L 25874 Official Journal of the European Union 4.10.2011 DECISIONS COMMISSION DECISION of 24 May 2011 on partial privatisation measure C 15/10 (ex NN 21/10) implemented by Greece for Mont Parnés casino (notified under document C(2011) 3505) (Only the Greek text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (2011/647[EU) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments (1), Whereas: 1. PROCEDURE (1) By letter of 23 June 2002, Egnatia AE, which following a merger has since been taken over by Athinaiki Techniki and which is a member of the Casino Attikis consortium (‘CA’ or ‘the complainant’), submitted a complaint to the European Commission about an alleged breach of EU internal market rules, concerning an allegedly non-trans- parent and discriminatory tender procedure followed by the Greek authorities in the sale of 49 % of the capital of Elliniko Kazino Parnithas AE (Mont Parnés casino’) to the successful bidder, the Hyatt Regency consortium (‘HR' or ‘the alleged beneficiary) (?). (2) By letter of 3 October 2002 the European Commission’s Internal  Market Directorate-General (DG  Internal Market) transferred a copy of the file to the Competition Directorate-General (DG Competition) for a parallel analysis of the case under EU State aid rules. (3) By e-mail of 9 December 2002 the legal representative of the complainant provided the relevant Commission departments with additional explanations on the case. () OJ C 233, 28.8.2010, p. 11. (®) The successful bidder in the tender was the consortium Hyatt Regency (70 %) — Elliniki Technodomiki (30 %). S (10) By letter of 24 January 2003 the Commission communicated the State aid complaint to the Greek authorities and invited Greece to clarify the issues it brought forward. The Greek authorities replied on 4 March 2003. On 27 January 2003 Commission staff met the legal representative of the complainant. On 12 February 2003 and 22 August 2003 the legal representative of the alleged beneficiary submitted supporting documents to the Commission services. By letters of 31 March 2003 and 16 May 2003 the complainant submitted supplementary information to DG Competition. On 10 April 2003 Commission staff met the represen- tative of the alleged beneficiary. During the period between 15 July 2003 and 16 September 2003 the Commission had several exchanges with the complainant regarding the separate assessment of the State aid issues, and it drew the attention of the complainant to its decision-making practice according to which the disposal of a public asset in the context of a tendering procedure does not constitute State aid where the procedure has been carried out transparently and without discrimination. Consequently, the Commission informed the complai- nant that it would not take a position untii DG Internal Market had completed its examination of the procedure for the award of the public contract. By letters of 22 January 2004 and 4 August 2004 DG Internal Market closed the investigation, considering that there was no defect in the procedure for awarding the contract. By letter of 2 June 2004 DG Competition informed the complainant that it had closed the State aid complaint pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council