natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retten understregede videre, at der i brevet af 15. oktober 2009 ikke henvises udtrykkeligt til behovet for at undgå dobbeltbeskatning.
Therefore, it was concluded that the ATT exemption for transit and transfer passengers, which resulted in passengers being taxed in the same way independently of the route travelled, fell within the nature and logic of the relevant tax system.
Retten bemærkede desuden, at Irland havde tilbudt at overveje at tilpasse loven om transfer- og transitpassagerer, herunder at fjerne kravet om en samlet booking i definitionen af en transferpassager, og at Kommissionen ikke havde taget stilling til dette.
The Commission inferred from those elements that the exclusion of transfer and transit passengers from the ATT was in the nature and logic of the identified tax system.
På grundlag af disse uoverensstemmelser konkluderedes det, at Kommissionen, da den vedtog afgørelsen fra 2011, ikke havde de nødvendige oplysninger til at kunne gennemføre en tilstrækkelig udførlig analyse af foranstaltningens selektivitet og til at konkludere, at reglerne for anvendelsen af undtagelsen ikke gav anledning til tvivl.
Judgment of the General Court in Case T-512/11
Retten konkluderede, at Kommissionen uden en analyse af den omtvistede foranstaltnings mulige forenelighed med det indre marked burde have indledt den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure for at indsamle relevante oplysninger med henblik på at bekræfte, at den omtvistede foranstaltning ikke var selektiv, og eventuelt konkludere, at foranstaltningen ikke udgjorde statsstøtte, og for at give sagsøgeren og de andre berørte parter mulighed for at fremsætte deres bemærkninger i forbindelse med denne procedure.
As indicated in recital 10, by its the judgment in Case T-512/11 the General Court annulled the 2011 Decision in so far as the 2011 Decision found that the non-application of the ATT to transfer and transit passengers did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
BEGRUNDELSE FOR AT INDLEDE DEN FORMELLE UNDERSØGELSESPROCEDURE
The General Court found that a preliminary investigation of around two years considerably exceeded the period normally required for a preliminary investigation carried out pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU.
Efter dommen i sag T-512/11 indledte Kommissionen den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure for at indsamle oplysninger med henblik på at bekræfte, at udeladelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerer fra flybilletafgiften ikke var selektiv, og for at give sagsøgeren og de andre berørte parter mulighed for at fremsætte deres bemærkninger i forbindelse med denne procedure.
It also considered that the Commission's examination was incomplete and insufficient.
I åbningsafgørelsen bemærkede Kommissionen, at udeladelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerers afrejser fra flybilletafgiften påførte staten et tab i afgiftsindtægter og blev dermed finansieret via statsmidler og tilsyneladende begunstigede de luftfartsselskaber, der nød godt af foranstaltningen.
In particular, the General Court found that there were inconsistencies between the content of the letter from Ireland dated 15 October 2009, referred to in recital 4, and the 2011 Decision.
Kommissionen kunne endvidere ikke ved indledningen af den formelle undersøgelse udelukke, at udeladelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerer fra flybilletafgiften var selektiv.
In that respect, the General Court considered that the Commission endorsed Ireland's view that the part of the journey exempted from payment of the ATT was the first leg, even though the examples reproduced in the table set out in recital 9 of the 2011 Decision were not capable of supporting such conclusion.
Kommissionen konkluderede derfor foreløbigt, at foranstaltningen, eftersom alle kriterierne i artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF på forhånd kunne opfyldes, kunne udgøre statsstøtte til luftfartsselskaber, der har betjent ruter, som blev begunstiget af udeladelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerer fra flybilletafgiften.
According to the General Court, whilst this might be the case as regards the example relating to passengers going from Dublin to New York and making a stopover in Shannon, who were subject to payment of the ATT, by contrast, it was not clear, and the Commission did not explain, why passengers taking the opposite route, that is from New York to Dublin with the same stopover, were not subject to payment of the ATT for the departure from the stopover airport of Shannon.
Kommissionen opfordrede derfor Irland til igen at angive dets begrundelse for at vedtage flybilletafgiften og til at forklare, hvorfor flybilletafgiften ikke fandt anvendelse på transfer- og transitpassagerer.
In addition, by referring to the fact that, according to the Irish authorities, reasons of neutrality also prompt the exemptions for the same categories of passengers granted by other systems of air travel taxation existing in other Member States, whereas explicit reference was made to the United Kingdom, the General Court found that the Air Passenger Duty in force in the United Kingdom could not constitute a relevant reference model in the present case because it provides that it is always the first leg of the journey that is subject to payment of the tax, which did not correspond to the view supported by the Irish authorities in their letter dated 15 October 2009 and confirmed by the Commission in the 2011 Decision.
Kommissionen opfordrede også Irland til at give en detaljeret redegørelse for, hvordan section 55 i Finance Act bør fortolkes.
The General Court also stressed that the letter dated 15 October 2009 did not refer explicitly to the need to avoid double taxation.
Kommissionen anmodede Irland om at give klare eksempler på, hvordan flybilletafgiften fandt anvendelse i alle relevante kategorier af ruter, præcisere, om den anden del af en rejse specifikt er udeladt fra flybilletafgiften, eller om alle transfer- og transitpassagerer mere generelt er udeladt, og til at give alle andre oplysninger, som efter Irlands opfattelse var nyttige i denne henseende.
Additionally, the General Court noted that Ireland had offered to consider adjusting the law on transfer and transit passengers, by removing the requirement for a single booking as part of the definition of a transfer passenger and that the Commission did not take a position on that statement.
Kommissionen opfordrede også Irland til at give disse eksempler for perioder før og efter ændringen af flybilletafgiftssatserne, der blev indført i 2011.
Those inconsistencies gave grounds for concluding that, when the Commission adopted the 2011 Decision, it did not have the information with which to carry out a sufficiently complete analysis of the selectivity of the measure and to conclude that the rules for the application of the exemption did not raise doubts.
Ud fra den indledende antagelse, at referencesystemet er en afgift, der pålægges for hver passagers afrejse med et fly fra en lufthavn i Irland, udtrykte Kommissionen tvivl om, hvorvidt udeladelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerer fra flybilletafgiften afveg fra referenceafgiftssystemet ved at skelne mellem økonomiske aktører, som i lyset af det iboende formål med den berørte medlemsstats afgiftssystem befandt sig i en sammenlignelig faktisk og retlig situation, og følgelig begunstigede bestemte luftfartsselskaber.
The General Court concluded that, in the absence of any analysis of the possible compatibility of the disputed measure with the internal market, the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure, in order to gather any relevant information for verifying that the disputed measure was not selective and to possibly conclude that that measure did not constitute State aid, and to allow the applicant and the other parties concerned to present their observations in connection with that procedure.
Kommissionen fandt imidlertid også, at flybilletafgiftens betegnelse og faktisk dens ordlyd kan antyde, at dens ledende princip er at beskatte flyrejser fra en lufthavn i Irland snarere end hver afgang fra en lufthavn i Irland.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL PROCEDURE
Efter denne antagelse følger udeladelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerer fra flybilletafgiften ifølge Kommissionen direkte af dette princip, eftersom en flyrejse kan omfatte mere end én afrejse fra en lufthavn i Irland.
Following the judgment in Case T-512/11, the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure in order to gather information to verify that the non-application of the ATT to transfer and transit passengers was not selective and to allow the applicant and the other parties concerned to present their observations in connection with that procedure.
IRLANDS BEMÆRKNINGER TIL ÅBNINGSAFGØRELSEN
In the Opening Decision, the Commission noted that the non-application of the ATT to departures of transfer and transit passengers resulted in a loss of tax revenue for the State and was therefore financed from State resources and appeared to confer an advantage on the airlines benefitting from it.
I sine bemærkninger af 22. december 2015 til åbningsafgørelsen afviste Irland enhver påstand om, at fritagelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerer udgør statsstøtte.
Furthermore, the Commission could not at the stage of initiating the formal investigation exclude that the non-application of the ATT to transfer and transit passengers was selective.
Om fortolkningen og anvendelsen af section 55 i Finance Act
The Commission thus preliminarily concluded that since all the criteria in Article 107(1) TFEU a priori could be fulfilled, the measure might constitute State aid to airline operators that have operated the routes benefitting from the exemption from the ATT for transfer and transit passengers.
Irland anførte, at forpligtelsen til at betale flybilletafgiften var fastsat i Finance Act, som skal fortolkes strengt.
The Commission therefore invited Ireland to set out again its reasons for the adoption of the ATT and to explain why the ATT did not apply to transfer and transit passengers.
Med henvisning til den irske højesterets praksis understregede Irland, at en skatteyder efter irsk ret kun er forpligtet til at betale en afgift eller kan stilles ugunstigt, hvis dette udtrykkeligt er fastsat ved lov, og citerede fra dommen Texaco (Ireland) Ltd mod Murphy (Inspector of Taxes): »Det er fast retspraksis, at en borger ikke kan pålægges en afgift, medmindre denne forpligtelse klart fremgår af lovens tekst«.
The Commission also invited Ireland to set out in detail how Section 55 of the Finance Act should be interpreted.
På dette grundlag var det ifølge Irland nødvendigt at undersøge ordlyden af Finance Act for at afgøre, om en rejse er omfattet af flybilletafgiften.
The Commission requested that Ireland provide clear examples of how the ATT applies to all relevant categories of routes, clarify whether ATT specifically exempts the second leg of a journey or, more generally, exempts all transfer and transit passengers, and to provide all other information which Ireland considered useful in that respect.
Enhver tvivl om anvendelsen af Finance Act ville komme skatteyderen til gode.
The Commission also invited Ireland to provide those examples in relation to the periods before and after the amendment modifying the ATT rates, introduced in 2011.
I henhold til section 55(2)(c) i Finance Act skal flybilletafgiften »betales for enhver passagers afrejse med et fly fra en lufthavn«.
Under the preliminary assumption that the reference system is a tax which is charged in respect of every departure of a passenger on an aircraft from an airport in Ireland, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the non-application of the ATT to transfer and transit passengers derogated from the reference system of taxation by differentiating between economic operators which, in light of the objective assigned to the tax system of the Member State concerned, were in comparable factual and legal situations, and consequently conferred an advantage on certain airlines.
Irland bemærkede i denne forbindelse, at:
The Commission also found, however, that the name, and indeed the wording, of the ATT may suggest that its guiding principle is to tax air journeys from an airport in Ireland, rather than each departure from an airport in Ireland.
definitionen af »passager« udelukker (på visse betingelser) personer, som er handicappede, er under to år gamle eller er transfer- eller transitpassagerer
According to the Commission, under that assumption, the non-application of the ATT to transfer and transit passengers seems to directly follow from that principle, since an air journey may involve more than one departure from an airport in Ireland.
definitionen af »lufthavn« udelukker også visse rejser, da der ikke skal betales afgift for en afrejse fra en lufthavn uden for Irland og fra visse lufthavne med få passagerer
COMMENTS FROM IRELAND ON THE OPENING DECISION
definitionen af »fly« udelukker fly, som højst kan befordre 20 passagerer, og udelukker også fly, der bruges til statslige eller militære formål.
In its comments dated 22 December 2015 on the Opening Decision, Ireland rejected any suggestion that the exemption of transfer and transit passengers constitutes State aid.
I lyset af betragtning 50 fandt Irland, at der ikke skulle betales flybilletafgift for transfer- og transitpassagerer, uanset hvilken del af rejsen der er tale om.
On the interpretation and application of Section 55 of the Finance Act
Irland bekræftede, at den anden del af en rejse ikke automatisk er fritaget for afgiften.
Ireland stated that the liability to pay the ATT was defined in the Finance Act, which must be interpreted strictly.
Ifølge Irland var den andel del af en rejse muligvis omfattet af afgiften, såfremt section 55 i Finance Act fandt anvendelse i den pågældende situation, herunder såfremt passageren var en transit- eller transferpassager (det samme gjaldt for den første del af en rejse).
Relying on jurisprudence of the Irish Supreme Court, Ireland stressed that under Irish law, a taxpayer could only be liable to pay a tax or suffer a disadvantage if this is explicit in law and quoted from the judgment Texaco (Ireland) Ltd v Murphy (Inspector of Taxes): ‘It is an established rule of law that a citizen is not to be taxed unless the language of the statute clearly imposes the obligation’.
Definitionen af »lufthavn« kan også udelukke visse rejser, da der ikke skulle betales flybilletafgift for en afrejse fra en lufthavn uden for Irland.
On that basis, Ireland stated that in order to determine whether a journey was subject to the ATT, it was necessary to look at the wording of the Finance Act.
Irland påpegede også, at udeladelserne af transfer- og transitpassagerer er almindelige i de flybilletafgiftssystemer, der er gennemført i andre lande, f.eks. Det Forenede Kongerige, Frankrig og Tyskland.
Any doubt over the application of the Finance Act would benefit the taxpayer.
Irland hævdede, at reglerne for hver afgift skal fortolkes i sammenhæng med den relevante nationale lov.
Pursuant to Section 55(2)(c) of the Finance Act, the ATT becomes ‘due when a passenger departs from an airport on an aircraft’.
Om fortolkningen af fritagelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerer
In this respect, Ireland noted that:
Med hensyn til det eksempel, der nævnes i præmis 88 i Rettens dom i sag T-512/11, som omhandler en rejse fra New York til Dublin med en mellemlanding i Shannon, forklarede Irland, at der ikke skal betales flyafgift for nogen af delene af denne rejse i medfør af ordlyden af Finance Act, herunder:
the definition of ‘passenger’ excludes (subject to certain conditions) persons who are disabled, or under the age of two, or transfer or transit passengers.
den første del (New York til Shannon) er fritaget, fordi afgiften kun pålægges afgange fra irske lufthavne
the definition of ‘airport’ also excludes some journeys, as no tax is due in respect of a departure from an airport outside Ireland and from certain airports with small passenger numbers.
den anden del (Shannon til Dublin) er fritaget, fordi passagerer i Shannon lufthavn anses for transit- eller transferpassagerer i henhold til section 55(1) i Finance Act.
the definition of ‘aircraft’ excludes aircraft which cannot carry more than 20 passengers, and also excludes aircraft used for State or military purposes.
Irland konkluderede, at den samlede rejse fra New York til Dublin med en mellemlanding i Shannon ville være fritaget for flybilletafgift i medfør af ordlyden af Finance Act.
In light of recital 50, Ireland considered that no ATT was due in respect of transfer and transit passengers, regardless of the leg of the journey concerned.
Med redegørelsen i brev af 15. oktober 2009 havde Irland til hensigt at præcisere loven, men redegørelsen er ikke bindende.
Ireland confirmed that the second leg of a journey was not automatically exempt from the tax.
Om begrundelsen for udeladelsen af transit- og transferpassagerer og det referencesystem, der skal bruges til vurderingen heraf
According to Ireland, the second leg of a journey might have been or might not have been taxed, depending on the application of Section 55 of the Finance Act to the facts, including whether the passenger was a transfer or transit passenger (the same applied to the first leg of a journey).
Med hensyn til begrundelsen for at fritage transfer- og transitpassagerer forklarede Irland, at det ikke var hensigtsmæssigt at pålægge individuelle flyvninger særskilt afgift, hvis de i virkeligheden var en del af en samlet rejse.
The definition of ‘airport’ might also exclude some journeys, as no ATT was due in respect of a departure from an airport outside Ireland.
Irland henviste i denne forbindelse til:
Ireland also pointed out that the transfer and transit passenger exclusions are normal in air travel taxes implemented by other countries, for example the United Kingdom, France and Germany.
ordlyden af definitionen af »transfer-« eller »transitpassager« for så vidt angår flybilletafgiften i section 55(1) i Finance Act (jf. betragtning 18)
Ireland contended that the rules for each tax must be read in the context of the relevant national law.
teksten i Irlands brev til Kommissionen af 15. oktober 2009, hvori Irland forklarede, at flybilletafgiften havde til formål at pålægge afgift på en samlet rejse, selv om rejsen var opdelt i forskellige dele.
On the interpretation of the exemption of transfer and transit passengers
I section 55(2) i Finance Act henvises der til »afrejse«, som den hændelse, der udløser flybilletafgiften.
With respect to the example brought forward by the General Court in paragraph 88 of the judgment in Case T-512/11, involving a journey from New York to Dublin with a stopover in Shannon, Ireland explained that no ATT is due with respect to any of the legs constituting that journey because of the wording of the Finance Act, in particular:
De definitioner og bestemmelser i Finance Act, der er omhandlet i betragtning 18 og 19, viser imidlertid, at den tjeneste, der blev beskattet, var rejsen, og at det reelle formål var at beskatte rejser, ikke afrejser.
the first leg (New York to Shannon) is exempt because the tax is only levied on departures from Irish airports.
Om sondringen mellem punkt til punkt-luftfartsselskaber og andre
the second leg (Shannon to Dublin) is exempt because at Shannon airport, the passenger qualifies as a transit or transfer passenger as defined in Section 55(1) of the Finance Act.
Irland anførte, at vurderingen af, om luftfartsselskaber, der kun leverer punkt til punkt-tjenester, og luftfartsselskaber, der leverer tilslutningsforbindelser, befinder sig i en sammenlignelig faktisk og retlig situation i lyset af det iboende formål med afgiftssystemet i den pågældende medlemsstat, kun kan være en sekundær årsag til at afvise klagen.
Ireland concluded that the overall journey from New York to Dublin with a stopover in Shannon would be exempted from ATT because of the wording of the Finance Act.
Irlands primære argument er, at flybilletafgiften havde til formål at beskatte rejser, ikke individuelle afgange.
According to Ireland, the explanations in its letter dated 15 October 2009 were intended to clarify the law but they are not binding.
Som følge deraf afspejler udeladelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerer alene det forhold, at en samlet rejse kan bestå af flere dele.
On the rationale for the exemption for transit and transfer passengers and the reference system to use to assess it
Irland påpegede også, at flybilletafgiften ikke var udformet med henblik på at begunstige en bestemt forretningsmodel.
As regards the reasons for exempting transfer and transit passengers, Ireland explained that it was not appropriate to tax individual flights separately if in reality they were part of a single journey.
Om afgiftens karakter og generelle opbygning
In that respect, Ireland referred to:
Hvis udeladelsen af transfer- og transitpassagerer begunstigede bestemte luftfartsselskaber, kunne dette endelig efter Irlands opfattelse være en direkte følge af det irske afgiftssystems grundlæggende og ledende principper som f.eks. undgåelse af dobbeltbeskatning eller afgiftsneutralitet.
the text of the definition of ‘transfer’ or ‘transit passenger’ for the purposes of the ATT, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Finance Act (the provision is cited in recital 18);
Med henvisning til dets brev af 15. oktober 2009 forklarede Irland, at formålet med udeladelsen var at undgå en for vidtgående anvendelse af flybilletafgiften.
the text of Ireland's letter to the Commission, dated 15 October 2009, by which Ireland explained that the ATT was intended to tax a single journey, even if the journey was divided into different segments.
Formålet var navnlig at undgå forskelsbehandling af passagerer, hvis rejse omfattede en mellemlanding.
In particular, Ireland referred to the hypothetical scenario, provided in its letter dated 15 October 2009 to the Commission, of a flight from the United States which had a stopover in Shannon and then went on to Dublin.
Irland gjorde også nødvendigheden af at undgå dobbeltbeskatning gældende.
According to Ireland, this underlined that the journey from Dublin to the United States was seen as a single journey and should thus only be subject to the ATT once, even if it involved several departures.
Selv om dette princip muligvis ikke er nævnt i Irlands brev af 15. oktober 2009, nævnte Irland principperne om billighed og ligebehandling, som får stater til at afstå fra dobbeltbeskatning, i dette brev.
Ireland declared that this was the reason why Section 55(1) of the Finance Act explicitly excludes ‘transfer’ and ‘transit’ passengers, as defined in that section, from the scope of the ATT.
Irland påberåbte sig ligeledes princippet om afgiftsneutralitet.
Considering the reference system envisaged by the Commission in the Opening Decision either as (i) a tax charged on every departure, or else (ii) a tax charged on every journey, which might involve several segments, Ireland suggested that the aim of the ATT was to tax each journey only once.
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA INTERESSEREDE PARTER
According to Ireland, it would be more accurate to see the ATT as a tax on journeys rather than a tax on departures.
Bemærkninger fra Ryanair
Section 55(2) of the Finance Act refers to ‘departure’ as the trigger for the ATT.
Foranstaltningen er efter Ryanairs opfattelse selektiv og udgør derfor statsstøtte i henhold til artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF, uden at være omfattet af undtagelserne omhandlet i artikel 107, stk. 2 og 3, i TEUF.
The definitions and sections of the Finance Act described in recitals 18 and 19 demonstrate, however, that the service which was taxed was the journey and that the real objective was to tax journeys, not departures.
Luftfartsselskabet påpegede, at dets bemærkninger bør fortolkes på baggrund af:
On the distinction between point to point airlines and others
dets klage til Kommissionen af 21. juli 2009 over indrømmelsen af ulovlig støtte gennem flybilletafgiften
Ireland held that assessing whether the airline operators providing only point-to-point services and those providing connecting flights are in a comparable factual and legal situation in light of the objective assigned to the tax system of the Member State concerned can be only a secondary reason for rejecting the complaint.