti države, plačujejo samo 4,80 EUR (80 % od 6 EUR) [48].
By this measure the Greek State relieves the public casinos from a burden that otherwise they should bear if a non-discriminatory and competitive-neutral taxation were enforced.
S tem ukrepom grška država razbremeni javne igralnice bremena, ki bi ga sicer morale nositi, če bi bila obdavčitev nediskriminacijska in konkurenčno nevtralna.
This non-discriminatory and competitive neutral taxation was, in principle, established in Greece by Law 2206/1994 on the creation, organisation, functioning and control of casinos which set at EUR 15 the price of admission tickets and at 80 % of that level the admission tax burden due to the State.
Nediskriminacijska in konkurenčno nevtralna obdavčitev je bila v Grčiji načeloma vzpostavljena z zakonom 2206/1994 o ustanovitvi, organizaciji, delovanju in nadzoru igralnic, ki določa vstopnino v višini 15 EUR in davek, ki ga je treba plačati državi v višini 80 % te stopnje.
However, by not enforcing this non-discriminatory and competitive neutral taxation in respect of the public casinos (and the assimilated private casino of Thessaloniki) and instead allowing them to pay only EUR 4,8 as admission tax, the Greek State has favoured these undertakings.
Vendar pa grška država ni uporabljala tega nediskriminacijskega in konkurenčno nevtralnega sistema obdavčitve za javne igralnice (ali zasebno igralnico v Solunu, ki se obravnava enako) in je igralnicam namesto tega dovoljevala, da so plačevale davek na vstopnino v višini samo 4,80 EUR: s tem je dajala prednost tem podjetjem.
These casinos have effectively paid a lower fiscal burden per person out of their respective total income.
Te igralnice so morale plačevati manjši davek na osebo od svojih skupnih prihodkov.
The Commission notes that this total income includes not only their admissions revenue (revenues made solely from the price of admission tickets), but also that from their other sources of income, such as gambling, accommodation, bar and restaurant services, shows etc. (total revenues).
Njihov skupni prihodek ne vključuje samo prihodka od vstopnin (izključno od cene vstopnic), temveč tudi od njihovih drugih virov dohodka, kot so igre na srečo, nastanitve, storitve bara in restavracije, predstave itd.
It is settled case-law that the concept of aid includes not only positive benefits, but also measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in nature and have the same effect [49].
Po ustaljeni sodni praksi pojem pomoči ne obsega samo pozitivnih dejanj, ampak tudi ukrepe, ki v različnih oblikah zmanjšujejo obremenitve, ki so jim praviloma podvržena podjetja, in ki tako ne pomenijo subvencije v strogem smislu te besede, vendar so jim po naravi in učinku enaki [49].
The advantage may be provided through a reduction in the undertaking’s tax burden in various ways, including a reduction in the tax base.
Taka prednost se lahko zagotovi z različnimi vrstami znižanja davčne obremenitve podjetja, vključno z znižanjem davčne osnove.