20.4.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 101/73

(1)

On 23 March 2015, the Commission adopted a final decision (1) (‘final decision’) with which it concluded that Greece had unlawfully put into effect in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, incompatible aid measures in favour of Piraeus Container Terminal S.A (‘PCT’) and its mother company and creditor, Cosco Pacific Limited (‘Cosco’), and ordered the abolition and the recovery of the aid measures concerned.

(2)

On 2 June 2015, Greece appealed the final decision before the General Court of the European Union.

(3)

In 2009 the Commission received complaints concerning several fiscal measures granted by law 3755/2009 (‘the Law’) to the concession holder of a part of the Port of Piraeus, Cosco and its subsidiary PCT (2). These exemptions relate to the initial concession granted in 2008. On 11 July 2012 the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure raising doubts concerning these tax exemptions (‘opening decision’) (3). On 23 March 2015, the Commission concluded the formal investigation of the case and considered that the following measures constituted unlawful and incompatible State aid (4):

(4)

In the same decision the Commission concluded that Greece did not grant State aid by exempting PCT from rules concerning forced expropriation (5).

(5)

Regarding the exemption from stamp duty for compensations paid by PPA to PCT, in the final decision, the Commission concluded that it entailed a selective advantage in favour of PCT in that it alleviated it from the payment of stamp duties in the case of: (a) compensation paid by PPA due to the activation of a penalty clause of the concession contract, and (b) other types of compensation paid by PPA, such as for damages related to the concession contract or for international breach of contract (7).

(6)

Concerning in particular the case of compensation paid by PPA due to the activation of a penalty clause (i.e. under (a) in the immediately above recital) the Commission concluded that the advantage conferred to PCT consisted in its alleviation from the payment of a fixed stamp duty (8) in such cases. This conclusion was based on the consideration that according to the generally applicable framework, i.e. the stamp duty code (9) as interpreted by circular 44/1987, the activation of an ancillary agreement related to a contract subject to VAT is subject to a fixed stamp duty (10).

(7)

However, in its application for annulment of the final decision before the General Court, Greece indicated that fixed stamp duties have been generally abolished since 2001 (11), i.e. before law 3755/2009 introduced the relevant exemption in favour of PCT.

(8)

During the administrative procedure that led to the final decision, the Greek authorities never brought to the Commission's attention the fact that fixed stamp duties have been abolished since 2001, by virtue of Article 25 of law 2873/2000. The Greek authorities never mentioned this fact, although the opening decision had opened the formal investigation procedure of Article 108(2) TFEU with respect to the exemption of PCT from stamp duties in general (including fixed and proportional stamp duties), provided to PCT on the basis of Article 2(10) of the Law (12). Therefore, on the basis of the information available to the Commission when the final decision was adopted, the Commission was entitled to conclude that Article 2(10) of the Law granted incompatible State aid to PCT by exempting it from both fixed and proportional stamp duties on compensation paid by PPA to PCT under the concession contract (13).

(9)

Even if the Greek authorities belatedly (14) informed the Commission on the general abolishment of fixed stamp duties, the Commission, acting as a sound administration and although not obliged to modify the final decision, wishes however to modify that final decision, in order to fully reflect the present situation. Specifically, in view of Article 25 of law 2873/2000, the Commission has no longer any reason to consider that the exemption of Article 2(10) of the Law confers an advantage to PCT in case PPA pays compensations to PCT due to the activation of a penalty clause of the concession contract. According to the generally applicable rules for this type of compensation payment, no stamp duty was due at the time law 3755/2009 was adopted. Therefore, the relevant stamp duty exemption does not confer a selective advantage to PCT and, thus, does not constitute State aid, in this respect.

(10)

As the Commission was only made aware of this information after the adoption of its final decision in this case, within the spirit of good public administration, it now decides to amend its decision of 23 March 2015 as regards this specific advantage of the measure. The final decision is not in any manner modified with respect to PCT's exemption from the (proportional) stamp duty normally due for other types of compensation paid by PPA (i.e. under (b) in recital 5 of the present decision).

(11)

The Commission has accordingly decided that Greece has not granted State aid to PCT in the form of exemption from the payment of stamp duties in case PPA pays compensation to PCT due to the activation of a penalty clause of the concession contract. Therefore, it amends its decision of 23 March 2015 as regards this aspect of the measure. All the other conclusions of the said decision remain the same,