natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For så vidt angår det andet led af det andet anbringende, hvorved det er gjort gældende, at der ikke foreligger tvingende almene hensyn, bemærkes, at det står fast, at formål af rent økonomisk art ikke kan begrunde en begrænsning af det grundlæggende princip om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
In the context of the examination of the proportionality of the measures enacted in the decrees at issue, the Commission was thus bound to assess whether, at the date prescribed for the transfer of air traffic to Malpensa airport, the level of access infrastructures at that airport would discourage passengers from using it.
Uanset om oprettelsen af en funktions- og bæredygtig hovedlufthavn er kvalificeret som et tvingende alment hensyn, kan et sådant lovligt formål kun begrunde en begrænsning af det grundlæggende princip om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, såfremt proportionalitetsprincippet overholdes.
As regards the first part of the second plea, it is sufficient to state that, for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 31 to 36 above, the Commission was fully entitled, in the context of its power under Article 8(1) and (3) of Regulation No 2408/92, to examine whether the national measures enacted in the decrees at issue observed the principle of proportionality.
Med det tredje anbringende har den italienske regering mere subsidiært bestridt den måde, hvorpå Kommissionen har bragt proportionalitetsprincippet i anvendelse i den foreliggende sag. I stedet for at koncentrere sin undersøgelse om det retlige kriterium proportionalitet har Kommissionen ifølge regeringen baseret den anfægtede beslutning på en skønsmæssig vurdering af, om de tiltag, den
Second, as regards the Italian Government's challenge to the merits of the Commission's findings on the state of the infrastructures linking the city of Milan and Malpensa airport at the time of the planned transfer of air traffic, it is clear that the Government has not succeeded in establishing that those findings were incorrect.
Det fjerde anbringende den anfægtede beslutnings punkt 35 og 44, har undersøgt den forventede udvikling for Linate lufthavn og Malpensa lufthavn og også for Alitalia's hovedlufthavne.
Lastly, as regards the Commission's third argument in relation to maintaining Linate airport in service, it is sufficient to state that the reasoning in that respect in the contested decision is of a purely ancillary nature and that, even if the Italian Government were justified in challenging it, such a criticism cannot cast doubt on the merits of the Commission's assessment as to whether the measures adopted in the decrees at issue were, or were not, proportionate to the objective pursued by the Italian authorities.
For så vidt angår det første led af det fjerde anbringende bemærkes, at det ikke på grundlag af nogen af de omstændigheder, den italienske regering har påberåbt sig, findes godtgjort, at det er med urette, at Kommissionen har fastslået, at Alitalia var det eneste luftfartsselskab, der kunne få adgang til hovedlufthavnen Rom-Fiumicino fra Linate lufthavn, mens Fællesskabets øvrige luftfartsselskaber kun kunne beflyve deres hovedlufthavne fra Malpensa lufthavn.
which the Commission made in finding that there was indirect discrimination without taking account of the future development of Malpensa airport, it is sufficient to state that, in the present case, the Commission did not base its findings solely on information relating to the period prior to the date of the planned transfer, since it examined, as is clear from recitals 35 and 44 in the recital to the contested decision, the development prospects for Linate and Malpensa airports, and for Alitalia's hubs.
Kommissionen har således med rette fastslået, at der er tale om forskelsbehandling mellem Alitalia og Fællesskabets øvrige luftfartsselskaber. Det første led af det fjerde anbringende må derfor forkastes.
First of all, as regards the first part of the fourth plea, it should be noted that none of the elements relied on by the Italian Government demonstrates that the Commission was wrong in finding that Alitalia was the only carrier in a position to access the Rome-Fiumicino hub from Linate airport, while the other Community carriers could operate their hubs only from Malpensa airport.
Endelig bemærkes med hensyn til det tredje led af dette anbringende, hvorved regeringen har gjort gældende, at proportionalitetsprincippet er blevet tilsidesat i den anfægtede beslutning, for så vidt som den indeholder et forbud mod at iværksætte de foranstaltninger, der var fastsat i de omtvistede dekreter, at i henhold til artikel 8, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 2408/92 tilkommer det kun Kommissionen at undersøge den nationale foranstaltning, den berørte medlemsstat har truffet, og, efter høring af det i forordningens artikel 11 omhandlede udvalg, at træffe beslutning om, hvorvidt medlemsstaten kan fortsætte med at anvende den pågældende foranstaltning.
Finally, as regards the third part of that plea, alleging that the contested decision is in breach of the principle of proportionality, in that it prohibits the implementation of the measures enacted in the decrees at issue, it should be recalled that, under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 2408/92, it is for the Commission merely to examine the national measure adopted by the Member State concerned and to decide, after consulting the committee referred to in Article 11 of that regulation, whether that State may continue to apply that measure.
For så vidt angår det andet led af det fjerde anbringende, hvorefter Kommissionen hævdes at have anlagt et fejlagtigt skøn ved at fastslå, at der er tale om indirekte forskelsbehandling, uden at tage den fremtidige udvikling af Malpensa lufthavn i betragtning, bemærkes blot, at Kommissionen i den foreliggende sag ikke udelukkende har lagt oplysninger vedrørende perioden forud for datoen for den påtænkte overførsel til grund, idet den, som det fremgår af
It follows that the Commission was justified in its finding of discrimination between Alitalia and the other Community air carriers, so that the first part of the fourth plea must be rejected.
Da Kommissionen ikke var bemyndiget til at foreslå en ændring af de foranstaltninger, der var fastsat i de omtvistede dekreter, kan den ikke kritiseres for at have tilsidesat proportionalitetsprincippet derved, at den ikke har foreslået, at der blev truffet foranstaltninger, der var mindre indgribende for de nationale myndigheder.
In those circumstances, since the Commission was not empowered to propose an amendment to the measures enacted in the decrees at issue, it cannot be accused of infringing the principle of proportionality by having failed to suggest that the national authorities adopt less restrictive measures.
Generaladvokat G. Cosmas fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 16 mai 2000.
Advocate General G. Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 16 May 2000.
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber frifindes, og at
Dismiss the Italian Republic's application as unfounded.
18. januar 2001 kapitaltilførselsafgifter
18 January 2001
- mindsteskat på kapitalselskaber«
Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Minimum tax on capital
Præjudiciel »Direktiv 69/335/EØF (Anden Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Directive 6913351 EEC companies) (Second Chamber) tax on capital companies was incompatible with Article 10 of Directive 69/335.
Besvarelsen af det præjudicielle spørgsmål
By order of 17 March 1999, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Austria, referred for a preliminary ruling a question concerning the interpretation of Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969.
Ved kendelse af 17. marts 1999 har Verwaltungsgerichtshof stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 10 i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969.
Since it was unsure whether the minimum tax on capital companies was or was not compatible with Directive 69/335, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof decided to stay proceedings and to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Med spørgsmålet anmoder den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt om at få oplyst, om artikel 10 i direktiv 69/335 skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen er til hinder for, at der af kapitalselskaber, der er gået konkurs eller trådt i likvidation, og som ikke har nogen indkomst, eller hvis årlige indkomst ikke overskrider et bestemt beløb, opkræves en mindsteskat, som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, for hvert kalenderkvartal, hvori selskaberne er ubegrænset skattepligtige.
That question has been raised in proceedings between Herta Schmid, acting as insolvency administrator for P.P. Handels GmbH, and the Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Regional Tax Authority) concerning payment of minimum corporation tax.
Hovedsagen og det præjudicielle spørgsmål
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question submitted
Det fremgår af forelæggelseskendelsen, at Finanzlandesdirektion har foretaget en skatteansættelse,hvorefter Handelsgesellschaft er blevet pålagt at betale et beløb på 15 000 ATS i mindsteselskabsskat for 19%, selv om selskabet ikke har haft nogen indkomst i 1996.
By its question, the national court is asking essentially whether, on its proper construction, Article 10 of Directive 69/335 precludes the levying, as against insolvent capital companies lacking own revenue or whose annual revenue does not exceed a certain amount, of a minimum tax, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, payable for each quarter in respect of which those companies have unlimited liability to corporation tax.
Det må indledningsvis konstateres, at de dispositioner, der omhandles i artikel 4 i direktiv 69/335, som artikel 10, litra a) og litra b), henviser til, dels er karakteriseret ved, at der sker en overførsel af kapital eller goder til et kapitalselskab i den medlemsstat, der opkræver afgiften, dels medfører en reel udvidelse af selskabers kapital eller formue.
According to the order for reference, the Finanzlandesdirektion issued a notice of assessment against the Handelsgesellschaft seeking payment by it of ATS 15 000 as the minimum tax on capital companies for 1996 even though that company did not receive any income during that year.
Det må imidlertid konstateres, at en mindsteselskabsskat, som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, opkræves for hvert kalenderkvartal, hvori et kapitalselskab er ubegrænset selskabsskattepligtigt. Skatten forudsætter ikke nogen disposition, der indebærer en bevægelse af kapital eller goder — hverken i form af overførsel eller i form af udvidelse - og den svarer således ikke til nogen af de afgiftspligtige dispositioner, der er opregnet i artikel 4 i direktiv 69/335.
It must first be noted in this regard that the transactions mentioned in Article 4 of Directive 69/335, to which Article 10(a) and (b) thereof refers, are transactions involving the transfer of capital or assets to a capital company in the taxing Member State or resulting in an effective increase in the company's capital or assets.
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, der den 19. marts 1996 blev valgt som kurator i Handelsgesellschaft's konkursbo, har over for Finanzlandesdirektion påklaget denne skatteansættelse. Klagen blev afvist, og sagsøgeren indbragte afgørelsen for Verfassungsgerichtshof, der erklærede sig inkompetent til at behandle sagen og henviste den til Verwaltungsgerichtshof.
It must be observed, that a minimum tax on companies such as that at issue in the main proceedings is levied for each quarter during which a capital company has unlimited liability to corporation tax It does not presuppose any transaction involving the movement of capital or
Den forelæggende ret har anført, at den mindsteselskabsskat, som den for retten verserende sag angår, i visse tilfælde kan anses for at være en indirekte skat.
The applicant in the main proceedings, who was appointed as insolvency administrator by document of 19 March 1996, lodged a complaint with the Finanzlandesdirektion challenging that notice of assessment.
Det bemærkes hertil, at det fremgår af Domstolens retspraksis, at det tilkommer Domstolen at kvalificere
Following rejection of her complaint, she appealed to the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court), which declared that it lacked jurisdiction and referred the case to the Verwaltungsgerichtshof.
Verwaltungsgerichtshof, der har fundet det tvivlsomt, om mindsteskatten på kapitalselskaber er forenelig med det nævnte direktiv, har besluttet at udsætte sagen og stille Domstolen et præjudicielle spørgsmål.
Before the latter court, the applicant submitted in particular that the obligation to pay minimum
afgifter, gebyrer mv. i relation til fællesskabsretten efter deres objektive kendetegn, uden hensyn til, hvorledes de er betegnet i national ret.
which it is levied, irrespective of its classification under national law.
selskabsskattepligt. Det fremgår desuden af den nævnte skats form, at der er tale om en forskudsbetaling i forbindelse med et faktisk selskabsskattetilsvar for et bestemt skatteår.
assets — whether in the form of transfer or increase — and therefore does not correspond to any of the taxable transactions mentioned in Article 4 of Directive 69/335.
Der er derfor reelt ikke tale om en skat, der er uafhængig af indtægten, som den forelæggende ret har antaget,
Since the national court found that the minimum corporation tax at issue in the main proceedings before it might, in certain cases, be classified as an indirect tax, it must be pointed out that, according to the Court's settled case-law, the nature of a tax, duty or charge falls to be determined by the Court, under Community law, according to the objective characteristics by
I den henseende må det konstateres, at mindsteskatten på kapitalselskaber følger direkte af et kapitalselskabs ubegrænsede
It also appears from the arrangements governing that tax that it constitutes an advance on the amount actually owing by way of corporation tax in respect of a given tax period.
»Artikel 10 i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 om kapitaltilførselsafgifter, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 85/303/EØF af 10. juni 1985, skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen ikke er til hinder for, at der af kapitalselskaber, der er gået konkurs eller trådt i likvidation, og som ikke har nogen indkomst, eller hvis artige indkomst ikke overstiger et bestemt beløb, opkræves en mindsteskat, som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, for hvert kalenderkvartal, hvori selskaberne er ubegrænset skattepligtige.«
'On its proper construction, Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying as against insolvent capital companies lacking own revenue or whose annual revenue does not exceed a certain amount, of a minimum tax, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, payable for each quarter in respect of which those companies have unlimited liability to corporation tax.'
Generaladvokat N. Fenneliv fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Anden Afdeling) den 21. september 2000.
Advocate General N. Fennelly delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Second Chamber on 21 September 2000.
Han foreslog Domstolen, at besvare spørgsmålet således:
He recommended that Court should answer as follows:
Artikel 10 i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 om kapitaltilførselsafgifter, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 85/303/EØF af 10. juni 1985, er ikke til hinder for at pålægge kapitalselskaber en skat som den mindsteselskabsskat, der skal betales som et forskud på den faktisk skyldige selskabsskat.
'Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying on capital companies of a tax such as the minimum corporation tax payable as an advance on the amount of actual liability to corporation tax.'
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 226 EF anlagt sag med
Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Approximation of laws
fransk ret. De franske myndigheder oplyste, at de artikler i direktiv 97/66, der endnu ikke var gennemført, ville blive gennemført ved et dekret om ændring af artikel D.98-1 i post- og telekommunikationsloven.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 97/66/EC - Processing of personal data and protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector — Nontransposition) (Fourth Chamber)
påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 15 i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/66/EF af 15. december 1997, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har iværksat og givet Kommissionen underretning om de nationale bestemmelser til gennemførelse af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 2, artikel 6, stk. 1, 3 og 4, artikel 7, artikel 8, stk. 2, 3, 4 og 6, artikel 11, stk. 2, og artikel 12.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 19 April 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force and to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period the national measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive.
Da de bebudede foranstaltninger ikke blev truffet af den franske regering eller i al fald ikke meddelt Kommissionen, tilstillede denne den 23. juli 1999 Den Franske Republik en begrundet udtalelse.
Since the measures announced had not been adopted by the French Government or, in any event, had not been communicated, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the French Republic on 23 July 1999.
I et svar, der vedrørte flere traktatbrudsprocedurer, henviste de franske myndigheder den 22. oktober 1999 til de forskellige tiltag med henblik på gennemførelsen af direktiv 97/66.
On 22 October 1999, in a reply common to several sets of infringement proceedings, the French authorities gave details of the preparations in progress for the transposition of Directive 97/66.
Ifølge artikel 15, stk. 1, i direktiv 97/66 skal medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet senest den 24. oktober 1998 eller for at efterkomme direktivets artikel 5 senest den 24. oktober 2000.
Under Article 15(1) of Directive 97/66, Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with that directive not later than 24 October 1998 or, with regard to Article 5 thereof, not later than 24 October 2000.
Endvidere skal medlemsstaterne efter samme artikels stk. 4 meddele Kommissionen teksten til de nationale retsforskrifter, som de udsteder på det område, der er omfattet af direktivet.
In addition, under Article 15(4), Member States were to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they had adopted in the field governed by that directive.
Kommissionen modtog ikke andre oplysninger fra den franske regering, på grundlag af hvilke den kunne fastslå, at de foranstaltninger, der var nødvendige for at gennemføre direktiv 97/66, endeligt var blevet truffet og trådt i kraft, og har derfor anlagt nærværende sag.
Having received no further information from the French Government to indicate that the measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 97/66 had been definitively adopted and had entered into force, the Commission brought the present action.
Den franske regering har ikke bestridt, at den er forpligtet til i national ret at gennemføre bestemmelserne i direktiv 97/66, og har erkendt, at gennemførelsen af dette direktiv er blevet forsinket.
The French Government does not dispute its obligation to transpose the provisions of Directive 97/66 into national law and acknowledges its delay in transposing that directive.
Kommissionen modtog ikke underretning fra den franske regering om foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af direktiv 97/66 og opfordrede derfor ved skrivelse af 3. februar 1999 den franske regering til inden to måneder efter modtagelsen af denne skrivelse at fremsætte sine bemærkninger desangående.
Since it had not received any communication from the French Government concerning measures to transpose Directive 97/66, by letter of 3 February 1999 the Commission gave the French Government formal notice to submit its observations in that regard within two months from the date of receipt of that letter.
Gennemførelsen af direktiv 97/66 er således ikke sket inden for den i direktivet fastsatte frist, og Kommissionens påstande skal derfor tages til følge.
By letter of 12 April 1999, the Permanent Representation of France to the European Union informed the Commission that Directive
Ved skrivelse af 12. april 1999 meddelte Frankrigs faste repræsentation ved Den Europæiske Union Kommissionen, at direktiv 97/66 allerede delvist var blevet gennemført i
Since the directive was not transposed within the period laid down therein, the Commission's application must be considered to be well founded.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tierde Afdelingl den 26. oktober 2000.
Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period the national measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, the French Republic has failed tofulfl its obligations under Article 15 ofthat directive;
18. januar 2001 anvendelse af reduceret sats artikel 12, stk. 3, litra a)
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fourth Chamber on 26 October 2000.
Ved stævning indgivet til Domstolens Justitskontor den 8. marts 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler det i henhold til artikel 12 i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF, idet det har anvendt en reduceret sats for merværdiafgift for tjenesteydelser, der består i at stille en vejinfrastruktur til rådighed for brugerne.
'(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force and to communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period the national measures transposing Article 4(2), Article 6(1), (3) and (4), Article 7, Article 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), Article 11(2) and Article 12 of Directive 97/66/EC, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
Ved skrivelse af 22. december 1997 meddelte Kommissionen den spanske regering, at Kongeriget Spanien efter dens opfattelse med anvendelsen af en reduceret momssats for tjenesteydelser, der består i at stille en vejinfrastruktur til rådighed for brugerne, overtrådte sjette direktivs artikel 12.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 12(3)(a) Directive — Application of a reduced rate to motorway tolls) (Fifth Chamber) the Sixth Directive.
Den opfordrede i henhold til traktatens artikel 169 den spanske regering til inden to måneder at fremsætte sine bemærkninger i den forbindelse.
Pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty, it gave formal notice to the Spanish Government to submit its observations on the point within two months.
Da Kommissionen havde fastslået, at Kongeriget Spanien ikke havde efterkommet den begrundede udtalelse, besluttede den at anlægge nærværende sag.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 8 March 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax (VAT) to the supply of services consisting in making road infrastructure available to users, the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977.