natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
X OG Y forskelsbehandling, der var forbudt i henhold til traktaten, bl.a. på grund af overtrædelse af EF-traktatens artikel 6 (efter ændring nu artikel 12 EF) og artikel 52, 58 og 73 B.
X AND Y V RIKSSKATTEVERKET den constituted discrimination prohibited by the Treaty in that it was contrary in particular to Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC) and Articles 52, 58 and 73 b of that Treaty.
12 Regeringsrätten har fundet, at en fortolkning af fællesskabsretten er nødvendig, før den afsiger dom, og den har derfor besluttet af udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
12 Taking the view that an interpretation of Community law was needed in order to decide the case, the Regeringsrätten stayed proceedings and referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
»I henhold til § 2, afsnit 3, i lagen (1947:576) om statlig inkomstskatt tillægges der, hvis en række betingelser er opfyldt, et koncernbidrag skatteretlig virkning, hvis bidraget gives fra et svensk aktieselskab til et andet svensk aktieselskab, der i sin helhed ejes enten direkte af det førstnævnte selskab eller af dette sammen med et eller flere helejede svenske datterselskaber.
'Under Article 2(3) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, an intragroup transfer is treated, under certain conditions, as having fiscal effect if it is made by a Swedish limited liability company to another Swedish limited liability company which is wholly owned either by the first-named company directly or by that company together with a whollyowned Swedish subsidiary or subsidiaries.
Det skattemæssige resultat bliver det samme, hvis et eller flere af de helejede datterselskaber er udenlandske, men har hjemsted i én og samme medlemsstat, og Sverige med denne stat har indgået en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst, der indeholder en ikke-diskrimineringsklau-sul.
The fiscal result is the same if one, or more, of the whollyowned subsidiaries is foreign provided that they have their seat in one and the same Member State and Sweden has concluded with that State a doubletaxation agreement containing a non -discrimination clause.
Er det på denne baggrund foreneligt med gældende fællesskabsret, særlig Rom-traktatens artikel 52, sammenholdt med artikel 58, samt artikel 73 B og 73 D, at anvende en ordning, som indebærer, at et koncernbidrag ikke tillægges samme skatteretlige virkning, når det svenske moderselskab i stedet ejer det modtagende selskab sammen med to eller flere helejede udenlandske datterselskaber, der har hjemsted i forskellige medlemsstater, med hvilke Sverige har indgået dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomster, der indeholder en ikke-diskrimine-ringsklausul ? «
Against that background, is it compatible with existing Community law, in particular Article 52 in combination with Article 58 and Article 73 b and d of the Treaty of Rome, to apply a set of rules under which an intragroup transfer is not treated as having the same fiscal effect when the Swedish parent company instead owns the recipient company together with two or more whollyowned foreign subsidiaries which have their seat in different Member States with which Sweden has concluded a doubletaxation agreement containing a nondiscrimination clause?'
13 Forud for besvarelsen af det forelagte spørgsmål skal der tages stilling til, for det første, om Regeringsrätten kan betragtes som en »national ret« i traktatens artikel 177's forstand, når den skal træffe afgørelse om en af Skatterättsnämnden
13 It should first be considered whether the Regeringsrätten may be regarded as a 'national court or tribunal' for the purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty when it rules on an appeal from a preliminary decision delivered by the Skatterätts-
For det andet er det nødvendigt at efterprøve, om den anmodning om en fortolkning af fællesskabs retten, der er forelagt Domstolen, er fremsat i en reel, og ikke kun en hypotetisk tvist.
It will then be necessary to verify that the Court is being asked for an interpretation of Community law in the context of a genuine dispute and not in a purely hypothetical case.
15 Endvidere bemærkes, at de nationale retsinstanser kun kan forelægge spørgsmål for Domstolen, hvis der verserer en tvist for dem, og hvis de skal træffe afgørelse i en sag, der skal afsluttes med en retsafgørelse (jf. bl.a. kendelse af 18.6.1980, sag 138/80, Borker, Sml. s. 1975, præmis 4, og dom af 12.11.1998, sag C-134/97, Victoria Film, Sml. I, s. 7023, præmis 14).
15 Furthermore, national courts may refer questions to the Court only if there is a case pending before them and they are called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature (see, in particular, the order of 18 June 1980 in Case 138/80 Borker [1980] ECR 1975, paragraph 4 and the judgment in Case C-134/97 Victoria Film [1998] ECR I-7023, paragraph 14).
16 Som generaladvokaten har anført i punkt 12 i forslaget til afgørelse, er det ubestrideligt, at Regeringsrätten opfylder alle de øvrige betingelser, der opstilles i Domstolens praksis, og det skal derfor kun afgøres, om Regeringsrätten skal træffe afgørelse i en sag, der skal afsluttes med en retsafgørelse, når den skal tage stilling til afgørelser fra Skatterättsnämnden, der er indbragt for den.
16 As the Advocate General points out in paragraph 12 of his Opinion, since there appears to be no doubt that the Regeringsrätten satisfies all the other conditions laid down by the caselaw of the Court, it only remains to determine whether the Regeringsrätten is called upon to give judgment in proceedings which are intended to lead to a judicial decision, when seised with an appeal against a ruling of the Skatterättsnämnden.
17 Hertil findes det tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, at formålet med en sag, der er indbragt for Regeringsrätten, er at efterprøve lovligheden af en afgørelse, som, når den er blevet endelig, er bindende for skattemyndigheden og skal danne
17 It is sufficient to observe here that, in the case of an appeal, the purpose of the procedure before the Regeringsrätten is to review the legality of a preliminary decision which, once it becomes definitive, binds the tax authorities and serves as
X OG Y grundlag for skatteansættelsen, hvis og i det omfang den, der har anmodet om forhåndsbeskeden, gennemfører den disposition, anmodningen angår.
X AND Y V RIKSSKATTEVERKET the basis for the assessment to tax if and to the extent to which the person who applied for the preliminary decision continues with the action envisaged in his application.
Herefter må Regeringsrätten antages at udøve en judiciel funktion (jf. bl.a. Victoria Filmdommen, præmis 18).
In those circumstances, the Regeringsrätten must be held to be carrying out a judicial function (see, in particular, Victoria Film, cited above, paragraph 18).
19 Når de af den nationale retsinstans stillede spørgsmål vedrører fortolkningen af en bestemmelse i fællesskabsretten, er Domstolen derfor principielt forpligtet til at træffe afgørelse herom (jf. dom af 16.7.1992, sag C-83/91, Meilicke, Sml. I, s. 4871, præmis 24, og Aprile-dommen, præmis 17).
19 Consequently, since the questions submitted by the national court relate to the interpretation of a provision of Community law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (see Case C-83/91 Meilicke [1992] ECR 1-4871, paragraph 24, and Aprile, cited above, paragraph 17).
20 Det vil dog forholde sig anderledes, hvis Domstolen anmodes om at tage stilling til et hypotetisk problem (jf. dom af 16.12.1981, sag 244/80, Foglia, Sml. s. 3045, præmis 18 og 20, og Meilicke-dommen, præmis 25).
20 The position would be different only if the Court were called on to give a ruling on a problem of a hypothetical nature (see Case 244/80 Foglia [1981] ECR 3045, paragraphs 18 and 20, and Meilicke, cited above, paragraph 25).
21 Med hensyn til de omstændigheder, hvorunder Domstolen i denne sag har fået forelagt en anmodning fra den nationale ret, forholder det sig ganske vist således, at den nationale ret skal træffe afgørelse i en sag, der drejer sig om muligheden
21 As regards the circumstances in which the Court has been asked to give a preliminary ruling in this instance, it is true that the national court which made the reference is called on to give a ruling in proceedings concerning the possibility
På det tidspunkt, hvor forelæggelseskendelsen blev afsagt, havde X AB således endnu ikke ydet koncernbidraget.
On the date on which its decision to make a reference was made, X AB had still not carried out that transfer.
Denne omstændighed kan dog ikke føre til, at det præjudicielle spørgsmål skal afvises.
However, that circumstance is not by nature such as to render the preliminary question inadmissible.
Der foreligger en reel tvist for den nationale ret, således at Domstolen ikke skal træffe afgørelse om et problem af hypotetisk karakter, men har tilstrækkelige oplysninger om den situation, der foreligger i hovedsagen, til, at den kan fortolke de fællesskabsretlige regler og give en relevant besvarelse af de forelagte spørgsmål (jf. Aprile-dommen, præmis 20).
The national court is seised of a genuine dispute, so that, far from being asked to rule on a hypothetical problem, the Court has sufficient information at its disposal regarding the circumstances with which the main proceedings are concerned to enable it to interpret the rules of Community law and to give a helpful answer to the question submitted to it (see Aprile, cited above, paragraph 20).
Da forelæggelseskendelsen opfylder denne betingelse, må Regeringsrätten, inden for rammerne af den sag, der har givet anledning til det foreliggende præjudicielle spørgsmål, betragtes som en national ret i traktatens artikel 177's forstand, således at spørgsmålet kan antages til behandling.
Since that condition is satisfied by the reference for a preliminary ruling, the Regeringsrätten, when acting in the procedure which led to the making of this reference for a preliminary ruling, must be regarded as a national court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty, so that the preliminary question is admissible.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at der i hovedsagen er tale om tre typer koncernbidrag:
The case referred involves three types of intragroup transfer:
— Overførsler mellem to aktieselskaber med hjemsted i en medlemsstat i tilfælde, hvor det ene af disse selskaber ejes fuldt ud af det andet, enten
— transfers made between two public limited companies in a Member State when the second of those companies is wholly owned by the first, either directly or together with one or more subsidiaries which are themselves
— Overførsler mellem to aktieselskaber med hjemsted i en medlemsstat i tilfælde, hvor det ene af disse selskaber ejes fuldt ud af det andet sammen med et eller flere helejede datterselskaber, der har hjemsted i en og samme anden medlemsstat, med hvilken den førstnævnte medlemsstat har indgået en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst, som indeholder en ikke-diskriminerings-klausul (herefter »koncernbidrag af type B«).
— transfers made between two public limited companies established in a Member State when the second of those companies is wholly owned by the first together with one or more subsidiaries which it owns entirely and which have their seat in the same other Member State with which the first Member State has concluded an agreement for the prevention of double taxation which contains a nondiscrimination clause (hereinafter referred to as 'type B intragroup transfers');
— Overførsler mellem to aktieselskaber med hjemsted i en medlemsstat i tilfælde, hvor det ene af disse ejes fuldt ud af det andet sammen med flere helejede datterselskaber, der har hjemsted i flere andre medlemsstater, med hvilke den førstnævnte medlemsstat har indgået dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomster, som indeholder en ikke-diskrimineringsklausul (herefter »koncernbidrag af type C«).
— transfers between two public limited companies in a Member State when the second of those companies is wholly owned by the first together with several other subsidiaries which it owns entirely and which have their seats in various other Member States with which the first Member State has concluded agreements for the prevention of double taxation which contain a nondiscrimination clause (hereinafter referred to as 'type C intragroup transfers').
25 Den forelæggende ret ønsker nærmere bestemt oplyst, om traktatens artikel 52 og 58 om etableringsfriheden samt traktatens artikel 73 B og 73 D om frie kapitalbevægelser er til hinder for nationale bestemmelser som dem, hovedsagen drejer sig om, hvorefter bestemte skattelettelser kan indrømmes for koncernbidrag af type A og B, men ikke for koncernbidrag af type C.
25 The national court is asking essentially whether Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty, on freedom of establishment, and Articles 73b and 73d of the Treaty, on free movement of capital, preclude national provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which type A and type B intragroup transfers can benefit from certain tax concessions whereas type C transfers cannot.
26 Med hensyn til bestemmelserne om etableringsfriheden bemærkes, at selv om de efter deres ordlyd særlig skal sikre national behandling i modtagelsesmedlemsstaten, indebærer de samtidig et forbud mod, at oprindelsesstaten opstiller hindringer for, at en af dens statsborgere etablerer sig i en anden medlemsstat, eller at et selskab, som er stiftet i overensstemmelse med dens lovgivning, og som i
26 As far as the provisions concerning freedom of establishment are concerned, it must be pointed out that, even though, according to their wording, those provisions are mainly aimed at ensuring that foreign nationals and companies are treated in the host Member State in the same way as nationals of that State, they also prohibit the Member State of origin from hindering the establishment in
I denne henseende bemærkes, at den lovgivning, hovedsagen drejer sig om, ikke giver svenske selskaber, der har gjort brug af deres frie etableringsret til at oprette datterselskaber i andre medlemsstater, ret til at opnå bestemte skattelettelser i forbindelse med koncernbidrag af type C.
The legislation in question in the main proceedings does not allow Swedish companies which have used their right to free establishment to form subsidiaries in other Member States to receive certain tax concessions upon a type C intragroup transfer.
En sådan lovgivning er dermed udtryk for en forskellig behandling af forskellige typer koncernbidrag på grundlag af, hvor datterselskaberne har deres hjemsted.
Thus, such legislation entails a difference of treatment between various types of intragroup transfers on the basis of the criterion of the subsidiaries' seat.
Medmindre en sådan forskellig behandling er begrundet, er den i strid med traktatens bestemmelser om etableringsfrihed.
In the absence of justification, that difference of treatment is contrary to the provisions of the Treaty concerning freedom of establishment.
Det er i denne sammenhæng uden betydning, at koncernbidrag af type B efter Regeringsrättens praksis kan behandles som koncernbidrag af type A.
It does not make any difference in this regard that the caselaw of the Regeringsrätten allows type B transfers to be given the same treatment accorded to type A transfers.
I hovedsagen har den svenske regering ikke søgt at begrunde den forskellige behandling, der hermed er konstateret, i relation til traktatens bestemmelser om etableringsfrihed.
In the case submitted, the Swedish Government has not attempted to justify the difference of treatment found above with regard to the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment.
Endvidere har regeringen under retsmødet udtrykkeligt aner kendt, at den pågældende lovgivning er i strid med traktatens artikel 52.
Moreover, at the hearing before this Court, the Swedish Government openly acknowledged that the legislation in question is contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty.
På grundlag af det anførte er det ikke nødvendigt at efterprøve, om traktatens bestemmelser om frie kapitalbevægelser er til hinder for en lovgivning som den, hovedsagen drejer sig om.
Having regard to all the foregoing, it is not necessary to examine whether the provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of capital preclude legislation such as that in question in the main proceedings.
31 Det forelagte spørgsmål skal herefter besvares med, at når en medlemsstat indrømmer bestemte skattelettelser for koncernbidrag, som finder sted mellem to
31 Consequently, the answer to be given to the question submitted should be that, where a Member State grants certain tax relief in respect of intragroup transfers made between two public limited companies established in that Member State
X OG Y aktieselskaber med hjemsted i medlemsstaten, og det ene af disse selskaber ejes fuldt ud af det andet, enten direkte af dette eller sammen med
X AND Y V RIKSSKATTEVERKET and the second of those companies is wholly owned by the first, either directly or together with
— et eller flere helejede datterselskaber, der har hjemsted i en anden medlems stat, med hvilken den førstnævnte medlemsstat har indgået en dobbelt beskatningsoverenskomst, som indeholder en ikke-diskrimineringsklausul, er traktatens artikel 52-58 til hinder for, at de samme skattelettelser ikke indrømmes for koncernbidrag mellem to aktieselskaber med hjemsted i med lemsstaten, når det ene af selskaberne fuldt ud ejes af det andet selskab sammen med flere helejede datterselskaber, der har hjemsted i flere andre medlemsstater, med hvilke den førstnævnte medlemsstat har indgået dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomster, som indeholder en ikke-diskrimineringsklausul.
Articles 52 to 58 of the Treaty preclude that tax relief from being refused in respect of transfers made between two public limited companies established in that Member State, where the second of those companies is wholly owned by the first together with several subsidiaries which it owns entirely and which have their seat in various other Member States with which the first Member State has concluded agreements for the prevention of double taxation which contain a non discrimination clause.
32 De udgifter, der er afholdt af den svenske og af den nederlandske regering samt af Kommissionen, som har afgivet indlæg for Domstolen, kan ikke erstattes.
32 The costs incurred by the Swedish and Netherlands Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
Da sagens behandling i forhold til hovedsagens parter udgør et led i den sag, der
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings,
DOMSTOLEN vedrørende det spørgsmål, der er forelagt af Regeringsrätten ved kendelse af 29. april 1998, for ret:
THE COURT, in answer to the question referred to it by the Regeringsrätten by order of 29 April 1998, hereby rules:
Når en medlemsstat indrømmer bestemte skattelettelser for koncernbidrag, som finder sted mellem to aktieselskaber med hjemsted i medlemsstaten, og det ene af disse selskaber ejes fuldt ud af det andet, enten direkte af dette eller sammen med
Where a Member State grants certain tax relief in respect of intragroup transfers made between two public limited companies established in that Member State and the second of those companies is wholly owned by the first, either directly or together with
— et eller flere helejede datterselskaber, der har hjemsted i en anden medlems stat, med hvilken den førstnævnte medlemsstat har indgået en dobbelt beskatningsoverenskomst, som indeholder en ikke-diskrimineringsklausul,
— one or more subsidiaries which it owns entirely and which have their seats in another Member State with which the first Member State has concluded an agreement for the prevention of double taxation which contains a non discrimination clause,
X OG Y er EF-traktatens artikel 52 (efter ændring nu artikel 43 EF), EF-traktatens artikel 53 (ophævet ved Amsterdamtraktaten), EF-traktatens artikel 54 (efter ændring nu artikel 44 EF), EF-traktatens artikel 55 (nu artikel 45 EF), EF-traktatens artikel 56 og 57 (efter ændring nu artikel 46 EF og 47 EF) samt EF-traktatens artikel 58, (nu artikel 48 EF), til hinder for, at de samme skattelettelser ikke indrømmes for koncernbidrag mellem to aktieselskaber med hjemsted i medlemsstaten, når det ene af selskaberne fuldt ud ejes af det andet selskab sammen med nere hele j stede datterselskaber, der har hjemsted i flere andre medlemsstater, med hvilke den førstnævnte medlemsstat har indgået dobbelt beskatningsoverenskomster, som indeholder en ikke-diskrimineringsklausul.
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), Article 53 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Article 54 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 44 EC), Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now Article 45 EC), Articles 56 and 57 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 47 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) preclude that tax relief from being refused in respect of transfers made between two public limited companies established in that Member State, where the second of those companies is wholly owned by the first together with several subsidiaries which it owns entirely and which have their seat in various other Member States with which the first Member State has concluded agreements for the prevention of double taxation which contain a nondiscrimination clause.
Sag C-275/98
Case C-275/98
(anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Klagenævnet for Udbud)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Klagenævnet for Udbud)
»Offentlige indkøbsaftaler — direktiv 93/36/EØF — indgåelse af kontrakter af et organ, der ikke er en ordregivende myndighed«
(Public supply contracts — Directive 93/36/EEC — Award of public supply contracts by a body other than a contracting authority)
Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat S. Alber fremsat den 8. juli 1999 . . I-8293 Domstolens dom (Første Afdeling) af 18. november 1999 I-8305
Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 8 July 1999 Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 18 November 1999
Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne — fremgangsmåder ved indgåelse af offentlige indkøbsaftaler — direktiv 93/36 — artikel 2, stk. 2 — selvstændig betydning i forhold til direktiv 92/50 — ordregivende myndighed, der overdrager udførelsen af en offentlig tjenesteydelse til et andet organ — pligt til at kræve, at princippet om, at forskelsbehandling er forbudt, respekteres — ingen pligt til at kræve, at udbudsprocedurerne overholdes (Rådets direktiv 92/50 og direktiv 93/36, art. 2, stk. 2)
Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public supply contracts — Directive 93/36 — Article 2(2) — Independent in scope from Directive 92/50 — Where the contracting authority grants to a body other than such an authority the right to engage in a public service — Obligatory to require compliance with the principle of non discrimination — No obligation to require compliance with tendering procedures (Council Directives 92/50 and 93/36, Art. 2(2))
SAMMENDRAG — SAG C-275/98 indgåelse af offentlige indkøbsaftaler med tredjemand som led i denne virksomhed respekterer princippet om, at forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet ikke er tilladt.
SUMMARY — CASE C-275/98 tracts which it awards to third parties in the context of that activity, that it comply with the principle of non discrimination on grounds of national ity;
Derimod pålægger den nævnte bestemmelse under disse omstændigheder ikke den ordregivende myndighed at kræve af det pågældende organ, at det ved ind gåelse af sådanne offentlige indkøbsaftaler overholder udbudsprocedurerne i direktiv 93/36.
Article 2(2) of Directive 93/36 coordina ting procedures for the award of public supply contracts — which is independent in scope from the provisions of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of pro cedures for the award of public service contracts — is to be interpreted as follows: