natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvis staten først refunderer en momssaldo efter det, der er fastsat til en »rimelig frist«, skal den betale morarenter som kompensation til den skatteyder, der har krav på en sådan refusion.
Therefore, the advantage that PCT enjoys from this provision is equal to the full amount of the VAT refund that it is allowed to keep (under this provision) if 5 years after the realisation of the related expenditure, the project did not start.
Betalingen af sådanne morarenter af momssaldi udgør derfor ikke statslige ressourcer.
The Greek authorities and PCT argue that this deviation is also applicable to public utility companies, as they are the ones who most of the times construct infrastructure projects that may take more time to be completed than this 5-year period generally applicable.
Beregningen af renter for forsinket betaling af momsrefusion omfatter ifølge Kommissionen statslige ressourcer, for så vidt angår de yderligere renter, som staten skal betale til PCT i medfør af denne bestemmelse.
According to them, the same line of reasoning stands also for PCT, who would construct a big infrastructure project that may need more time than 5 years.
De græske myndigheder og PCT anfører, at denne bestemmelse blot sikrer, at staten ikke opnår en finansiel fordel på bekostning af PCT.
The Commission considers that this deviation constitutes a selective advantage, as it allows PCT the flexibility to get access to VAT credit refund independently of when it will put in use the investment good, i.e. for an indefinite period of time.
I forbindelse med koncessionsaftaler af denne type vil en lang forsinkelse i refusionen af momstilgodehavende medføre betydelige omkostninger og dermed en alvorlig strukturel ulempe for PCT.
In this way, even if it never put in use the investment good, its right to VAT credit refund would never be decided definitely and adjusted accordingly, which in practice means that if it didn't complete the project, it would not be obliged to return the VAT credit that it received during the whole construction period.
Den mulige betaling af mindre beløb i morarenter til andre virksomheder reducerer desuden ikke de omkostninger, som PCT normalt skulle afholde i forbindelse med sine aktiviteter.
The fact that public utility companies might benefit from the same advantage does not mean that this advantage is not selective.
PCT opnår derfor ikke en konkurrencemæssig fordel og behandles ikke anderledes end andre virksomheder.
Public utility companies constitute a category of companies which can benefit from the measure.
PCT befinder sig ifølge Kommissionen ikke i en anden situation end andre virksomheder, som ville begrunde en differentieret behandling.
Consequently, such a measure is selective.
Det forhold, at PCT gennemfører en stor investering, er som allerede nævnt ikke et argument med hensyn til begrebet selektivitet.
Concerning the definition of investment good
Den automatiske betaling til PCT sænker desuden virksomhedens normale omkostninger og giver PCT en fordel i forhold til andre virksomheder.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of Law 3755/2009 foresees that for the purposes of the VAT code, the construction project of the concession agreement and any supply of goods, works, services and ancillary works related to the construction shall be considered as ‘single investment good’.
Selv om det var et element af selektivitet i bestemmelserne vedrørende refusion af momstilgodehavende, ville dette ifølge de græske myndigheder og PCT være begrundet i de grundlæggende eller vejledende principper, der ligger til grund for momssystemet, eftersom dette er bekræftet af både EU's domstole og de græske domstole.
This provision states in essence that for the purposes of the concession agreement, the notion of ‘investment good’ foreseen in the VAT code shall include all activities related to the object of the concession agreement, i.e. not only the ‘tangible goods’ [106] constructed but also all provision of goods, works and services that are related or ancillary to the concession agreement object.
Kommissionen bemærker, at foranstaltningerne til fordel for PCT i denne sag viser, at PCT blev begunstiget med hensyn til momsrefusion sammenlignet med andre virksomheder, der foretager investeringer og fratrækker moms, og at det ikke kan begrundes i princippet om neutralitet og slet ikke i princippet om lighed, der ligger til grund for momssystemet.
The Greek authorities and PCT argue that in light of Articles 34 and 33(4) of the VAT code relevant to the ‘investment good’, the provision under examination merely consists in a clarification of the generally applicable rules in order to avoid mistaken application of the VAT credit refund rules by the tax authorities in view of the particularities and the high amounts involved in big infrastructure projects.
Med hensyn til refusionen af momstilgodehavende, uanset om kontraktgenstanden er færdiggjort, kan en afvigelse af ubegrænset varighed — selv om det potentielt kunne accepteres, at en afvigelse kan forekomme som følge af en langvarig anlægsperiode, der må påregnes ved store projekter — ikke anses for værende i overensstemmelse med momssystemets ligheds- og neutralitetsprincipper.
According to them, in light of the specific characteristics of the concession agreement, the measure under examination has as a purpose to treat each element of the investment costs as a single business unit for the VAT purposes.
Eftersom PCT i henhold til koncessionsaftalen skal færdiggøre pier II inden den 30. april 2014 og pier III inden den 31. oktober 2015, kan denne fleksibilitet i form af en ubegrænset periode ikke forklare, hvordan PCT's retlige og faktiske situation adskiller sig fra den tilsvarende situation, der gør sig gældende for andre virksomheder, som foretager investeringer og modtager refusion af momstilgodehavende.
As all expenditure related to the investment project is integrated in the investment good from an accounting point of view at any case, this provision only clarifies what is already applicable.
I lyset af de principper, der ligger til grund for momssystemet, som bestemmer, at det skal sikres, at virksomheder ikke begunstiges af ubehørige fordele af momssystemet, kan sådan særbehandling ikke betragtes som begrundet i systemets indretning.
As PCT has undertaken considerable investments that would include separate actions and stages and types of expenditure on goods and services, if each of these costs were treated separately, PCT would be treated differently for the purposes of the VAT regime from any undertaking investing in order to engage in an economic activity.
Med hensyn til den brede definition af begrebet investeringsgode bemærker Kommissionen, at medlemsstaterne i henhold til momsdirektivet kan afgøre, om virksomheder har ret til refusion af momstilgodehavender, eller om de skal fremføre momstilgodehavender til det næste år, og at medlemsstaterne afgør, hvordan »investeringsgode« skal defineres i forbindelse med moms.
To support their argumentation, the Greek authorities and PCT refer to the INZO case-law [107], according to which the economic activities in the sense of the VAT directive ‘… may consist in several consecutive transactions and preparatory acts …’ [108] that allow the relevant VAT credit refund during the construction period.
Den græske stat kunne derfor fastsætte de gældende regler i denne henseende og angive, i hvilke tilfælde der kunne anmodes om refusion, og på hvilket grundlag.
Moreover they indicate that in the same line of reasoning the law on PPPs was amended in 2011 [109] in order to foresee that PPPs are eligible to claim the refund of VAT credit each year upon the submission of their annual VAT return, without having to carry forward the credit balance to the next accounting period.
Den brede definition af begrebet investeringsgode, der sikrede PCT en nemmere og tidligere refusion af moms, kan dog ikke anses for begrundet i momssystemets indretning, da dette ville være i strid med lighedsprincippet, som gælder for alle virksomheder, der foretager investeringer, og ikke kun for PCT.
Finally they argue that even if the investment was not considered as falling within the scope of the definition of ‘investment good’, PCT would be entitled to claim the refund: (i) upon an annual basis if it could establish that it would not be able to offset its VAT credit against output VAT over a three year period and (ii) upon the completion of three years.
Med hensyn til beregningen af renter efter fristen på 60 dage kan den ifølge Kommissionen heller ikke begrundes i det græske momssystems indretning.
The Commission notes that the provision under examination includes a specific definition of the notion of ‘investment good’ which is broader for PCT than for other companies that are in the same legal and factual situation.
Det generelle princip om momsneutralitet kan begrunde, at der pålægges renter ved forsinket momsrefusion, for at forhindre, at staten ikke overføre byrden i forbindelse med momssystemet til skatteyderen.
In practice this definition has as a consequence that PCT has the right to be refunded for VAT credit in respect of all works, services and goods related to the construction object, although according to the generally applicable rules this possibility would only exist for tangible goods and not for services, works, repair and maintenance costs.
De græske bestemmelser i denne henseende er fortolket af de græske domstole, således at ingen skatteyder kommer til at lide under statens eventuelle manglende handling.
As according to the generally applicable rules PCT would be entitled to a VAT credit refund upon an annual basis by establishing that it would not be able to offset its VAT credit against output VAT over a three-year period and upon the completion of three years, the broader definition of the single investment good for the purposes of the concession contract in practice results in granting to PCT additional cash in advance from VAT credit that would normally be refunded later [110].
Denne fortolkning er foretaget uafhængigt af de beløb, som staten skal betale tilbage til skatteyderen.
Indeed, thanks to this provision, PCT can get a tax refund not only for tangible goods but also for expenses relating to services, works, repair & maintenance, while other companies could for such expenses only offset input against output VAT or wait for 3 years to get a refund.
Den fordel, som PCT opnår i kraft af den omhandlede bestemmelse, der har til formål at lægge yderligere pres på den græske stat, hvis den ikke refunderer moms rettidigt, kan derfor ikke anses for begrundet i de høje udgifter til virksomhedens investering.
Therefore, the advantage that PCT enjoys thanks to this provision is equal to the interests accrued on VAT refunded for all expenses other than for tangible goods (relating to the investment good), from the moment the refund was put at the disposal of PCT up to the moment PCT would have been entitled to such refund, namely 3 years later or up to the moment where PCT would have been able to offset its VAT credit (concerning these expenses) against output VAT.
Ovennævnte foranstaltninger vedrørende betingelserne for momsrefusion udgør derfor ifølge Kommissionen en selektiv fordel for PCT.
The fact that the tax authorities could possibly apply differently the VAT credit refund rules in the absence of this definition, demonstrates that this definition entails a selective advantage for PCT that is not applicable to all companies.
Fremførsel af underskud uden tidsbegrænsning — indkomstskat (artikel 2, stk. 5, i lov 3755/2009)
Moreover the fact that the law on PPPs that is mainly applicable for infrastructure projects, was amended in order to foresee the right of PPPs to claim the refund and avoid VAT credit carrying forward to the next year, also proves that according to the generally applicable rules every expenditure related to an infrastructure project will not be treated as a ‘single investment good’ for the purposes of the application of VAT credit refund rules.
Ved beregning af indkomstskat kan underskud af et års virksomheds- og erhvervsaktiviteter i henhold til de generelle bestemmelser [115] fremføres i en periode på højst fem år.
The letter of the Ministry of Mercantile Marine to the Ministry of Economic Affairs [111] requesting specific VAT credit refund arrangements [112] for PCT and the successful bidder of the Port of Thessaloniki at the time, demonstrates that the generally applicable rules related to refund would not be the same.
Den græske indkomstskattelov omfatter ingen undtagelser til denne regel.
Finally the fact that after the 2013 Ministerial Decision there is no differentiation in the refund rules irrespective of the definition of investment good, also demonstrates that this definition constituted a selective advantage in favour of PCT at the time it was granted.
I henhold til artikel 2, stk. 5, i lov 3755/2009 kan PCT fremføre sine underskud uden tidsbegrænsning.
Moreover the Commission notes that the INZO case-law mentioned refers to the right to deduct VAT for transactions subject to VAT that are related to the economic activity of the taxable person and not to the right for a refund.
Denne foranstaltning giver PCT en klar selektiv fordel, da den er en afgivelse fra den generelt gældende regel, for hvilken der ikke er fastsat undtagelser i den græske indkomstskattelov.
Concerning the computation of interests from the first day after the expiry of the 60-day deadline
Som følge af denne bestemmelse kan PCT fremføre sine underskud til ethvert tidspunkt, der er mere hensigtsmæssigt for den, primært når balancen mellem virksomhedens investeringsomkostninger og skattepligtige indtægt ændres, dvs. når den opnår store overskud, med henblik på at undgå at betale skat, som den ellers skulle betale, hvis den ikke var begunstiget af denne undtagelse.
The provision under examination grants also PCT the right to interests from VAT credit against the state arising automatically once the 60-day deadline expires, without having to follow the procedural or temporal requirements set out by the general applicable framework related to the VAT credit refund, i.e. at an earlier stage than for other companies and without having to go through the administrative courts' procedure.
Denne bestemmelse giver derfor PCT en fordel, der svarer til forskellen mellem den indkomstskat, den faktisk betaler, og den selskabsskat, den skulle have betalt, hvis den ikke havde haft mulighed for at fremføre underskud i mere end fem år efter deres bogføring.
Therefore it entails an additional selective advantage for PCT.
De græske myndigheder og PCT anfører endvidere, at retten til at fremføre underskud i koncessionsperioden i dette tilfælde er en hensigtsmæssig anvendelse af princippet om matchning af indtægter og udgifter.
This advantage consists in the interests which PCT can request (under this provision) from the Greek state once 60 days have passed from the moment it filed the relevant fiscal declaration (to request the VAT refund), while other companies in a similar situation would not be entitled to interests at the same point in time.
I henhold til de græske myndigheder og PCT er det et af de grundlæggende principper i den græske indkomstskattelov, der som sådan anvendes i den generelle ordning, der omfatter artikel 2, stk. 5, der efter deres opfattelse skal anvendes som referencesystem.
The Greek authorities retain their argumentation that is supported by PCT by referring to the EU case-law on VAT [113] which states that the refund of VAT credit balance constitutes the refund of resources of the taxable person and not state resources.
De anfører endvidere, at der i langvarige koncessioner om opførelse og drift af offentlig infrastruktur er markant skævhed mellem den indledende anlægsperiode og de efterfølgende faser med drift af infrastrukturen, hvor infrastrukturen forventes at give overskud og således dække de indledende underskud.
They argue further that the 60-day time limit derives to the principle of neutrality and equality deriving from the EU VAT case-law [114].
Da de krævede startinvesteringer fører til betydelige underskud over mere end fem år, og de kun kan modregnes i den senere del af koncessionsperioden, ville begrænsningen på fem år fratage koncessionshaveren fordelen ved bestemmelsen om fremskrivning af skattemæssige underskud.
Where the state delays in refunding VAT credit balance beyond what it has established as a ‘reasonable period of time’, it should be required to pay arrears interest by way of compensating the taxpayer claiming such refund.
I den henseende befinder virksomheder, der er ansvarlige for store infrastrukturprojekter sig i en anden situation end almindelige virksomheder.
Thus the payment of this type of arrears interest on VAT credit balance does not constitute state resources.
Ifølge Kommissionen kan denne fravigelse af den generelle regel ikke betragtes som begrundet i indretningen af det græske skattesystem.
The Commission considers that the computation of interests in respect of the delay in the payment of the VAT refund implies state resources, as regards the additional interests the state will have to pay to PCT due to this provision.
Da femårsreglen for fremskrivning af skattemæssige underskud er generel og uden differentieringer, kan fremskrivning af underskud uden tidsbegrænsning ikke anses for begrundet i forbindelse med offentlige infrastrukturprojekter.
In practice due to this provision the state will pay interests automatically from the next day after the 60-day period and not from the date PCT would file an appeal in this respect, as it would be the case according to the applicable rules.
Den begrænsning på 10 år, der nu finder anvendelse for offentlig-private partnerskaber, styrker konklusionen om, at den ubegrænsede periode, der er fastsat særligt for PCT, udgør en klar selektiv fordel for virksomheden.
As only PCT gets this right automatically although this is possible in general only after the filing of an appeal, the provision entails a selective advantage for PCT.
Kommissionen finder, at alle virksomheder, som gennemfører investeringer, der kan tage flere år, befinder sig i samme retlige og faktiske situation som PCT og de øvrige koncessionshavere i Grækenland, jf. formålene med den græske indkomstskattelov.
The Greek authorities and PCT argue that this provision merely ensures that the state does not obtain a financial benefit at the expense of PCT.
Da det græske skattesystem ikke tillader differentiering afhængigt af varigheden af virksomheders investeringer, men fastsætter denne generelle femårsregel for alle, kan PCT ikke anses for at befinde sig i en anden situation end andre virksomheder, for så vidt angår denne regel.
In the case of concession agreements of this type a big delay in VAT credit refund would be a considerable expense and thus a serious structural disadvantage for PCT.
Som nævnt i betragtning 107 er en foranstaltning, der gælder for alle virksomheder, som er ansvarlige for store infrastrukturprojekter, selektiv, fordi den kun gælder for en bestemt kategori af virksomheder.
Moreover the possible payment of smaller amounts of arrear interests to other undertakings does not reduce the cost that PCT should normally bear in its business activity.
De græske myndigheder og PCT anfører følgende: a) »formålet« med denne foranstaltning bør være det formål, der forfølges med undtagelsesbestemmelsen, b) denne bestemmelse har til formål at anvende skattesystemets generelle princip om matchning af indtægter og udgifter under de særlige omstændigheder i forbindelse med koncessionerne, c) anvendelsen af dette princip på disse projekter fjerner ikke koncessionshaverens risici, men har til formål at sikre ligebehandling og afhjælpe den »strukturelle ulempe« ved disse projekter, d) denne bestemmelse er blevet anvendt ensartet på alle store offentlige infrastrukturprojekter i Grækenland, e) muligheden for at fremføre underskud i hele koncessionsperioden er en hensigtsmæssig mekanisme henset til de særlige karakteristika ved sådanne koncessioner og den objektive forskel mellem koncessionshaveren og de andre erhvervsvirksomheder.
Thus PCT does not have any competitive advantage and is not treated differently than other companies.
Kommissionen bemærker, at formålet med skattesystemet skal fastlægges på referencesystemniveau og ikke som en undtagelsesforanstaltning [116].
The Commission does not consider that PCT is in a different situation than other companies which would justify a different treatment.
Hvis selve foranstaltningen udgjorde referencesystemet, ville ingen skatteforanstaltninger kunne klassificeres som statsstøtte, uanset hvor undtagelsesvis den måtte være.
As already mentioned the fact that PCT realises a large investment does not constitute an argument regarding the notion of selectivity.
Formålet med virksomhedsbeskatningssystemet er at generere indtægter til statsbudgettet, og det ville være i fare, hvis bestemte virksomheder fik mulighed for at reducere deres skattegrundlag, når det passer ind i deres finansielle interesser.
Moreover, the automatic payment of interest to PCT reduces the normal costs of the company and gives PCT an advantage compared to other companies.
De store investeringsbeløb, der er forbundet med store infrastrukturprojekter, betyder desuden ikke, at de virksomheder, der gennemfører dem, er udsat for en strukturel ulempe, der skal korrigeres gennem indkomstskattesystemet.
The Greek authorities and PCT argue that even if there was an element of selectivity in the provisions relevant to VAT credit refund, this would be justified by the basic or guiding principles which are inherent in the VAT system, as this has been confirmed by the EU and Greek courts.
Alle virksomheder, der foretager investeringer, har underskud i de første år af opførelsen af investeringen, og de opnår ikke altid indtægter i den periode på fem år, der er fastsat i den græske indkomstskattelov.
The Commission notes that in this case the measures in favour of PCT indicate that PCT was granted a favourable treatment as regards VAT refund as compared to other companies that conduct investments and deduct VAT and this cannot be considered as justified by the principle of neutrality or even more of equality of the VAT tax system.
En sådan begrundelse kan under ingen omstændigheder baseres i de principper, der ligger til grund for det græske indkomstskattesystem.
In particular as regards the VAT credit refund irrespective of the stage of completion of the contract object, even if it could potentially be accepted that a deviation would be possible due to a longer construction period, that can be anticipated in bigger projects, an indefinite duration of this deviation cannot be considered as respecting the principle of equality or of neutrality of the VAT system.
Det forhold, at en lignende bestemmelse er blevet anvendt for visse store infrastrukturprojekter i Grækenland, betyder ikke, at foranstaltningen kan være begrundet i PCT's tilfælde.
In particular, as PCT under the terms of the concession contract was under the obligation to complete Pier II until 30 April 2014 and Pier III until 31 October 2015 at the latest, the said flexibility for an unlimited period of time cannot explain in which terms the comparable and legal factual situation of PCT is different from that of other undertakings that make investments and get a VAT credit refund.
Endelig kan de påståede særlige karakteristika ved store koncessioner ikke accepteres som et gyldigt formål med de generelt gældende bestemmelser vedrørende fremskrivning af skattemæssige underskud som forklaret i betragtning 98-100 ovenfor.
In light of the principles of the VAT system, according to which it has to be ensured that companies do not benefit from an undue advantage from the VAT system in place, such specific treatment cannot be considered as justified by the logic of the system.