natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 20. september 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Europa-Parlamentet og Rådets direktiv 96/9/EF af 11. marts 19%, idet det ikke har vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 September 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder.
I denne henseende bemærkes, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der — i forbindelse med et søgsmål i henhold til artikel 226 EF - foreligger et traktatbrud, skal vurderes på baggrund af forholdene i medlemsstaten, som de var ved udløbet af fristen i den begrundede udtalelse, og at ændringer af forholdene i tiden derefter ikke kan tages i betragtning af Domstolen.
In that connection, it must be borne in mind that, in proceedings under Article 226 EC, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in that Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes.
I henhold til direktivets artikel 16, stk. 1 og 2, skulle medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet inden den 1. januar 1998 og meddele Kommissionen teksten til de nationale retsforskrifter, som de udstedte på det område, der er omfattet af direktivet.
Under Article 16(1) and (2) of the Directive, the Member States were to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply therewith before 1 January 1998 and to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of domestic law which they adopted in the field governed by the Directive.
Da Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg ikke har gennemført direktivet inden for den fastsatte frist og ikke har fremlagt oplysninger, der berettiger til en udsættelse af sagen, kan den af Storhertugdømmet nedlagte påstand herom ikke tages til følge, og Kommissionen må gives medhold i sine påstande.
Since the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg did not transpose the Directive within the prescribed period and has not provided any information such as to justify staying proceedings, its application for a stay of proceedings must be dismissed and the action brought by the Commission must be considered to be well founded.
Den luxembourgske regering har ikke bestridt, at direktivet ikke er blevet gennemført, men har gjort gældende, at sagen vil miste sin genstand
The Luxembourg Government does not dispute that it failed to transpose the Directive but argues that the action will become devoid of purpose once draft Law No 4431 on copyright,
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling) den 10. februar 2000.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 10 February 2000.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
He proposed that the Court give judgment as follows:
Sag C-123/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Hellenske Republik Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne
Case C-123/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Hellenic Republic Approximation of laws
»Traktatbrud — manglende gennemførelse af direktiv 94/62/EF« (Tredje Afdeling) og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme dette direktiv senest den 30. juni 1996, og at de straks skal underrette Kommissionen herom.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations (Third Chamber) regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive before 30 June 1996 and that they are to inform the Commission thereof immediately.
Den græske regering har ikke bestridt det påståede traktatbrud. Den har imidlertid gjort gældende, at et lovforslag er blevet forelagt de ansvaruge ministre til underskrivelse.
The Hellenic Republic does not dispute that it failed to fulfil its obligations as alleged.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolen den 13. april 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Hellenske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EF-traktaten og i henhold til Europa-Parlamentet og Rådets direktiv 94/62/EF af 20. december 1994, idet den ikke har givet underretning om de love og administrative bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme dette direktiv, eller ikke har truffet de foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet.
By an application lodged with the Registry of the Court on 13 April 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, or failing to adopt the necessary measures to comply therewith, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and the Directive.
Da gennemførelsen af direktivet ikke har fundet sted inden for den frist, der er fastsat i den begrundede udtalelse, må Kommissionens påstand i sagen på dette punkt tages til følge.
Since the Directive has not been transposed within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the action brought in this connection by the Commission is well founded.
Det bestemmes i direktivets artikel 22, stk. 1, at medlemsstaterne skal sætte de nødvendige love
Article 22(1) of the Directive provides that the Member States are to bring into force the laws,
Den Hellenske Republik betaler sagens omkostninger.«
Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.'
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 11 January 2000.
Sag C-251/98 C. Baars / Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorinchem Fri bevægelighed for personer
Case C-251/98 C. Baars ν Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorinchem Freedom of movement for persons
Præjudiciel »Etableringsfrihed — formue investeret i kapitalandele i selskaber, der er hjemmehørende i beskatningsmedlemsstaten — fritagelse for formuebeskatning — formue investeret i kapitalandele i selskaber, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat — ingen fritagelse« (Femte Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Freedom of establishment —Assets invested in shares in companies established in the taxing Member State — Exemption from wealth tax — Assets invested in shares in companies established in another Member State — No exemption) (Fifth Chamber) at 1 January 1994, to NLG 2 650 600, which included the value of his shares in Ballyard, which on that date amounted to NLG 749 800.
Ved kendelse af 8. juli 1998 har Gerechtshof, Haag, forelagt Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 6 og 52 (efter ændring nu artikel 12 EF og 43 EF) samt EF-traktatens artikel 73 Β og 73 D (nu artikel 56 EF og 58 EF).
By order of 8 July 1998, the Gerechtshof te 'sGravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) and of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC).
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag, der føres af en nederlandsk statsborger, C. Baars, mod den nederlandske skatteforvaltning angående dennes afslag på at indrømme sagsøgeren et nedslag i forbindelse med formuebeskatning.
Arguing that his shares in Ballyard represented a substantial holding in terms of Netherlands law, Mr Baars claimed the undertaking exemption provided for in Article 7(3) of the Wealth Tax Law, as amended, in the form of an allowance of NLG 442 400 against his taxable assets.
Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorinchem (skatteforvaltningen for person- og virksomhedsbeskatning, Gorinchem, herefter »skatteforvaltningen«) bestred ikke, at C. Baars' kapitalandel udgjorde en betydelig kapitalinteresse i nederlandsk rets forstand.
Those questions have been raised in proceedings between Mr Baars, a Netherlands national, and the Netherlands tax authority regarding the latter's refusal to grant him a tax allowance in respect of wealth tax.
C. Baars har bopæl i Nederlandene.
Mr Baars is resident in the Netherlands.
Han er indehaver af alle anparterne i Ballyard Foods Limited (herefter »Ballyard«), som er et irsk selskab, der har hjemsted i Dublin i Irland.
He owns all the shares in Ballyard Foods Limited (hereinafter 'Ballyard'), a limited company incorporated under Irish law established in Dublin, Ireland.
C. Baars klagede den 9. november 1995 til samme myndighed, som imidlertid afviste klagen ved afgørelse af 27. september 1996.
The Inspector in the Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen (Tax Office responsible for private individuals/undertakings), Gorinchem (hereinafter 'the Inspector') did not dispute that Mr Baars' holding in Ballyard was a substantial holding in terms of Netherlands law.
Det fremgår af forelæggelseskendelsen, at anparterne udgør en betydelig kapitalinteresse i et selskab i nederlandsk rets forstand.
However, he refused to allow the exemption on the ground that Ballyard did not satisfy the requirement that it be established in the Netherlands, as provided in Article 7(3)(c) of the Wealth Tax Law, as amended.
Med henblik på formueskatteansættelsen for 1994 angav C. Baars en formue, som pr. 1. januar 1994 udgjorde 2 650 600 NLG, herunder værdien af anparterne i Ballyard, som på samme tidspunkt udgjorde 749 800 NLG.
It is apparent from the order for reference that those shares represent a 'substantial holding in a company' in terms of Netherlands law.
C. Baars anlagde derefter sag til prøvelse af afgørelsen ved Gerechtshof, Haag.
For the purposes of the 1994 wealth tax assessment, Mr Baars declared assets amounting,
Under henvisning til, at anparterne i Ballyard udgjorde en betydelig kapitalinteresse i nederlandsk rets forstand, anmodede C. Baars om at blive omfattet af skattefritagelsen for erhvervsvirksomhed i henhold til formueskattelovens artikel 7, stk. 3, med senere ændringer, og dermed opnå en nedsættelse på
Mr Baars lodged an objection against that refusal on 9 November 1995 which was rejected by the Inspector on 27 September 1996.
Den omstændighed, at en medlemsstat ikke indrømmer skattepligtige i medlemsstaten en skattefritagelse for erhvervsvirksomhed i forbindelse med en betydelig kapitalinteresse, i den nationale lovgivnings forstand, i selskaber, der er hjemmehørende i andre medlemsstater, har derfor ikke nødvendigvis indvirkning på etableringsfriheden.
The Court must therefore examine whether the provisions of the Treaty relating to freedom of establishment, and in particular Article 52 of the Treaty, are applicable to a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings giving rise to the reference for a preliminary ruling.
»1) Skal EF-traktatens artikel 6 og/eller 52 fortolkes således, at en begrænsning, som følger af en bestemmelse i en medlemsstats lovgivning om formueskat — hvorefter formue, der er investeret i kapitalandele i en virksomhed, såfremt kapitalandelene udgør en betydelig kapitalinteresse, fritages for formuebeskatning hos indehaveren af kapitalandelene, men fritagelsen kun gælder for kapitalandele i selskaber, der er hjemmehørende i den pågældende medlemsstat — er uforenelig med de nævnte artikler?
Mr Baars brought an action challenging that decision before the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage. In that action Mr Baars submitted inter alia that it was contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty, which provides for freedom of establishment, and Article 73b of the Treaty, which prohibits restrictions on movements of capital between the Member States, to limit the undertaking exemption to holdings in companies established in the Netherlands.
Såfremt spørgsmål 1 må besvares benægtende, skal EF-traktatens artikel 73 Β og 73 D da fortolkes således, at en begrænsning som omhandlet i spørgsmål 1 er uforenelig med disse artikler?«
Taking the view that in order to give judgment it would be necessary to obtain an interpretation of Articles 6, 52, 73b and 73d of the Treaty, the Gerechtshof te 'sGravenhage decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Det skal dog bemærkes, at den situation, der har givet anledning til hovedsagen, er en situation, hvor en statsborger i en medlemsstat har bopæl i samme medlemsstat og er indehaver af samtlige kapitalandele i et selskab, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat.
Under Netherlands laws, a substantial holding, which is essentially a holding for the last five years of at least one third of the shares in a company and more than seven percent of paid-up nominal capital, does not necessarily imply control or management of the company, which are factors connected with the exercise of the right of establishment.
Indehavelse af en kapitalandel på 100% af kapitalen i et selskab, der har hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat, medfører imidlertid uden tvivl, at en sådan skattepligtig er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for traktatens bestemmelser om etableringsretten.
Consequently, the fact that a Member State does not allow its taxpayers the undertaking exemption for a substantial holding, within the meaning of its domestic legislation, in companies established in other Member States does not necessarily affect freedom of establishment.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at selv om direkte beskatning henhører under medlemsstaternes kompetence, skal disse dog udøve denne under overholdelse af fællesskabsretten og således afstå fra enhver form for forskelsbehandling begrundet i nationalitet.
'(1) Must Articles 6 and/or 52 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that a restriction in a provision of a Member State's wealth tax legislation which exempts assets invested in shares in an undertaking — provided that the shares form a substantial holding — from wealth tax to which the shareholder is liable but which restricts that exemption to shares in companies established in that Member State is incompatible with those articles?
Det følger således af traktatens artikel 52, stk. 2, at etableringsfriheden indebærer adgang til at oprette og lede virksomheder, herunder navnlig selskaber, i en medlemsstat for en statsborger i en anden medlemsstat.
However, the situation from which the main proceedings have arisen concerns a national of a Member State who resides in that Member State and who holds all the shares in a company established in another Member State.
En statsborger i en medlemsstat udøver således sin etableringsret, når han er indehaver af en kapitalandel i et selskab i en anden medlemsstat, der giver ham en sådan indflydelse på beslutningerne i selskabet, at han kan træffe afgørelse om dets drift.
A 100% holding in the capital of a company having its seat in another Member State undoubtedly brings such a taxpayer within the scope of application of the Treaty provisions on the right of establishment.
Med hensyn til traktatens artikel 6 står det imidlertid fast, at princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på etableringsrettens område er blevet iværksat ved traktatens artikel 52.
(2) If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative, must Article 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that a restriction such as that referred to in Question 1 is incompatible with those articles?'
Som følge heraf finder traktatens artikel 6 ikke anvendelse i hovedsagen.
It is clear from the second paragraph of Article 52 of the Treaty that freedom of establishment includes the right to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms, in a Member State by a national of another Member State.
Der skal derfor tages stilling til, om traktatens bestemmelser om etableringsfrihed, herunder traktatens artikel 52, finder anvendelse på en situation, som den, sagsøgeren i hovedsagen befinder sig i, og som har givet anledning til den præjudicielle forelæggelse.
So, a national of a Member State who has a holding in the capital of a company established in another Member State which gives him definite influence over the company's decisions and allows him to determine its activities is exercising his right of establishment.
Det bemærkes i denne forbindelse, at en betydelig kapitalinteresse i nederlandsk rets forstand — dvs. i det væsentlige indehavelse i løbet af de seneste fem år af mindst en tredjedel af kapitalandelene i et selskab og over syv procent af den indbetalte, nominelle kapital -ikke nødvendigvis indebærer en kontrol med eller ledelse af selskabet, hvilket er forhold, der falder ind under udøvelsen af etableringsretten.
As regards Article 6 of the Treaty, it is common ground that the principle of non-discrimination has been given effect, in the field of the right of establishment, by Article 52 of the Treaty.
Som den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt har anmodet om med det første spørgsmål, skal det herefter efterprøves, om traktatens artikel 52 er til hinder for en medlemsstats skattelovgivning -som den i hovedsagen omhandlede lovgivning -hvorefter der i tilfælde af, at indehavelse af en kapitalandel i et selskab giver indehaveren en sådan indflydelse på beslutningerne i selskabet, at han kan træffe afgørelse om dets drift, hvilket naturligvis altid vil være tilfældet, når kapitalandelen udgør 100% af et selskabs kapital, — indrømmes personer, der er statsborgere i medlemsstaterne og har bopæl på den pågældende medlemsstats område, hel
As regards Article 52 of the Treaty, the Netherlands Government submits that the provisions of the Treaty relating to freedom of establishment are not applicable to a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings, which, it maintains, is covered solely
Denne forskelsbehandling af de skattepligtige er principielt i strid med traktatens artikel 52.
Consequently, Article 6 of the Treaty is not applicable in the case before the national court.
Der skal derfor tages stilling til, om forskelsbehandlingen eventuelt kan være berettiget i henhold til traktatens bestemmelser om etableringsfriheden.
That difference in the treatment of taxpayers is in principle contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty.
Den nederlandske regering har i denne henseende gjort gældende, at det er nødvendigt at opretholde sammenhængen i det nederlandske skattesystem.
It is therefore necessary to see whether there is any justification for that difference in treatment under the Treaty provisions relating to freedom of establishment.
Traktatens artikel 52 er en af fællesskabsrettens grundlæggende bestemmelser og er umiddelbart gældende i medlemsstaterne.
It is therefore necessary to determine, as in essence the national court essentially asks by its first question, whether Article 52 of the Treaty precludes a Member State's tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in circumstances where a holding in the capital of a company confers on the shareholder a definite influence over the company's decisions and allows him to determine its activities — which is self-evidently always the case wherever there is a 100% holding,
Traktatens artikel 52 er til hinder for, at oprindelsesmedlemsstaten opstiller hindringer for, at en af dens statsborgere etablerer sig i en anden medlemsstat.
The Netherlands Government argues the need to maintain cohesion in the Netherlands tax system.
Kun den formue, der er investeret i kapitalandele i et selskab i Nederlandene, fritages således, helt eller delvis for formueskat, og dette modsvares af, at kun overskud, som selskabet har indtjent i Nederlandene, undergives selskabsskat i denne medlemsstat.
It explains that only assets invested in shares in a company established in the Netherlands are wholly or partially exempt from wealth tax, since only profits which such a company has made in the Netherlands are subject to corporation tax there.
Formue, der er investeret i kapitalandele i et selskab med hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat, behøver således ikke at være omfattet af formueskattefritagelsen, da overskud, som et sådant selskab opnår, ikke er selskabsskattepligtigt i Nederlandene, og der dermed ikke sker en dobbeltbeskatning, som bør opvejes.
but makes that exemption subject to the condition that the holding be held in a company established in the Member State concerned, thus denying it to holders of shares in companies established in other Member States.
Der sker ikke en dobbeltbeskatning af overskud, selv ikke i økonomisk forstand, da den beskatning, hovedsagen angår, ikke rammer overskud, som udloddes til selskabsdeltagerne i form af udbytte, men derimod selskabsdeltagernes formue gennem værdien af deres kapitalandele i et selskab.
Article 52 of the Treaty constitutes one of the fundamental provisions of Community law and has been directly applicable in the Member States.
Om selskabet opnår et overskud eller ej, har i øvrigt ingen betydning for, om der skal svares formueskat.
Article 52 of the Treaty prohibits the Member State of origin from hindering the establishment in another Member State of one of its own nationals.
Det andet præjudicielle spørgsmål
Whether or not the company makes a profit does not in any event affect liability to wealth tax.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
In view of the answer given to the first question, it is unnecessary to reply to the second question.
»EF-traktatens artikel 52 (efter ændring nu artikel 43 EF) er til hinder for en medlemsstats skattelovgivning—som den i hovedsagen omhandlede lovgivning — hvorefter der i tilfælde af, at indehavelse af en kapitalandel i et selskab giver indehaveren en sådan indflydelse på beslutningerne i selskabet, at han kan træffe afgørelse om dets drift,
By refusing to grant the tax advantage conferred by the undertaking exemption to nationals of Member States residing in the Netherlands who, in exercise of their right of free establishment, manage a company having its seat in a Member State other than the Netherlands, while granting that advantage to nationals of Member States residing in the Netherlands who hold a substantial holding in a company having its seat in the Netherlands, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings provides for a difference in treatment between taxpayers by
indrømmes personer, der er statsborgere i medlemsstaterne og har bopæl på den pågældende medlemsstats område, hel eller delvis fritagelse for formueskat af den formue, der er investeret i kapitalandele i selskabet men som en betingelse for denne fritagelse stiller krav om, at kapitalandelen indehaves i et selskab, der er hjemmehørende i den pågældende medlemsstat, således at indehavere af kapitalandele i selskaber i andre medlemsstater ikke kan opnå fritagelse.«
'Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes a Member State's tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in circumstances where a holding in the capital of a company confers on the shareholder a definite influence over the company's decisions and allows him to determine its activities,
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 14 October 1999.
Præjudiciel »Arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed — konkurrenceregler f or virksomhederne —professionelle basketballspillere — regler om transfer af spillere fra andre medlemsstater« (Sjette Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Freedom of movement for workers — Competition rules applicable to undertakings — Professional basketball players — Sporting rules on the transfer of players from other Member States)