natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The special provisions applicable to the public casinos which existed prior to this Law are considered exceptions from the application of the general provisions of the Law 2206/1994 (and the implementing Ministerial Decision of 1995), pending the privatisation of these public casinos and the issuance of the licenses envisaged in the Law.
Posebne določbe, ki veljajo za javne igralnice, ki so obstajale pred sprejetjem zakona 2206/1994, se štejejo za izjeme od uporabe splošnih določb zakona (in izvedbenega ministrskega odloka iz leta 1995) do privatizacije teh igralnic in izdaje dovoljenj, ki jih predvideva zakon.
Consequently, the Ministerial Decision of 1995 was not deemed to apply to the public casinos until the date they were licensed under Law 2206/1994 – either as concerns the standard admission price of EUR 15, or as concerns the requirement to remit to the State 80 % of that price.
Do datuma izdaje dovoljenja na podlagi zakona 2206/1994 se zato ministrski odlok iz leta 1995 ni uporabljal za javne igralnice niti glede standardne vstopnine v višini 15 EUR niti glede zahteve po nakazilu 80 % te cene državi.
The public casinos began paying the relevant 80 % only upon the later granting of the license under the Law 2206/1994 (as described below – paragraphs 23 and following).
Javne igralnice so začele teh 80 % plačevati šele po izdaji dovoljenj, predvidenih z zakonom 2206/1994 (glej odstavek 23 in naslednje).
However, since for the public casinos the price of admission tickets exceptionally remained at the level of EUR 6, as the already in force decisions of the EOT (setting the prices at EUR 6) were considered special derogatory provisions (pre-existing lex specialis) which were unaffected by the general provisions of the Law 2206/1994 and the Ministerial Decision of 1995, they only paid 80 % of EUR 6. The EOT decisions were only deemed inapplicable when the casinos were no longer fully owned by the State, after their respective privatisation.
Vendar ker se je za že obstoječe sklepe EOT o določitvi vstopnine v višini 6 EUR štelo, da predstavljajo posebno izjemo (že obstoječa posebnost), ki ni bila spremenjena s splošnimi določbami zakona 2206/1994 in ministrskim odlokom iz leta 1995, je vstopnina za javne igralnice izjemoma ostala 6 EUR in te igralnice so plačevale samo 80 % od 6 EUR. Sklepi EOT se niso uporabljali šele po privatizaciji, ko igralnice niso bile več v celoti v lasti države.
It is only further to that that the casinos then passed to the standard price of admission tickets of EUR 15 and the obligation to pay 80 % of EUR 15 as levy to the State.
Šele takrat so začele igralnice zaračunavati standardno vstopnino v višini 15 EUR in prevzele zakonsko odgovornost za plačilo 80 % od 15 EUR kot dajatve državi.
An exception to what appears that it should have been the rule is the partial privatisation of the Mont Parnès casino, confirmed by the Law 3139/2003 (which also provided for the later foreseen privatisation of Corfu) that explicitly stipulated that the price of admission tickets in Mont Parnès casino would remain at EUR 6.
Čeprav se zdi, da bi to moralo biti pravilo, se je pojavila izjema v primeru delne privatizacije igralnice Mont Parnès, potrjene z zakonom 3139/2003 (ki je pozneje uvedel tudi ureditev za privatizacijo igralnice na Krfu): navedeni zakon je izrecno navajal, da vstopnina za igralnico Mont Parnès ostane 6 EUR.
In 2000 EOT was succeeded in the operation of the casinos of Mont Parnès and Corfu by the Hellenic Tourism Company (ETA), fully owned by the Greek State, and from the end of 2000 and until their licensing under Law 2206/1994 in 2003, ETA started [27], voluntarily in the beginning and later by virtue of Article 24 of Law 2919/2001, to adapt gradually to the obligations set for casinos by Law 2206/1994, in order to prepare both these formerly State owned casino clubs to be fully licensed as casinos and be privatised.
Leta 2000 je EOT kot upravljavca igralnice na Krfu in igralnice Mont Parnès nadomestila družba Elliniki Etaireia Touristikis Anaptyxis (grška družba za razvoj turizma, v nadaljnjem besedilu: ETA), ki je bila v celoti v lasti grške države, od konca leta 2000 do leta 2003, ko so bila igralnicama izdana dovoljenja na podlagi zakona 2206/1994, pa se je ETA začela sprva prostovoljno in kasneje v skladu s členom 24 zakona 2919/2001 postopoma prilagajati zahtevam, določenim za igralnice z zakonom 2206/1994, da bi igralnici, ki sta bili prej kluba v javni lasti, pripravila za popolno licenciranje in privatizacijo [27].
During this transition period ETA, inter alia, remitted to the State 80 % of the EUR 6 price of admission tickets in Mont Parnès and Corfu.
V tem prehodnem obdobju je ETA nakazovala državi 80 % od cene vstopnic za igralnico Mont Parnès in igralnico na Krfu v višini 6 EUR.
In particular, in 2003 the State owned casino of Mont Parnès was converted into a limited company and 49 % of its capital disposed to the private sector [28].
Leta 2003 je bila igralnica Mont Parnès, ki je bila v javni lasti, preoblikovana v delniško družbo in 49 % njenega kapitala je bilo prodanih zasebnemu sektorju [28].
The license for the Casino Mont Parnès provided for in Law 2206/1994 was finally granted in 2003 under Law 3139/2003 (Article 1(1)).
Dovoljenje za igralnico Mont Parnès, predvideno z zakonom 2206/1994, je bilo izdano leta 2003 na podlagi zakona 3139/2003 (člen 1(1)).
The same law kept the admission price in Mont Parnès at EUR 6 (Article 1(1)(vii)).
Isti zakon je ohranjal vstopnino za igralnico Mont Parnès v višini 6 EUR (člen 1(1)(vii)).
In the case of Corfu casino, the license provided for in Law 2206/1994 was initially granted to ETA in 2003 under Law 3139/2003 (Article 1(3)) in order for ETA to contribute it upon its later privatisation.
Enako je bilo v primeru igralnice na Krfu dovoljenje, predvideno z zakonom 2206/1994, družbi ETA izdano leta 2003 na podlagi zakona 3139/2003 (člen 1(3)), tako da ga je ETA lahko vključila v kasnejšo privatizacijo.
The same provision stated that the admission price to the casino of Corfu would be set by a new ministerial decision, implying in other words that the Ministerial Decision of 1995 was not applicable.
Ista določba je navajala, da bo vstopnina za igralnico na Krfu določena z novim ministrskim odlokom, kar je pomenilo, da se ministrski odlok iz leta 1995 ni uporabljal.
According to the Commission’s information, no new ministerial decision has been issued and the casino of Corfu continued to charge EUR 6 until its privatisation in August 2010 [29], when it started applying the EUR 15 price of admission tickets.
Po informacijah Komisije ni bil nikoli izdan noben nov ministrski odlok in igralnica na Krfu je še naprej zaračunavala 6 EUR vse do privatizacije avgusta 2010, ko je začela uporabljati ceno v višini 15 EUR [29].
The privately owned Thessaloniki casino was incorporated and licensed in 1995 under Law 2206/1994 [31].
Zasebna igralnica v Solunu je bila ustanovljena in je prejela dovoljenje na podlagi zakona 2206/1994 leta 1995 [31].
Until the present date, it has been applying the reduced EUR 6 price of admission tickets applied by the State-owned casinos (in Mont Parnès and Corfu) by virtue of the Law 2687/1953 [32] providing that enterprises constituted with foreign investment enjoy treatment at least as favourable as the one applicable to other similar enterprises in the country [33].
Vseskozi je zaračunavala znižano vstopnino v višini 6 EUR, ki sta jo uporabljali javni igralnici (igralnica Mont Parnès in igralnica na Krfu), na podlagi zakonodajnega odloka 2687/1953 [32], ki določa, da za podjetja, ustanovljena s tujimi naložbami, veljajo vsaj tako ugodni pogoji, kot veljajo za druga podobna podjetja v državi [33].
Even later on, when the issue was further raised, the management of the Casino (i.e. Hyatt Regency) asked the price of admission tickets in Thessaloniki casino to be set at the same level as that of the Casino Mont Parnès, i.e. at EUR 6. This request was accepted, following an opinion from the Greek Legal Council of State (Opinion 631/1997/EC).
Ko je bila na določeni točki izpostavljena ta težava, je direktor igralnice (tj. Hyatt Regency) zahteval, da se vstopnina za igralnico v Solunu določi na isti stopnji kot za igralnico Mont Parnès, tj. 6 EUR. Po pridobljenem mnenju državnega pravnega sveta (mnenje 631/1997/ES) je bila ta zahteva sprejeta.
The requirement to remit to the State 80 % of the face value of admission tickets was applicable to the casino of Thessaloniki since the issuance of its license in 1995 [34].
Po izdaji dovoljenja leta 1995 je za igralnico v Solunu začela veljati zahteva po nakazilu 80 % nominalne vrednosti vstopnic državi [34].
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
RAZLOGI ZA ZAČETEK PREISKAVE
The Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) expressing significant doubts about the discriminatory fiscal treatment in favour of several specifically identified casinos in Greece that benefit from a more advantageous taxation than the one to which the rest of the casinos in the country are subject.
Komisija je začela formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU, ker je imela resne pomisleke v zvezi z obstojem diskriminacijske davčne obravnave nekaterih posebej določenih igralnic v Grčiji, ki so koristile ugodnejše davčne ureditve kot druge igralnice v državi.
The Commission considered that the contested measure departed from the general Greek legal provisions establishing the normal level of levies on admissions in casinos and therefore improved the competitive position of the beneficiaries.
Komisija je menila, da zadevni ukrep odstopa od splošnih zakonov, ki določajo običajne stopnje dajatev na vstopnine za igralnice, in s tem izboljšuje konkurenčni položaj upravičencev.
The Commission observed that the contested measure appeared to constitute a loss of State resources for the Greek State, and it provided an advantage to the lower priced casinos.
Sporni ukrep naj bi predstavljal izgubo javnega prihodka za grško državo in zagotavljal prednost igralnicam z nižjimi cenami.
In response to the argument by the Greek authorities that the direct beneficiary of a lower price of admission tickets is the customer, the Commission observed that subsidies to consumers can constitute State aid to enterprises when the subsidy is conditional on the use of a particular good or service from a particular undertaking [35].
Na trditev grških organov, da je neposredni upravičenec nižje vstopnine stranka, je Komisija odgovorila, da subvencija za potrošnike lahko pomeni državno pomoč za podjetje, če je pogojena z uporabo določenega blaga ali storitve, ki ga zagotavlja to podjetje [35].
The Commission also observed that the level of taxation did not appear to be set according to the circumstances of each individual casino [36], and it provisionally concluded that the measure is selective [37].
Komisija je tudi ugotovila, da ni dokazov, da bi bila stopnja obdavčitve določena glede na okoliščine posamezne igralnice [36]. Komisija je začasno sklenila, da je ukrep selektiven [37].
The Commission found the contested measure was liable to distort competition between casinos in Greece, as well as in the market of European business acquisition.
Komisija je menila, da sporni ukrep lahko povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence med igralnicami v Grčiji ter na trgu za pridobivanje poslov v Evropi.
The Commission noted that it fully respects the right of Member States to regulate gambling on their territory subject to EU law, but cannot accept that these arguments deprive the measure at issue of any effect of distortion of competition or on trade between Member States.
Komisija je navedla, da v celoti spoštuje pravico držav članic, da na svojem ozemlju urejajo igralništvo v skladu s pravom EU, vendar se ni strinjala, da zadevni ukrep zaradi teh trditev ne bi mogel izkrivljati konkurence in vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami.
The operators in the sector are often international hotel groups, whose decision to invest could be affected by the measure, and in fact casinos may act as an attraction to tourists to visit Greece.
Izvajalci v sektorju so pogosto mednarodne hotelske skupine, na katerih odločitev o naložbah bi ukrep lahko vplival, igralnice pa bi lahko v Grčijo privabljale turiste.
The Commission therefore concluded that the measure is capable of distorting competition and affecting trade between Member States [38].
Komisija je zato sklenila, da bi ukrep lahko izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovino med državami članicami [38].
The Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the measure constitutes unlawful aid, since it had been implemented by the Greek authorities without the prior approval of the Commission, and therefore subject to the application of Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation as regards recovery [39].
Komisija je začasno sprejela stališče, da ukrep pomeni nezakonito pomoč, saj so ga grški organi začeli izvajati brez predhodne odobritve Komisije, in da bi bilo morda treba pomoč vrniti v skladu s členom 15 postopkovne uredbe [39].
The Commission did not identify any grounds for considering the contested measure compatible with the internal market since it was considered to represent undue operating aid to the beneficiary casinos [40].
Komisija ni navedla nobenih razlogov za domnevo, da je sporni ukrep skladen z notranjim trgom; pokazalo se je, da ukrep pomeni neupravičeno pomoč za tekoče poslovanje igralnic, ki so jim bile zagotovljene koristi [40].
The Commission finally observed that if its doubts that the measure contains incompatible State aid are confirmed, then pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Procedural Regulation it would be obliged to order its recovery by Greece from the beneficiaries, unless this would be contrary to a general principle of law [41].
Komisija je navedla, da bo morala v primeru, če se njen pomislek v zvezi z obstojem nezdružljive državne pomoči potrdi, v skladu s členom 14(1) postopkovne uredbe Grčiji odrediti, da od upravičencev izterja pomoč, razen če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava [41].
COMMENTS FROM THE GREEK AUTHORITIES AND THE INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE, PREJETE OD GRŠKIH ORGANOV IN ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
During the formal investigation procedure, the Commission received comments from Greece, from the representative of the company ‘Elliniko Kazino Parnithas A.E.’ (‘Mont Parnès’), and from the representatives of the private Loutraki casino (‘Loutraki’).
Med formalnim postopkom preiskave je Komisija prejela pripombe Grčije, predstavnika Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Mont Parnès) in predstavnikov zasebne igralnice v Lutrakiju (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Loutraki).
Comments from Greece and from Mont Parnès
Pripombe Grčije in igralnice Mont Parnès
As the comments received from the representative of the beneficiary casino of Mont Parnès are essentially identical with the comments received from the Greek authorities, their summary has been presented together under this Section.
Pripombe, ki jih je predložil predstavnik upravičenke, tj. igralnice Mont Parnès, in pripombe, prejete od grških organov, so skoraj povsem enake in bodo skupaj povzete v tem oddelku.
On the presence of aid
Obstoj pomoči
Both the Greek authorities and Mont Parnès contest the existence of State aid.
Grški organi in Mont Parnès zanikajo obstoj državne pomoči.
They both argue on the grounds that the State does not forgo any revenue (or that if it does, then the casinos do not gain any advantage).
Trdijo, da se država ne odreka nobenim dajatvam oziroma, tudi če se, igralnice s tem ne pridobijo nobene koristi.
The Greek authorities argue that the price differentiation is only a price regulation issue, since the tax raised is a uniform proportion of the respective value of the price of admission tickets issued.
Grški organi trdijo, da se razlike v cenah nanašajo samo na ureditev cen, saj povišan davek predstavlja enoten delež ustrezne cene izdanih vstopnic.
According to the Greek authorities, the objective of the setting of a price of admission tickets and the payment to the State is not to raise revenue for the State but to discourage persons of low income from gambling.
Po navedbah grških organov namen določitve vstopnine in zahtevanja plačila državi ni povečati prihodka države, ampak odvrniti osebe z nizkim dohodkom od iger na srečo.
The fact that the practice of admission tickets also results in public revenues does not alter its nature as a control measure.
Dejstvo, da zaračunavanje vstopnine ustvarja tudi javni prihodek, ne spreminja njegove narave kot nadzornega ukrepa.
Thus, the imposition of a price of admission tickets on casino customers entering the gaming area of casinos is regarded by the Greek authorities as constituting an onerous administrative control measure, which however lacks the character of a tax and cannot be regarded as a tax burden according to Judgement No 4027/1998 of the Council of State (the supreme administrative court of Greece) [42].
Grški organi so v skladu s tem zavzeli stališče, da je zahteva, da se obiskovalcem ob vstopu v igralniške prostore igralnic izda vstopnica po določeni ceni, upravni nadzorni ukrep, ki nalaga dajatev, vendar ni v obliki davka in ga ni mogoče šteti za davčno obremenitev, kot je bilo odločeno v sodbi št. 4027/1998 državnega sveta, vrhovnega upravnega sodišča v Grčiji [42].
As for the differences between the prices of different casinos, Greece argues that the economic and social circumstances of the various casinos are different and not comparable.
Glede razlik med cenami različnih igralnic Grčija trdi, da se ekonomske in socialne okoliščine različnih igralnic razlikujejo in niso primerljive.
The Greek authorities contend that the distinction between charges is justified on public policy grounds, including that ‘the conditions applying to each casino, justify and are fully in line with the practice of setting a different ticket price for casinos located near large urban centres … and for casinos in the countryside … which is mainly inhabited by rural populations who – in their majority – have lower incomes and educational levels and are more in need of being discouraged from playing games of chance than the inhabitants of urban areas’.
Grški organi trdijo, da je razlikovanje med cenami upravičeno zaradi javnopolitičnih razlogov: menijo zlasti, da okoliščine različnih igralnic upravičujejo in so v celoti skladne s prakso določanja različnih cen vstopnic za igralnice, ki se nahajajo blizu velikih urbanih središč in za igralnice na podeželju, kjer živi pretežno kmečko prebivalstvo, ki ima povečini nižje dohodke in stopnjo izobrazbe ter je bolj potrebno odvračanja od iger na srečo kot prebivalci urbanih območij.
On the observation of the complainant (Loutraki) that the price of admission tickets for the casino of Corfu changed from EUR 6 to EUR 15 when it was privatised in 2010, which rather contradicts the public policy arguments, the Greek authorities respond that the remote geographical location of the island of Corfu makes it uncompetitive compared to all other Greek casinos (therefore it does not distort competition).
Pritožnik, tj. Loutraki, je ugotovil, da je po privatizaciji igralnice na Krfu leta 2010 vstopnina narasla s 6 EUR na 15 EUR, kar je po mnenju Loutrakija v nasprotju z argumenti javne politike; grški organi so odgovorili, da oddaljen geografski položaj otoka Krf pomeni, da ne konkurira nobeni drugi grški igralnici, zato ne more izkrivljati konkurence.
The authorities further argue that it is imperative to make the price of admission tickets dissuasive for the sake of protecting the inhabitants of Corfu, because the change in the operating conditions of the casino following privatisation will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in its operating hours, its activities in general and its attractiveness.
Grški organi so tudi trdili, da je nujno, da je vstopnina odvračilna, da se zaščiti prebivalce Krfa, saj bo sprememba pogojev poslovanja igralnice po privatizaciji neizogibno povzročila drastično povečanje časa obratovanja, splošnega obsega dejavnosti in njene privlačnosti.
The Greek authorities and Mont Parnès contend that should there be an advantage to lower priced casinos (because they attract more customers) then by the same token there is no loss of State resources.
Če igralnice z nižjimi cenami uživajo kakršno koli prednost, ker privlačijo več potrošnikov, grški organi in Mont Parnès nasprotujejo mnenju, da to nujno pomeni izgubo javnega prihodka.
Furthermore, it is not certain that with a higher ticket price these alleged beneficiaries would generate more revenue for the State, and the alleged loss of revenues is therefore hypothetical.
Prav tako ni gotovo, da bi v primeru, če bi bila vstopnina višja, domnevni upravičenci ustvarili večji prihodek za državo, zato je domnevna izguba prihodka hipotetična.
The Greek authorities and Mont Parnès also point out that the benefit of the lower price of admission tickets is received by the customer, and that the proportion of the price kept by the casino is a higher amount in the casinos with a EUR 15 admission, which is therefore a benefit to them.
Grški organi in Mont Parnès trdijo, da ugodnost nižje vstopnine koristi stranka in da je delež cene, ki ga obdrži igralnica, večji v igralnicah, ki zaračunavajo vstopnino v višini 15 EUR, kar predstavlja ugodnost za igralnice z višjimi cenami.
The Greek authorities and Mont Parnès also maintain that there is no effect on competition/trade on the basis that each casino serves a local market.
Grški organi in Mont Parnès trdijo, da ni vpliva na konkurenco ali trgovino, ker vse igralnice delujejo na lokalnem trgu.
They dispute the possibility of competition with other forms of gambling cited in the Opening Decision, noting that Internet gambling is currently illegal in Greece.
Oporekajo možnosti konkurence z drugimi oblikami iger na srečo, ki je navedena v odločitvi o začetku postopka, in poudarjajo, da so internetne igre na srečo v Grčiji nezakonite.
The authorities and Mont Parnès also contend that even if the view were taken that the reduced price of admission tickets of EUR 6 might have influenced or may influence the decision of a foreign company to invest in a casino business in Greece, the foreign company could always avail itself of Law 2687/1953, as did the company Hyatt Regency Hotels and Tourism (Thessaloniki) S.A. in the case of the Thessaloniki casino.
Grški organi in Mont Parnès trdijo, da četudi bi bilo sprejeto, da bi znižana vstopnina v višini 6 EUR lahko vplivala ali je vplivala na odločitev tuje družbe za naložbo v igralnico v Grčiji, bi imela tuja družba še vedno možnost, da uporabi zakonodajni odlok 2687/1953, kot je storila družba Hyatt Regency Xenodocheiaki kai Touristiki (Thessaloniki) AE v primeru igralnice v Solunu.
As regards the allegations of complainant that the beneficiaries are able to grant admission gratuitously, while the 80 % contribution still has to be paid and which therefore illustrates most clearly the aid character of the measure, the Greek authorities claim that the practice is ‘exceptional’, as casinos allegedly make use of this exception to offer free admission (as a courtesy) mainly to VIPs or famous customers and as this practice is contrary to tax law (Law 2238/1994), since the expenditure from paying 80 % of the ticket price to the State from own resources is not recognised as productive expenditure and cannot be deducted from the company’s revenues (which would expose the company applying this practice to substantial tax burdens).
Pritožnik zatrjuje, da lahko upravičenci omogočijo prost vstop, vendar morajo še vedno plačati 80 % dajatve, kar po njegovih besedah zelo jasno kaže, da ukrep pomeni državno pomoč; grški organi odgovarjajo, da je taka praksa izjema, saj igralnice uporabljajo to možnost za nudenje brezplačne vstopnine predvsem VIP gostom in slavnim osebam, ter da je ta praksa v nasprotju z davčnim pravom (zakonom 2238/1994), saj plačilo 80 % cene vstopnice državi iz lastnih sredstev podjetja ni priznano kot produktiven izdatek in ga ni mogoče odšteti od prihodka družbe, tako da družba, ki izvaja tako prakso, ustvarja znatno davčno obremenitev.