natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular, the Commission was not sure whether or not during the sale procedure there was any preferential treatment unlawfully granted to the buyer and consequently whether a market price was or was not paid.
Komisija zlasti ni bila prepričana, ali je bil v prodajnem postopku kupec nezakonito prednostno obravnavan in ali je bila v povezavi s tem tržna cena plačana ali ne.
The Commission considered that the exclusion of CA from the tender, and of CA’s bid of EUR 162 million made after the tender procedure, might be evidence of a sale below value and therefore of the existence of aid in the form of foregone State resources.
Komisija je menila, da izključitev podjetja CA in njegove ponudbe v znesku 162 milijonov EUR, predložene po zaključku razpisa, iz razpisa morda dokazuje prodajo pod vrednostjo in s tem obstoj pomoči v obliki državnih sredstev, ki se jim je država odrekla.
COMMENTS FROM GREECE
PRIPOMBE GRČIJE
By letter of 6 August 2010 Greece submitted its observations.
Grčija je svoje ugotovitve predložila z dopisom z dne 6. avgusta 2010.
Greece contests the existence of State aid on the grounds that the tender procedure for the sale of its stake in the capital of Mont Parnès casino was run in accordance with the applicable legislation, and that the 49 % stake in the casino was sold at market price.
Grčija spodbija obstoj državne pomoči na podlagi utemeljitve, da je postopek javnega razpisa za prodajo njenega deleža kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès potekal v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo in da je bil 49-odstotni delež prodan po tržni ceni.
The Greek authorities first of all emphasise that the selection of the participants in the tender and the whole tendering procedure was entirely lawful and conducted in accordance with the rules on invitations to tender [20], which are governed by the legislation in force, and that those invitations to tender had been accepted by both candidates in the tender without reservation.
Grški organi najprej poudarjajo, da sta bila izbor udeležencev v razpisu in celotni postopek javnega razpisa v celoti zakonita in izvedena v skladu s pravili o javnih razpisih [20], ki jih ureja veljavna zakonodaja, ter da sta oba kandidata brez pridržkov sprejela zadevni razpis.
The Greek authorities also explain that the statement by HR, contained in the envelope of HR’s financial bid in both the first and second rounds of the bidding procedure, did not affect the validity of its financial bids, but concerned only the participation per se of CA in the tender procedure, and thus HR’s financial bids were quite rightly deemed lawful by the Objections Committee.
Grški organi prav tako pojasnjujejo, da izjava podjetja HR, ki je bila v prvem in drugem krogu postopka zbiranja ponudb priložena v ovojnici s finančno ponudbo podjetja, ni vplivala na veljavnost njegovih finančnih ponudb, ampak se je nanašala samo na sodelovanje podjetja CA v postopku javnega razpisa, in je zato odbor za ugovore finančne ponudbe podjetja HR ustrezno obravnaval kot zakonite.
The Greek authorities further argue in more detail that the bid submitted by CA in the third round of the tendering procedure, which the complainant claims was EUR 107 million, was excluded because the envelope had been removed from sight of the Tender Committee.
Grški organi nadalje podrobneje navajajo, da je bila ponudba, ki jo je podjetje CA predložilo v tretjem krogu postopka javnega razpisa in v zvezi s katero pritožnik navaja, da je znašala 107 milijonov EUR, izključena, ker je bila odstranjena, tako da razpisni odbor več ni imel pregleda nad njo.
In these circumstances, the Committee could not be sure that the bid had not been changed.
V teh okoliščinah odbor ni mogel biti prepričan, da ponudba ni bila spremenjena.
In any case, the re-submission of the bid would mean a second submission in the same round, which was against the rules.
V vsakem primeru bi ponovna predložitev ponudbe pomenila drugo predložitev v istem krogu, kar pa je proti predpisom.
The Greek authorities explain that the second-round bid made by HR of EUR 92105888, up from the initial bid of EUR 91183652 made by CA in the first round, was in line with the tender rules, since according to the terms of the invitations to tender, each new bid had to be increased by 1 %, not 10 % as was assumed in the Commission’s opening decision.
Grški organi pojasnjujejo, da je bila ponudba podjetja HR v drugem krogu v znesku 92105888 EUR, ki je presegla prvotno ponudbo podjetja CA v prvem krogu v znesku 91183652 EUR, v skladu s pravili o javnih razpisih, ker je treba v skladu s pogoji postopka javnega razpisa vsako novo ponudbo povečati za 1 % in ne za 10 %, kot je predvidevala Komisija v odločitvi o začetku postopka.
Therefore, the rules of the tender were respected in this regard.
Pravila o javnih razpisih so se v zvezi s tem torej upoštevala.
The Greek authorities also argue that CA’s last bid of EUR 162 million — the amount which the CA claimed it was prepared to pay — is invalid, because it was made after and outside the tender procedure.
Grški organi prav tako navajajo, da je bila zadnja ponudba podjetja CA v znesku 162 milijonov EUR, za katerega podjetje trdi, da ga je bilo pripravljeno plačati, neveljavna, ker je bila predložena po zaključku postopka javnega razpisa in zunaj njega.
To accept this bid would have meant breaching the principle of legality, given that the purpose of a public bidding procedure is not only to serve the financial interest of the State, but also to serve the broader public interest, i.e. to secure the highest possible price while observing the principle of legality (i.e. the rules of law laid down in the rules on invitations to tender and tender dossiers and other applicable legislation).
Sprejetje te ponudbe bi pomenilo kršitev načela zakonitosti, pri čemer je treba upoštevati, da namen javnega postopka zbiranja ponudb ni samo izpolnjevanje finančnih interesov države, ampak tudi širših javnih interesov, tj. zagotoviti najvišjo možno ceno ob spoštovanju načela zakonitosti (tj. pravil o javnih razpisih ter pravil iz razpisne dokumentacije in druge veljavne zakonodaje).
The Greek authorities further explain that they did not simply cancel the tender and start a new one because to do so would have meant re-running the whole procedure for the fourth time in 8 years, which would have damaged Greece’s international reputation, with no certainty that a re-running of the tender procedure would have secured a price of EUR 162 million. In this respect, Greece even questions the credibility of the EUR 162 million bid, since CA was aware that its acceptance would only have triggered the cancellation of the procedure and the launch of a new one.
Grški organi nadalje pojasnjujejo, da niso preprosto preklicali postopka razpisa in sprožili novega, ker bi to pomenilo četrto ponovitev celotnega postopka v osmih letih, kar bi škodovalo mednarodnemu ugledu Grčije, pri čemer ponovitev postopka javnega razpisa ne bi nujno zagotovila cene v znesku 162 milijonov EUR. Na podlagi tega Grčija celo dvomi v verodostojnost ponudbe v znesku 162 milijonov EUR, ker se je podjetje CA zavedalo, da bi sprejem te ponudbe povzročil zgolj preklic postopka in sprožitev novega.
Furthermore, the Greek authorities confirm [21] that the price finally paid (EUR 120 million) was reasonable as it was 25,5 % higher than the expert valuation of EUR 95,4 million that had been made prior to the tendering procedure by the independent appraiser and kept sealed until the end of the procedure.
Poleg tega grški organi potrjujejo [21], da je bila končna cena (120 milijonov EUR) razumna, saj je bila 25,5 % višja od strokovne ocene v višini 95,4 milijona EUR, ki jo je pred začetkom postopka javnega razpisa opravil neodvisni cenilec in je bila zapečatena do konca postopka.
They state that this valuation — even though not necessary because of the tendering procedure — was requested to safeguard Greece’s interests even further [22].
Navajajo, da se je ta ocena – čeprav ne nujno zaradi postopka javnega razpisa – zahtevala za dodatno zaščito interesov Grčije [22].
As regards the assertions by the complainant that the original terms of the invitations to tender were improved by the subsequent Law No 3139/2003 confirming the privatisation, the Greek authorities explain that the notices of invitation to tender were not amended either by Law 3139/2003 or in any other way.
V zvezi z navedbami pritožnika, da so se prvotni pogoji postopka javnega razpisa izboljšali z naknadno sprejetim zakonom št. 3139/2003 o potrditvi privatizacije, grški organi pojasnjujejo, da obvestila o postopku javnega razpisa niso bila spremenjena z zakonom št. 3139/2003 niti na kateri koli drug način.
According to Greece, that Law simply regulates various authorisations linked to the investment and to the running of the casino, and includes measures for the protection of workers after the privatisation.
Po navedbah Grčije ta zakon zgolj ureja različna pooblastila v zvezi z naložbami in vodenjem igralnice ter vključuje ukrepe za zaščito delavcev po privatizaciji.
HR was not relieved by that Law of the obligation to invest EUR 44 million in Mont Parnès casino, and the contractual clause in the contract on the return to HR of 70 % of the price in the event of an operating licence being granted to another casino before 2012 was already an explicit provision of the invitations to tender.
Ta zakon podjetja HR ni razbremenil obveznosti, da v igralnico Mont Parnès investira 44 milijonov EUR, pogodbena klavzula iz pogodbe o vračilu 70 % cene podjetju HR v primeru, da se dovoljenje za poslovanje pred letom 2012 dodeli drugi igralnici, pa je že bila eksplicitna določba javnega razpisa.
The Greek authorities therefore observe that the sale price represents the market value of the 49 % stake in the capital of Mont Parnès casino.
Zato grški organi ugotavljajo, da prodajna cena predstavlja tržno ceno 49-odstotnega deleža kapitala igralnice Mont Parnès.
To reinforce their claim that no irregularities occurred in the tender procedure, the Greek authorities point to several rulings by national courts which analysed the lawfulness of the tender procedure under national law.
Da bi potrdili svoje zanikanje obstoja pomanjkljivosti v postopku javnega razpisa, grški organi opozarjajo na več odločitev nacionalnih sodišč, ki so analizirala zakonitost postopka javnega razpisa v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo.
To date, the national courts have found no irregularities in the tender and have therefore rejected the various applications made by CA on the subject [23].
Do danes nacionalna sodišča niso odkrila nobenih pomanjkljivosti v razpisu in so zato zavrnila več tožb podjetja CA v zvezi s tem [23].
Among the findings of the national courts, confirming the correctness of the tender, the Greek authorities refer more particularly to the following:
Med ugotovitvami nacionalnih sodišč, ki potrjujejo pravilnost razpisa, se grški organi posebej sklicujejo na naslednje:
Litigation before the civil courts:
Sodni postopek pred civilnimi sodišči:
In its judgement 8118/2002 [24], the Athens Court of First Instance rejected an application made by CA and ruled that:
V sodbi št. 8118/2002 [24] je prvostopenjsko sodišče v Atenah zavrnilo tožbo podjetja CA in odločilo naslednje:
The Tender Committee and the Objections Committee rightly held that HR’s first- and second-round bids were in conformity with the invitations to tender.
Razpisni odbor in odbor za ugovore sta ponudbi podjetja HR v prvem in drugem krogu pravilno obravnavala kot skladni s postopki javnega razpisa.
HR’s statement attached to its bids had not affected the unconditional nature of its bids,
Izjava podjetja HR, priložena njegovim ponudbam, ni vplivala na brezpogojnost ponudb.
CA submitted a bid at 15.30, i.e. at the beginning of the third round, as laid down by the Tender Committee at the end of the second round.
Podjetje CA je predložilo ponudbo ob 15:30, tj. na začetku tretjega kroga, kot ga je razpisni odbor določil na koncu drugega kroga.
The bid was taken back by CA’s representative, of his own will and motion, even though the chairman of the Tender Committee tried to deter him from doing so.
Predstavnik podjetja CA je po lastni volji in nagibu umaknil ponudbo, čeprav ga je predsednik razpisnega odbora poskušal odvrniti od tega.
If the chairman of the Tender Committee had explicitly warned CA’s representative about taking back the bid, this would have resulted in discriminatory treatment in favour of CA and against HR.
Če bi predsednik razpisnega odbora predstavnika podjetja CA izrecno opozoril glede umika ponudbe, bi to pomenilo diskriminacijsko obravnavo v korist podjetja CA in v škodo podjetja HR.
CA’s second bid in the third round was rightly considered inadmissible by the Objections Committee.
Odbor za ugovore je drugo ponudbo podjetja CA v tretjem krogu ustrezno obravnaval kot nesprejemljivo.
Each bidder could tender only one bid in each round.
Vsak ponudnik lahko v posameznem krogu predloži samo eno ponudbo.
Moreover, if CA’s second bid in the third round had been deemed admissible, this would have resulted in a violation of the principle of transparency.
Poleg tega bi obravnavanje druge ponudbe podjetja CA v tretjem krogu kot sprejemljive pomenilo kršitev načela preglednosti.
CA’s representative took back CA’s first sealed envelope, left the venue where the tender was taking place and on his return presented a sealed envelope, which could not be verified as being the same as the first envelope [25].(b) Litigation before the administrative courts
Predstavnik podjetja CA je umaknil prvo zapečateno ovojnico, zapustil kraj, kjer je potekal postopek javnega razpisa, in ob vrnitvi predložil zapečateno ovojnico, za katero ni bilo mogoče preveriti, ali je ista kot prva ovojnica [25].(b) Sodni postopek pred upravnimi sodišči
According to the Greek authorities, a case is currently before the Council of State (Supreme Administrative Court) concerning another application made by CA alleging the unlawfulness of the tender procedure [26].
Po podatkih grških organov državni svet (vrhovno upravno sodišče) trenutno obravnava zadevo v zvezi z drugo tožbo, ki jo je vložilo podjetje CA, v kateri izpostavlja nezakonitost postopka javnega razpisa [26].
The final judgment is currently pending; however the Greek authorities observe that the Judge Rapporteur has proposed that CA’s application should be dismissed as inadmissible on grounds of jurisdiction and unfounded on grounds of substance [27].
Končna sodba je trenutno v obravnavi, vendar grški organi ugotavljajo, da je sodnik poročevalec predlagal, da je treba tožbo podjetja CA zavrniti na podlagi pristojnosti kot nesprejemljivo in na podlagi bistva zadeve kot neutemeljeno [27].
Criminal litigation
Kazenski postopek
Following an action filed in 2002 by CA against members of the Tender Committee, the Objections Committee, ETA, the evaluation consultant (American Appraisal Hellas Ltd) and the financial advisor (Kantor), concerning their behaviour during the tender procedure, the Council of Court of Appeals Judges, to which the case was forwarded for adjudication, issued an acquitting order [28] and found, more particularly, that:
V zvezi s tožbo, ki jo je podjetje CA leta 2002 vložilo proti članom razpisnega odbora, odbora za ugovore, ETA, svetovalcu, ki je opravil oceno (podjetju American Appraisal Hellas Ltd), in finančnemu svetovalcu (podjetju Kantor) v zvezi z njihovim vedenjem med postopkom javnega razpisa, je svet sodnikov pritožbenega sodišča, kateremu je bila zadeva posredovana v obravnavo, izrekel oprostilno sodbo [28], pri čemer je podrobneje ugotovil:
Neither the first nor the second decision of the Objections Committee were unlawful and no adequate evidence was found of any misconduct on the part of its members.
Tako prvi kot tudi drugi sklep odbora za ugovore ni bil nezakonit in nobenih dokazov ni, ki bi dokazovali neprimerno vedenje članov odbora.
The members of the Objections Committee, by overruling CA’s objection in the first and second round and accepting on the other hand HR’s objection in the third round, did not infringe the terms of the invitations to tender and did not treat the two bidders differently.
S tem, ko so člani odbora za ugovore ovrgli ugovor podjetja CA v prvem in drugem krogu ter na drugi strani sprejeli ugovor podjetja HR v tretjem krogu, niso kršili pogojev postopka javnega razpisa in niso različno obravnavali ponudnikov.
The decisions of the Tender Committee were not unlawful and the members of the Tender Committee did not treat the two bidders differently; furthermore the Tender Committee was obliged, according to the terms of the invitations to tender, to adhere to the findings of the Objections Committee.
Sklepi razpisnega odbora niso bili nezakoniti in člani odbora niso različno obravnavali ponudnikov. Poleg tega je moral razpisni odbor v skladu s pogoji postopka javnega razpisa upoštevati ugotovitve odbora za ugovore.
ETA’s representative did not infringe the relevant national provisions by asking the first provisional highest bidder (HR) to increase its financial bid; ETA’s representative was not authorised to enter into negotiations and did not have the power to cancel or call off the bidding procedure.
Predstavnik ETA s tem, ko je prvega začasnega najboljšega ponudnika (podjetje HR) pozval k zvišanju finančne ponudbe, ni kršil zadevnih nacionalnih določb. Predstavnik ETA ni bil pooblaščen za začetek pogajanj in ni imel pristojnosti za preklic ali odpoved postopka zbiranja ponudb.
The above acquitting order was further challenged before the national courts [29] and very recently the Appeal Court of Athens delivered a judgment acquitting all the persons charged (judgment 466/2011).
Navedena oprostilna sodba se je nadalje spodbijala pred nacionalnimi sodišči [29], pri čemer je pritožbeno sodišče v Atenah pred kratkim izreklo sodbo, s katero je oprostilo vse obtožene osebe (sodba št. 466/2011).
The full text of this judgment is not yet available.
Popolno besedilo te sodbe še ni na voljo.
In conclusion, in consideration of all the above observations, the Greek authorities maintain that the measure under assessment does not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.
Ob upoštevanju vseh navedenih ugotovitev so grški organi še vedno mnenja, da ukrep, ki se ocenjuje, ne vključuje državne pomoči v smislu člena 107 PDEU.
By letter of 4 August 2010, representatives of the alleged beneficiary (i.e. Athens Resort Casino Holdings on behalf of HR) intervened in the Commission proceedings as an interested party.
Z dopisom z dne 4. avgusta 2010 so predstavniki domnevnega upravičenca (tj. podjetja Athens Resort Casino Holdings v imenu podjetja HR) vstopili v postopek Komisije kot zainteresirana stran.
The alleged beneficiary submitted the same comments as Greece, which are summarised in the Section 4.
Domnevni upravičenec je predložil enake pripombe kot Grčija, ki so povzete v oddelku 4.
In addition, the alleged beneficiary states that the price actually paid for the stake in the casino was EUR 120 million, EUR 10 million higher than previously understood [30].
Poleg tega domnevni upravičenec navaja, da je cena, ki je bila dejansko plačana za delež igralnice, znašala 120 milijonov EUR, kar je 10 milijonov EUR več, kot se je prvotno domnevalo [30].
It was also therefore even further above the professional valuation of EUR 95,4 million that had been made (but not made known) before the tendering procedure was launched.
Torej je celo še bolj presegala strokovno oceno v višini 95,4 milijona EUR, ki je bila opravljena (vendar ne objavljena) pred začetkom postopka javnega razpisa.
The alleged beneficiary further argues that ETA was not only not obliged, but also had no right to call on the provisional second highest bidder, because that would have meant beginning new rounds of bidding, in breach of the terms of the invitations to tender.
Domnevni upravičenec nadalje trdi, da poleg tega, da ETA ni bil dolžan pozvati drugega začasnega najboljšega ponudnika, tudi ni imel pravice do tega, ker bi to pomenilo sprožitev novih krogov zbiranja ponudb in s tem kršitev pogojev postopka javnega razpisa.
It further claims that the bid of EUR 162 million by CA outside the tendering procedure was at no risk of being taken seriously, and was submitted only to trigger the cancellation of the tender procedure.
Navaja tudi, da se ponudba v znesku 162 milijonov EUR, ki jo je podjetje CA predložilo zunaj postopka javnega razpisa, v nobenem primeru ne bi mogla resno obravnavati in je bila predložena samo z namenom sprožitve preklica postopka javnega razpisa.
It confirms that it would certainly have contested any decision to accept this bid, risking the cancellation of the entire procedure.
Potrjuje, da bi zagotovo spodbijal vsak sklep o sprejetju te ponudbe in tvegal preklic celotnega postopka.
In this respect, it also points to the opinion of the Legal Council of State, which confirmed that the CA bid could not be taken into account or be accepted [31].
V zvezi s tem izpostavlja tudi mnenje pravnega državnega sveta, ki potrjuje, da ponudbe podjetja CA ne bi bilo mogoče upoštevati ali sprejeti [31].
The alleged beneficiary also calls into question the supposition made by the Commission in the opening decision, regarding distortion of competition and effect on trade, that gambling is a worldwide business and the companies in this field exercise an economic activity in an international market.
Domnevni upravičene prav tako dvomi v hipotezo Komisije iz odločitve o začetku postopka v zvezi z izkrivljanjem konkurence in učinkom na trgovino, da so igre na srečo svetovna dejavnost in da podjetja na tem področju izvajajo gospodarsko dejavnost na mednarodnem trgu.
The alleged beneficiary claims that Mont Parnès is not active internationally but operates only locally and is therefore not in competition with casinos abroad.
Domnevni upravičenec trdi, da igralnica Mont Parnès ni dejavna mednarodno, ampak samo lokalno, in zato ne konkurira igralnicam v tujini.
By letter of 29 September 2010, Club Hotel Casino Loutraki AE (on behalf of CA) [32] intervened in the Commission proceedings as an interested party.
Z dopisom z dne 29. septembra 2010 je podjetje Club Hotel Casino Loutraki AE (v imenu podjetja CA) [32] vstopilo v postopke Komisije kot zainteresirana stran.
In that letter it argues that, as regards the quantification of the alleged aid, account should also have been taken of the difference between the bids and the impact of the ratifying law on the obligations of the purchaser under the terms of the public tender procedure.
V tem dopisu navaja, da bi bilo treba v zvezi s količinsko opredelitvijo domnevne pomoči upoštevati tudi razliko med ponudbama in vpliv zakona o ratifikaciji na obveznosti kupca v skladu s pogoji postopka javnega razpisa.
The existence of State aid in the disposal of shares by trade sale
Obstoj državne pomoči v obliki odsvojitve delnic s prodajo
Article 107(1) TFEU states that, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States.
Člen 107(1) PDEU določa, da je „[r]azen če Pogodbi ne določata drugače, […] 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“.
In accordance with the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the EU [33] and Commission rules and practice on State aid in the context of privatisations [34], when a Member State purchases or sells shares of undertakings, no advantage is present if the Member State’s behaviour is consistent with that of a private market economy investor.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije [33] ter predpisi in prakso Komisije na področju državne pomoči v zvezi s privatizacijo [34] velja, da ni prisotno nobeno zagotavljanje prednosti, če je vedenje države članice, kadar kupuje ali prodaja delnice podjetij, v skladu z vedenjem zasebnega vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.