natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Philippe Derouin og den franske regering hævder imidlertid i det væsentlige, at forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat, hvis lovgivning er fastlagt i overensstemmelse med forordningen i medfør af de i national lovgivning ved overenskomst indførte forpligtelser på skatteområdet, giver den arbejdstager, der har udnyttet sin ret til fri bevægelighed, en mere fordelagtig behandling end den, som udøver hele sin selvstændige virksomhed i denne medlemsstat.
However, Mr Derouin and the French Government contend, in essence, that it is not contrary to Regulation No 1408/71 for a Member State whose legislation is designated in accordance with that regulation to grant, in pursuance of its commitments under tax conventions, which have entered into domestic law, more favourable treatment to a worker who has exercised his right to freedom of movement than to a worker who pursues all his activities in a selfemployed capacity in that Member State.
For det første, og uden at ville modsige påstanden om, at Philippe Derouin profiterer
At first sight, and without wishing to undermine the claim that Mr Derouin
Ved at undergive selvstændige erhvervsdrivende, som udøver selvstændig virksomhed i flere medlemsstater, én socialsikringslovgivning for alle deres indtægter, tilsigter artikel 14d, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71, sammenholdt med artikel 14a,
Then, in making selfemployed persons who pursue a professional activity in that capacity in more than one Member State subject to a single system of social legislation in respect of their whole income, Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, read in conjunction with Article 14a(2) of that regulation, also seeks to ensure equal treatment of all workers occupied in the territory of a Member State, without penalising
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-103/06 af en fordelagtigere behandling i henhold til dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten (i det mindste med hensyn til rådighed af nettoindkomst fra udøvelsen af hans selvstændige virksomhed) end en selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, som udelukkende udøver tilsvarende virksomhed i Frankrig, forekommer denne opfattelse mig overbevisende. Den støder imidlertid mod flere hindringer, som der vil blive nærmere redegjort for i de følgende punkter.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-103/06 receives more favourable treatment (at least from the point of view of the availability of net income obtained from pursuing his activities in a selfemployed capacity), under the Double Taxation Convention, than a selfemployed person pursuing activities exclusively in that capacity in France, this view would seem convincing.
fastlægge kriterierne for indkomstbeskatning med henblik på, eventuelt ved indgåelse af overenskomster, at undgå dobbeltbeskatning.
the competence to decide on the criteria for the taxation of income in order, where appropriate by means of a convention, to avoid double taxation.
Som jeg tidligere har anført 41, har Domstolen i sin nuværende praksis foretaget en sondring mellem på den ene side fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne og på den anden side medlemsstaternes udøvelse af beskatningskompetencen, også når der er foretaget en forudgående bilateral eller unilateral fordeling af deres beskatningskompetence, hvor medlemsstaterne er forpligtet til at overholde fællesskabsreglerne 42.
As I have stated elsewhere, 41the current caselaw of the Court draws a distinction between, on the one hand, the allocation of powers of taxation between Member States and, on the other hand, the exercise of the power of taxation by Member States, including the case where this is the result of a previous allocation of their powers of taxation by bilateral or unilateral agreement, in respect of which the Member States must comply with the Community rules. 42
C — Om hindringerne for anvendelse af en ved overenskomst indgået fritagelse for forpligtelsen i artikel 14d, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71
C — The obstacles to applying a derogation provided for in a convention to the obligation laid down in Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71
Det er således ubestridt, at Den Franske Republik under udøvelsen af sin beskatningskompetence eller som i dette tilfælde, hvor den franske regering har valgt at give afkald på at opkræve CSG og CRDS af Philippe Derouins erhvervsmæssige indtægter af britisk oprindelse i henhold til dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, skal overholde fællesskabsretten.
There is, therefore, no question but that, in the exercise of its powers of taxation or, in the present case, as a result of its choice to refrain from assessing the CSG and the CRDS on Mr Derouin’s UK-source income under the Double Taxation Convention, the French Republic must act in accordance with Community law.
Philippe Derouin og den franske regering er af den opfattelse, at begrebet »lovgivning, der fastlægges« i artikel 14d, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 henviser til den kompetente
In that regard, Mr Derouin and the French Government consider that the concept of ‘legislation laid down in accordance with these provisions’, contained in
Som Det Forenede Kongeriges regering og Kommissionen med føje har anført, fremgår det af fast retspraksis, at medlemsstaterne under udøvelsen af deres kompetence, bl.a. vedrørende direkte beskatning, skal overholde fællesskabsretten 40.
As the United Kingdom Government and the Commission have rightly maintained, it is settled caselaw that in the exercise of their powers, in particular in the matter of direct taxation, the Member States are required to observe Community law.
Som anført i punkt 27 i nærværende forslag til afgørelse har medlemsstaterne, når der ikke på fællesskabsplan er truffet foranstaltninger til at fastsætte ensartede eller harmoniserede regler, bevaret kompetencen til at
40As was stated in point 27 above, with regard to the prevention or avoidance of double taxation, irrespective of any relevant measure of unification or harmonisation within the Community context, Member States retain
41 — Punkt 84 i mit forslag til afgørelse i sagen Columbus Container Services.
41 — Point 84 of my Opinion in Columbus Container Services.
DEROUIN i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten henhører under det saglige anvendelsesområde for forordning nr. 1408/71, følger det ikke heraf, at disse bestemmelser indgår i det i forordningens artikel 14d, stk. 1, omhandlede begreb »lovgivning, der fastlægges«.
DEROUIN were covered by the concept of ‘legislation laid down’ used in Article 14d(1) of that regulation.
medlemsstats samlede lovgivning, herunder i givet fald og i dette tilfælde til den i fransk lovgivning indførte dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst.
Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, refers to all the legislation of the competent Member State, including, where appropriate and in the present case, the Double Taxation Convention introduced into French domestic law.
Følgelig anvender Den Franske Republik blot sin egen lovgivning i overensstemmelse med mekanismen til løsning af konflikter inden for socialsikringslovgivningen, der er fastsat i de relevante bestemmelser i forordning nr. 1408/71.
Consequently, the French Republic does no more than apply its own legislation in accordance with the mechanism for resolving conflicts of social security law provided for by the relevant provisions of Regulation No 1408/71.
Ifølge artikel 1, litra j), i forordning nr. 1408/71, som definerer, hvad der forstås ved udtrykket »lovgivning« i denne forordning, betegner dette udtryk »for enhver medlemsstats vedkommende bestående eller fremtidig lovgivning, vedtægtsbestemmelser og alle andre gennemførelsesregler, der vedrører de i artikel 4, stk. 1 og 2, nævnte sociale sikringsgrene eller sikringsordninger eller de i artikel 4, stk. 2a, omhandlede særlige ikke-bidragspligtige ydelser«.
According to Article 1(j) of Regulation No 1408/71, which defines the term ‘legislation’ for the purposes of implementing that regulation, it means ‘in respect of each Member State statutes, regulations and other provisions and all other implementing measures, present or future, relating to the branches and schemes of social security covered by Article 4 (1) and (2) or those special non-contributory benefits covered by Article 4 (2a)’.
Denne definition nævner således ikke internationale sociale sikringsoverenskomster 43eller bestemmelser i andre internationale overenskomster, som i givet fald kan falde ind under det saglige anvendelsesområde for forordning nr. 1408/71.
That definition does not therefore mention international conventions in the field of social security 43 or, a fortiori, the provisions of other international conventions which, depending on circumstances, may fall within the substantive scope of Regulation No 1408/71.
Denne opfattelse forekommer ikke overbevisende, idet der herved bortses fra, at forordning nr. 1408/71 alene udpeger lovgivningen om social sikring, der anvendes på arbejdstagere og selvstændige erhvervsdrivende inden for Det Europæiske Fællesskab, som befinder sig i en given grænseoverskridende situation og altså ikke omhandler hele den nationale lovgivning som f.eks. arbejds- eller skattelovgivning.
This argument fails to convince, for it loses sight of the fact that Regulation No 1408/71 merely designates the social security legislation applicable to employed and selfemployed persons within the European Community who are in a given transborder situation and does not therefore refer to national legislation as a whole, which includes inter alia national employment law and tax laws.
I henhold til artikel 14d, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71, og som Urssaf har anført, skal den fastlagte socialsikringslovgivning, der gennemfører denne bestemmelse, fastsætte beregningsgrundlaget for bidrag, der henhører under forordningens anvendelsesområde, af de samlede selvstændige erhvervsindtægter for en selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, der befinder sig i en af denne forordnings artikel 14a, stk. 2, omhandlet situation.
Under Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, and as the URSSAF considered, the designated social security legislation implementing that provision must base the assessment of contributions falling within the scope of that regulation on the total income from selfemployment by a person in the situation covered by Article 14a(2) of that regulation.
Selv om man tilslutter sig den opfattelse, i øvrigt med rette forfægtet af Kommissionen, hvorefter de pågældende bestemmelser
Even if one were to accept the Commission’s argument, which does in fact have merit, that the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention at issue fall within the substantive scope of Regulation No 1408/71, it would still not mean that those provisions
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-103/06 enhver overenskomst, som, uanset den ikke formelt regulerer det sociale sikringsområde, henhører under anvendelsesområdet for forordning nr. 1408/71, omfattet af specifikke bestemmelser i forordningen, nemlig artikel 68.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-103/06 where the workers in question have exercised their right to freedom of movement by one or other of those dates. 44
Som bekendt fastsætter artikel 6 i forordning nr. 1408/71 det princip, at forordningen træder i stedet for overenskomster om social sikring, der er afsluttet alene mellem to medlemsstater.
We are aware that Article 6 of Regulation No 1408/71 sets out the principle that that regulation replaces inter alia any social security convention binding two Member States exclusively.
Dette princip skal efter min mening udvides til at omfatte bestemmelserne i andre bilaterale overenskomster, som henhører under anvendelsesområdet for denne forordning.
That principle should, in my view, extend to the provisions of other bilateral conventions which fall within the scope of that regulation.
En anden fortolkning ville gøre det muligt for medlemsstaterne at undgå det princip, der er knæsat i nævnte artikel 6, ved at tillade dem ved anvendelse af en simpel taksonomisk procedure at udelukke overenskomstmæssige bestemmelser fra denne forordnings anvendelsesområde, som henhører under den.
Any other interpretation would enable Member States to evade the principle laid down in Article 6 by allowing them, by merely using a classification procedure, to remove from the scope of that regulation provisions of a convention which fall within it.
Princippet i artikel 6 i forordning nr. 1408/71 forbliver derimod gældende og i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i EF-traktaten, når arbejdstagerne har udøvet deres ret til fri bevægelighed efter forordningens ikrafttrædelse, dvs. på et tidspunkt, hvor den bilaterale overenskomst om social sikring allerede er blevet erstattet af forordningen, også når anvendelsen af den pågældende overenskomst ville have været gunstigere for de forsikrede 45.
However, the principle set out in Article 6 of Regulation No 1408/71 is unaffected and remains consistent with the provisions of the EC Treaty when the workers have exercised their right to freedom of movement after the entry into force of that regulation, or at a time when the bilateral social security convention has already been replaced by that regulation, even where the application of that convention would have placed the insured persons in a more favourable position. 45
Der er imidlertid flere undtagelser til den principielle erstatning af bilaterale overenskomster mellem medlemsstater med forordning nr. 1408/71, hvoraf jeg kun skal nævne dem, der er relevante for den foreliggende sag.
Substitution of the principle laid down in Regulation No 1408/71 for bilateral conventions between Member States is however subject to several exceptions, but I shall mention only those which appear to have a relevant link with this case.
45 — Dom af 9.11.1995, sag C-475/93, Thévenon, Sml. I, s. 3813, præmis 26 og 28.
45 — Case C-475/93 Thévenon [1995] ECR I-3813, paragraphs 26 and 28).
I denne sag var den pågældende bilaterale overenskomst indgået i 1950.
In that case the bilateral convention in question had been concluded in 1950.
Jeg skal præcisere, at hele denne retspraksis i det væsentlige er gentaget i artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 883/2004.
It should be pointed out that that caselaw was reproduced in essence in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, cited above.
For det første skal jeg påpege, at Domstolen på grundlag af EF-traktatens bestemmelser har begrænset anvendelsen
First of all, it should be pointed out that, under the provisions of the EC Treaty, the Court has restricted application of the rule laid down in Article 6 of Regulation No 1408/71 to situations in which the workers concerned cannot assert rights acquired in order to retain the more favourable provisions contained in a convention binding two Member States, concluded before the entry into force of that regulation or before the accession of one of the Member States concerned to the Communities, and
DEROUIN bestemmelserne i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, som henhører under forordning nr. 1408/71’s anvendelsesområde, for så vidt som det er ubestridt, at han har udøvet sin ret til etableringsfrihed efter forordningens ikrafttræden, hvilket — som præciseret under retsmødet — bekræftes af, at de bidrag, som Urssaf i hovedsagen har krævet, at han betaler, vedrører forskellige perioder mellem 2000 og 2005.
DEROUIN provisions of the Double Taxation Convention that fall within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71, inasmuch as it is common ground that he has exercised his right to freedom of movement after that regulation entered into force, which is confirmed by the fact that, as stated at the hearing, the contributions payment of which the URSSAF claims from him in the main proceedings concern various periods between the years 2000 and 2005.
ikrafttræden, indeholder bestemmelser, hvis nyhed og/eller ændringer, der er tilføjet inden for rammerne af overenskomstmæssige forbindelser mellem medlemsstaterne, indebærer, at disse bestemmelser henhører under anvendelsesområdet for samme forordning.
consider it unreasonable to allow the benefit of that option afforded to Member States to be extended to international conventions which, although concluded in an area other than that of social security and before the entry into force of that regulation, contain provisions whose novelty and/or the amendments made to which in the context of relations arising from agreements between Member States lead to those provisions falling within the scope of that regulation.
Disse bestemmelser bør dog altid — som Kommissionen har anført under retsmødet — være baseret på forordning nr. 1408/71’s principper og grundtanker.
Nonetheless, as the Commission stated at the hearing, those provisions must always be based on the principles and spirit of Regulation No 1408/71.
De skal ligeledes overholde de formelle krav, der er fastsat i forordningens artikel 8, stk. 2, og som pålægger de kontraherende medlemsstater en forpligtelse til at afgive meddelelse om de berørte overenskomster, i overensstemmelse med artikel 97, stk. 1, i samme forordning 48.
They must also satisfy the formal requirements laid down in Article 8(2) of that regulation, which imposes an obligation on contracting Member States to notify the conventions concerned, in accordance with the provisions of Article 97(1) of that regulation. 48
Som Kommissionens befuldmægtigede fremførte under retsmødet, kan den foreliggende sag indebære anvendelse af artikel 8 i forordning nr. 1408/71, hvis stk. 1 ved undtagelse fra artikel 6 anerkender, at to eller flere medlemsstater kan afslutte »overenskomster med hinanden på grundlag af denne forordnings principper og grundtanker« 46.
Next, as the Commission mentioned at the hearing, the present case could involve application of Article 8 of Regulation No 1408/71, paragraph 1 of which, by way of derogation from Article 6, cited above, provides that two or more Member States may conclude ‘conventions with each other based on the principles and in the spirit of [that] regulation’. 46
Selv om artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 kun vedrører »nye« overenskomster, dvs. overenskomster, der er afsluttet efter forordningens ikrafttræden 47, forekommer det mig ikke urimeligt at udvide fordelen ved denne mulighed, der er givet medlemsstaterne, til internationale overenskomster, der selv om de er afsluttet på et andet område end social sikring og før forordningens
Although Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 concerns ‘new’ conventions only, that is to say, those concluded after the entry into force of that regulation, 47 I do not
Det er imidlertid utvivlsomt, at bestemmelserne i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, som henhører under anvendelsesområdet for forordning nr. 1408/71, ikke har været genstand for en sådan meddelelse, heller ikke efter afsigelsen af dommene i sagerne Kommissionen mod Frankrig, hvori Domstolen fastslog, at CSG og CRDS henhørte under anvendelsesområdet for denne forordning, trods den skattemæssige karakter, som den franske lovgivning tilkender dem.
It is, however, beyond doubt that the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention that fall within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 were not notified as required, even after the Court delivered the Commission v France judgments, in which it held that the CSG and the CRDS fell within the scope of that regulation, regardless of the fact that French domestic law classifies them as tax measures.
46 — Det bemærkes, at forordning nr. 883/2004 gentager denne undtagelse i artikel 8, stk. 2.
46 — I would point out that that derogation is reproduced in Article 8(2) of Regulation No 883/2004.
47 — Grana-Novoa-dommen, præmis 22, og dom af 28.4.1994, sag C-305/92, Hoorn, Sml. I, s. 1525, præmis 19.
47 — Grana-Novoa, paragraph 22, and Case C-305/92 Hoorn [1994] ECR I-1525, paragraph 19.
48 — Det bemærkes, at en sådan forpligtelse til meddelelse også findes i artikel 9, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 883/2004.
48 — It should be noted that a similar notification requirement is also contained in Article 9(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, cited above.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-103/06 i strid med bestemmelserne i artikel 39 EF og 43 EF, såfremt a) den ikke stiller den berørte arbejdstager ringere i forhold til dem, der udøver hele deres beskæftigelse i den medlemsstat, hvor denne lovgivning finder anvendelse, eller i forhold til dem, der allerede tidligere var omfattet af den i vedkommende stat, og b) såfremt den ikke blot indebærer, at den pågældende indbetaler sociale bidrag, som ikke kommer ham til gode 49.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-103/06 favourable, national social security legislation is still compatible with Articles 39 EC and 43 EC if (a) it does not place that worker at a disadvantage as compared with those who pursue all their activities in the Member State where it applies or as compared with those who were already subject to it and (b) if it does not simply result in the payment of social security contributions on which there is no return. 49.
Forordning nr. 1408/71 er således tilsyneladende til hinder for, at Den Franske Republik i medfør af bestemmelserne i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, som henhører under forordningens anvendelsesområde, giver afkald på — som undtagelse til bestemmelserne i forordningens artikel 14d, stk. 1 — at fastsætte beregningsgrundlaget for CSG og CRDS af den andel af Philippe Derouins indtægter, der oppebæres fra hans selvstændige virksomhed i Det Forenede Kongerige.
It would therefore appear to be contrary to Regulation No 1408/71 for the French Republic to refrain, by virtue of the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention that fall within the scope of that regulation, from including in the base for assessing the CSG and the CRDS, by way of derogation from the provisions of Article 14d(1) of that regulation, the share of the income Mr Derouin receives from selfemployment in the United Kingdom.
En sådan løsning indebærer efter min opfattelse ikke, at den medlemsstat, hvis lovgivning er fastlagt i overensstemmelse med forordning nr. 1408/71, risikerer at tilsidesætte EF-traktatens bestemmelser med den begrundelse, at de nationale foranstaltninger, som gennemfører forpligtelsen i forordningens artikel 14d, stk. 1, ville udgøre en hindring for udøvelsen af en af de bevægelsesfriheder, der er fastsat i denne traktat.
That solution does not, in my view, run the risk that a Member State whose legislation is designated in accordance with Regulation No 1408/71 will infringe the provisions of the Treaty, on the ground that the national measures which implement the obligation contained in Article 14d(1) of that regulation hinder the exercise of one of the freedoms of movement provided for by the Treaty.
Ved i den foreliggende sag at gennemføre forpligtelsen i artikel 14d, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 vedrørende hele Philippe Derouins indkomst vil de kompetente franske myndigheder ikke stille ham ringere end selvstændige erhvervsdrivende, som udøver hele deres selvstændige virksomhed på det franske område, og som er undergivet opkrævninger, der henhører under anvendelsesområdet for forordning nr. 1408/71, af hele deres erhvervsmæssige indtægt fra denne beskæftigelse.
In the circumstances of the present case, by carrying out the obligation laid down in Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 in respect of the whole of Mr Derouin’s income, the French competent authorities would not place him at a disadvantage in relation to persons who pursue all of their professional activities in a selfemployed capacity within France and who are subject to levies falling within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 on the whole of their occupational income derived from those activities.
Kravet om, at Philippe Derouin betaler CSG og CRDS af den del af sine indtægter, der er af britisk oprindelse, medfører ikke blot, at han skal betale disse bidrag, uden at de kommer ham til gode.
In addition, making Mr Derouin liable to the CSG and the CRDS on his UK-source income would not simply result in him paying contributions on which there is no return.