natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For at udgøre statsstøtte efter EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, skal støtteforanstaltningen desuden være selektiv ved fremme af »visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner.«
Further, to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid measure must be selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.
I beslutning nr. 225/06/COL fandt Tilsynsmyndigheden, at momskompensationen udgjorde en materielt selektiv foranstaltning.
In Decision No 225/06/COL, the Authority considered that the VAT Compensation Act constituted a materially selective measure.
Momskompensationslovens anvendelsesområde er defineret positivt, idet kun momspligtige, der falder ind under momskompensationslovens § 2, kan opnå kompensation for indgående moms.
The scope of the VAT Compensation Act is positively defined in that only taxable persons falling within Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act can be compensated for input tax on purchases.
Den fordel, virksomhederne i medfør af momskompensationsloven opnår ved at få refunderet deres indgående moms, indebærer en dispensation fra den forpligtelse, der følger af det generelle momssystem, der gælder for alle, der køber varer og tjenester.
The advantage granted under the VAT Compensation Act for undertakings refunded for their input tax implies a relief from the obligation that follows from the general VAT system applicable to all buyers of goods and services.
Af retspraksis fremgår, at en konkret skatteforanstaltning ikke desto mindre vil kunne retfærdiggøres af skattesystemets iboende karakter, hvis det stemmer overens med det [26].
The Court’s jurisprudence has established that a specific tax measure can nevertheless be justified by the internal logic of the tax system if it is consistent with it [26].
Enhver foranstaltning, der helt eller delvis tager sigte på at fritage virksomheder i en bestemt sektor fra de udgifter, der følger af en normal anvendelse af det almindelige system, udgør statsstøtte, hvis denne fritagelse ikke er begrundet i det almindelige systems karakter og forvaltning [27].Tilsynsmyndigheden vil tage stilling til, om den refusion af indgående moms, der er hjemlet i momskompensationslovens § 3, falder inden for rammerne af momssystemets logik.
Any measure intended partially or wholly to exempt firms in a particular sector from the charges arising from the normal application of the general system constitutes State aid if there is no justification for this exemption on the basis of the nature and logic of the general system [27].The Authority will assess whether the input tax refund provided for in Article 3 of the VAT Compensation Act falls within the logic of the VAT system.
Det indebærer, at Tilsynsmyndigheden må se på, om refusionen af den indgående moms opfylder de mål, der indgår som en iboende del af selve momssystemet, eller om den tager sigte på andre mål, der ikke indgår i momssystemet.
For this assessment, the Authority must consider whether the input tax refund meets the objectives inherent in the VAT system itself, or whether it pursues other objectives not enshrined in the VAT system.
Momssystemets primære formål er at beskatte visse former for omsætning af varer og tjenester.
The primary objective of the VAT system is to tax certain supplies of goods or services.
Momsen er en indirekte afgift af forbruget af varer og tjenester.
The VAT is an indirect tax on the consumption of goods and services.
Den beregnes normalt i alle omsætningsled og også af import af varer og tjenester fra udlandet.
As a rule, VAT is calculated at all stages of the supply chain and on the import of goods and services from abroad.
Momsen betales af den endelige forbruger som en del af købsprisen, og han har ingen fradragsret.
The ultimate consumer pays VAT as part of the purchase price, without the right to deduct the tax.
Selv om alle former for omsætning af varer og tjenester i princippet er belagt med moms, er der nogle, der kan være fritaget (hvilket betyder, at den indgående moms ikke godtgøres), og der er således tale om en momsfritaget omsætning.
Although, in principle, all sales of goods and services are liable to VAT, some transactions may be exempt (and as a consequence without a credit for input tax) which means that such supplies are not taxable.
Efter den norske momslovs Kap. I, §§ 5, 5a og 5b i gælder der momsfritagelse for omsætning og udlejning af fast ejendom, omsætning af helse- og helserelaterede tjenester, sociale tjenester, undervisningstjenester, finansielle tjenester osv. Udbyderne af disse varer og tjenester behandles momsmæssigt som endelige forbrugere, eftersom de betaler den indgående moms uden at være i stand til at beregne udgående moms.
Articles 5, 5a and 5b in Chapter I of the Norwegian VAT Act exempt transactions such as supply and letting of real estate, supply of health and health-related services, social services, educational services, financial services, etc. The providers of these goods and services are treated as final consumers for VAT purposes since they have to pay input tax without being able to request output tax.
Den logiske konsekvens er således, at momsfritagne udbydere af varer og tjenester og endelige forbruger betaler indgående moms uden at have nogen fradragsret.
The consequence of the logic of the system is that exempted supplies of goods and services and final consumers pay input tax without having the possibility to deduct it.
Denne logiske konsekvens af momssystemet har imidlertid skabt en fordrejning på et andet plan, som de norske myndigheder har søgt at eliminere ved at indføre momskompensationsloven.
This logical consequence of the VAT system had created, however, a distortion at another level, which the Norwegian authorities have tried to offset with the introduction of the VAT Compensation Act.
Formålet med momskompensationsloven er således at udligne en logisk konsekvens af momssystemet i forbindelse med fritagelse af omsætning af visse varer og tjenester.
Thus, it follows that the logic of the VAT Compensation Act is to counterbalance the natural logical consequence of the VAT system when exempting certain supplies.
Momskompensationsloven har altså ikke som momsloven det logiske formål at beskatte endelige forbrugere, men derimod at lempe beskatningen af en bestemt gruppe endelige forbrugere for at undgå konkurrencefordrejninger ved deres valg mellem intern produktion og outsourcing af momsbelagte leverancer.
Hence, the logic of the VAT Compensation Act is not to tax end users, as it is in the general VAT system, but to alleviate a certain group of final consumers to avoid distortion of competition between ‘in-house’ and outsourcing for transactions subject to VAT.
De norske myndigheder har forklaret, at i henhold til momskompensationslovens § 1 var formålet med kompensationen for den indgående moms at skabe neutralitet i valget mellem egenproduktion og outsourcing af momsbelagte varer og tjenester.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that, according to Article 1 of the VAT Compensation Act, the objective of the input tax compensation was to create a level playing field between self-supply and outsourcing of goods and services subject to VAT.
Tilsynsmyndigheden finder, at når der kompenseres for indgående moms af andre grunde end dem, momssystemet er baseret på, er det ikke begrundet i målet om at beskatte en given aktivitet, som primært er det, der ligger til grund for momssystemet.
The Authority considers that to compensate for paid input tax for other reasons than the ones set in the VAT system, is not justified by the objective of taxation of a given activity, which primarily inspires the VAT system.
De norske myndigheders mål om at skabe et lige valg mellem det offentliges egenproduktion og outsourcing af momsbelagte varer og tjenester kan i sig selv være prisværdigt, men kan næppe anses for at falde inden for rammerne af selve momssystemets karakter og forvaltning.
The objective pursued by the Norwegian authorities in creating a level playing field between self supply and outsourcing by public entities of goods and services subject to VAT should be seen as commendable as such but can hardly be said to be in the nature and logic of the VAT system itself.
I den henseende henviser Tilsynsmyndigheden i særdeleshed til dommen i Heiser [28], hvor det blev statueret, at den omstændighed, at en foranstaltning har et prisværdigt formål, ikke i sig selv er tilstrækkeligt til, at den ikke kan klassificeres som statsstøtte efter EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1.
In this sense, the Authority refers in particular to the Heiser [28] jurisprudence according to which the mere fact that a measure has a laudable purpose does not suffice to exclude it from classification as aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, sondrer ikke mellem statslige foranstaltninger efter deres begrundelse eller formål, men definerer dem efter deres virkninger [29].Tilsynsmyndigheden er ikke uvidende om, at årsagen til de norske myndigheders vedtagelse af momskompensationsloven var ønsket om at skabe neutralitet i indkøb af momsbelagte varer og tjenester til det offentlige.
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or aims but defines them in relation to their effects [29].The Authority does not ignore that the aim pursued by the Norwegian authorities with the introduction of the VAT Compensation Act was to create neutrality in the procurement of goods and services subject to VAT for the public administration.
Denne neutralitet må ikke forveksles med den neutralitet, der er et iboende element i momssystemet.
This neutrality cannot be confused with the neutrality inherent in the VAT system.
Eftersom formålet gik ud på at skabe ens spilleregler mellem interne indkøb og outsourcing af varer og tjenester til det offentlige, og dette formål ikke falder inden for rammerne af momssystemets logik, kan dette formål kun tages i betragtning ved vurderingen af denne foranstaltnings forenelighed.
Since the purpose of creating a level playing field between ‘in-house’ supply and outsourcing of supplies of goods and services for public authorities is not in line with the logic of the VAT system, this aim could only be taken into consideration in the assessment of compatibility of the measure in question.
Af de ovennævnte grunde har Tilsynsmyndigheden draget den konklusion, at momskompensationen ikke er begrundet i momssystemets karakter og forvaltning.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Authority concludes that the VAT compensation cannot be justified by the nature and logic of the VAT system.
Den er følgelig en selektiv foranstaltning.
It therefore constitutes a selective measure.
For at en foranstaltning skal kunne falde ind under EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, må den fordreje eller true med at fordreje konkurrencen.
A measure must distort or threaten to distort competition for it to fall within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Det er kun offentlige og private foretagender, der falder ind under momskompensationslovens § 2, der kan opnå kompensation for indgående moms.
Only public and private entities falling within the scope of Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act benefit from input tax compensation.
Men disse foretagender udbyder tjenester, der er momsfritagne, i konkurrence med virksomheder, der ikke er omfattet af momskompensationslovens § 2, og som derfor har højere omkostninger i deres indkøb, selv om de udbyder tilsvarende tjenester.
However, when these entities provide services exempted from the application of VAT in competition with undertakings falling outside the scope of Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act, the latter will have to put up with higher purchase costs even though they carry out similar services.
Skønt kompensationen for indgående moms tager sigte på at mindske fordrejninger i forbindelse med kommunernes indkøb, har den skabt en konkurrencefordrejning mellem offentlige myndigheder, der udøver økonomiske aktiviteter, og private virksomheder, der udøver de samme økonomiske aktiviteter i momsfritagne sektorer.
Although the input tax compensation has been aimed at mitigating distortions for municipal acquisitions, it has created a distortion of competition between public authorities carrying out economic activities and private undertakings carrying out the same economic activities in sectors exempted from the application of VAT.
På grund af statens indgreb vil de varer og tjenester, der udbydes af private aktører, alt andet lige derfor være dyrere.
Accordingly, due to the intervention of the State, the products offered by private operators would, all other factors being similar, be more expensive.
Og det er en fordrejning af konkurrencen.
Thus competition is distorted.
Også på områder, hvor både offentlige og private aktører kan opnå kompensation, er der stadigvæk risiko for konkurrencefordrejning mellem norske aktører og aktører fra andre EØS-lande, der opererer på det samme marked.
In areas where both public and private operators are compensated, the aid would still threaten to distort competition between national and other EEA operators operating in the same market.
Med hensyn til de kompensationer, der ydes til virksomheder, som producerer varer eller udbyder tjenester, der er fritaget for moms, finder Tilsynsmyndigheden derfor, at der foreligger en fordrejning af konkurrencen mellem virksomheder.
Thus, regarding compensation granted to undertakings producing goods or offering services exempted from the application of VAT, the Authority considers that there is a distortion of competition between undertakings.
En statslig foranstaltning falder kun ind under EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, i det omfang den påvirker samhandelen mellem de kontraherende parter i EØS-aftalen.
A State aid measure falls within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement only in so far as it affects trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
I sine bemærkninger til Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning nr. 225/06/COL har de norske myndigheder anfægtet Tilsynsmyndighedens vurdering af samhandelspåvirkningskriteriet, der efter deres opfattelse ikke var baseret på en korrekt forståelse af situationen.
In their comments to the Authority’s Decision No 225/06/COL, the Norwegian authorities have contested the Authority’s assessment of the effect on trade criterion which was, in their opinion, not based on a fair conception of the situation.
De finder, at momskompensationsordningen primært yder kommunerne refusion af indgående moms af de varer og tjenester, de indkøber til brug for de opgaver, de ved lov er pålagt at udføre.
In their view, through the VAT compensation scheme municipalities are primarily granted refunds of input tax on goods and services purchased for their mandatory activities.
Hvad angår de øvrige aktiviteter, kommunerne kan udøve, kunne de norske myndigheder ikke forestille sig noget momsfritaget område, hvor modtagerne af momskompensation konkurrerer med andre virksomheder inden for EØS, med undtagelse af de særlige skoler, klagen vedrører.
Regarding the non-mandatory activities which municipalities may carry out, the Norwegian authorities failed to see any areas exempted from the application of VAT where the recipients of VAT compensation perform their services in competition with other undertakings within the EEA, apart from the particular kind of schools addressed by the complainant.
De norske myndigheder finder, at der er meget få virksomheder i europæiske nabolande, der konkurrerer med norske virksomheder omfattet af momskompensationsloven.
The Norwegian authorities believe that there are very few undertakings established in neighbouring European countries which compete with Norwegian undertakings covered by the VAT Compensation Act.
Tilsynsmyndigheden fastholder det synspunkt, den gav udtryk for i beslutning nr. 225/06/COL angående vurderingen af samhandelspåvirkningen.
The Authority reiterates its position expressed in Decision No 225/06/COL regarding the assessment of the effect on trade.
Det er Tilsynsmyndighedens opgave at vurdere, om en støtteordning vil kunne påvirke samhandelen inden for EØS, og ikke at afklare, hvilke virkninger den konkret vil have [30].
The Authority is required to examine whether an aid scheme is liable to affect trade within the EEA and not to determine its actual effect [30]. In principle, all beneficiaries under the VAT compensation scheme can receive compensation for input VAT under the conditions of the scheme, regardless of whether aid to a concrete operator would have an effect on trade.
I princippet kan alle, der falder ind under momskompensationsloven, opnå kompensation for indgående moms på de i ordningen fastsatte vilkår, uanset om støtten til en bestemt aktør vil kunne påvirke samhandelen eller ej.
Case law of the ECJ has established that ‘in the case of an aid scheme, the Commission may confine itself to examining the general characteristics of the scheme in question without being required to examine each particular case in which it applies.’
Samme fortolkning har også EFTA-domstolen anlagt [32].Samhandelspåvirkningskriteriet er traditionelt blevet fortolket sådan, at en foranstaltning generelt betragtes som statsstøtte, hvis den er egnet til at påvirke samhandelen mellem EØS-stater [33].
The EFTA Court has also endorsed this interpretation [32].The criterion of the effect on trade has been traditionally interpreted to the effect that, in general terms, a measure is considered to be State aid if it is capable of affecting trade between the EEA States [33].
Selv om de norske myndigheder har ret i, at der kun er få virksomheder i EØS, der konkurrerer med modtagerne af momskompensationen, kan støtteforanstaltningen ikke desto mindre påvirke samhandelen, eftersom hverken antallet af begunstigede eller antallet af konkurrenter har nogen større betydning for vurderingen af samhandelspåvirkningen efter EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1 [34].Ydelse af statsstøtte til en virksomhed kan resultere i, at det indenlandske udbud opretholdes eller øges med den konsekvens, at andre virksomheders muligheder for at trænge ind på markedet i de pågældende EØS-stater begrænses [35].
Even if the Norwegian authorities are correct in their estimation that only a few undertakings within the EEA compete with the beneficiaries of the VAT Compensation Act, the aid measure may nevertheless affect trade since neither the number of beneficiaries nor the number of competitors are significant elements for the assessment of the criterion effect on trade within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement [34].The granting of state support to an undertaking may lead to the internal supply being maintained or increased, with the consequence being that the opportunities for other undertakings to penetrate the market of the EEA States concerned are reduced [35].
Støttens karakter afhænger følgelig ikke af den lokale eller regionale karakter af de tjenester, der udbydes, eller af betydningen af det pågældende virksomhedsområde [36].Der findes ikke nogen grænseværdi eller procentsats, hvorunder samhandelen mellem medlemsstater ikke vil blive påvirket [37].
Therefore, the character of the aid does not depend on the local or regional character of the services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned [36].There is no threshold or percentage below which it may be considered that trade between the Contracting Parties is not affected [37].
Tværtimod gælder ifølge retspraksis [38], at når en finansiel støtte styrker en virksomheds position i forhold til andre virksomheder, som den konkurrerer med i samhandelen inden for EØS, må denne samhandel antages at blive påvirket af støtten.§§ 5 og 5a i momslovens kapitel I undtager bestemte former for omsætning fra momslovens anvendelsesområde.
Rather on the contrary, according to the jurisprudence [38], whenever state financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid.Articles 5 and 5a in Chapter I of the VAT Act exempt certain transactions from the scope of application of the VAT Act.
Nogle af disse sektorer, f.eks. finansielle tjenester, serveringstjenester i skoler og studenterkantiner, nogle tandlægetjenester, nogle undervisningstjenester ydet mod betaling og nogle biograftjenester, er konkurrenceudsatte tjenester og udsat for konkurrence fra hele EØS.
Some of these sectors, such as, for example, financial services, services connected with the serving of foodstuffs in schools and students canteens, some dental services, some educational services provided for remuneration, some cinema services, are partly or fully open for EEA-wide competition.
Støtte ydet til virksomheder i konkurrenceudsatte sektorer vil derfor kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem de kontraherende parter i EØS-aftalen.
Aid granted to undertakings in sectors which are open to competition is thus capable of affecting trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Af disse grunde og under hensyn til retspraksis finder Tilsynsmyndigheden derfor, at momskompensationsloven er en generel landsdækkende kompensationsordning, der kan påvirke samhandelen mellem de kontraherende parter i EØS-aftalen.
For these reasons, and taking into account the Court’s jurisprudence, the Authority considers that the VAT Compensation Act is a general nationwide compensation scheme which is capable of affecting trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Af de ovennævnte grunde har Tilsynsmyndigheden draget den konklusion, at momskompensationsloven er en støtteordning som omhandlet i EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Authority concludes that the VAT Compensation Act constitutes a State aid scheme within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
I artikel 1, stk. 3, i Del I i protokol nr. 3 til tilsyns- og domstolsaftalen fastsættes det, at »EFTA-Tilsynsmyndigheden skal underrettes så betids om hver påtænkt indførelse eller ændring af støtteforanstaltninger, at den kan fremsætte sine bemærkninger hertil (….).
Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid (…).
Den pågældende stat må ikke føre de påtænkte foranstaltninger ud i livet, før proceduren er afsluttet med en endelig beslutning«.
The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.
De norske myndigheder anmeldte ikke momskompensationsloven til Tilsynsmyndigheden, før den blev sat i kraft.
The Norwegian authorities did not notify the VAT Compensation Act to the Authority before it was put into effect.
Tilsynsmyndigheden konkluderer derfor, at de norske myndigheder ikke har overholdt deres forpligtelser efter artikel 1, stk. 3, i Del I i protokol nr. 3 til tilsyns- og domstolsaftalen.
The Authority therefore concludes that the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Tilsynsmyndigheden finder ikke, at nogen af undtagelsesbestemmelserne i EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 2, kan bringes i anvendelse i denne sag.
The Authority considers that none of the derogations mentioned in Article 61(2) of the EEA Agreement can be applied to the case at hand.
For så vidt angår EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 3, kan kompensationen for indgående moms ikke falde ind under EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 3, litra a), da ingen af de norske regioner opfylder disse betingelser, der kræver en unormal lav levestandard eller alvorlig underbeskæftigelse.
As far as the application of Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement is concerned, the input tax compensation cannot be considered within the framework of Article 61(3)(a) of the EEA Agreement since none of the Norwegian regions qualify for this provision, which requires an abnormally low standard of living or serious underemployment.