natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Målet om at opretholde den fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem de pågældende to medlemsstater, der er afspejlet i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, kan begrunde den beskatningsordning, der er tvist om i hovedsagen, da den sikrer symmetrien mellem kompetencen til at beskatte overskud og muligheden for at fradrage underskud.
Consequently, the objective of preserving the allocation of the power to impose taxes between the two Member States concerned, which is reflected in the provisions of the Convention, is capable of justifying the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings, since it safeguards symmetry between the right to tax profits and the right to deduct losses.
Hvad angår det andet forhold, der er angivet i indlæggene for Domstolen vedrørende risikoen for dobbelt hensyntagen til underskud, har Domstolen anerkendt, at medlemsstaterne skal kunne hindre denne risiko (jf. Marks & Spencerdommen, præmis 47, og dom af 29.3.2007, sag C-347/04, Rewe Zentralfinanz, Sml. I, s. 2647, præmis 47). 36
As regards the second justification put forward in the observations submitted to the Court, which is based on the danger that losses might be taken into account twice, the Court has accepted that the Member States must be able to prevent such a danger (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 47, and Case C-347/04 Rewe Zentralfinanz [2007] ECR I-2647, paragraph 47). 36
Herved bemærkes, at det er åbenbart, at der under omstændigheder som dem, der ligger til grund for tvisten i hovedsagen, er en risiko for, at det samme underskud anvendes to gange (jf. Marks & Spencerdommen præmis 48). Det kan således ikke udelukkes, at et selskab i den medlemsstat, hvor selskabets hjemsted er beliggende, gør underskud, der er lidt af et fast driftssted, som tilhører selskabet, og som er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, gældende, og at der, uanset dette fradrag, senere tages hensyn til samme underskud i den medlemsstat, hvor det faste driftssted er beliggende, når dette oppebærer et overskud, hvorved den medlemsstat, hvor hovedselskabet har sit hjemsted, hindres i at beskatte dette overskud. I - 3629
In this connection, it must be pointed out that, in circumstances such as those which underlie the main proceedings, there is clearly a danger that the same losses will be used twice (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 48). It is possible that a company might deduct, in the Member State in which its seat is situated, losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State and that, despite such offsetting, the same losses might be taken into account subsequently in the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated, when that establishment generates profits, thereby preventing the Member State in which the principal company has its seat from taxing that profit. I - 3629
De to forhold, der er påberåbt, må derfor begge anses for at kunne begrunde en restriktion for etableringsfriheden, der følger af en skattemæssig behandling i den medlemsstat, hvor et selskabs hjemsted er beliggende, af negative resultater, der er pådraget af et fast driftssted, som tilhører dette selskab, og som er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat.
Consequently, the two justifications put forward must each be considered as being capable of justifying a restriction on the freedom of establishment arising from the tax treatment by the Member State in which the seat of a company is located of losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to that company and situated in another Member State.
Den forelæggende ret stiller imidlertid spørgsmål ved, om de begrundelsesforhold, der er angivet i præmis 44-50 i Marks & Spencerdommen, der også omfatter nødvendigheden af at forebygge risikoen for skatteunddragelse, skal forstås som værende af kumulativ art, eller om den omstændighed, at et enkelt af disse forhold foreligger, er tilstrækkelig til, at den beskatningsordning, der er tvist om i hovedsagen, i princippet kan anses for begrundet. 39
The national court asks, however, whether the justifications set out in paragraphs 44 to 50 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, which also include the need to prevent the risk of tax avoidance, must be understood as being cumulative or whether the existence of only one of those factors is sufficient for the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings to be treated, in principle, as being justified. 39
Under hensyn til de forskellige situationer, hvorunder en medlemsstat kan påberåbe sig sådanne begrundelser, kan det imidlertid ikke kræves, at samtlige de forhold, der er omhandlet i præmis 51 i Marks & Spencerdommen, foreligger, for at en national skattelovgivning, der begrænser den etableringsfrihed, der er omhandlet i artikel 43 EF, i princippet kan være begrundet. 41
However, bearing in mind the wide variety of situations in which a Member State may put forward such reasons, it cannot be necessary for all the justifications referred to in paragraph 51 of the Marks & Spencer judgment to be present in order for national tax rules which restrict the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 EC to be capable, in principle, of being justified. 41
Domstolen har således i den sag, der gav anledning til Oy AA-dommen, bl.a. anerkendt, at den pågældende nationale skattelovgivning i princippet kunne være begrundet i to af de tre forhold, der er omhandlet i præmis 51 i Marks & Spencerdommen, nemlig nødvendigheden af at sikre en afbalanceret fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne og nødvendigheden af at forebygge skatteunddragelse som helhed (jf. Oy AA-dommen, præmis 60). I - 3630
Thus, in the judgment in Oy AA, the Court acknowledged in particular that the national tax legislation at issue could, in principle, be justified on the basis of two of the three justifications referred to in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, namely the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and the need to prevent tax avoidance, taken together (see Oy AA, paragraph 60). I - 3630
Tilsvarende kunne den beskatningsordning, der er tvist om hovedsagen, i princippet være begrundet i to af de forhold, der er omhandlet i nævnte præmis i Marks & Spencerdommen, nemlig nødvendigheden af at sikre en fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne og nødvendigheden af at forebygge risikoen for dobbelt hensyntagen til underskud. 43
Likewise, the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings can, in principle, be justified in the light of two of the factors referred to in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, namely the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and the need to prevent the danger that the same losses will be taken into account twice. 43
Det er også ubestridt, at den nævnte ordning er egnet til at sikre virkeliggørelsen af de således omhandlede mål.
It is also not in dispute that that regime is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued by it.
Under disse omstændigheder skal det blot undersøges, om den i hovedsagen omtvistede beskatningsordning ikke går ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at nå de forfulgte mål (jf. Marks & Spencerdommen, præmis 53, og Oy AA-dommen, præmis 61). 45
That being so, it remains necessary to examine whether the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 53, and Oy AA, paragraph 61). 45
Lidl Belgium og Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber har bl.a. henvist til et hovedselskabs mulighed for at fradrage underskud lidt af et fast driftssted, der tilhører selskabet, på betingelse af, at det medindregner fremtidige overskud vedrørende nævnte faste driftssted i sit skattepligtige overskud op til et beløb svarende til de tidligere medregnede underskud.
Lidl Belgium and the Commission of the European Communities have referred in particular to the possibility that the right of a principal company to deduct the losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it could be made subject to the condition that the company incorporate in its future profits the subsequent profits of the permanent establishment, to the extent of the losses previously offset.
De har i den forbindelse henvist til det system, som Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland anvendte før 1999.
In that context, they refer to the system which operated in the Federal Republic of Germany prior to 1999.
Det bemærkes, at muligheden for at opstille en sådan betingelse for den pågældende skattemæssige fordel i Marks & Spencer-dommens præmis 54 er blevet påberåbt samtidig med muligheden for at betinge indrømmelsen af denne fordel af, at det datterselskab, der er etableret i en anden medlemsstat end det, hvor hovedselskabet er beliggende, fuldt ud har udnyttet de muligheder for at tage hensyn til underskud, der indrømmes i den medlemsstat, hvori det er hjemmehørende. I - 3631
It should be pointed out that reference was made in paragraph 54 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer to the possibility of making the benefit of the tax advantage at issue subject to such a condition, together with the possibility of making the benefit of that advantage conditional upon the subsidiary established in a Member State other than that in which the principal company has its seat having taken full advantage of the possibilities available in its Member State of residence of having the losses taken into account. I - 3631
Domstolen udtalte i den forbindelse i Marks & Spencer-dommens præmis 55, at en foranstaltning, der begrænser etableringsfriheden, går ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at nå de forfulgte mål i en situation, hvor et ikkehjemmehørende datterselskab har udtømt alle de muligheder for at tage hensyn til de underskud, der er lidt i den medlemsstat, hvori det er beliggende, med hensyn til det pågældende skatteår samt med hensyn til tidligere skatteår, og hvor der ikke er mulighed for at tage hensyn til det udenlandske datterselskabs underskud i denne stat i forbindelse med senere skatteår. 48
In that regard, the Court held in paragraph 55 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer that a measure which restricts the freedom of establishment goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued where a nonresident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities for having the losses incurred in the Member State where it is situated taken into account for the accounting period concerned and also for previous accounting periods and where there is no possibility for that subsidiary’s losses to be taken into account in that State for future periods. 48
Domstolen har i nævnte doms præmis 56 desuden fastslået, at det, når et hjemmehørende moderselskab i en medlemsstat over for skattemyndighederne godtgør, at disse betingelser er opfyldt, er i strid med artikel 43 EF at udelukke dette fra at fradrage de underskud, der er pådraget af selskabets ikkehjemmehørende datterselskab, i sit skattepligtige overskud i denne medlemsstat.
In paragraph 56 of that judgment, the Court also stated that where, in one Member State, the resident parent company demonstrates to the national tax authorities that those conditions are fulfilled, it is contrary to Article 43 EC to preclude the possibility for the parent company to deduct from its taxable profits in that Member State the losses incurred by its nonresident subsidiary.
Hvad angår tvisten i hovedsagen bemærkes, at den luxembourgske skattelovgivning foreskriver mulighed for med henblik på opgørelsen af beskatningsgrundlaget at gøre en skattepligtig persons underskud gældende i senere skatteår.
As regards the main proceedings, it must be pointed out that Luxembourg tax legislation provides for the possibility of deducting a taxpayer’s losses in future tax years for the purposes of calculating the tax base.
Som bekræftet under forhandlingerne for Domstolen, har Lidl Belgium faktisk modregnet de underskud, som selskabets faste driftssted led i 1999, i et senere skatteår, nemlig 2003, i hvilket skatteår denne enhed opnåede et overskud.
As was confirmed at the hearing before the Court, Lidl Belgium has in fact benefited from such an offsetting of the losses incurred by its permanent establishment in 1999 in a subsequent tax year, namely 2003, in which that entity generated profits.
Lidl Belgium har således ikke godtgjort, at de betingelser, der er fastsat i Marks & Spencer-dommens præmis 55, med henblik på at fastlægge, i hvilken situation en foranstaltning, der udgør en restriktion for etableringsfriheden, som omhandlet i artikel 43 EF, går ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at nå de legitime mål, der er anerkendt i fællesskabsretten, er opfyldt. I - 3632
Accordingly, Lidl Belgium has not shown that the conditions laid down in paragraph 55 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, for establishing the situation in which a measure constituting a restriction on the freedom of establishment for the purposes of Article 43 EC goes beyond what is necessary to attain legitimate objectives recognised by Community law, were satisfied. I - 3632
Det bemærkes, at Domstolen har anerkendt medlemsstaternes legitime interesse i at forebygge handlemåder, der kan bringe deres ret til at udøve deres beskatningskompetence i fare.
It must be added that the Court has recognised the legitimate interest which the Member States have in preventing conduct which is liable to undermine the right to exercise the powers of taxation which are vested in them.
Når en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst i den forbindelse har tillagt den medlemsstat, hvori det faste driftssted er beliggende, retten til at beskatte det faste driftssteds indkomst, vil det, hvis hovedselskabet gives mulighed for at vælge, om der skal tages hensyn til det faste driftssteds underskud i den medlemsstat, hvor hovedselskabet har sit hjemsted, eller i en anden medlemsstat, bringe den afbalancerede fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem de pågældende medlemsstater i alvorlig fare (jf. i denne retning Oy AA-dommen, præmis 55).
In this connection, where a double taxation convention has given the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated the power to tax the profits of that establishment, to give the principal company the right to elect to have the losses of that permanent establishment taken into account in the Member State in which it has its seat or in another Member State would seriously undermine a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States concerned (see, to that effect, Oy AA, paragraph 55).
Den beskatningsordning, der er tvist om i hovedsagen, må på denne baggrund anses for at stå i et rimeligt forhold til de mål, der forfølges med den.
In the light of all of the above, the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings must be considered to be proportionate to the objectives pursued by it.
Det forelagte spørgsmål skal derfor besvares med, at artikel 43 EF ikke er til hinder for, at et selskab, der er etableret i en medlemsstat, ikke kan fradrage underskud vedrørende et fast driftssted, der tilhører selskabet, og som er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, i sit beskatningsgrundlag, i det omfang dette driftssteds indkomst i henhold til en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst beskattes i sidstnævnte medlemsstat, hvor der kan tages hensyn til nævnte underskud i forbindelse med det faste driftssteds indkomst i senere skatteår.
The answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling must therefore be that Article 43 EC does not preclude a situation in which a company established in a Member State cannot deduct from its tax base losses relating to a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State, to the extent that, by virtue of a double taxation convention, the income of that establishment is taxed in the latter Member State where those losses can be taken into account in the taxation of the income of that permanent establishment in future accounting periods.
Sag C-276/07
Case C-276/07
(anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Corte d’appello di Firenze)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Firenze)
»Arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed — forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet — kategorien »udvekslingslektorer« — tidligere lektorer i fremmedsprog — anerkendelse af velerhvervede rettigheder«
(Freedom of movement for workers — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Category of ‘exchange assistants’ — Former foreignlanguage assistants — Recognition of acquired rights)
Domstolens dom (Syvende Afdeling) af 15. maj 2008
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 15 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Fri bevægelighed for personer — arbejdstagere — ligebehandling — ansættelsesvilkår(Art. 39, stk. 2, EF)
Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — Conditions of employment(Art. 39(2) EC)
Det følger af ordlyden af artikel 39, stk. 2, EF, at arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed forudsætter ophævelse af enhver i nationaliteten begrundet forskelsbehandling af medlemsstaternes arbejdstagere for så vidt angår beskæftigelse, aflønning og øvrige arbejdsvilkår.
As provided in Article 39(2) EC, freedom of movement for workers entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
Ligebehandlingsprincippet som særligt udtrykt i artikel 39 EF kræver, at ensartede forhold ikke behandles forskelligt, og at forskellige forhold ikke behandles ensartet, medmindre en sådan behandling er objektivt begrundet.
Observance of the principle of equal treatment, of which Article 39 EC is a specific expression, requires that comparable situations should not be treated differently and that different situations should not be treated in the same way, unless such treatment is objectively justified.
om der er kontinuitet mellem stillingerne som udvekslingslektor og stillingerne som sprogmedarbejder.
lation, to determine whether there exists any continuity linking the duties performed as an exchange assistant and those performed as a linguistic associate.
Den forelæggende ret skal i forbindelse med denne bedømmelse for det første efterprøve, om erhvervet udøvet af udvekslingslektorerne og erhvervet udøvet af sprogmedarbejderne har det samme funktionelle indhold, navnlig henset til definitionen af de pædagogiske parametre for kurser til uddannelse af undervisere i fremmedsprog samt bedømmelsen af de studerendes kundskaber, og for det andet, om de to omhandlede typer funktioner opfylder de samme undervisningsbehov.
In carrying out that assessment, the national court must determine, first, whether the duties involved in the work carried out by exchange assistants are the same as those involved in the work carried out by linguistic associates, having particular regard to the definition of the pedagogical profile of the foreignlanguage teaching courses and to the evaluation of the students’ knowledge and, second, whether the two kinds of duties in question meet the same teaching needs.
For det tilfælde, at den forelæggende ret måtte finde, at der er en sådan kontinuitet til trods for den midlertidige afbrydelse af ansættelsesforholdet med arbejdsgiveren, er det nødvendigt at undersøge, om en indenlandsk arbejdstager, som befinder sig i en sammenlignelig situation, ville have haft ret til anerkendelse af de rettigheder, som vedkommende har erhvervet fra datoen for sin første ansættelse.
If the national court should find that there is such continuity, despite the temporary interruption of the employment relationship with the employer, it would be necessary to consider whether a national worker placed in a comparable situation would have been entitled to the recognition of rights acquired since the date of his first recruitment.
I denne forbindelse vil kun en analyse, der fokuserer på indholdet og ikke på formen af de lovbestemte ordninger, give mulighed for at fastslå, om deres faktiske anvendelse på forskellige kategorier af arbejdstagere, som befinder sig under sammenlignelige juridiske omstændigheder, fører til forhold, der er forenelige eller derimod uforenelige med det grundlæggende princip om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet.
In this respect, only an analysis concentrating on the substance, rather than the form, of statutory schemes will make it possible to establish whether their actual application to different categories of workers in comparable legal situations leads to situations which are compatible or, in contrast, incompatible with the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality.
Når anvendelsen af en sådan national lovgivning på indenlandske arbejdstagere forudsætter en fortsættelse af ansættelsesforholdet mellem arbejdsgiveren og arbejdstagerne, tilkommer det den nationale domstol, som alene er kompetent med hensyn til at bedømme de faktiske omstændigheder og fortolke den nationale lovgivning, at fastslå,
When application of that domestic legislation to national workers presupposes continuation of the employment relationship between employer and workers, it is for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to assess the facts and to interpret the national legis-
kontrakt om ansættelse på ubestemt tid som sprogmedarbejder, der har det pågældende sprog som modersmål, nægtes anerkendelse af de rettigheder, som vedkommende har erhvervet fra datoen for sin første ansættelse, med konsekvenser for løn, anciennitet og arbejdsgiverens betaling af sociale sikringsbidrag, forudsat at en indenlandsk arbejdstager, som befinder sig i en sammenlignelig situation, ville have haft ret til en sådan
nite period as a linguistic associate, a person in the position described above should be refused recognition of the rights acquired since the date of her first recruitment, with consequences with regard to remuneration, the account to be taken of seniority and the payment, by the employer, of contributions to a social security scheme, inasmuch as a national worker placed in a comparable situation would have been entitled to such
(jf. præmis 18, 19, 23, 24 og 2630 samt domskonkl.)
(see paras 18, 19, 23, 24, 26-30, operative part)
I sag C-276/07, angående en anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse i henhold til artikel 234 EF, indgivet af Corte d’appello di Firenze (Italien) ved afgørelse af 18. maj 2007, indgået til Domstolen den 11. juni 2007, i sagen:
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Corte d’appello di Firenze (Italy), made by decision of 18 May 2007, received at the Court on 11 June 2007, in the proceedings
DOMSTOLEN (Syvende Afdeling) sammensat af afdelingsformanden, U. Lõhmus, samt dommerne J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (refererende dommer) og A. Arabadjiev,
THE COURT (Seventh Chamber), composed of U. Lõhmus, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Arabadjiev, Judges,
DELAY generaladvokat: J. Mazák justitssekretær: fuldmægtig K. Sztranc-Sławiczek, på grundlag af den skriftlige forhandling og efter retsmødet den 6. marts 2008, efter at der er afgivet indlæg af:
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: K. Sztranc-Sławiczek, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 March 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
— Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber ved E. Traversa og L. Pignataro, som befuldmægtigede, og idet Domstolen efter at have hørt generaladvokaten har besluttet, at sagen skal pådømmes uden forslag til afgørelse,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by E. Traversa and L. Pignataro, acting as Agents, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
Anmodningen om præjudiciel afgørelse vedrører fortolkningen af artikel 39 EF.
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 39 EC.