HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/25
COMMISSION DECISION
of 24 May 2011
on State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the
Hellenic Republic
(notified under document C(2011) 3504)
(Only the Greek text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2011/716/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
(4)
On 25 February, 4 and 23 March and 13 April 2010, the
Commission requested further information from Greece,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
to which Greece replied on 10 March, 1 and 21 April
Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of the
2010.
Article 108(2) thereof,
(5) By
decision
of
6
July
2010
(hereinafter
the
‘Opening
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
Decision’), the Commission informed Greece that it
Area, and in particular to the Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
initiated the formal investigation procedure set forth in
Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
Having called upon interested parties to submit their comments
European Union in regard of the measure implemented
pursuant to the provisions cited above ( 1 ) and having regard to
by Greece, specifically the charging of lower tax on
their comments,
admissions in certain casinos. The Opening Decision
was published in the Official Journal of the European
Whereas:
Union ( 4 ), inviting interested parties to submit their
comments.
I. PROCEDURE
(1) On
8
July
2009
the
Consortium
Loutraki
SA
–
Club (6) By
letter
of
9
August
2010
Greece
requested
an
Hotel Loutraki SA ( 2 ) (the ‘complainant’ or ‘Loutraki’)
extension of the deadline to respond, which was
lodged with the European Commission (the
granted by the Commission by letter of 18 August
‘Commission’) a complaint concerning Greek legislation
2010. By letter of 6 October 2010 the Commission
on a system of levies on admissions to casinos, alleging
received comments from Greece on the Opening
that such system provided State aid to three operators,
Decision. On 12 October 2010 the Greek authorities
namely Regency Casino de Mont Parnès, Corfu Casino
submitted additional information regarding the
and Casino Thessaloniki
( 3 ). By e-mail message of
contested measure.
7 October 2009 the complainant stated that it did not
object to the disclosure of its identity. On 14 October
(7)
Following the opening of the procedure, the Commission
2009 the Commission services met representatives of the
received observations from two interested parties: the
complainant. By letter of 26 October 2009 the
representatives of the beneficiary casino of Mont
complainant provided further elements in support of its
Parnès, reacted to the opening by letter of 4 August
complaint.
2010; the representatives of the private Loutraki casino
reacted to the opening by letters of 8 and 25 October
(2) On
21
October
2009
the
Commission
communicated
2010.
the complaint to Greece and invited Greece to clarify
the issues it brought forward. By letter dated
17 November 2009 Greece requested further time to
(8) By
letter
of
29
October
2010,
the
Commission
respond, which was granted by the Commission by e-
forwarded the abovementioned observations to the
mail message of 18 November 2009. On 27 November
Greek authorities, in order to give them with the oppor
2009 Greece replied to the Commission.
tunity to react. By letter of 6 December 2010 the Greek
authorities presented their comments to third parties’
(3) On
15
December
2009
the
Commission
forwarded
the
observations, in order to clarify, inter alia, certain
reply of Greece to the complainant. The complainant
aspects of the application of the subject-scheme and
replied on 29 December 2009 with observations on
the interpretation of the Greek legislation relevant to
the reply of Greece.
the analysis of the case.
( 1 ) OJ C 235, 31.8.2010, p. 3.
II. THE MEASURE CONCERNED
( 2 ) Consortium – Loutraki S.A.- Club Hotel Casino Loutraki S.A.
(Κοινοπραξα Δ.Α.Ε.Τ.- Λουτρκι ΑΕ- Κλαμπ Οτλ Λουτρκι ΑΕ),
II.1. The measure
Voukourestiou 11, Akti Poseidonos 48, Loutraki, Athens 10671,
Greece.
(9)
The measure under assessment is the fiscal discrimination
( 3 ) The casino of Rhodes, to which a license was granted by virtue of
that the Greek authorities have put into place in favour
the Ministerial Decision T/633/29.5.1996, was not cited in the
complaint as following its privatisation in April 1999 it had
stopped benefiting from the measure under assessment.
( 4 ) See footnote 1.

---

L 285/26
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
of certain casinos through the implementation of several
II.3. The relevant national provisions
simultaneous partially mandatory legal provisions ( 5 )
concerning:
(13) Before the opening of the market in 1994, only three
casinos operated in Greece, namely the casinos of Mont
— the fixing of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of
Parnès, Corfu, and Rhodes. At that time, these casinos
admission tickets, and
were public undertakings and operated as State-owned
service-clubs of the Greek Tourism Office (EOT) ( 12 ).
— the setting of two unequal regulated prices of
The price of admission tickets in these casinos was set
admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively
by way of decisions of the General Secretary of the
for publicly and privately owned casinos,
EOT ( 13 ), as follows:
thereby placing the latter at a competitive disadvantage.
(10) The
measure
under
assessment
concerns
public
casinos
— Mont Parnès – in 1991 EOT set the price of
and one private casino (Thessaloniki), which was excep
admission tickets at 2 000 drachmas (approximately
tionally allowed to benefit from the treatment of public
EUR 6 ( 14 ));
casinos, as further described herein below.
II.2. The beneficiaries
— Corfu – in 1992 EOT set the price of admission
tickets at 1 500 drachmas and it 1997 it adjusted it
(11) The
beneficiaries
of
the
measure
under
analysis
are
the
following Greek casinos: Mont Parnès (
to 2 000 drachmas;

6 ), Thessaloniki ( 7 ),
Corfu ( 8 ) and Rhodes ( 9 ).
(12) At the time of the Opening Decision, the lower regulated
— Rhodes – in 1992 EOT set the price of admission
price of admission tickets of EUR 6 only applied to three
tickets at 1 500 drachmas.
Greek casinos: Mont Parnès Casino (casino privatised by
49 %, whereas 51 % of shares are still held by the State),
Thessaloniki Casino (private casino, but assimilated to
public casinos) and Corfu Casino (public casino). The
(14) The
market
was
opened
in
1994,
when
6
newly
created
Commission notes that the Rhodes Casino and the
private casinos joined the existing State owned casinos
Corfu Casino ceased benefiting from the measure in
based on the Law 2206/1994 ( 15 ). The Law of 1994
April 1999 (
provided for the granting of a total of 14 licenses

10 ) and August 2010 ( 11 ) respectively, since
they stopped charging the lower price for admission
aimed at the existing 3 State owned casinos of Rhodes,
tickets at that respective moment in time when they
Mont Parnès and Corfu, and 11 newly created private
were fully privatised.
casinos ( 16 ). However only 6 of the 11 new private
casinos were licensed and began operating, namely the
casinos in Chalcidice, Loutraki, Thessaloniki, Achaia
( 5 ) In particular, Law 2206/1994; Ministerial Decision Y.A
(Rio), Xanthi (Thrace) and Syros (during 1995-96), and
1128269/1226/0015/ΠΟΛ.1292/16.11.1995 – ΦΕΚ 982/B’/1995;
Law 3139/30.4.2003; the decisions of the General Secretary of
the remaining 5 licenses were abolished.
EOT (managing the public casinos) issued in accordance with
Law 1624/1951 and Decree 4109/1960 (EOT decision
535633/21.11.1991; EOT decision 508049/24.3.1992 and EOT
decision 532691/24.11.1997); the licenses granted to each casino
(15) Law
2206/1994
(Article
2(10))
provided
that
the
price
of
under national law and confirming the respective price of
admission tickets to the casinos in certain areas would be
admission tickets and the obligation to pay 80 % thereof as
set by Ministerial Decision, and that the same Decision
applicable to each casino.
( 6 ) Casino Mont Parnès, société anonyme ‘Elliniko Kasino Parnithas
A.E.’, Agiou Konstantinou 49, 15124 Marousi Attikis, Greece.
( 12 ) The three casinos operated as service clubs of the EOT based on
( 7 ) Casino Thessaloniki, ‘Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Tour
Law 1624/1951, Decree 4109/1960 and Law 2160/1993. The
istiki A.E.’, Agiou Konstantinou 49, 15124 Marousi Attikis, Greece
EOT was later replaced in the operation of the casinos of Corfu
and 13th km Thessaloniki-Polygyrou Street, 55103 Thessaloniki,
and Mont Parnès by the Hellenic Tourism Development company
Greece.
(ETA), fully owned by the Greek State, under Laws 2636/1998 and
( 8 ) Corfu Casino, ‘Elliniko Kasino Kerkyras A.E.’, Société de dével
2837/2000, until the grant of licenses to the above mentioned two
oppement touristique, Voulis 7, 10562, Athènes, Greece.
casinos by virtue of the Law 3139/2003 (the Casino in Rhodes was
( 9 ) The Casino of Rhodes, ‘Casino Rodos Grande Albergo Delle Rose
operated by the EOT until it was granted a license in 1996).
Boutique Hotel’, 4, Georgiou Papanikolaou str., Rhodes, 85100
( 13 ) More precisely, the decisions of the General Secretary of EOT
Greece.
(issued in accordance with Law 1624/1951 and Decree 4109/1960)
( 10 ) The casino of Rhodes, to which a license was granted by virtue of
are: EOT decision 535633/21.11.1991 (setting the price of
the ministerial decision T/633/29.5.1996, was not cited in the
admission tickets to the Mont Parnès Casino at 2 000 drachmas);
complaint received by the Commission as following its privatisation
EOT decision 508049/24.3.1992 (setting the price of admission
in April 1999 it has applied the EUR 15 price of admission tickets.
tickets to the Corfu and Rhodes Casinos at 1 500 drachmas);
( 11 ) During the formal investigation procedure, the Commission was
EOT decision 532691/24.11.1997 (adjusting the price of
informed that the Corfu casino was privatised on 30.8.2010,
admission tickets to the Corfu Casino to 2 000 drachmas).
with the sale, by international call to tender, of 100 % of the
( 14 ) EUR 6 became the regulated price for public casinos on Greece’s
shares in the company Corfu Hellenic Casino S.A. (Elliniko
adoption of the euro in 2002.
Kasino Kerkyras A.E. or EKK) to V&T Corfu Casino S.A. Further
( 15 ) Law 2206/1994 governs the ‘Creation, organisation, operation,
to its privatisation, the price of admission tickets to it has been
control of casinos, etc.’ (ΦΕΚ A’62/1994).
aligned to the general fee of EUR 15 – by virtue of the act ΦΕΚ Β’
( 16 ) The Casino licenses were to be granted by decision of the Minister
1178/5.8.2010/Decision 9206 Defining the Terms of the Oper
of Tourism, following a public international tendering procedure
ational License of the Kerkyra Casino (paragraph 4.1.δ.iii), of
organised by a seven-member commission (Article 1(7) of the
Article 4).
law of 1994, entitled ‘Grant of casino licences’).

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/27
would determine the percentage of the price that would
described in the previous paragraph – the EUR 15 price
represent revenue to the Greek State. Indeed on
for admission tickets, with the only exception of the
16.11.1995 a Ministerial Decision ( 17 ) of the Minister
Thessaloniki Casino (as further described below).
for Finance established that, from 15 December 1995
all operators of casinos under Law 2206/1994 ( 18 )
must charge a price for admission tickets of 5 000
drachmas ( 19 ) (approximately EUR 15 ( 20 )). According to
(17) However, the State owned casinos of Mont Parnès, Corfu
this Ministerial Decision, these casino enterprises are
and Rhodes continued to operate as service clubs of
further subject to a legal obligation to pay 80 % of the
EOT ( 26 ) and did not implemented the acts of 1994-95
face value of each ticket as public levy to the State, while
until the later granting of the licence provided by the
the remaining 20 %, including the appropriate VAT,
Law 2206/1994.
constitute revenue for the casino ( 21 ). The Ministerial
Decision provides that casinos may grant free
entrance ( 22 ). Nevertheless in all cases, all casinos are
under the obligation to pay the respective 80 % of the
(18) According
to
the
various
observations
and
descriptions
regulated price to the State, regardless of what they
of the national provisions presented by the Greek
actually charge consumers ( 23 ). According to the Minis
authorities, the Commission understands that the
terial Decision, the payments of ‘public fees’ are
system worked in practice as follows:
performed by each casino on a monthly basis ( 24 ). The
Ministerial Decision also provides for specified discounts
for tickets valid for 15 or 30 days ( 25 ).
(19) The
Greek
authorities
explained
that
the
operation
of
casinos in Greece is governed, generally, by Law
2206/1994. The special provisions applicable to the
public casinos which existed prior to this Law are
(16) All
the
new
private
casinos
created
(since
1995)
under
considered exceptions from the application of the
the Law 2206/1994 implemented the Ministerial
general provisions of the Law 2206/1994 (and the
Decision of 1995 and applied– in principle, as
implementing Ministerial Decision of 1995), pending
the privatisation of these public casinos and the
( 17 ) Ministerial Decision Y.A 1128269/1226/0015/ΠΟΛ.1292/
issuance of the licenses envisaged in the Law.
16.11.1995 – ΦΕΚ 982/B’/1995.
( 18 ) According to paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995:
‘Casino operators (Law 2206/1994) are obliged from
15 December 1995 to issue an admission ticket to each person
(20) Consequently,
the
Ministerial
Decision
of
1995
was
not
according to specific provisions included in the following
paragraphs.’
deemed to apply to the public casinos until the date they
( 19 ) According to paragraph 5 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995: ‘The
were licensed under Law 2206/1994 – either as concerns
uniform ticket price for entering the areas of “slot machines” or
the standard admission price of EUR 15, or as concerns
“table games” shall amount to five thousand (5 000) drachmas.’
the requirement to remit to the State 80 % of that price.
( 20 ) EUR 15 became the standard regulated price on Greece’s adoption
The public casinos began paying the relevant 80 % only
of the euro in 2002.
( 21 ) According to paragraph 7.1 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995:
upon the later granting of the license under the Law
‘From the total value of the ticket a percentage of twenty percent
2206/1994 (as described below – paragraphs 23 and
(20 %) shall be appropriated by the casino undertaking as fees for
following). However, since for the public casinos the
issuing the ticket and covering its expenses, in which the appro
price of admission tickets exceptionally remained at the
priate VAT is included, while the remaining amount shall be
level of EUR 6, as the already in force decisions of the
considered public fee.’
EOT (setting the prices at EUR 6) were considered special
( 22 ) According to paragraph 6 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995: ‘To
record the admission of a person, from which the Casino refrains
derogatory provisions (pre-existing lex specialis) which
from requesting an price of admission for reasons of promotion or
were unaffected by the general provisions of the Law
social obligation, the Casino shall issue tickets from a special batch
2206/1994 and the Ministerial Decision of 1995, they
or a special counter of the tax records cash register labelled
only paid 80 % of EUR 6. The EOT decisions were only
“Honoris Causa”/“Free admission”.’
deemed inapplicable when the casinos were no longer
( 23 ) According to paragraph 7.2 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995:
fully owned by the State, after their respective privati
‘For tickets issued under the label “Honoris Causa”/“Free admission”
public fees shall be paid based on of the value of the tickets for that
sation. It is only further to that that the casinos then
day as established in paragraph 5 of the present decision.’
passed to the standard price of admission tickets of
( 24 ) According to paragraph 10.1 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995:
EUR 15 and the obligation to pay 80 % of EUR 15 as
‘The public fees shall be deposited at the competent income tax
levy to the State.
office by the tenth day of each month by submitting a statement
concerning the fees collected during the previous month’.
( 25 ) According to paragraph 8.1 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995: ‘As
provided under the aforementioned paragraphs 2 to 7, it is allowed
[for casino operators] to issue long term tickets valid for fifteen or
(21) An
exception
to
what
appears
that
it
should
have
been
thirty consecutive days or one calendar month, as appropriate. A
the rule is the partial privatisation of the Mont Parnès
discount can be granted on the value of the above mentioned long
casino, confirmed by the Law 3139/2003 (which also
term tickets, as follows:
(a) Forty percent (40 %) of the total value of fifteen daily tickets for
the tickets valid for 15 days. In case these tickets are issued for a
( 26 ) In 1993, Law 2160/1993 provided that the casinos of Rhodes,
calendar period of 2 weeks, the last 2 weeks of each month
Mont Parnès and Corfu would continue to operate as services-
covers the period from the 16th day until the end of the month.
clubs of EOT, based on the relevant EOT provisions – namely,
(b) Fifty percent (50 %) of the total value of thirty daily tickets for
Law 1624/1951, Decree 4109/1960 and Law 2160/1993, until a
the tickets valid for thirty days or a month.’
licence was granted to them by the Casino Committee.

---

L 285/28
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
provided for the later foreseen privatisation of Corfu) that
which took place in April 1999 (as until its privatisation
explicitly stipulated that the price of admission tickets in
it operated under the control of EOT – and thus applied
Mont Parnès casino would remain at EUR 6.
the EOT decision of 1992 ( 30 ) which set the price of
admission tickets to the Rhodes Casinos at 1 500
(22) In
2000
EOT
was
succeeded
in
the
operation
of
the
drachmas).
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
(26) The
privately owned Thessaloniki casino was incor
licensing under Law 2206/1994 in 2003, ETA
porated and licensed in 1995 under Law 2206/1994 ( 31 ).
started ( 27 ), voluntarily in the beginning and later by
Until the present date, it has been applying the reduced
virtue of Article 24 of Law 2919/2001, to adapt
EUR 6 price of admission tickets applied by the State-
gradually to the obligations set for casinos by Law
owned casinos (in Mont Parnès and Corfu) by virtue of
2206/1994, in order to prepare both these formerly
the Law 2687/1953
( 32 ) providing that enterprises
State owned casino clubs to be fully licensed as casinos
constituted with foreign investment enjoy treatment at
and be privatised. During this transition period ETA, inter
least as favourable as the one applicable to other
alia, remitted to the State 80 % of the EUR 6 price of
similar enterprises in the country ( 33 ). Even later on,
admission tickets in Mont Parnès and Corfu.
when the issue was further raised, the management of
the Casino (i.e. Hyatt Regency) asked the price of
(23) In
particular,
in
2003
the
State
owned
casino
of
Mont
admission tickets in Thessaloniki casino to be set at
Parnès was converted into a limited company and 49 %
the same level as that of the Casino Mont Parnès, i.e.
of its capital disposed to the private sector ( 28 ). The
at EUR 6. This request was accepted, following an
license for the Casino Mont Parnès provided for in Law
opinion from the Greek Legal Council of State
2206/1994 was finally granted in 2003 under Law
(Opinion 631/1997/EC). The requirement to remit to
3139/2003 (Article 1(1)). The same law kept the
the State 80 % of the face value of admission tickets
admission price in Mont Parnès at EUR
6
was applicable to the casino of Thessaloniki since the
(Article 1(1)(vii)).
issuance of its license in 1995 ( 34 ).
(24) In the case of Corfu casino, the license provided for in
Law 2206/1994 was initially granted to ETA in 2003
III. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
under Law 3139/2003 (Article 1(3)) in order for ETA to
contribute it upon its later privatisation. The same
(27) The Commission initiated the formal investigation
provision stated that the admission price to the casino
procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on
of Corfu would be set by a new ministerial decision,
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
implying in other words that the Ministerial Decision
expressing significant doubts about the discriminatory
of 1995 was not applicable. According to the
fiscal treatment in favour of several specifically identified
Commission’s information, no new ministerial decision
casinos in Greece that benefit from a more advantageous
has been issued and the casino of Corfu continued to
taxation than the one to which the rest of the casinos in
charge EUR 6 until its privatisation in August 2010 ( 29 ),
the country are subject.
when it started applying the EUR 15 price of admission
tickets.
(28) The
Commission
considered
that
the
contested
measure
(25) In the case of Rhodes casino, the license under Law
departed from the general Greek legal provisions estab
2206/1994 was issued in 1996 by virtue of ministerial
lishing the normal level of levies on admissions in
decision Τ/633/29.5.1996. However the casino continued
casinos and therefore improved the competitive
to apply the reduced price of admission tickets until
position of the beneficiaries.
1999, passing to EUR 15 only after the privatisation
( 27 ) For the casino Mont Parnès ETA was followed by the EKP (Elliniko
(29) The
Commission
observed
that
the
contested
measure
Kasino Parnithas A.E.), set up in 2001 as a subsidiary of the
appeared to constitute a loss of State resources for the
Hellenic Tourism Development Company S.A. (ETA), a company
Greek State, and it provided an advantage to the lower
fully controlled by the Greek state.
priced casinos. In response to the argument by the Greek
( 28 ) The Mont Parnès casino was partially privatised on 10.5.2003 with
authorities that the direct beneficiary of a lower price of
the sale, by international call to tender, of 49 % of the shares in the
admission tickets is the customer, the Commission
company Hellenic Mont Parnès Casino S.A. (EKP) to Athens Resort
Casino Holding Company S.A. (ARC), which was set up by the
observed that subsidies to consumers can constitute
successful candidate grouping (Hyatt Regency – Elliniki Tech
State aid to enterprises when the subsidy is conditional
nodomiki) in the call to tender procedure. The company EKP had
on the use of a particular good or service from a
been set up in 2001 as a subsidiary of ETA, a company fully
particular undertaking ( 35 ).
controlled by the Greek state. ETA was founded in 1998 and
had assumed in 2000 the management of the Mont Parnès and
Corfu casinos, as successor to EOT (see also footnote 12 above).
( 30 ) See footnote 13.
( 29 ) According to information received from the Greek authorities
( 31 ) Ar. Ph. 904 of 6.12.1994.
during the formal investigation procedure, the Corfu casino was
( 32 ) Law 2687/1953 concerning investments and protection of foreign
privatised on 30.8.2010, with the sale, by international call to
funding.
tender, of 100 % of the shares in the company Corfu Hellenic
( 33 ) The Thessaloniki casino was declared to benefit from the provisions
Casino S.A. (EKK) to V&T Corfu Casino S.A., which was set up
of the Law 2687/1953 according to the Presidential Decree Π.Λ.
by the successful candidate grouping (Vivere Entertainment
290/1995 which assimilated it to the casinos of Mont Parnès and
Commercial & Holding S.A. – Theros International Gaming INC.)
Corfu.
in the call to tender procedure. The Company EKK had been set up
( 34 ) See also paragraphs 16-18 in the Opening Decision.
in 2001 as a subsidiary of ETA.
( 35 ) See also paragraphs 19-23 in the Opening Decision.

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/29
(30) The
Commission
also
observed
that
the
level
of
taxation
IV.1. Comments from Greece and from Mont Parnès
did not appear to be set according to the circumstances
of each individual casino
( 36 ), and it provisionally
(36) As the comments received from the representative of the
concluded that the measure is selective ( 37 ).
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.
(31) 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. The
IV.1.1. On the presence of aid
Commission noted that it fully respects the right of
Member States to regulate gambling on their territory
(37) Both
the
Greek
authorities
and
Mont
Parnès
contest
the
subject to EU law, but cannot accept that these
existence of State aid. They both argue on the grounds
arguments deprive the measure at issue of any effect of
that the State does not forgo any revenue (or that if it
distortion of competition or on trade between Member
does, then the casinos do not gain any advantage).
States. 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. The Commission
(38) The
Greek
authorities
argue
that
the
price
differentiation
therefore concluded that the measure is capable of
is only a price regulation issue, since the tax raised is a
distorting competition and affecting trade between
uniform proportion of the respective value of the price of
Member States (
admission tickets issued.

38 ).
(39) According to the Greek authorities, the objective of the
(32) The
Commission
reached
the
preliminary
conclusion
that
setting of a price of admission tickets and the payment to
the measure constitutes unlawful aid, since it had been
the State is not to raise revenue for the State but to
implemented by the Greek authorities without the prior
discourage persons of low income from gambling. The
approval of the Commission, and therefore subject to the
fact that the practice of admission tickets also results in
application of Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation as
public revenues does not alter its nature as a control
regards recovery ( 39 ).
measure. 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 consti
tuting an onerous administrative control measure,
(33) The Commission did not identify any grounds for
which however lacks the character of a tax and cannot
considering the contested measure compatible with the
be regarded as a tax burden according to Judgement
internal market since it was considered to represent
No 4027/1998 of the Council of State (the supreme
undue operating aid to the beneficiary casinos (
administrative court of Greece) ( 42 ).

40 ).
(40) As
for
the
differences
between
the
prices
of
different
(34) The
Commission
finally
observed
that
if
its
doubts
that
casinos, Greece argues that the economic and social
the measure contains incompatible State aid are
circumstances of the various casinos are different and
confirmed, then pursuant to Article 14(1) of the
not comparable. The Greek authorities contend that the
Procedural Regulation it would be obliged to order its
distinction between charges is justified on public policy
recovery by Greece from the beneficiaries, unless this
grounds, including that ‘the conditions applying to each
would be contrary to a general principle of law ( 41 ).
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
IV. COMMENTS FROM THE GREEK AUTHORITIES AND
levels and are more in need of being discouraged from
THE INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES
playing games of chance than the inhabitants of urban
(35) During the formal investigation procedure, the
areas’.
Commission received comments from Greece, from the
representative of the company ‘Elliniko Kazino Parnithas
( 42 ) In the opinion of the Greek Council of State, this results from the
A.E.’ (‘Mont Parnès’), and from the representatives of the
fact that: (a) the legislature, staying in line with the objectives of the
private Loutraki casino (‘Loutraki’).
law, requires the selling of tickets only to those entering the gaming
area and not to the users of other services (hotel, restaurant, etc.)
provided on the casino premises, (b) the price of admission tickets
( 36 ) See also paragraphs 26-28 and 37 in the Opening Decision.
is not included in the State’s revenues listed pursuant to Article 2(6)
( 37 ) See also paragraphs 24-29 in the Opening Decision.
of Law 2206/1994, and (c) the legislature provides the option to
( 38 ) See also paragraphs 30-32 in the Opening Decision.
either establish a uniform set of regulations for all casinos subject
( 39 ) See also paragraphs 34-35 in the Opening Decision.
to Law 2206/1994, or establish individual regulations if it is
( 40 ) See also paragraphs 36-38 in the Opening Decision.
deemed that there are special grounds dictating the need for
( 41 ) See also paragraphs 39-40 in the Opening Decision.
different individual regulations.

---

L 285/30
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
(41) On
the
observation
of
the
complainant
(Loutraki)
that
between casinos in terms of various fiscal/regulatory
the price of admission tickets for the casino of Corfu
measures. Thus, these differences which allegedly favour
changed from EUR 6 to EUR 15 when it was privatised
Loutraki (the complainant) would counter-balance the
in 2010, which rather contradicts the public policy
advantages that the beneficiaries enjoy due to the lower
arguments, the Greek authorities respond that the
price of admission tickets. The main measure invoked is
remote geographical location of the island of Corfu
that each casino pays a proportion of annual gross
makes it uncompetitive compared to all other Greek
profits to the State but under the law the proportion is
casinos (therefore it does not distort competition). The
lower for Loutraki than for others. On this point
authorities further argue that it is imperative to make the
however, the Commission firstly observes that these
price of admission tickets dissuasive for the sake of
other measures invoked by the Greek authorities and
protecting the inhabitants of Corfu, because the change
Mont Parnès, in case of existence, might constitute a
in the operating conditions of the casino following
separate aid measure in favour of Loutraki, if all
privatisation will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase
conditions provided by the applicable EU State aid law
in its operating hours, its activities in general and its
are met. In any event these measures are distinct from
attractiveness.
the measure under assessment and therefore they are not
covered by the present Decision.
(42) 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. Furthermore, it
(47) Finally,
Greece has indicated that it is examining a
potential change of the pricing policy of casinos, in
is not certain that with a higher ticket price these alleged
order to eliminate discriminations between casinos.
beneficiaries would generate more revenue for the State,
However, it has not yet informed the Commission of
and the alleged loss of revenues is therefore hypothetical.
the implementation of any such change.
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
(48) The
Greek
authorities
and
Mont
Parnès
did
not
submit
benefit to them.
any observations concerning the compatibility and the
legality of the aid.
(43) 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. They
IV.1.2. On the quantification and recovery of the aid
dispute the possibility of competition with other forms
of gambling cited in the Opening Decision, noting that
(49) The
Greek
Authorities
and
Mont
Parnès
contend
by
way
Internet gambling is currently illegal in Greece.
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:
(44) 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
— The principle of reasonable confidence of the subject
invest in a casino business in Greece, the foreign
of administration: the issue of the price of admission
company could always avail itself of Law 2687/1953,
tickets to the casinos, and particularly the extent to
as did the company Hyatt Regency Hotels and Tourism
which this price of admission tickets is a financial
(Thessaloniki) S.A. in the case of the Thessaloniki casino.
burden on the casinos, was brought before the
Council of State approximately 15 years ago ( 43 ).
The Council of State ruled, under national law, that
(45) As regards the allegations of complainant that the bene
ficiaries are able to grant admission gratuitously, while
the price of admission tickets did not have a fiscal
the 80 % contribution still has to be paid and which
nature, which indirectly shows that it was not a
therefore illustrates most clearly the aid character of the
financial burden on the casinos. Therefore, the bene
measure, the Greek authorities claim that the practice is
ficiary casinos could reasonably base their conduct on
‘exceptional’, as casinos allegedly make use of this
the assumption that there could be no question of
exception to offer free admission (as a courtesy) mainly
State aid arising from differentiation in these prices,
to VIPs or famous customers and as this practice is
which are not considered a financial burden under
contrary to tax law (Law 2238/1994), since the expen
national law.
diture 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
— The principle that a right should not be exercised
applying this practice to substantial tax burdens).
abusively: the Greek authorities and Mont Parnès
contend that because Loutraki only lodged a
(46) The authorities and Mont Parnès further draw the
( 43 ) Judgement No 4027/1998 of the Greek Council of State. See also
attention of the Commission to other differences
footnote 39 above.

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/31
complaint with the Commission 15 years after the
(which determines certain economic, social, demographic
adoption of the measure in dispute (in 1995), it is an
and other specificities), nevertheless, in August 2010, the
abusive exercise of its right to have recourse to the
Corfu Casino passed to EUR 15 upon its privatisation,
Commission to seek the defence of its interests (and
without any explanation as to why the abovementioned
rights) arising from the provisions on State aid in the
special circumstances no longer applied.
TFEU.
(54) On
the
quantification
of
the
amount
to
be
recovered,
(50) On the calculation of the amount to be recovered, the
Loutraki maintains that this amount is the difference in
Greek authorities and Mont Parnès contest the calcu
tax levied per customer multiplied by the number of
lation proposed by Loutraki (difference in tax levied per
customers entering the beneficiary casinos.
customer between the higher priced and lower priced
casinos, multiplied by the number of customers
entering the beneficiary casinos). Such calculation
would be flawed and arbitrary as it is not certain that
(55) As
concerns
the
separate
measures
invoked
by
Greece
with a higher ticket price the alleged beneficiary casinos
and Mont Parnès, which would allegedly favour
of Mont Parnès, Thessaloniki and Corfu ( 44 ) would have
Loutraki (mainly that Loutraki would pay a lower
the same amount of clientele.
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.
IV.2. Comments from Loutraki
(51) Loutraki
argues
that
the
measures
provided
by
national
legal provisions constitute a fiscal discrimination in
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
favour of certain casinos insofar as the requirement to
remit to the State the uniform 80 % levy on admission in
(56) The measure under assessment is the fiscal discrimination
casinos applies to a different tax basis – the two different
that the Greek authorities have put into place in favour
admission prices set by the State. As the admission price
of certain casinos through the implementation of simul
for the beneficiary casinos is significantly inferior to that
taneous legal provisions ( 45 ) concerning both the fixing
of the other casinos (EUR 6 instead of EUR 15), this
of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of admission tickets
constitutes a loss of revenues for the State and thus
in casinos, and the setting of two unequal regulated
amounts to State aid, in light of the distortion of
prices of admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15
competition it creates.
respectively for publicly and privately owned casinos,
thereby placing the latter at a competitive disad
vantage ( 46 ).
(52) 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
V.1. Presence of State aid within the meaning of
contrary to the social objective and the justification and
Article 107(1) of the TFEU
characteristics of the setting of a price of admission
tickets to casinos as described by the Judgement
(57) In
order
to
ascertain
whether
a
measure
constitutes
a
No 4027/1998 of the Greek Council of State. Loutraki
State aid caught by the provisions of the TFEU, the
contends that it cannot be reasonably argued that admin
Commission has to assess whether it fulfils the
istrative control and social protection could be achieved
conditions of its Article 107(1). This Article states that
by different prices of admission tickets – in casino Mont
‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid
Parnès, only ca. 20 km from Athens city centre, by a
granted by Member State or through State resources in
ticket of EUR 6 while in casino Loutraki, ca. 85 km
any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to
from Athens city centre, by a ticket of EUR 15, or
distort competition by favouring certain undertakings
respectively, in casino Thessaloniki, only ca. 8 km from
or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it
Thessaloniki city centre (also at EUR 6), as opposed to
affects trade between Member States, be incompatible
casino Chalcidice, ca. 120 km from Thessaloniki city
with the internal market’.
centre (at EUR 15).
(58) The Commission will assess hereunder whether the
(53) Loutraki
observes
that,
although
Greece
had
previously
contested measure fulfils the four cumulative conditions
argued that the reduced price of admission tickets of
to constitute a State aid within the meaning of
EUR 6 is justified in consideration of special circum
Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
stances applicable to each beneficiary casino, mainly
related to the geographical situation of each casino
( 45 ) In particular, Law 2687/1953; Law 2206/1994; Ministerial
Decision Y.A 1128269/1226/0015/ΠΟΛ.1292/16.11.1995 – ΦΕΚ
( 44 ) Rhodes is not mentioned here, because it applies the EUR 15 price
982/B’/1995; Law 3139/30.4.2003.
since 1999 (and thus is not affected by potential recovery – in
( 46 ) The measure under assessment concerns public casinos and one
consideration of the 10 years limitation period as provided
private casino (Thessaloniki), which was exceptionally allowed to
pursuant to Article 15 of the Council Regulation (EC)
benefit from the treatment of public casinos, as further described
No 659/1999).
herein below.

---

L 285/32
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
V.1.1. Presence of advantage
(65) The
Commission
recognises
the
right
of
Member
States
to define under national law the qualification of a
(59) In
order
to
constitute
State
aid,
a
measure
must
confer
measure as being of a tax nature or otherwise. The
on beneficiaries an advantage which relieves them of
Commission’s assessment is not in any way directed at
charges that are normally borne from their budgets.
interpreting national law. 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. Additionally,
(60) Regarding
this,
the
Greek
authorities
argued,
firstly,
that,
the Commission observes that according to national
as the level of the contribution that all casinos operating
law (in particular the Law 2206/1994 and the Ministerial
in Greece must pay to the State is uniform (i.e. 80 % of
Decision of 1995), the respective amounts are deposited
the value of each admission ticket), whereas the element
with the competent income tax office
( 47 ). In
of difference in treatment comes from the pricing policy
consideration of the above, and without it affecting in
set in 1994-95 by legal provisions (setting the level of
any way the qualification of the measure under national
the price of admission tickets at EUR 15 for casinos to be
law, the Commission observes that the measure under
licensed under the provisions of Law 2206/1994), such
assessment has effects similar to those of a fiscal
measure may not be covered by State aid rules.
measure. 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
(61) The
Greek
authorities
also
contended
that
the
admission
Decision.
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
(66) The measure under assessment, namely the fiscal
has a social character and does not constitute a tax
discrimination produced by the joint effect of a
measure.
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. The joint effect of the two State
(62) It
should
however
be
noted
first
that
the
setting
of
prices
actions makes that, while the privately owned casinos
by the Law 2206/1994 may not be easily qualified as a
must pay to the State an admission tax of EUR 12
typical pricing policy, since all casinos appear to be free
(80 % × 15) per person, the casinos owned by the
to charge consumers a lower price of admission tickets,
State only pay EUR 4,8 (80 % × 6) ( 48 ).
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
(67) By this measure the Greek State relieves the public
consumers.
casinos from a burden that otherwise they should bear
if a non-discriminatory and competitive-neutral taxation
were enforced. This non-discriminatory and competitive
neutral taxation was, in principle, established in Greece
(63) Anyway,
in
applying
the
EU
rules
on
State
aid,
it
is
by Law 2206/1994 on the creation, organisation, func
irrelevant whether the measure under assessment is of
tioning and control of casinos which set at EUR 15 the
a pricing or tax nature, since Article 107 of the TFEU
price of admission tickets and at 80 % of that level the
applies to aid measures ‘in any form whatsoever’ that
admission tax burden due to the State. However, by not
provide an advantage. The fact that its primary aim
enforcing this non-discriminatory and competitive
was not to generate fiscal revenues is not in itself
neutral taxation in respect of the public casinos (and
sufficient to allow such a measure to escape the qualifi
the assimilated private casino of Thessaloniki) and
cation of State aid.
instead allowing them to pay only EUR
4,8 as
admission tax, the Greek State has favoured these under
takings. These casinos have effectively paid a lower fiscal
burden per person out of their respective total income.
(64) Even admitting that the setting of a price of admission
The Commission notes that this total income includes
tickets in casinos may have a social objective, the
not only their admissions revenue (revenues made
question of whether it constitutes an advantage
solely from the price of admission tickets), but also
amounting to State aid must be assessed in terms of
that from their other sources of income, such as
effects, at the level of individual companies with a view
to determining whether some companies contribute less
( 47 ) According to paragraph 10.1 of the Ministerial Decision of 1995,
to public revenues. The fact that the exemption from the
cited above: ‘The public fees shall be deposited at the competent
application of the general price of admission tickets of
income tax office by the tenth day of each month by submitting a
EUR 15 was granted individually to specific casinos, and
statement concerning the fees collected during the previous month’.
in particular the fact that the levy of 80 % is to be paid
( 48 ) Notwithstanding the reference to public casinos above, the
to the State on the basis of the lower price which those
Commission notes that the same lower price of admission tickets
applicable to public casinos is exceptionally applicable to one
casinos must – in principle (see above) ask, shows that an
privately owned casino – Thessaloniki – as described in this
advantage is granted to those casinos.
Decision.

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/33
gambling, accommodation, bar and restaurant services,
of the public casinos is further reinforced, since the cost
shows etc. (total revenues).
of the admission is notably higher for the private casinos
with a higher admission tax of EUR 12 than for the
public ones that only have to finance EUR 4,8 out of
(68) It is settled case-law that the concept of aid includes not
total revenue of their business.
only positive benefits, but also measures which, in
various forms, mitigate the charges normally included
in the budget of an undertaking and which, therefore,
(74) The
Greek
authorities
claimed
that
the
practice
of
the
without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word,
beneficiary casinos of granting free admission on
are similar in nature and have the same effect (
certain week days is exceptional. It remains the case

49 ). The
advantage may be provided through a reduction in the
that it is specifically provided for in the national law
undertaking’s tax burden in various ways, including a
(Ministerial Decree of 1995). The Commission has
reduction in the tax base.
evidence that, contrary to the argument made by
Greece that such a practice is reserved for VIPs or
famous customers, according to publicly available
(69) In
this
case,
the
casinos
Corfu,
Mont
Parnès
and
Thessa
information (for example, leaflets offering free access
loniki (as well as Rhodes casino, until 1999 ( 50 )), benefit
distributed in newspapers and on the Internet), free
from an advantage similar to a reduction in the tax base,
admission is granted to any and all customers, on
since, as previously explained, ad hoc provisions specific
certain days a week, every week, as a customary
to these casinos set the tax which they must pay per
practice (e.g. Thessaloniki Casino, advertises on its
admission at a lower level compared to that imposed
Internet page that it grants continuous free admission
on other casinos.
from Sunday to Thursday ( 53 )). The practice of free
admission does not appear to be exceptional among
the beneficiary casinos.
(70) The
Greek
authorities
observed
that
the
direct
beneficiary
of a lower tax burden is the customer. However, even if
it could be argued that the customer is also a beneficiary
(75) As
concerns
the
argument
made
by
Greece
that
this
of a reduced tax burden per admission, since he pays a
practice is contrary to national tax law, the Commission
total lower price, this fact does not preclude the measure
reminds that the permission to grant free entrance is
from providing an advantage to the relevant under
expressly provided for in the national law concerning
takings, in this case the beneficiary casinos, since they
casinos, and it manifestly is applied by the beneficiary
have to pay a lower amount of fiscal charges per
casinos.
customer received.
(76) As to the argument that the expenditure from paying
(71) In
fact,
as
shown
in
fiscal
cases,
derogations
from
taxes
80 % of the ticket price to the State from own
nominally paid by the consumer but collected by the
resources is not recognised as productive expenditure
supplier may potentially constitute State aid, as may
and cannot be deducted from the company’s revenues
other incentives to consumers to purchase particular
under Greek tax law, thus exposing the company
products and services (
applying this practice to substantial tax burdens, the

51 ).
Commission observes that this argument actually
favours the arguments made by the complainant, as to
(72) In
line
with
past
practice
( 52 ), the Commission believes
the fact that because of the significant tax burden
that reductions in taxes on consumers can constitute
resulting from the payment of the tax out of own
State aid to undertakings when the reduction is condi
revenues, a private casino cannot in practice afford to
tional on the use of a particular good or service from a
grant free admission, and thus reinforces the argument
particular undertaking. The argument that the direct
that this constitutes an advantage to the lower priced
beneficiary is the customer is not therefore an obstacle
casinos.
to a finding of State aid.
(77) Greece
also
contended
that
because
casinos
keep
20
%
of
(73) Furthermore,
given
the
customary
commercial
practice
the unequal admission price, the advantage is for casinos
followed by casinos in Greece to waive the price of the
with a higher price that cash in a net revenue of EUR 3,
admission tickets while paying to the State the admission
compared to the EUR 1,2 for the public casinos. This
tax (80 % of the face value of the admission tickets), the
contention is however in fact misleading, since it
advantageous effect of the fiscal discrimination in favour
ignores two key facts to understand in full the true
anti-competitive effects of the measure. On the one
hand, the setting by regulation of the prices of tickets,
( 49 ) See judgement of the Court of Justice of 8 November 2001, case
including the admission tax, at a lower level for certain
C-143/99, Adria-Wien Pipeline et Wietersdorfer & Peggauer
casinos, makes them more attractive for customers, thus
Zementwerke, 2001 ECR I-8365.
( 50 ) Rhodes casino began applying the EUR 15 price after its privati
(i) deviating demand from the pattern that would prevail
sation in 1999, and has paid 80 % thereof since that date.
if casinos would compete only on their own merits based
( 51 ) See for instance case C76/2003 – Commission Decision
on the individual scope and quality of the services offered
2011/276/EU of 26 May 2010 concerning State aid in the form
and (ii) all other things equal, increasing artificially their
of a tax settlement agreement implemented by Belgium in favour of
Umicore SA (formerly Union Minière SA), OJ L 122, 11.5.2011,
p. 76.
( 53 ) Accordingly, the Thessaloniki Casino offers from Sunday to
( 52 ) Commission Decision 98/476/EC of 21 January 1998 on tax
Thursday free price of admission between 7 am – 20 pm (from
concessions under § 52(8) of the German Income Tax Act,
10/01) – http://www.regencycasinos.gr/en-GB/Promotion/Kliroseis/
OJ L 212, 30.7.1998, p. 50.
Kliroseis.aspx

---

L 285/34
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
level of admissions. On the other hand, as previously
(82) As previously explained, the fiscal discrimination is the
explained, the revenues from admissions are only a
result of a series of administrative acts, decrees and regu
limited proportion of the total revenues that a
lations adopted by the Greek State, among which in
customer attracted by a casino generates for the under
particular: the Law 2206/1994; the Ministerial Decision
taking and out of which the casinos have to pay the
of 1995; the Law 3139/30.4.2003, the Law 2687/1953;
admission tax.
the decisions of the General Secretary of EOT (managing
the public casinos) issued in accordance with Law
1624/1951 and Decree 4109/1960: EOT decision
535633/21.11.1991, setting the price of admission
tickets to the Mont Parnès Casino at 2 000 drachmas;
(78) Finally,
it
is
to
be
noted
that
the
existence
of
advantage
EOT decision 508049/24.3.1992 setting the price of
in the fiscal discrimination is even recognised by the
admission tickets to the Corfu and Rhodes Casinos at
relevant national provisions themselves. As described by
1 500 drachmas (later adjusted for the Corfu Casino to
the Greek authorities, the subjection of the casino of
2 000 drachmas by decision 532691/24.11.1997); the
Thessaloniki to the regime of lower priced admission
licenses granted to each casino under national law and
tickets and (lower) tax is made on the basis of a Law
confirming the respective price of admission tickets and
of 1953 which grants to undertakings established with
the obligation to pay 80 % thereof as applicable to each
foreign capital the most favourable treatment granted to
casino.
national undertakings. It can be observed that although

the Greek authorities maintain that the said regime is not
advantageous, this Law is nevertheless applied by the
Greek authorities to the Thessaloniki casino on grounds
that it is the most favourable treatment to national
undertakings, by contrast with the more onerous one
applied to other private casinos.
(83) Furthermore
the
fiscal
discrimination
under
assessment
is
financed by State resources. If the State forgoes revenues
which it would otherwise have to collect from an under
taking in normal circumstances, the relevant measure is
financed by State resources.
(79) As concerns the subsidiary remark made by the Greek
authorities and Mont Parnès regarding other differences
between casinos in terms of various fiscal/regulatory
measures, differences which allegedly favour Loutraki
(the complainant) and would thus counter-balance the
advantages that the beneficiaries enjoy due to the lower
price of admission tickets (
(84) In fiscal terms the fiscal advantage in this case results

54 ), the Commission observes
that the ‘offsetting’ of one measure (differences in general
from the artificial reduction for the public casinos of
taxation) against another (differences in prices for
the tax base on which the 80 % admission tax rate sits,
admission tickets and their specific taxation) cannot be
from the general EUR 15 to the EUR 6 face value of the
accepted as an argument that the measure under
admission ticket in the public casinos.
assessment does not constitute aid. In any case, as
already mentioned, these aspects are separate and are
not subject to the present Decision (see also paragraph
46 herein above).
(85) In
line
with
the
Court’s
case-law
( 55 ), this discriminatory
reduction in tax base leads to a loss of tax revenue for
the State, which is equivalent to consumption of State
(80) In regard of all the above considerations, the
Commission concludes that the measure under
resources in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
assessment, namely the fiscal discrimination produced
Thus, in general terms, in the case under assessment the
by the joint effect of a uniform admission tax applied
Greek State forgoes fiscal revenue from the public
to unequal regulated prices, provides an advantage to the
casinos in the amount of EUR 7,20 per admission,
lowered priced casinos.
which corresponds to the difference between the tax of
EUR 12 per admission remitted to the State by the
private casinos and the tax of EUR 4,80 per admission
remitted to the State by the public casinos. However,
some adjustments may be taken into account when
V.1.2. Presence of State resources and imputability to the State
evaluating the advantage received by each beneficiary
casino (as further described in Section V.4 ‘Quantification
(81) The advantage referred to above is imputable to the State
and recovery’ herein below – more particularly, it would
and is financed by State resources.
( 55 ) See judgement of the Court of Justice of 10.1.2006, case C-222/04,
( 54 ) The main measure invoked is that each casino pays a proportion of
Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze and others [2006] ERC, I-289. See
annual gross profits to the State but under the law the proportion
Commission Decision of 22 September 2004, N 354/04, Irish
is lower for Loutraki than for others. However, during the formal
Holding Company Regime, OJ C 131, 28.5.2005, p. 10. In this
investigation procedure, Loutraki sustained that in practice it has
sense also Commission Notice on the application of the State aid
paid the same amount as its competitors under a separate
rules to measures relating to direct business taxation, OJ C 384,
agreement with the authorities.
10.12.1998, p. 3.

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/35
appear that until 2000 Mont Parnès and Corfu have not
V.1.3. Selectivity
paid at all any admission tax to the State, therefore the
advantage in that case is at the level of the tax of EUR 12
(91) According
to
Article
107(1)
of
the
TFEU,
in
order
to
per admission remitted to the State by the private
constitute State aid, the measure must be specific or
casinos).
selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the
production of certain goods’.
(86) Greece argued that, as the casinos with a lower price may
(92) According
to
the
case-law
of
the
Court
of
Justice
( 57 ), ‘as
thereby attract more customers, there is no certainty that
regards the assessment of the condition of selectivity,
the State forgoes revenue. Greece maintains that therefore
which is a constituent factor in the concept of State
the measure would not constitute State aid.
aid, it is clear from settled case-law that Article 87(1)
EC [now Article 107(1) of the TFEU] requires assessment
of whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State
measure is such as to “favour certain undertakings or the
production of certain goods” in comparison with other
(87) As
already
mentioned in the
Opening Decision,
the
undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation
Commission does not accept this argument. In line
that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued
with its previous practice
( 56 ), the Commission
by the system in question’ ( 58 ). The Court has also held
considers that the fact that a tax reduction in respect
on numerous occasions that Article 107(1) of the TFEU
of certain tax payers can generate as a result an
does not distinguish between the causes or the objectives
increase in the overall level of revenues collected under
of State aid, but defines them in relation to their
the relevant tax does not necessarily mean that the
effects ( 59 ). According to the Commission’s practice and
measure is not financed from State resources.
the EU case-law concerning fiscal cases, the selective
advantage involved may derive from an exception to
the tax provisions of a legislative, regulatory or adminis
trative nature or from a discretionary practice on the part
of the tax authorities. However, the selective nature of a
(88) In fact the contention by the Greek authorities is
measure may be justified by ‘the nature or general
erroneous in that the benchmark against which the
scheme of the system’ (
Greek authorities test the effects of the fiscal discrimi

60 ), in which case the measure
may be considered not to constitute State aid.
nation on the State budget is biased by the advantage
built in the measure. The Greek authorities introduce in
their reasoning the dynamic effect of a reduction in price
that might increase the demand and eventually the tax
(93) Firstly,
the
Commission
observes
that
in
the
case
under
collected, since the latter is proportionate to the number
review the general tax system is constituted by the
of admissions. This comparison is however inaccurate,
regime applicable (in principle) to all casinos, as estab
considering that it is the inequality itself created by the
lished by the Law 2206/1994 and the implementing
advantage, namely the fact that there is a lower price and
Ministerial Decision of 1995 (as also confirmed by the
the corresponding lower tax burden per admission,
Greek authorities – see paragraph 19 herein above).
which makes the demand increase.
(94) Secondly,
the
Commission
notes
that
the
measure
at
issue constitutes a departure from the application of
(89) Anyway
the
Greek
authorities
have
not
provided
any
the general tax system. As confirmed by the Greek
proof that the overall tax revenue of the admission tax
authorities, the special provisions applicable to the
on casinos is maximised with that pattern of unequal
prices. In fact if the Commission were to follow the
reasoning that a lowering of the admission price to
( 57 ) See, to that effect, judgement of the Court of Justice of 29.4.2004,
case C-308/01, GIL Insurance [2004] ECR I-4777, paragraph 68,
EUR 6 produces an increase in tax collection, the tax
and judgement of the Court of Justice of 3.3.2005, case C-172/03,
revenue maximisation would take place at a level
Heiser [2005] ECR I-1627, paragraph 40, judgement of the Court
where all admission tickets are priced at EUR 6 for all
of Justice of 6.9.2006, case C-88/03, Portugal v. Commission
casinos both private and public, contradicting the Greek
[2006] ECR I-7115, paragraph 54.
contention that this point is reached with the fiscal
( 58 ) See, to that effect, judgement of the Court of Justice of 6.9.2006,
case C-88/03, Portugal v. Commission [2006] ECR I-7115,
discrimination resulting from the unequal prices.
paragraph 54.
( 59 ) See, to that effect, judgement of the Court of Justice Case
T-93/2002 of 18 January 2005 Confédération nationale du Crédit
mutuel/Commission 2005 ECR II-143.
See for instance judgement of the Court of Justice of 29.2.1996,
(90) Accordingly,
the
contested
advantage
is
financed
through
case C-56/93, Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723, paragraph
State resources.
79; judgement of the Court of Justice of 26.9.1996, case C-241/94,
France v Commission, [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraph 20;
judgement of the Court of Justice of 17.6.1999, case C-75/97,
( 56 ) Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the
Belgium v Commission, [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 25; and
State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international
judgement of the Court of Justice of 13.2.2003, case C-409/00,
financing activities (State aid case C 52/01), OJ L 180, 18.7.2003,
Spain v Commission, [2003] ECR I-10901, paragraph 46.
p. 52, paragraph 84.
( 60 ) Case 173/73 Italy v. Commission [1974] ECR 709.

---

L 285/36
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
public casinos (and the assimilated private casino of
reconciled with the fact that the casinos of Mont Parnès
Thessaloniki) are considered exceptions from the appli
and Thessaloniki, which apply the price of EUR 6, are
cation of the general provisions of the Law 2206/1994
both close to major centres of population in Greece. Nor
and the implementing Ministerial Decision of 1995 (see
can it be reconciled with the explicit possibility to admit
also paragraph 19 and the following herein above).
customers without payment provided that 80 % of the
price is nonetheless remitted to the State.
(95) The
Commission
observes
that
the
requirement
to
remit
80 % of the price of admission tickets did not apply to
the casinos of Mont Parnès and Corfu until 2003. As
noted above, as concerns the casinos of Thessaloniki
(100) Furthermore, the Commission also observes that it is not
and Rhodes, this requirement became applicable upon
apparent why this lower price is necessary as concerns
issuance of their license under the Law 2206/1994,
these casinos specifically and not in the case of other
namely since 1995 in the case of Thessaloniki, and
casinos, nor have the Greek authorities explained the
since 1996 in the case of Rhodes. As concerns the
economic calculation for setting the lower price of
price of admission tickets, it has remained at EUR 6 in
admission tickets at the specific level of EUR 6 and not
the case of Mont Parnès and Thessaloniki until present,
another intermediary level, and if individual circum
for Corfu until its privatisation in August 2010, and for
stances are concerned, which according to Greece
Rhodes until its privatisation in 1999. However, both the
mainly consist in the geographical situation of each
requirement to remit 80 % and the price of admission
casino, why all the beneficiary casinos are (in principle,
tickets of EUR 15 applied to other casinos as of 1995
see above) obliged to charge the same price of admission
and have been in practice applied as such.
tickets and not a ‘personalised’ one, adapted to their
individual situation. As an example, should the lower
(96) In consideration of all the above, the Commission
price of admission tickets be justified by the specificities
considers that the measure is selective.
of the individual geographical situation of each of the
casinos, than such reasoning in any case would not
apply to the casino of Thessaloniki who seems to
(97) Thirdly,
the
Commission
observes,
however,
that
the
enjoy this treatment not in consideration of its
selective nature of a measure may be justified by ‘the
geographical situation, but in consideration of a
nature or general scheme of the system’, that is to say,
national provision granting to undertakings established
whether the exceptions to the system or differentiations
with foreign capital the most advantageous treatment
within that system derive directly from the basic or
applicable to national undertakings. Thus, the
guiding principles of the tax system in the Member
geographical situation of the casino of Thessaloniki
State concerned (third step of the selectivity analysis). If
does not appear to have been taken into consideration
so, the Commission considers that, under the settled
at any time in setting the price of its admission tickets.
case-law of the Court ( 61 ) the measures introducing a
As a further example, in August 2010, the Corfu Casino
differentiation between undertakings when that differ
passed to EUR 15 upon its privatisation. However, the
entiation arises from the nature and overall structure of
Greek authorities have not satisfactorily explained why at
the system of charges of which they form part do not
that time the abovementioned special circumstances no
constitute State aid. This justification based on the nature
longer applied and thus why the lower price of
or overall structure of the tax system reflects the
admission tickets was no longer necessary in
consistency of a specific tax measure with the internal
consideration thereof.
logic of the tax system in general. However, the
Commission’s practice and the Court’s case-law have
adopted a very restrictive approach for these justifi
cations. Only reasons inherent in the tax system can be
invoked.
(101) In light of all the above, the Commission concludes that
the selective character of the measure in review is not
justified by the nature of the general system. Therefore,
(98) The
Greek
authorities
stated
that
the
individual
circum
the contested measure is considered to include a discrimi
stances of each casino are different, and that the prices of
nating element, in the form of a reduction in the tax base
admission tickets are set in function of those circum
resulting in a fiscal advantage benefiting to individually
stances, taking account of the objective of setting such
determined casinos, discrimination which is not justified
a price which is to discourage persons of low income
by the logic of the Greek general relevant tax system.
from gambling.
(99) The
Commission
cannot
accept
these
arguments.
The
argument that the level of the price is set according to
(102) Accordingly, the Commission therefore concludes that
and justified by the circumstances of each individual
the criterion of selectivity in the sense of
casino, taking account of the objective of discouraging
Article 107(1) of the TFEU is met in the present case.
persons of low income from gambling, cannot be
( 61 ) See case C-88/03, Portugal v. Commission, paragraph 81 see
footnote 49 here above, See judgement of the Court of First
V.1.4. Distortion of competition and effect on trade
Instance of 9.9.2009, case T-227/01, Territorio foral de Alava
and others, not yet published, paragraph 179 and judgement of
the Court of First instance of 9.9.2009, case T-230/01, Territorio
(103) In order to constitute State aid the measure must affect
foral de Alava and others, not yet published, paragraph 190.
competition and trade between Member States. This

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/37
criterion supposes that the beneficiary of the measure
competitors in intra-European trade is enough to allow
exercises an economic activity, regardless of the bene
the conclusion to be drawn that intra-European trade is
ficiary’s legal status or means of financing.
affected. Neither the fact that aid is relatively small in
amount, nor the fact that the recipient is moderate in
size or its share of the European market very small, nor
indeed the fact that the recipient does not carry out
exports or exports virtually all its production outside
the European market do anything to alter this
(104) According to the Court’s case-law (
conclusion ( 65 ).

62 ), ‘for the purpose of
categorising a national measure as prohibited State aid, it
is necessary, not to establish that the aid has a real effect
on trade between Member States and that competition is
actually being distorted, but only to examine whether
that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort
competition. In particular, when aid granted by a
(107) Greece argued that the situation of the casinos and the
Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking
distances between them mean that each serves a local
compared with other undertakings competing in intra-
market and therefore that the measure cannot distort
Community trade, the latter must be regarded as
competition or affect trade between Member States.
affected by that aid. […] In addition, it not necessary
However, pursuant to case-law
( 66 ), there is no
that the beneficiary undertaking itself be involved in
threshold in order to determine the actual or potential
intra-Community trade. Aid granted by a Member State
effect on competition and on trade between Member
to an undertaking may help to maintain or increase
States, and therefore, this condition for applying
domestic activity, with the result that undertakings estab
Article 107(1) of the TFEU may be completed inde
lished in other Member States have less chance of
pendently of the local or regional provision of the
penetrating the market of the Member State concerned.’
services concerned or the importance of the field of
Moreover, under settled case-law of the Court ( 63 ), for a
activity concerned.
measure to distort competition and affect trade between
Member States it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid
competes with other undertakings on markets open to
competition in the internal market ( 64 ). The Commission
considers that the conditions set out in the case-law are
fulfilled for the following reasons.
(108) Greece also argued that the gambling market is not
harmonised between Member States, who are therefore
free to regulate it at national level. Greece invoked the
jurisprudence of the Court which allows restrictions to
the single market for gambling services in the name of
protection of consumers from fraud and criminality ( 67 ).
(105) The contested measure alleviates the taxes that the bene
ficiaries have to pay with respect to the rest of casinos in
Greece, thereby strengthening their comparative financial
position and increasing the profitability of their
investments as opposed to a situation where their profit
ability would be exclusively based on their own merits.
(109) The Commission fully respects the right of Member
States to set the objectives of their policy in the area
of gambling provided that any restrictions on the
freedom to provide services are suitable for achieving
the objectives pursued, do not go beyond what is
necessary in order to achieve those objectives and are
(106) As above mentioned, under settled case-law, the criterion
applied in a non-discriminatory manner. However the
of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries
Commission cannot accept that these arguments
on an economic activity involving trade between Member
deprive the measure at issue of any effect of distortion
States. The mere fact that the aid strengthens the firm’s
of competition or on trade between Member States.
position compared with that of other firms which are
( 65 ) Judgement of the General Court in the case Het Vlaams Gewest/
( 62 ) See, to that effect, judgement of the Court of Justice C-372/97, Italy
Commission, of 30 April 1998 cited above; Judgment of the Court
v. Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraph 44, judgement of
in case Altmark trans et Regierungsprsidium Magdeburg, of
the Court of Justice C-66/02, Italy v. Commission [2005] ECR
24 July 2003, aff. C-280/00, Rec. 2003, p. I-7747, paragraphs
I-10901, paragraph 111, judgement of the Court of Justice
81-82 and judgment of the Court in case Heiser, of 3 March
C-222/04, Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze [2006] ECR I-289,
2005, aff. C-172/03, Rec. 2005, p. I-1627, paragraphs 32-33.
paragraph 140.
( 66 ) In particular judgements of the General Court in case C-172/03;
( 63 ) Judgement of the General Court, case T-214/95, Vlaams Gewest v.
Wolfgang Heiser/Finanzamt Innsbruck, of 3 March 2005 and case
Commission, [1998] ECR II-717.
C-280/00, Altmark Trans et Regierungsprsidium Magdeburg, of
( 64 ) Judgement of the Court in case Philip Morris/Commission, of
24 July 2003.
17 September 1980, aff. 730/79, Rec. 1980, p. 2671, paragraphs
( 67 ) In particular judgment of the Court of 8 September 2009 in case
11 and 12, and judgement of the General Court in case Het
C-42/07 Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin Inter
Vlaamse Gewest/Commission, of 30 April 1998, aff. T-214/95,
national Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd v Departamento de
Rec. 1998, p. II-717, paragraphs 48-50.
Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa 2009 ECR I-7633.

---

L 285/38
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
(110) The operators in the sector are often international hotel
services provided by operators in other Member States.
groups ( 68 ) that compete which each other, whose
The case referred to by Greece (see paragraph 108) in
decision whether to invest or divest in casinos or other
fact concerned Internet gambling. The Greek authorities
hotel facilities are affected by the measure, since it
disputed the possibility of competition with other forms
impacts the comparative profitability of these groups
of gambling cited in the Opening Decision, noting that
and their investments. Casinos are often sited in tourist
Internet gambling is currently illegal in Greece. However,
destinations, which would indicate that the presence of a
and despite the current legal situation in Greece, the
casino may act as an attraction to tourists to visit Greece.
Greek authorities have recognised themselves that
Indeed casinos fell under the responsibility of the
Internet gambling has in fact grown ‘to uncontrollable
Ministry of Tourism in Greece. In addition, the
proportions’ ( 69 ). In this context reference should also be
Commission notes that there is a certain cross-border
made to the judgement of the Court of Justice in Case C-
mobility of customers; moreover, casino services are
65/05 Commission v Greece ( 70 ) in which the Court held
themselves operated in a cross-border environment –
that Law 3037/2002 which aimed at banning Internet
for instance, casinos operate such services on cruise
gambling in Greece amounted to an unjustified barrier to
ships linking Greece to Italy and other destinations.
the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
More widely, some persons wishing to gamble may be
services.
able to choose between gambling in a casino and doing
so on line. On line gambling is an international business
and gamblers in Greece may be able to access such
(111) Furthermore, the overall economic crisis affects consumer
habits and disposable income for entertainment purposes
such as using casino services. In this particular context a
differentiation in prices of admission tickets has an even
( 68 ) For instance, the Mont Parnès casino is operated, as license holder,
more significant distortive impact on the choices made
by the private company Athens Resort Casino Holding Company
by consumers and thus is liable even more so to distort
S.A. (ACR). ACR acquired 49 % of the shares of the casino, and
competition on the casino market.
took over its management, after its partial privatisation in 2003
(while the public company ETA kept 51 %). 70 % of ARC is owned
by the company Regency Entertainment Leisure and Tourism S.A
(formerly Hyatt Regency Hotels and Tourism Thessaloniki S. A.)
and the remaining 30 % by the company Ellaktor S.A. (formerly
Elliniki Technodomiki S.A.) In Greece, Hyatt Regency also operates
and controls Regency Casino Thessaloniki. The multinational Hyatt
Hotels corporation, with headquarters in Chicago, Illinois (USA)
(112) As concerns the argument proposed by the authorities
manages, franchises, owns and develops Hyatt branded hotels,
and Mont Parnès that even if the view were taken that
resorts and residential and vacation ownership properties around
the reduced price of admission tickets of EUR 6 might
the world. As of 31 December 2010, the company’s worldwide
have influenced or may influence the decision of a
portfolio consisted of 453 properties: full service hotels operate
under the Hyatt, Park Hyatt, Andaz, Grand Hyatt, Hyatt
foreign company to invest in a casino business in
Regency brands; two select service brands are Hyatt Place and
Greece, the foreign company could always avail itself of
Hyatt Summerfield Suites; vacation ownership properties are
Law 2687/1953, the Commission observes that the
developed under the Hyatt Vacation Club brand. Under the
application of the Law of 1953 is not automatic and
brand Hyatt Regency alone there are 9 hotels/resorts in France,
would in fact allow the further granting of the more
UK, Germany, Greece, and Poland. Hyatt operates 4 casinos
under the brand Hyatt Regency – the Thessaloniki casino and the
advantageous treatment granted to the beneficiary
hotel and casino Hyatt Regency Warsaw in Warsaw, Poland (2
casinos (i.e. the lower price of admission tickets of
other casinos are in South Korea and in Wisconsin, USA). This
EUR 6) to other undertakings. This measure would thus
information is available on the site – www.hyatt.com.
be liable to further propagate the fiscal discrimination
under assessment. Furthermore, the Commission notes
For another example, as concerns Loutraki, the Club Hotel Casino
that although the Law 2687/1953 could have been
Loutraki is a joint venture between the Municipality of Loutraki
(through D.A.E.T. Loutraki S.A.) and the multinational holding
invoked by other casinos, if they had brought in
company of Club Hotel Loutraki S.A., which is the administrator
capital from abroad and had submitted the application
and chief investor in the Casino Loutraki. According to information
in good time, its application is subject to certain specific
available on the site http://www.clubhotelloutraki.gr, significant
arbitrary rules that make it a selective measure. In fact,
names from the Greek and international business world participate
the only one other example of potential application of
in Club Hotel Loutraki, such as Casinos Austria International (one
this Law that has been brought to the attention of the
of the largest investors in casinos internationally, with 67 casinos in
15 countries) Piraeus Bank, EFG Eurobank Ergasias, as well as Israeli
Commission – namely concerning the casino on Syros,
companies whose holdings include, among others, six more casinos
who submitted an application under this law – was
and chains of luxury hotels.). This information is available on the
refused because the application was submitted after the
site http://www.clubhotelloutraki.gr/.
importing of the foreign capital (and not ahead of this).
The multinational company Queenco Leisure International (QLI) has
the sole management of Casino Rodos but is also involved as
( 69 ) Government consultation on legislative initiative on regulation of
shareholder and managerially in the following casinos: Club Hotel
the gambling market, summer 2010.
Casino Loutraki – Loutraki, Greece (Shareholder and joint
( 70 ) Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006,
management). Casino Palace – Bucharest, Romania (Major Share
Case C-65/052006 ECR p. I-10341. See also judgement of the
holder and sole management). Sasazu – Prague, Czech Republic
Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009, Case C-109/08 –
(Unique shareholder and sole management). This information is
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic,
available via the site http://www.casinorodos.gr/.
2009 ECR I-4657.

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/39
(113) The Commission notes, further, that when the casino of
reconciled with the fact that the casinos which apply the
Mont Parnès was privatised, the possibility of a licence
price of EUR 6 include those closest to the major centres
for a second casino with the same region was specifically
of population in Greece. Nor can it be reconciled with
provided for in the sale. Clearly the likelihood of
the explicit possibility to admit customers without
investment in such an operation would depend on the
payment provided that 80 % of the price is nonetheless
conditions of competition with the existing operator.
remitted to the State.
Since it can not be ruled out that casinos are
competing with similar companies in another Member
State, this requirement pursuant to Article 107(1) of
the TFEU must be regarded as fulfilled.
(119) The derogations in Article 107(2) of the TFEU,
concerning aid of a social character granted to individual
consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by
natural disasters or exceptional occurrences and aid
granted to certain areas of the Federal Republic of
(114) Therefore the Commission concludes that the contested
Germany, do not apply in this case.
measure is liable to distort competition and affect trade
between Member States by potentially improving the
operating conditions of the beneficiaries being directly
engaged in economic activities, which are liable to pay
(120) Nor does the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(a)
this tax on admissions in casinos in Greece.
apply, which authorises aid to promote the economic
development of areas where the standard of living is
abnormally low or where there is serious under
employment because the measure is not conditional on
V.1.5. Conclusion
realising any type of activity in specific regions ( 71 ).
(115) Given all the above considerations, the Commission
concludes that the criteria for the existence of aid
within the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU are
(121) In the same way, the contested measure cannot be
met and that the measure constitutes State aid in
regarded as promoting the execution of a project of
favour of the casinos with a lower price of admission
common European interest or remedying a serious
tickets. These casinos are Mont Parnès, Corfu, Thessa
disturbance in the economy of Greece, as provided for
loniki and Rhodes. In the case of Rhodes, the
in Article 107(3)(b). Nor does it have as its object the
Commission understands that the casino is no longer a
promotion of culture and heritage conservation as
beneficiary (as it stopped practicing the lower price of
provided for in Article 107(3)(d).
admission tickets upon its privatisation in April 1999).
The Commission considers that neither the Greek
authorities nor Mont Parnès have advanced any argumen
(122) Finally, the contested measure shall be examined in the
tation which would be sufficiently articulated to alter this
light of Article 107(3)(c), which provides for the auth
conclusion.
orisation of aid to facilitate the development of certain
economic activities or of certain economic areas, where
such an aid does not adversely affect trading conditions
to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. In
V.2. Compatibility of the aid
this respect, however, it is noted that the contested
measure does not fall under any of the applications of
(116) As stated in the Opening Decision, the Commission
this subparagraph which the Commission has prom
considers that the measure in question does not qualify
ulgated, or under any of the frameworks or guidelines,
for any of the derogations laid down in Article 106 or
which define the conditions to consider certain types of
107 of the TFEU.
aid compatible with the internal market.
(117) Greece has so far argued that there is no State aid
(123) The contested measure constitutes operating aid that
involved and has not offered any arguments as to why
artificially reinforces the competitive position of certain
any aid would be compatible.
undertakings over other similar undertakings and is not

conditional upon the realisation by the beneficiaries of
any specific action aiming at the achievement of policy
objectives of common interest.
(118) The Commission recognises, as noted above, the right of
(
Member States to regulate gambling on their territory

71 ) See, inter alia, for precedent Commission’s practice Commission
Decision 2004/76/EC of 13 May 2003, on the aid scheme imple
subject to EU law, and that such regulation in order to
mented by France for headquarters and logistic centres, OJ L 23,
control and discourage gambling is a legitimate objective
28.1.2004, p. 1, paragraph 73; see also, for a similar reasoning,
of public policy. However the Commission does not
Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003, on the
believe that this brings the aid, even if this is its objective,
State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international
within the remit of Article 106(2) of the TFEU. In any
financing activities, OJ L 180, 18.7.2003, p. 52, paragraph 105;
Commission Decision 2004/77/EC of 24 June 2003, on the aid
event, as noted above, the argument that the measure has
scheme implemented by Belgium – tax ruling system for US foreign
the objective of discouraging gambling cannot be
sales corporations, OJ L 23, 28.1.2004, p. 14, paragraph 70.

---

L 285/40
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
(124) In particular, the Commission notes that the advantage
of Mont Parnès and Corfu as confirmed in the Presi
granted under the contested measure is not related to
dential decree 290/1995, based on the Law of 1953,
investment, job creation or specific projects. It simply
as described herein above. The regime applicable to Thes
relieves the undertakings concerned of charges normally
saloniki is intimately linked to the regime applicable to
borne by similar undertakings and must therefore be
Mont Parnès and Corfu. As described by the Greek
considered as operating aid. As a general rule,
authorities ( 73 ), when the issue of the price of
operating aid does not fall within the scope of
admission tickets was raised after 1995, the management
Article 107(3)(c) since it distorts competition in the
of the Thessaloniki casino asked that it be set at the same
sectors in which it is granted and is at the same time
level as that of the Casino Mont Parnès, i.e. at EUR 6, and
incapable, by its very nature, of achieving any of the
this request was accepted, following an opinion from the
objectives laid down in that provision ( 72 ). Although
Legal Council of State (Opinion 631/1997/EC). Therefore
exceptionally such aid may be granted in regions
it can be assumed that, had the treatment of Mont Parnès
eligible under the derogation in Article 107(3)(a) of the
and Corfu changed in 2003 and had the two casinos
TFEU and although certain regions of Greece are so
passed to EUR 15 at that time, then the treatment of
eligible, the Commission has severe doubts whether the
casino Thessaloniki would also have changed. However,
conditions for compatibility of such operating aid are
this was not the case, and the fiscal discrimination was
met in the current case. In line with the standard
maintained by virtue of national provisions.
practice of the Commission, such aid cannot not be
considered compatible with the internal market, as it
does neither facilitate the development of any activities
or economic areas nor it is limited in time, digressive or
(128) None of the measures described above, benefiting the
proportionate to what is necessary to remedy to a
beneficiary casinos, were ever notified to nor approved
specific economic handicap of the areas concerned.
by the Commission, certainly not under the EU State aid
rules.
(125) In light of the above, it must be concluded that the
measure under review is incompatible with the internal
market.
(129) The Commission recalls that pursuant to Article 15 of
the Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March
1999 laying down detailed rules of application of
V.3. Legality of the aid
Article 93 of the EC Treaty ( 74 ), the powers of the
Commission to recover aid shall be subject to a limi
(126) As stated in the Opening Decision, in view of the fact
tation period of 10 years. The limitation period shall
that the first acts producing the fiscal discrimination
begin on the day on which the unlawful aid is
between casinos date from 1994 and 1995, the
awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as
Commission has considered whether the measure in its
aid under an aid scheme. Any action taken by the
entirety represents existing aid in the sense of
Commission or by a Member State, acting at the
Article 108(1) of the TFEU.
request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful
aid shall interrupt the limitation period. Each interruption
(127) The fiscal discrimination was introduced in 1995
shall start time running afresh. The limitation period shall
illegally– that is, from the perspective of EU State aid
be suspended for as long as the decision of the
law – by the choice made by the Greek authorities to
Commission is the subject of proceedings pending
allow in favour of certain casinos derogations from the
before the Court of Justice. Any aid with regard to
general rule deriving from the Law 2206/1994 and the
which the limitation period has expired, shall be
Ministerial Decision of 1995. In particular, the Greek
deemed to be existing aid. However, pursuant to
authorities allowed the public casinos of Mont Parnès,
Article 1(c) of the same regulation, alterations to
Corfu and Rhodes to continue to apply a lower price
existing aid constitute new aid.
of admission tickets of EUR 6 instead of the standard
price of EUR 15, and furthermore, also specifically
granted this more advantageous treatment to the casino
(130) The Commission observes that according to the case-law
of Thessaloniki in 1995, based on the Law of 1953
of the EU Courts ‘the limitation period provided for in
(concerning foreign capital). Meanwhile, this standard
Article 15 of the Regulation on State aid procedure,
level of EUR 15 was imposed and effectively respected
which does not in any way express a general principle
by the 5 other private casinos which were established
whereby new aid is transformed into existing aid but
and licensed (under the Law 2206/1994) since 1995.
merely precludes recovery of aid established more then
Furthermore, by virtue of the Law 3139/2003 the
10 years before the Commission first intervened’ (
lower price of EUR
6 for admission tickets was

75 ).
specifically maintained for the casinos of Mont Parnès
and Corfu, with the effect of illegally prolonging and
confirming the fiscal discrimination. As concerns the
(131) In the current case, the Commission did not take action,
casino of Thessaloniki, it is noted that it benefits from
nor did Greece act at the request of the Commission,
the fiscal discrimination by assimilation with the casinos
( 73 ) In their submission of 6 October 2010.
( 72 ) See judgement of the General Court of 4.9.2009, case T-211/05,
( 74 ) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
Italy v Commission, not published yet, paragraph 173; see also
( 75 ) See for instance judgment of the General Court in the Gibraltar
judgement of the General Court of 8.6.1995, case T-459/93,
case – joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01, of 30 April 2002,
Siemens v Commission [1995] ECR II-1675, paragraph 48.
paragraph 130 (OJ C 169, 13.7.2002, p. 30), 2002 ECR II-2309.

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/41
before 2009. The Commission took such an action on
to entertain expectations which are justified. However, a
21 October 2009 when it communicated the complaint
person may not plead infringement of the principle
to Greece and requested information in this regard.
unless he has been given precise assurances by the
administration. Similarly, if a prudent and alert
economic operator could have foreseen the adoption of
a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he
(132) Therefore, any aid awarded under this measure as of
21 October 1999 (10 years before the day on which
cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted’.
the Commission forwarded the complaint to the Greek
State and requested information) is new and unlawful aid,
which has been put into effect without prior notification
or decision of the Commission, subject to the application
(137) In this respect, as concerns arguments made by the Greek
of Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation as regards
Authorities and Mont Parnès alleging that any recovery
recovery (as further described herein below).
of that aid would run counter to the principle of
reasonable confidence of the subject of administration,
in this case, based on a ruling of the Greek Council of
State under national law, the Commission observes that
V.4. Quantification and recovery
this is a national act taken by a national authority and
not an EU authority in the sense of the above cited case-
(133) The contested measure was implemented without having
law. Furthermore this act was based solely on national
been notified in advance to the Commission in
law and did not in any way discuss any State aid issue or
accordance with Article 108(3) of the TFEU. Therefore,
qualification. In consideration of the above, the
the measure constitutes unlawful aid.
Commission cannot waive recovery based on these
arguments.
(134) Where unlawfully granted State aid is found to be incom
patible with the internal market, the consequence of such
a finding is that the aid should be recovered from the
(138) As concerns the arguments made by Greece and Mont
recipients, unless this would be contrary to a general
Parnès regarding the delayed action undertaken by
principle of law, pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation
Loutraki in lodging a complaint with the Commission,
(EC) No 659/1999. Through recovery of the aid, the
in connection with a principle that a right should not be
competitive position that existed before it was granted
exercised abusively, the Commission observes that
is restored as far as this is possible. No arguments raised
delayed action by a complainant cannot in any case
by the Greek authorities or by Mont Parnès justified a
preclude from recovering unlawful aid, otherwise as
general departure from this basic principle.
deriving from the 10 years limitation period set forth
pursuant to Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation.
(135) The Commission observes that Article 14(1) of Regu
lation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that ‘the Commission
shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be
(139) Therefore the Commission cannot follow the arguments
contrary to a general principle of community law’. The
proposed by the Greek authorities and Mont Parnès in
case-law of the Court of Justice and the Commission’s
order to exceptionally waive recovery.
own decision-making practice have, amongst others,
established that where, as a result of the Commission’s
actions, legitimate expectations exist on the part of the
beneficiary of a measure that the aid has been granted in
(140) As described in the present Decision, the Commission
accordance with EU law, then an order to recover the aid
observes that it was first through the national acts of
would infringe a general principle of EU law (
1994 and 1995 that both the requirement to remit

76 ).
80 % of the value of admissions and the standard price
of EUR 15 for the admission tickets for all casinos were
set. However, both the requirement to remit 80 % and
(136) In its judgement in Forum 187 ( 77 ), the Court stated that
the standard level of the price of EUR 15 did not apply
‘the right to rely on the principle of the protection of
to the beneficiary casinos although they did apply to
legitimate expectations extends to any person in a
other casinos as of 1995 and have been in practice
situation where a Community authority has caused him
applied as such (all private casinos were licensed during
1995-96 and began implementing the measure, with the
( 76 ) See, inter alia, Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February
only exception of Thessaloniki casino). Thus, considering
2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for inter
that de facto the fiscal discrimination resulting from the
national financing activities (OJ L 180, 18.7.2003, p. 52);
differentiation in prices of admission tickets and the
Commission Decision 2004/76/EC of 13 May 2003 on the aid
related 80 % payments to the State started as of 1995,
scheme implemented by France for headquarters and logistics
centres (OJ L 23, 28.1.2004, p. 1).
the period of implementation of the aid can be
( 77 ) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22.6.2006, case C-182/03 and
considered to begin in 1995.
C-217/03, Forum 187 ASBL [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraph 147;
see also judgment of the Court of Justice of 26.11.2005, case
C- 506/03, Germany v Commission, unpublished, paragraph 58
and judgement of the Court of Justice of 11.3.1987, case
C-265/85, Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV v. Commission [1987]
(141) In line with the conclusion under Section V.3 herein
ECR 1155, paragraph 44.
above (Legality of the aid), the Commission therefore

---

L 285/42
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
considers that the limitation period of 10 years, provided
date, it has been applying the reduced EUR 6 price of
for in Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation (EC)
admission tickets applied by the casinos in Mont
No 659/1999, applies to any aid awarded before
Parnès and Corfu. Therefore the amount of the
21 October 1999.
recovery for this casino should be calculated by
multiplying the number of tickets issued (since
21 October 1999) by EUR 7,20.
(142) In the calculation of the amount to be recovered account
must be taken that as described in the present Decision
(see also paragraph 85 herein above), the Greek State
— Rhodes Casino was licensed under the Law
forgoes fiscal revenue from the public casinos in the
2206/1994 in 1996. At that time it began applying
amount of EUR 7,20 per admission, which corresponds
the EUR 6 price of admission tickets, however, it
to the difference between the tax of EUR 12 per
passed at EUR 15 upon its privatisation in April
admission remitted to the State by the private casinos
1999. Further to observations submitted during the
and the tax of EUR 4,80 per admission remitted to the
formal investigation procedure, the Commission
State by the public casinos.
understands that the casino of Rhodes ceased to be
a beneficiary on its privatisation in April 1999, and
therefore the recovery from this casino is covered by
(143) However, certain aspects relating to the individual
situation of each casino may be taken into account for
the limitation period pursuant to Article 15 of the
the purposes of calculating the amount of the recovery
Procedural Regulation.
from each casino, as described below:
(144) As concerns the calculation of the amount of aid to be
— As described in this Decision, the requirement under
recovered, the Commission is not in possession of
the 1995 Ministerial Decision to remit to the State
sufficient data in order to provide an accurate estimation
80 % of the price of admission tickets was applicable
of the amounts to be recovered from each beneficiary
to the casinos of Corfu and Mont Parnès as of the
casino. However, no provision of EU law requires the
date they were licensed under Law 2206/1994, i.e. in
Commission, when ordering the recovery of aid
2003, following Law 3139/2003. However, from the
declared incompatible with the internal market, to fix
end of 2000 and until their licensing in 2003, ETA
the exact amount of the aid to be recovered. It is
started, on a voluntary basis, to remit to the State
sufficient for the Commission’s decision to include
80 % of the price of admission tickets (at the level of
information enabling the Member State concerned and
EUR 6) (
the relevant recipient undertaking to work out them

78 ). From this information given by the Greek
authorities, and subject to further observations that
selves, without overmuch difficulty, that amount. The
the Greek authorities may wish to make (confirming
Commission is therefore able legitimately to confine
or infirming the above) it can be assumed that until
itself to declaring that there is an obligation to repay
2000 no payment of the admission tax was made,
the aid in question and leave it to the national authorities
not even of the reduced tax (of 80 % of EUR 6).
to calculate the exact amounts to be repaid on the basis
Therefore during that period (21 October 1999-end
of the guidance given by the Commission in its decision.
of 2000) the amount of the recovery should be
calculated using the level of EUR 12 (i.e. the full
(145) Based on the information submitted by the Member
tax paid by the other private casinos, while the
State, the Commission provides herein below the
public casinos did not pay any tax at all) and multi
necessary guidance for the recovery.
plying this by the number of tickets issued during
that period.
(146) The Table below presents a general overview of the
number of tickets issued by each casino each year
— The Thessaloniki casino was licensed in 1995 under
(however, as indicated in the Table, the information
Law 2206/1994 ( 79 ). The requirement to remit to the
presented is not complete), and a preliminary estimate
State 80 % of the price of admission tickets was
of the amounts to be recovered from each casino, subject
applicable to the casino of Thessaloniki since the
to further observations that Greece may wish to submit
issuance of its license in 1995. Until the present
following its calculations as concerns recovery.
Estimated number of tickets issued by each casino
CASINO
YEAR
Mont Parnès Corfu Thessaloniki Rhodes
1999
Missing information […]
(*) […] […]
( 1 )
(22.10.1999 –
31.12.1999)
2000 Missing
information […] […] […]
( 78 ) See also paragraph 21 herein above.
( 79 ) Ar. Ph. 904 of 6.12.1994.

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/43
CASINO
YEAR
Mont Parnès Corfu Thessaloniki Rhodes
2001 Missing
information […] […] […]
2002 Missing
information […] […] […]
2003 Missing
information […] […] […]
until 1 May 2003
As of 1 May 2003:
[…]
2004 […] […] […] […]
2005 […] […] […] […]
2006 […] […] […] […]
2007 […] […] […] […]
2008 […] […] […] […]
2009 (until 22.10.2009): […] […] […] […]
Total until 22.10.2009 […] […] […] […]
Tickets issued after
Missing information Missing
information Missing
information Missing
information
22.10.2009
(*) Business secret.
( 1 ) Rhodes was privatised in April 1999 and at that time it stopped applying the reduced price of admission tickets. Aid received by
Rhodes before 21 October 2009 is covered by the limitation.
Preliminary estimate of the amount to be recovered per casino
(million EUR in rounded numbers)
Mont Parnès Corfu Thessaloniki Rhodes
Algorithm and
For 22.10.1999-2000 ( 1 ):
For 22.10.1999-2000:
N/A
calculation
number of tickets
number of tickets
(x1) × 12 = A1
([…] tickets) × 12 = A2
For the period
([…] EUR)
22.10.1999-22.10.2009:
number of tickets
For 2000-22.10.2009:
For 2000-22.10.2009:
([…] tickets) × 7,20 = AB3
number of tickets
number of tickets
([…] EUR)
(y1) × 7,20 = B1
([…] tickets) × 7,20 = B2
([…] EUR)
For 22.10.2009-present:
For 22.10.2009-present:
For 22.10.2009-
number of tickets
number of tickets
30.8.2010 ( 2 ):
(z1) × 7,20 = C1
(z2) × 7,20 = C2
number of tickets
(z3) × 7,20 = C3
Total amount of A1 + B1 + C1 =
A2 + B2 + C2
AB3 + C3
recovery
N/A
To be calculated
To be calculated
To be calculated
Total amount to
be recovered
To be calculated
( 1 ) Exact date of 2000 when ETA started paying the 80 % tax of the reduced price of EUR 6 to be confirmed by Greek authorities.
( 2 ) On the understanding that Corfu casino has stopped being a beneficiary upon its privatisation of August 2010, when it passed to
EUR 15.

---

L 285/44
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
1.11.2011
(147) The Commission further observes that Article 108(3) of
(151) The Commission observes that pursuant to Article 14 of
the TFEU has suspensory effect. However, the
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid may be
Commission has not received information on whether
recovered from the recipient and orders recovery by the
the contested measure was suspended further to the
Hellenic Republic of the unlawful aid from each of the
Opening Decision. Consequently, it must be assumed
beneficiary casinos. The Commission notes that the limi
that the measure has continuously been implemented
tation period of 10 years, provided for in Article 15 of
by the Greek authorities until present ( 80 ). Any aid
the abovementioned Procedural Regulation applies to any
granted until the adoption of the present Decision
aid awarded before 21 October 1999. The Hellenic
should be recovered by Greece from the respective bene
Republic shall cancel all outstanding fiscal advantage
ficiaries. In this regard, as concerns the Corfu casino, the
provided under the measure subject to the present
Commission notes that it has stopped applying the
Decision, with effect from the date of adoption of this
EUR 6 price of admission ticket and passed to EUR 15
Decision.
as of its privatisation of August 2010, therefore in the
calculation of the amount of the recovery only the period
until August 2010 should be taken into account.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1
(148) In consideration of all the above arguments, the
Commission therefore orders recovery by Greece of the
The State aid implemented by the Hellenic Republic and
incompatible State aid illegally granted to the bene
consisting of the fiscal discrimination put into place in favour
ficiaries. The Commission recalls that Greece must
of certain casinos through the implementation of several simul
cancel all outstanding fiscal advantage provided under
taneous, partially mandatory, legal provisions concerning
the measure under assessment with effect from the date
of adoption of this Decision.
— the fixing of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of admission
tickets, and
(149) In this regard, the Commission notes that as concerns the
future, Greece has indicated that it is examining a
potential change of the pricing policy of casinos, in
— the setting of two unequal regulated prices of admission
order to eliminate discriminations between casinos. The
tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively for publicly and
Commission notes that according to Greece, this new
privately owned casinos,
legislation will put an end to the measure under
assessment. However, Greece has not informed the
has been unlawfully put into effect by the Hellenic Republic in
Commission of the follow up and possible implemen
breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
tation of such change. The Commission believes that
European Union and is incompatible with the internal market
the adoption of such new legislation is critical to the
since it has placed the following beneficiary casinos: Regency
resolution of issues of discrimination between casinos
Casino Mont Parnès, Regency Casino Thessaloniki and Corfu
in Greece and encourages Greece to take the necessary
Casino (on the understanding that Rhodes Casino has stopped
steps without delay.
being a beneficiary in April 1999) at an undue competitive
advantage.
VI. CONCLUSION
Article 2
(150) The Commission considers that, in the light of the above
mentioned considerations, of the relevant case-law and of
1. The
Hellenic
Republic
shall
recover
from
the
beneficiary
the specificities of the case, the contested measure,
casinos the incompatible aid referred to in Article 1 which was
consisting of the fiscal discrimination that the Greek
granted since 21 October 1999.
authorities have put into place in favour of certain
casinos through the implementation of several simul
taneous legal provisions concerning:
2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date
on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until
their actual recovery.
— the fixing of a uniform 80 % levy on the price of
admission tickets, and
3. The
interest
shall
be
calculated
on
a
compound
basis
in
accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC)
— the setting of two unequal regulated prices of
No 794/2004 ( 81 ).
admission tickets at EUR 6 and EUR 15 respectively
for publicly and privately owned casinos,
4. The
Hellenic
Republic
shall
cancel
all
outstanding
fiscal
discrimination provided under the aid referred to in Article 1
constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1)
with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.
of the TFEU. The Commission also finds that the
contested measure having been implemented in breach
of Article 108(3) of the TFEU constitutes an unlawful aid.
Article 3
1. Recovery
of
the
aid
referred
to
in
Article
1
shall
be
( 80 ) The Commission currently only has partial information covering
immediate and effective.
the period 22 October 1999 – 22 October 2009, and particularly,
no information concerning the potential continuation of the
measure after 22 October 2009.
( 81 ) OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

---

EN
1.11.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
285/45
2. The
Hellenic
Republic
shall
ensure
that
this
Decision
is 2. The
Hellenic
Republic
shall
keep the
Commission
implemented within 4 months following the date of notification
informed of the progress of the national measures taken to
of this Decision.
implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to
Article 4
in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on
simple request by the Commission, information on the
1. Within
2
months
following
notification
of
this
Decision, measures already taken and planned to comply with this
the Hellenic Republic shall submit the following information to
Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning
the Commission:
the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from
the beneficiary.
(a) the list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the
scheme referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of
Article 5
aid received by each of them under the contested
This Decision is addressed to The Hellenic Republic.
measure, calculated in accordance with the guidance
contained in this Decision;
(b) the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be
Done at Brussels, 24 May 2011.
recovered from each beneficiary;
(c) a detailed description of the measures already taken and
planned to comply with this Decision;
For the Commission
(d) documents demonstrating that the beneficiary has been
Joaquín ALMUNIA
ordered to repay the aid.
Vice-President

---