natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvis, som Philippe Derouin har søgt at gøre gældende for Domstolen, CRDS siden 2002 ikke længere var i overensstemmelse med de kriterier, der er angivet i de nævnte domme i sagerne Kommissionen mod Frankrig, tilkommer det den forelæggende ret at undersøge, om eventuelle ændringer i den franske lovgivning vedrørende dette bidrag kan få til følge, at CRDS ikke længere har et specifikt og direkte forhold til finansieringen af den franske sociale sikringsordning, men derimod tilsigter at bidrage til de offentlige myndigheders generelle udgifter, hvormed CRDS ville være udelukket fra bestemmel-
In any event, if, as Mr Derouin has sought to argue before the Court of Justice, since 2002 the CRDS has not met the criteria set out in the Commission v France judgments, it is for the national court to consider whether any changes to that contribution introduced by French regulations are such that the CRDS is no longer allocated specifically and directly to financing social security in France but is designed to cover the general and administrative costs of the public authorities, thereby removing it from the scope of Regulation No 1408/71. Of
Jeg skal præcisere, at Domstolen — med rette — ikke er blevet adspurgt om fortolkningen af dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, nærmere bestemt hvorvidt CSG og CRDS henhører under anvendelsesområdet for denne overenskomst.
Moreover, it is to be stated that the Court is not asked — quite correctly — about the interpretation of the Double Taxation Convention, but more specifically whether the CSG and the CRDS fall within the scope of that convention.
Domstolen har nemlig kun kompetence til at fortolke fællesskabsretten, selv om den med henblik på at give en fortolkning af fællesskabsretten, der kan anvendes af den nationale ret, om nødvendigt kan tage hensyn til bestemmelserne i en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst, når den forelæggende ret har peget på denne overenskomst som en af de retsforskrifter, der finder anvendelse på hovedsagen 18. I
The Court only has jurisdiction to interpret Community law, even if in order to provide an interpretation of that law that is useful for the national court it may take into account, where appropriate, the provisions of a double taxation convention because the national court includes it among the relevant provisions as regards the case in the main proceedings. 18 In the present case, in order to provide a useful answer to the question referred by the national court it is appropriate to start from the premiss that the
17 — Dom af 16.1.2007, sag C-265/05, Sml. I, s. 347.
17 — Case C-265/05 [2007] ECR I-347.
For at efterprøve, om denne ydelse er bidragspligtig eller ikke-bidragspligtig, undersøgte Domstolen i henhold til sin praksis den reelle finansieringsmåde af denne ydelse, nemlig om finansieringen direkte eller indirekte var sikret ved sociale bidrag eller ved offentlige midler.
In order to check whether or not this benefit is contributory the Court, in accordance with its caselaw, considered how the benefit concerned is actually financed, that is to say, whether that financing comes directly or indirectly from social contributions or from public resources.
Da den omhandlede ydelse var finansieret af Fonds de solidarité vieillesse (fonden til alderdomssolidaritet), der som allerede nævnt stammede fra provenuet af CSG, der opkræves af erhvervsindtægter og indtægtssurrogater, drejede det sig, som Domstolen bemærker i dommens præmis 40, om at »afgøre«, om et bidrag som CSG skulle anses for et socialt sikringsbidrag eller som offentlige midler, der ikke har et sådant bidrags kendetegn.
Since the benefit concerned is financed by the Fonds de solidarité de viellesse (Old-age Solidarity Fund) a beneficiary, as stated above, of the proceeds of the CSG based on occupational income and substitute income, it was necessary, as the Court stated in paragraph 40 of that judgment, to ‘determine’ whether the CSG must be regarded as a social security contribution or as public resources which do not have the characteristics of such a contribution.
Efter at have henvist til den væsentligste begrundelse i dommene i sagerne Kommissionen mod Frankrig konkluderede Domstolen i dommens præmis 52 på baggrund af en række betragtninger, der navnlig drejer sig om, at finansieringen af alderdomsydelsen ikke udelukkende stammede fra CSG, men fra opkrævninger, hvis skattemæssige karakter ikke var blevet bestridt, at »[p]å baggrund af disse overvejelser følger det — også hvis den del af [CSG], der stammer fra arbejdsindtægter og erstatningsindkomster, anses for et bidrag og ikke for finansiering ved offentlige midler — at forbindelsen mellem bidraget og det supplerende tilskud ikke er tilstrækkelig til, at tilskuddet kan kvalificeres som en bidragspligtig ydelse« (min fremhævelse).
After summarising the essential grounds of the Commission v France judgments, the Court, in the light of a number of considerations concerning in particular the fact that the old-age benefit was not funded exclusively from the CSG but also from levies whose fiscal nature had not been challenged, concluded in paragraph 52 of that judgment that ‘even if the part of the [CSG] based on earned income and substitute income must be regarded as a contribution rather than financing from public resources, the link between that contribution and the supplementary allowance is not sufficiently identifiable for that allowance to be classified as a contributory benefit’ (emphasis added).
I lyset af denne domspræmis er det vanskeligt at nå frem til en endelig konklusion om kvalifikationen af CSG som et socialt sikringsbidrag.
In the light of this last point, it is difficult to reach a definite conclusion on the description of the CSG as a social security contribution.
Denne dom bekræfter derimod, at CSG faktisk henhører under det saglige anvendelsesområde for forordning nr. 1408/71.
However, that judgment confirms that the CSG does fall within the substantive scope of Regulation No 1408/71.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-103/06 denne sag er det, for at sikre den effektive virkning af det af den forelæggende ret stillede spørgsmål, nødvendigt at tage udgangspunkt i den forudsætning, at CSG og CRDS er omfattet af bestemmelserne i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten i henhold til dennes artikel 1, stk. 2.
CSG and the CRDS are covered by the provisions of the Double Taxation Convention under Article 1(2) of that convention.
anvendelsesområde. Den forelæggende ret har på den ene side henvist til forordningens artikel 13, stk. 2, litra b), som inden for rammerne af princippet om anvendelse af én lovgivning bestemmer, at en person, som har selvstændig beskæftigelse på en medlemsstats område, er omfattet af denne stats lovgivning, selv om han er bosat på en anden medlemsstats område, og på den anden side til artikel 14a, stk. 2, i samme forordning, der som en undtagelse til artikel 13, stk. 2, litra b), præciserer, at en person, der normalt har selvstændig beskæftigelse på to eller flere medlemsstaters område, er omfattet af lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område han er bosat, hvis han udøver en del af sin virksomhed på denne medlemsstats område.
provides that a person who is selfemployed in the territory of one Member State is subject to the legislation of that State even if he resides in the territory of another Member State and, on the other hand, Article 14a(2) of the same regulation which, by way of derogation from Article 13(2)(b), states that a person normally selfemployed in the territory of two or more Member States is subject to the legislation of the Member State in whose territory he resides if he pursues any part of his activity in the territory of that Member State.
I modsætning til de sager, der lå til grund for dommene i sagerne Kommissionen mod Frankrig, rejser denne sag ikke problematikken med kumulativ anvendelse af sociale sikringslovgivninger i arbejdstagerens bopælsmedlemsstat og beskæftigelsesmedlemsstat, som er forbudt ved artikel 13 ff. i forordning nr. 1408/71, eftersom det i denne sag, hvilket den forelæggende ret har påpeget, er ubestridt, at Philippe Derouin som selvstændig, der er bosat i Frankrig og socialt sikret i denne medlemsstat, er omfattet af den franske socialsikringslovgivning, og at, hvilket Det Forenede Kongeriges regering har bekræftet under retsmødet, denne ikke opkræver noget socialsikringsbidrag af de af Philippe Derouin oppebårne indtægter fra hans virksomhed i Det Forenede Kongerige.
Moreover, unlike the cases which gave rise to the Commission v France judgments, the present case does not involve the difficult question of the cumulative application, prohibited by Article 13 et seq. of Regulation No 1408/71, of the social security legislation of the Member State of the workers’ residence and that of the Member State of their employment, because in the present case it is common ground, as the national court has observed, that Mr Derouin is subject, in his capacity as a selfemployed person residing in France and covered by social insurance in that Member State, to French social security legislation and that, as the United Kingdom Government confirmed at the hearing, the latter does not levy any social security contribution on Mr Derouin’s income from his work in the United Kingdom.
Som den franske regering og Det Forenede Kongeriges regering med rette har anført, har den forelæggende ret ikke klart fastlagt, efter hvilken bestemmelse i forordning nr. 1408/71 Philippe Derouin henhører under forordningens personelle
As the French Government and the United Kingdom have appositely observed, the national court did not clearly determine under which provision of Regulation No 1408/71 Mr Derouin would fall within the personal scope of that regulation.
Den forelæggende rets tvivl kan efter min mening forklares ved, at Philippe Derouin oppebærer indtægter fra Det Forenede Kongerige for sin deltagelse som partner i Linklaters og samtidig konkret udøver sin selvstændige beskæftigelse i Frankrig, hvor han er bosat.
The indecision on the part of the national court may, it seems, be due to the fact that Mr Derouin receives income from the United Kingdom in respect of his work as a partner of Linklaters whilst actually working in a selfemployed capacity in France, where he resides.
Denne tøven synes ligeledes at skyldes Philippe Derouins argumentation, idet han mener, at han udelukkende udøver sin erhvervsvirksomhed i Frankrig, hvormed han tilsyneladende benægter anvendelsen af bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 1408/71, for så vidt som han ikke har udnyttet retten til fri bevægelighed, i dette tilfælde etableringsfriheden.
This indecision also appears to have been caused by the arguments raised by Mr Derouin, who considers that he pursues his professional activity exclusively in France, thus appearing to contend that the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 do not apply because he has not exercised the right to freedom of movement, in the present case freedom of establishment.
Under retsmødet rejste den franske regering desuden spørgsmål om anvendelsen af forordning nr. 1408/71, såfremt den forelæggende ret skulle mene, at Philippe Derouin alene udøver sin erhvervsvirksomhed i Frankrig og blot oppebærer
At the hearing the French Government also queried the applicability of Regulation No 1408/71, if the national court should find that Mr Derouin pursues his professional activity in France alone and merely derives income from the United Kingdom, a situation that would deprive him of the status of a selfemployed
DEROUIN indtægter fra Det Forenede Kongerige, hvilket ville fratage ham status af vandrende selvstændig erhvervsdrivende.
DEROUIN migrant worker.
Ifølge den franske regering ville problemet om dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomstens forenelighed med forordning nr. 1408/71 ikke længere foreligge, hvis dette var tilfældet.
In the view of that Government, if that were to be the case, the issue of the compatibility of the Double Taxation Convention with Regulation No 1408/71 would no longer arise.
i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, der i det væsentlige bestemmer, at Det Forenede Kongeriges skattelovgivning skal anvendes, når en fransk bosiddende normalt i den første kontraherende stat råder over en fast base for udøvelsen af sin selvstændige beskæftigelse.
a fixed base regularly available to him in the other Contracting State for the purpose of performing work in a selfemployed capacity.
Det er derfor vanskeligt at hævde, at Philippe Derouin ikke også udøver en selvstændig virksomhed i Det Forenede Kongerige, idet han som nævnt i denne medlemsstat er registreret ved Supreme Court of England and Wales som registered foreign lawyer.
It is therefore difficult to suppose that Mr Derouin does not also work in a selfemployed capacity in the United Kingdom, the Member State in which, I would point out, he is registered with the Supreme Court of England and Wales as a registered foreign lawyer.
Jeg mener derfor, at anvendelsen af artikel 14a, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1408/71 på en situation som Philippe Derouins langt fra er udelukket, og udgangspunktet for at besvare det af den forelæggende ret stillede spørgsmål skal derfor ligeledes tages i denne forudsætning.
It therefore seems to me that the applicability of Article 14a(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 to a situation like Mr Derouin’s is far from being excluded and it is therefore on this premiss also that the answer to the question referred by the national court should be based.
Inden for rammerne af proceduren i artikel 234 EF tilkommer det naturligvis ikke Domstolen at fastslå de faktiske omstændigheder, at anvende de fællesskabsretlige regler på en konkret sag eller at undersøge foreneligheden af national lovgivning eller en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst med fællesskabsretten.
Of course, in the context of proceedings under Article 234 EC it is not for the Court either to determine the facts or to apply the rules of Community law in a particular case, or yet to examine the compatibility of domestic law or a double taxation convention with Community law.
Hvis den forelæggende ret imidlertid bekræfter de af Philippe Derouin og den franske regering hævdede faktiske forhold, ville dette afgjort medføre, at Domstolens fortolkning af fællesskabsretten som svar på det her stillede præjudicielle spørgsmål ville blive berøvet sin effektive virkning.
If the national court were, however, to confirm the factual circumstances envisaged by Mr Derouin and by the French Government this would, of course, make the interpretation of Community law given by the Court in answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling redundant.
Drøftelsen mellem de intervenerende parter i denne sag drejer sig i sidste instans om noget helt andet.
Finally, the debate between the parties intervening in the present proceedings is completely different.
Den drejer sig nemlig i det væsentlige om at få oplyst, om bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 1408/71 skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat, der i medfør af denne forordning har kompetence til at opkræve bidrag såsom CSG og CRDS beregnet af indtægter, der oppebæres af en selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, der er socialt sikret i denne medlemsstat, herunder af andelen af vedkommendes indtægter, der er realiseret i en anden medlemsstat og skattepligtig i denne stat 19,
It concerns in essence whether the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 should be interpreted as precluding a Member State, competent by virtue of that regulation to levy contributions such as the CSG and the CRDS on the basis of the income received by a selfemployed person covered by social insurance in that Member State, including the share of that person’s income obtained in another Member State which is subject to tax in that State, 19from refraining from making such a
19 — Den franske regering benægter ikke, at den ville have kompetence til at opkræve sådanne bidrag samt ethvert socialt sikringsbidrag af Philippe Derouins indtægter, der stammer fra Det Forenede Kongerige, på grundlag af objektive kriterier.
19 — The French Government does not deny that it is competent to levy such contributions and any other social security contribution on Mr Derouin’s income from the United Kingdom on the basis of objective criteria.
Denne tilgang forekommer, under omstændighederne i tvisten i hovedsagen, korrekt.
This approach seems to be correct in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Jf. også dom af 18.7.2006, sag C-50/05, Nikula, Sml. I, s. 7029, præmis 31, vedrørende situationen i en medlemsstat, som beregner størrelsen af en bosiddendes sociale bidrag på grundlag af dennes samlede indkomst, uanset om den hidrører fra pension, der udbetales i bopælsmedlemsstaten, eller fra pension, der udbetales i andre medlemsstater.
See also, in respect of the situation of a Member State which bases social security contributions on the total income of a resident who is a social security contributor in that Member State from pensions paid both in that State and in another Member State, Case C-50/05 Nikula [2006] ECR I-7029, paragraph 31.
Denne risiko forekommer mig dog begrænset af to væsentlige grunde.
This risk appears to me to be limited, however, for two main reasons.
Dels har den forelæggende ret i sin forelæggelsesafgørelse allerede anført, at Philippe Derouin klart var omfattet af det personelle anvendelsesområde for forordning nr. 1408/71, uden at det tilkommer Domstolen at bestride denne vurdering.
First, the national court has already found in its order for reference that Mr Derouin does indeed fall within the personal scope of Regulation No 1408/71, and it is not for the Court of Justice to call that finding into question.
Dels fremgår det af sagsakterne, at Philippe Derouin mener at være omfattet af anvendelsen af artikel 14, stk. 1,
Second, it is clear from the documents before the Court that Mr Derouin seeks to benefit under Article 14(1) of the Double Taxation Convention, which provides, in essence, that United Kingdom tax legislation is to apply where a French resident has
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-103/06 giver afkald på at foretage en sådan opkrævning af sidstnævnte indtægter, med den begrundelse at de nævnte bidrag er omfattet af den mellem disse to medlemsstater indgåede dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-103/06 levy on that income on the ground that those contributions are covered by the Double Taxation Convention between those two Member States.
I mangel af harmonisering på fællesskabsplan har Domstolen præciseret, at det tilkommer hver berørt medlemsstat i lovgivningen at fastsætte betingelserne for retten eller forpligtelsen til at være forsikret i en social sikringsordning, niveauet af de bidrag, som skal betales af de forsikrede, samt hvilke indkomster der skal tages hensyn til ved beregningen af disse bidrag 21.
20In the absence of harmonisation at Community level, the Court has held that it is for the legislation of the Member State concerned to determine the conditions governing the right or duty to be insured with a social security scheme, the level of contributions payable by insured persons and the income to be taken into account when calculating social security contributions. 21
Spørgsmålet består med andre ord i, hvorvidt forordning nr. 1408/71 pålægger den kompetente medlemsstat i beregningsgrundlaget for bidrag, såsom CSG og CRDS, at medtage indkomst hidrørende fra selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed, der udøves i en anden medlemsstat af en selvstændig erhvervsdrivende, som er socialt sikret i den første medlemsstat.
In other words, the question is whether Regulation No 1408/71 requires the competent Member State to include in the base on which contributions such as the CSG and the CRDS are assessed, income derived from professional activity in a selfemployed capacity performed in another Member State by a selfemployed person covered by social insurance in the first Member State.
B — Om forpligtelsen til i beregningsgrundlaget for bidrag, såsom CSG og CRDS, at medtage en selvstændig erhvervsdrivendes samlede indkomst fra selvstændig beskæftigelse (artikel 14d, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71)
B — The obligation to include in the basis for assessment of contributions such as the CSG and the CRDS a selfemployed person’s total income from selfemployment (Article 14d(1) of Regulation No 1408/71)
Det er i henhold til denne retspraksis, at Domstolen i Nikula-dommen har forkastet princippet om, at en medlemsstat ikke kan påligne pension, der ydes i en anden medlemsstat, sociale bidrag 22.
It was pursuant to that caselaw that the Court rejected in Nikula the principle that a Member State cannot assess social contributions on the basis of pensions paid by another Member State.
I et tilfælde, hvor en institution i bopælsmedlemsstaten udbetaler pension, og en institution i denne samme medlemsstat dækker udgifterne til sygeforsikring, har Domstolen fastslået, at der ikke er nogen bestemmelse i forordning nr. 1408/71, som forbyder denne stat at beregne størrelsen af en bosiddendes sociale bidrag på grundlag af dennes samlede indkomst, uanset om den hidrører fra pension, der udbetales i bopælsmedlemsstaten, eller fra pension, der udbetales i andre medlemsstater 23. Domstolen har imidlertid fastslået, at den berørte medlemsstat
22In a case in which an institution of the Member State in whose territory a person resides pays a pension to that person and an institution of the same Member State is responsible for payment of his sickness insurance expenses, the Court held that no provision of Regulation No 1408/71 prohibits that Member State from calculating the amount of the social contributions of that person on the basis of his total income, whether it comes from pensions paid by the Member State of residence or from pensions paid by another Member State.
20 — Jf. bl.a. i denne retning dom af 19.3.2002, forenede sager C-393/99 og C-394/99, Hervein m.fl., Sml. I, s. 2829, præmis 52, og Piatkowskidommen, præmis 20.
20 — See to that effect, in particular, Joined Cases C-393/99 and C-394/99 Hervein and Others [2002] ECR I-2829, paragraph 52, and Piatkowski, paragraph 20.
21 — Piatkowskidommen, præmis 32 og den deri nævnte retspraksis.
21 — Piatkowski, paragraph 32 and caselaw cited therein.22 — Paragraph 26.23 — Ibid., paragraph 31.
For at besvare spørgsmålet i ovenstående punkt skal opmærksomheden først og fremmest henledes på, at de regler, der er indført ved forordning nr. 1408/71, kun er samordningsregler, som bl.a. i henhold til forordningens afsnit II (hvor artikel 13 og 14 figurerer) omhandler bestemmelsen af, hvilken lovgivning eller hvilke lovgivninger der skal
In order to answer the query raised in the preceding point it should be noted first of all that the system put in place by Regulation No 1408/71 is merely a system of coordination, concerning inter alia, in Title II of that regulation (which includes Articles 13 and 14), the determination of the legislation applicable to employed and selfemployed persons who make use, in various circumstances, of their right to freedom of move-
DEROUIN generelt skal overholde fællesskabsretten ved udøvelsen af denne kompetence 24, hvilket
DEROUIN that power, for it to comply with Community law, 24 which in that case meant that the
Under henvisninger til bl.a. Allarddommen 26 mener Urssaf og Kommissionen i den foreliggende sag vil indebære, at der i det af bopælsmedlemsstaten indførte system tages hensyn til bidrag til sygesikringsbidrag, der allerede er betalt af pensionsmodtagerne i deres erhvervsaktive år i en anden medlemsstat end bopælsmedlemsstaten 25.
However, with reference in particular to Allard, 26the Urssaf and the Commission system put in place by the Member State of residence should take into account the sickness insurance contributions already paid by pensioners during their working years in a Member State other than the Member State of residence.
derimod, at forordning nr. 1408/71 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat giver afkald på at opkræve bidrag, som er omfattet af dens anvendelsesområde.
25 consider that it is contrary to Regulation No 1408/71 for a Member State to refrain from levying contributions which fall within the scope of that regulation.