natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-206/06 kan have en væsentligt forskellig økonomisk virkning i forhold til de to typer produkter.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-206/06 and it will, therefore, have to be reduced proportionately.
vare mere end den indenlandske vare og som følge heraf bør nedsættes forholdsmæssigt 21.
21 structure and method of collection, may have a different real economic impact on the two categories of product.
Når provenuet af afgifter, der både rammer importerede og indenlandske produkter, er bestemt til at betale aktiviteter, som særligt begunstiger de sidstnævnte produkter, opvejes den afgiftsmæssige byrde, der påhviler indenlandske produkter, i større eller mindre grad af de fordele, der opnås, hvorimod den afgift, der påhviler de importerede produkter, udgør en nettobyrde 20.
Thus, if the revenue from a charge levied on both imported and domestic products is intended to finance activities for the special advantage of the taxed domestic product, the fiscal burden on the domestic product is, to a greater or lesser extent, neutralised by the advantages which the charge is used to finance, whilst the charge on the imported product constitutes a net burden. 20
Ifølge fast retspraksis påhviler det i øvrigt den nationale ret, der alene råder over alle de nødvendige oplysninger, bl.a. om de faktiske omstændigheder, at træffe denne afgørelse 22.
Moreover, it is established in caselaw that it is for the national court to make an assessment of that nature, since it alone has all of the evidence, including the matters of fact, required to do so.
Den skal herved først undersøge, om der foreligger identitet mellem den beskattede vare og den begunstigede indenlandske vare 23.
22For that purpose, it will have, first and foremost, to ascertain if the taxed product and the advantaged domestic product are the same.
Den skal dernæst undersøge, om det fulde afgiftsprovenu fra de indenlandske varer, opgjort i penge i en bestemt referenceperiode, fuldstændig svarer til de fordele, der udelukkende kommer disse varer til gode.
23 It will also have to check, during a reference period, on the financial equivalence of the total amounts levied on domestic products in connection with the charge and the advantages afforded exclusively to those products.
Domstolen har herved præciseret, at ingen andre kriterier end det pengemæssige, som f.eks. arten, betydningen eller uomgængeligheden af disse fordele, giver et tilstrækkeligt objektivt grundlag for at afgøre, om en national skatteforanstaltning er forenelig med traktaten 24.
In that connection, the Court has stated that any other parameter, such as the nature, scope or indispensable character of those advantages, would not provide a sufficiently ob -jective basis on which to determine whether a domestic fiscal measure is compatible with the provisions of the Treaty. 24
For at kunne bedømme, om en skattelignende afgift er forenelig med artikel 25 EF og 90 EF, skal det således efter fast retspraksis efterprøves, i hvilket omfang de afgifter, der pålægges den indenlandske vare, udlignes af de fordele, som afgiftsprovenuet skal finansiere.
Therefore, in determining whether a parafiscal charge is compatible with Ar -ticles 25 EC and 90 EC, it is necessary, according to now settled caselaw, to assess the extent to which the charges levied on the domestic product are offset by the advantages which the revenue from the charge is used to finance.
Jeg skal afslutte denne korte gennemgang af retspraksis med at bemærke, ligesom andre generaladvokater har gjort det før mig, at den ovenfor anførte retspraksis indebærer, at de nationale retsinstanser i mange tilfælde må foretage komplicerede og vilkår-
Having completed this brief summary of the caselaw, I consider it useful to point out, as have a number of Advocates General before me, that since the caselaw which I have just cited requires the national courts to make assessments of an economic nature that are frequently complex and uncertain,
22 — Jf. bl.a. dommen i sagen Compagnie commerciale de l’Ouest m.fl., nævnt i fodnote 20 ovenfor, præmis 28, og dommen i sagen Lornoy m.fl., nævnt i fodnote 21 ovenfor, præmis 22.
22 — See, inter alia, Compagnie commerciale de l’Ouest and Others, cited in footnote 20, paragraph 28, and Lornoy and Others, cited in footnote 21, paragraph 22.
23 — Jf. dom af 25.5.1977, sag 105/76, Interzuccheri, Sml. s. 1029, præmis 12, og Cucchi-dommen, nævnt i fodnote 18 ovenfor, præmis 19.
23 — See Case 105/76 Interzuccheri [1977] ECR 1029, paragraph 12, and Cucchi, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 19.
20 — Jf. bl.a. dom af 21.5.1980, sag 73/79, Kommissionen mod Italien, Sml. s. 1533, præmis 15, af 11.3.1992, forenede sager C-78/90 — C-83/90, Compagnie commerciale de l’Ouest m.fl., Sml. I, s. 1847, præmis 26, og UCAL-dommen, nævnt i fodnote 17 ovenfor, præmis 21.
20 — See, inter alia, Case 73/79 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1533, paragraph 15; Joined Cases C-78/90 to C-83/90 Compagnie commerciale de l’Ouest and Others [1992] ECR I-1847, paragraph 26; and UCAL, cited in footnote 17, paragraph 21.
24 — Jf. dom af 2.8.1993, sag C-266/91, CELBI, Sml. I, s. 4337, præmis 18.
24 — See Case C-266/91 CELBI [1993] ECR I-4337, paragraph 18.
lige økonomiske undersøgelser 25, og derfor ubestrideligt er vanskelig at anvende, selv om hovedlinjerne er klare 26. Det må i lyset af disse vanskeligheder ikke glemmes, at anvendelsen af forbuddene i artikel 25 EF og 90 EF ved vurderingen af, om en skattelignende afgift, hvis provenu er bestemt til at finansiere en offentlig ordning, der skal fremme den indenlandske produktion, er forenelig med fællesskabsretten, kun er et alternativ til anvendelsen af traktatens statsstøtteregler 27.
26In the light of those difficulties, it should not be forgotten that in cases involving an assessment of the lawfulness under Community law of a parafiscal charge, the revenue from which is used to finance a State system of incentives for domestic production, the application of the prohibitions under Ar -ticles 25 EC and 90 EC may be viewed as a simple alternative to the application of the Treaty provisions on State aids.
nederlandske regering har fremført, og som tilsyneladende har til formål at afvise, at det omtvistede tillæg skulle have karakter af en afgift.
27 the Netherlands Government, since their purpose appears to be to call into question the nature of the contested surcharge as a fiscal measure.
SEP har bl.a. anført, at artikel 9 i OEPS blot giver distributionsselskaberne ret til at overvælte de beløb, som de ifølge protokollen har pligt til at betale til produktionsselskaberne, på deres kunder.
More particularly, according to SEP, Article 9 of the OEPS is nothing other than an instrument permitting the distribution companies to pass on to their customers the contributions which they have undertaken to pay to the generating undertakings under the protocol.
Nederlandene har ligeledes påpeget, at det omhandlede tillæg har hjemmel i protokollen, og understreget, at det indgår i det vederlag, der skal erlægges for transportydelser.
The Netherlands Government also maintains that the contested surcharge is justified on the basis of the protocol and insists that it represents an element of the payment due in respect of the transmission services.
b) Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt det tillæg, der er indført ved artikel 9, stk. 1, i OEPS, udgør en afgift med tilsvarende virkning i artikel 25 EF’s forstand eller en diskriminerende intern afgift i henhold til artikel 90 EF
(b) Does the surcharge laid down by Article 9(1) of the OEPS constitute a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 25 EC or discriminatory internal taxation within the meaning of Article 90 EC?
Jeg mener ikke, at disse argumenter giver grundlag for at konkludere, at det omhandlede tillæg, selv om det på visse punkter adskiller sig fra en klassisk afgift, ikke kan henføres til begrebet afgift med tilsvarende virkning i artikel 25 EF’s forstand eller intern afgift i artikel 90 EF’s forstand.
Although the contested surcharge possesses features that distinguish it from a tax in the traditional sense, it does not seem to me that those arguments allow the conclusion that it is not caught by the definition of charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 25 EC or of internal taxation within the meaning of Article 90 EC.
25 — Disse vanskeligheder fremgår i øvrigt af de mange præjudicielle spørgsmål, der er rejst herom, selv om der foreligger en klar retspraksis.
25 — That those difficulties exist is, in fact, borne out by the number of questions for a preliminary ruling which have been submitted on that point, even though the caselaw is unambiguous.
26 — Generaladvokat Roemer udtalte sig allerede i sit forslag til afgørelse i Capolongo-sagen (sag 77/72, Sml. s. 611, på s. 632) forbeholdent over for de komplicerede undersøgelser, der er nødvendige for at vurdere udligningens omfang.
26 — Uncertainties linked to the assessments required to determine the scale of compensation had already been expressed by Advocate General Roemer in his Opinion in Case 77/72 Capolongo [1973] ECR 611, and p.
Dommen i denne sag er den første, hvori udligningskriteriet er nævnt.
632 in particular, with the judgment in that case containing the first reference in the caselaw to the criterion of offsetting.
Få år senere gav generaladvokat Trabbuchi i sit forslag til afgørelse i IGAV-sagen (nævnt i fodnote 18 ovenfor) og generaladvokat Reischl i Cucchisagen (nævnt i fodnote 18 ovenfor) udtryk for, at dette kriterium måtte anvendes restriktivt, eftersom Capolongodommen kun gjaldt, når der forelå »væsentlig omgåelse af loven«.
Some years later, Advocate General Trabucchi, in his Opinion in IGAV, cited in footnote 18, and Advocate General Reischl in his Opinion in Cucchi, cited in footnote 18, proposed that that criterion should be given a restrictive interpretation, taking the view that the decision in Capolongo should relate only to cases of ‘significant fraud’.
Generaladvokat Mayras (sag 222/78, ICAP, Sml. s. 1163) og generaladvokat Gulmann (CELBI-sagen, nævnt i fodnote 24 ovenfor, punkt 15) har udtalt sig åbenlyst kritisk herom.
Openly critical comments have been made by Advocate General Mayras (Case 222/78 ICAP [1979] ECR 1163) and Advocate General Gulmann (in CELBI, cited in footnote 24, point 15).
Endelig har generaladvokat Tesauro flere gange påpeget, at det er vanskeligt at anvende udligningskriteriet i de enkelte tilfælde (jf. bl.a. dennes forslag til afgørelse i UCAL-sagen, nævnt i fodnote 17 ovenfor).
Finally, Advocate General Tesauro has, on several occasions, highlighted the difficulties in applying the criterion of offsetting to individual cases of this kind (see, for instance, his Opinion in UCAL, cited in footnote 17).
27 — Jf. i denne retning generaladvokat Gulmanns forslag til afgørelse i CELBI-sagen, nævnt i fodnote 24 ovenfor, punkt 15, og endnu tidligere generaladvokat Mayras’ forslag til afgørelse i ICAP-sagen, nævnt i fodnote 26 ovenfor.
27 — See, to that effect, the Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann in CELBI, cited in footnote 24, point 15, and, before him, the Opinion of Advocate General Mayras in ICAP, cited in footnote 26.
For det første er begrebet afgift med tilsvarende virkning, som jeg tidligere har nævnt, defineret meget bredt i retspraksis.
First, as we have seen above, the caselaw defines the concept of charge having equivalent effect in particularly broad terms.
Ifølge denne definition tager det omhandlede retlige begreb reelt udgangspunkt i, hvorledes en konkret økonomisk byrde påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
It follows from that definition that the essence of the legal concept in question lies in the effects which a specific pecuniary charge has on trade between Member States.
Formelle aspekter som benævnelse, størrelse, udformning, opkrævningsmåde, anvendelse, provenuets modtager og de formål, der forfølges, har derimod ingen betydning for, om denne byrde betragtes som en afgift med tilsvarende virkning, når blot den er
The formal aspects — such as the designation, the amount, the structure, the methods of collection, the destination, the recipient of the proceeds and the objectives pursued — are in fact irrelevant as regards its classification as a charge having equivalent effect, provided that the charge in question is legally binding
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-206/06 elektricitet og ikke prisen for elektricitet.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-206/06 relates to the tariff for the transmission service and not the cost of the electricity.
SEP har desuden oplyst, at det er de nederlandske systemoperatører, der forestår transporten på nederlandsk område.
SEP also points out that this service is provided by Netherlands net operators within Netherlands territory.
retligt bindende (»pålægges ensidigt«) 28.
(‘imposed unilaterally’).
I denne sag kan der dog ikke være tvivl om, at den omhandlede afgift, der opkræves af alle brugere, som opfylder betingelserne i artikel 9, stk. 1, i OEPS, er bindende, eftersom det er ubestridt, at brugeren har pligt til at benytte sig af de ydelser, der leveres af systemoperatøren på det sted, hvor brugeren er bosiddende.
28In this case, the obligatory nature of the tax, which is payable by any user who meets the conditions laid down by Article 9(1) of the OEPS, is not in doubt, and it is likewise not in doubt that the use of the services of the net operator of the place in which the user is established is obligatory.
Begrebet intern afgift i artikel 90 EF’s forstand er lige så bredt 29.
The concept of internal taxation within the meaning of Article 90 EC is equally broad. 29
Artikel 25 EF omhandler som bekendt kun afgifter på varer.
As is well known, Article 25 EC relates only to charges on goods.
SEP mener derfor, at det alene af den grund, at der ikke er tale om en afgiftsbelagt vare, ikke er muligt at anvende denne bestemmelse.
Were SEP’s argument to be endorsed, the application of that provision would, therefore, be ruled out in this case, simply on the ground that no product is affected.
For det andet har Domstolen allerede taget stilling til økonomiske byrder, der indgik i tariffer eller lovbestemte priser, i forhold til artikel 25 EF og 90 EF 30.
Secondly, the Court has already had occasion to assess, on the basis of Articles 25 EC and 90 EC, pecuniary charges that appear as elements in a tariff or a statutorily regulated price. 30
Jeg skal indledningsvis også nærmere behandle SEP’s argument om, at artikel 25 EF ikke finder anvendelse, fordi det omtvistede tillæg vedrører prisen for transport af
Also as a preliminary point, it is necessary to consider the argument advanced by SEP, according to which Article 25 EC is not applicable because the contested surcharge
Jeg skal herved påpege, at Domstolen tidligere har fastslået, at elektricitet er en vare efter traktatens bestemmelser om frie varebevægelser 31.
In that connection, it must first be pointed out that the Court has already had occasion to find that electricity constitutes a product within the meaning of the Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods.
I en traktatbrudssag om overtrædelse af artikel 31 EF har Domstolen desuden fastslået, at »de tjenesteydelser, der er nødvendige for import eller eksport af elektricitet og for at transportere og distribuere den, kun er midler til at levere en vare i traktatens forstand til brugeren« 32, og at disse tjenesteydelser derfor var sekundære i forhold til den leverede vare.
31Ruling on an action for failure to fulfil obligations involving a breach of Article 31 EC, the Court also pointed out that ‘the services needed for the import or export of electricity and its transmission and distribution merely constitute the means for supplying users with goods within the meaning of the Treaty’, 32recognising, therefore, that those services are of an ancillary nature, as compared with the subjectmatter of the service provided.
28 — Domstolen har f.eks. i en traktatbrudssag mod Italien afvist, at priser, der var fastlagt i en faglig tarif og stadfæstet ved lov, var afgifter med tilsvarende virkning, fordi det ikke var obligatorisk at anvende de tjenesteydelser, som disse priser gjaldt for (jf. dom af 9.2.1994, sag C-119/92, Kommissionen mod Italien, Sml. I, s. 393, præmis 46 og 47).
28 — Thus, for example, in the context of an action brought against the Italian Republic for failure to fulfil obligations, the Court ruled that a tariff set by a professional association and given legal effect by statute did not constitute a charge having equivalent effect, since the use of the ser -vices to which that tariff applied was not compulsory (see Case C-119/92 Commission v Italy [1994] ECR I-393, paragraphs 46 and 47).
29 — Jf. bl.a. dom af 16.2.1977, sag 20/76, Schöttle, Sml. s. 247, præmis 12 og 13.
29 — See, for example, Case 20/76 Schöttle [1977] ECR 247, paragraphs 12 and 13.
31 — Jf. dom af 15.7.1964, sag 6/64, Costa mod ENEL, Sml.
31 — See Case 6/64 Costa [1964] ECR 585, which confirmed that electricity can fall within the scope of Article 31 EC in relation to national monopolies of a commercial character; Case C-158/94 Commission v Italy [1997] ECR I-5789, paragraph 17; and Almelo and Others, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 28, in which the Court considered it clear that electricity constituted a product for the purposes of Article 28 EC.
19541964, s. 531, org.ref.: Rec. s. 1141, hvori det fastslås, at elektricitet kan omfattes af anvendelsesområdet for artikel 31 EF, der vedrører statslige handelsmonopoler, samt dom af 23.10.1997, sag C-158/94, Kommissionen mod Italien, Sml.
In Case C-213/96 Outokumpu [1998] ECR I-1777, the Court assessed the compatibility with Articles 25 EC and 90 EC of a tax on electricity production.
I, s. 5789, præmis 17, og Almelo-dommen, nævnt i fodnote 12 ovenfor, præmis 28, hvori Domstolen fandt det ubestridt, at elektricitet var en vare efter artikel 28 EF.
30 — See, inter alia, Interzuccheri, cited in footnote 23, which concerned two different surcharges on the price of sugar fixed by the Comitato interministeriale prezzi to finance an equalisation fund for sugar.
I dom af 2.4.1998, sag C-213/96, Outokumpu, Sml. I, s. 1777, tog Domstolen stilling til, om en punktafgift på elektricitet var forenelig med artikel 25 EF og 90 CE.
In this case, the observations which SEP has submitted to the Court indicate that during the period when the contested surcharge applied, the tariff for transmitting electricity was fixed by a public body.
32 — Jf. dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Italien, sag C-158/94, nævnt i fodnote 31 ovenfor, præmis 18.
32 — See Case C-158/94 Commission v Italy, cited in footnote 31, paragraph 18.
vægt« 35, måtte anses for »afgifter, som […] indirekte pålægges varer« 36.
ESSENT NETWERK NOORD AND OTHERS weight of the goods in question’, 35 must be regarded as ‘taxation imposed indirectly on products’.
Domstolen fast- slog derfor, at »en sådan afgift, der virker umiddelbart tilbage på den indenlandske og den indførte vares pris, efter artikel 9[0] [skal] anvendes på en sådan måde, at den ikke diskriminerer de indførte varer« 37.
36 The Court found that ‘such a tax which has an immediate effect on the cost of the national and imported product must by virtue of Article 9[0] be applied in a manner which is not discriminatory to imported products.’ 37
Jeg skal også understrege, at begrebet afgift med tilsvarende virkning vil kunne anvendes på enhver byrde, der pålægges indenlandske eller fremmede varer, når de føres over grænsen, uanset hvorledes den opkræves.
It is necessary next to point out that the concept of charge having equivalent effect can embrace any charge that affects domestic or foreign goods because they cross a border, whatever the method of collection.
En afgift, der ikke udløses ved import eller eksport af en vare, men ved levering af en ydelse, som er nødvendig for eller knyttet til udøvelsen af disse aktiviteter 33, opfylder ligeledes disse betingelser, hvis den under alle omstændigheder vil kunne påvirke den pågældende vares bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet.
Those conditions are also met by a tax which is triggered, not by the import or export of a product, but by the provision of a service which is necessary for or linked to the conduct of such operations, 33 or if it is, in any event, capable of affecting the movement of the goods in question within the Community.
Jeg mener dog, at det er indlysende, at en byrde, der pålægges transportydelser og fastsættes ud fra mængden af den vare, der transporteres, og indirekte rammer denne vare, i princippet vil kunne have en sådan virkning.
It seems clear to me that, since it indirectly affects the goods in question, a charge levied on the provision of transmission services and determined according to the quantity of goods transmitted is, in principle, capable of having such an effect.
Jeg mener af de nævnte grunde ikke, at det er udelukket at efterprøve den omtvistede afgifts lovlighed ud fra artikel 25 EF, blot fordi den afgiftsudløsende begivenhed er en tjenesteydelse (transport), som er nødvendig for at afsætte den omhandlede vare.
For the reasons set out above, I do not consider that an assessment of the lawfulness of the contested charge on the basis of Article 25 EC must be ruled out simply because the event that triggers that charge resides in a service (transmission) that is an intrinsic part of the distribution chain of the product at issue.
Når dette er fastslået, må det undersøges, hvad der kendetegner det omtvistede pristillæg, for at afgøre, om det er omfattet af forbuddet i artikel 25 EF eller forbuddet i artikel 90 EF.
Having clarified all of those points, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of the price surcharge at issue in order to determine whether it falls within the prohibition under Article 25 EC or the prohibition under Article 90 EC.
Domstolen har i øvrigt tidligere besvaret et spørgsmål som det her omhandlede udelukkende i forhold til artikel 90 EF.
Moreover, the Court has already had occasion to rule on a question similar to that at issue here, albeit with reference to Article 90 EC alone.
I Schöttle-dommen 34, som Kommissionen har henvist til i sit indlæg, var Domstolen blevet forelagt en række spørgsmål om fortolkningen af denne bestemmelse i forbindelse med en afgift på godstransport ad landevej, der var gældende i Tyskland.
In the Court’s judgment in Schöttle, 34which the Commission cites in its written observations, the Court was seised of a number of questions concerning the interpretation of Article 90 EC in relation to a tax in force in Germany on the transport of goods by road.
Domstolen afviste de argumenter, der var fremført af den tyske regering, som mente, at den omhandlede afgift ikke faldt ind under anvendelsesområdet for artikel 90 EF, fordi den ikke ramte varen som sådan, og fastslog, at afgifter som dem, der var tale om i denne sag, »som pålægges internationale godstransporter ad landevej i forhold til den i indlandet tilbagelagte vejstrækning og de pågældende varers
Dismissing the arguments advanced by the German Government, which maintained that the tax in question was not caught by Article 90 EC, since it did not affect the product as such, the Court held that a tax such as the tax at issue in that case, ‘imposed on international transport of goods by road according to the distance covered on the national territory and the
33 — F.eks. hvis afgiften svarer til det gebyr, der betales for udstedelse af importlicenser eller for sundhedskontrol.
33 — In cases, for example, in which the charge represents the consideration payable for the issue of import licences or for health checks.
34 — Jf. fodnote 29 ovenfor.
34 — Cited in footnote 29.