natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det skal endelig fastslås, at det selskab, der var tale om i den sag, som gav anledning til nævnte dom, på det tidspunkt, hvor det første gang skulle betale kapitaltilførselsafgift, var et kapitalselskab i direktiv 69/335's forstand.
By its question the national court is asking in essence whether Directive 69/335 precludes the levying of capital duty upon the conversion of a partnership into a capital company within the meaning of that directive, where, before the entry into force of that directive, a duty such as that provided for in Paragraph 33, item 16(1), point 1(b), of the GebG has already been levied on all the capital contributions made for the acquisition of shares in the partnership.
Det skal derfor fastslås, at artikel 6 i direktiv 69/335 heller ikke er til hinder for, at der opkræves kapitaltilførselsafgift i en situation som den i hovedsagen omhandlede.
When Article 1 is read in conjunction with Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 69/335, it is apparent that the directive is intended to apply only to capital companies, as defined in that directive, and to the companies, firms, associations or legal persons operating for profit deemed to be capital companies and regarded as such by a Member State for the purpose of charging capital duty.
Hvad angår bestemmelserne i artikel 6 i direktiv 69/335 og forbuddet mod dobbelt afgiftsbelastning, der efter den forelæggende rets opfattelse fremgår heraf i overensstemmelse med Domstolens dom af 18. marts 1993 (sag C-280/91,
As regards the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 69/335 and the prohibition of double taxation which, in the national court's opinion, follows therefrom by virtue of Case C-280/91 Viessmann [1993], it should be observed, first, that Article 6 relates only to capital duty on contributions to capital companies within the meaning of Directive 69/335.
»Bestemmelserne i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 om kapualtilførselsafgifter, som ændret ved akten vedrørende vilkårene for Republikken Østrigs, Republikken Finlands og Kongeriget Sveriges tiltrædelse og tilpasningerne af de traktater, der danner grundlag for Den Europæiske Union, skal fortolkes således, at de ikke er til hinder for, at der opkræves kapitaltilførselsafgift ved et personselskabs omdannelse til et kapitalselskab i samme direktivs forstand, når alle de indskud, der er erlagt for erhvervelse af anparter i personselskabet, allerede har givet anledning til opkrævning af en afgift som den i Gebührengesetz' § 33, nr. 16, stk 1, nr. 1, litra b), omhandlede inden direktivets ikrafttrædelse.«
Next, in Viessmann the Court did not hold that Article 6 of the directive precludes the taxation of certain contributions on more than one occasion but merely held that contributions which had already given rise to payment of capital duty under another provision of the directive could not be subject to capital duty under Article 6 of the directive. Finally, the company in question in the proceedings giving rise to that judgment was, at the time when it first had to pay capital duty, a capital company within the meaning of Directive 69/335.
Generaladvokat A. Tizzano fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Anden Afdeling) den 10. januar 2002.
Accordingly, duties and charges levied by the Member States on contributions to companies and firms other than those referred to in Directive 69/335 do not fall within the scope of application of that directive.
Han foreslog Domstolen at svare således:
It follows that the prohibition in Article 10 of Directive 69/335 on the charging of anv tax with
»Bestemmelserne i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 om kapitaltilførselsafgifter, navnlig artikel 10, skal fortolkes således, at de ikke er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat opkræver kapitaltilførselsafgift af et mindre kommanditselskabs indskud, når et anpartsselskab indtræder som komplementar, såfremt den selskabskapital, der skal betales afgift af, allerede før ikrafttrædelsen af direktiv 69/335/EØF har været undergivet en afgift som den, der omhandles i § 33, nr. 16, stk. 1, litra b), i Gebührengesetz 1957 (BGBl 1957, s. 267).«
Consequently, Article 6 of Directive 69/325 does not preclude the levy of capital duty in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
Præjudiciel »Fælles landbrugspolitik — mælkekvoteordning — tildeling af en specifik referencemængde støttemodtagere — producenter, som overtager en bedrift ved overførsel svarende til arv efter udløb af den af overdrageren indgåede ikke-markedsføringsforpligtelse —fortolkning af artikel 3a i forordning (EØF) nr. 857/84 som ændret ved forordning (EØF) nr. 1639/91 « (Anden Afdeling)
'The provisions of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be interpreted as not precluding the levy of capital duty upon the conversion of a partnerslúp into a capital company within the meaning of that directive, where, before the entry into force of that directive, a duty such as that provided for in Paragraph 33, item 16(1), point 1(b), of the Gebührengesetz has already been levied on au the capital contributions made for the acquisition of shares in the partnership.''
DEM pr. år for forpagtning af driftsbygningerne, til 500 DEM pr. ha, mens den normale pris på markedet på daværende tidspunkt var 800-1 000 DEM pr. ha.
Advocate General A Tizzano delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Second Chamber on 10 January 2002.
Ifølge de oplysninger, som H. Bredemeier har afgivet til den forelæggende ret, beløb forpagtningsprisen sig, efter fradrag på 3 600
That question has arisen in proceedings between Mr Bredemeier and the Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover concerning the grant of a special
dommen — da det ikke er ham, men hans hustru, der er arving til producentens bedrift.
reference quantity under the system of the additional levy on milk.
I betragtning af H. Bredemeiers familiemæssige tilknytning til sin kone og sin svigerfar, der bor sammen med dem på deres egen bedrift og passes af dem, udelukker den forelæggende ret dog ikke, at der er tale om en overførsel af bedriften »svarende til arv« i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk anvendes i artikel 3a i forordning nr. 857/84.
However, the national court does not preclude the possibility that, owing to the family ties between Mr Bredemeier, his wife and his father-in-law. who lives with them on their own holding and is looked after by them, the holding has been taken over through 'similar means' to an inheritance within the meaning of Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84.
Dette måtte antages så meget mere, da forpagtningen af bedriften blev indgået på bedre vilkår end markedsvilkårene og som følge heraf opfyldte det kriterium, der blev udtrykt i præmis 38 og 39 i dom af 22. oktober 1991, sag C-44/89, Von Deetzen II.
That applies a foniori because the lease of the holding to Mr Bredemeier was agreed on much better terms than market terms and because, consequently, the criterion laid down in paragraphs 38 and 39 of its judgment of 22 October 1991 in Case C-44/89 Von Deetzen H is satisfied.
Imidlertid benyttede Domstolen i Rauhdommen i det væsentlige de udtryk, der anvendes i artikel 7a i forordning nr. 1546/88 til at fortolke artikel 3a i forordning nr. 857/84, som affattet ved forordning nr. 764/89.
It was in those circumstances that the Niedersächsisches Oberverwallungsgericht decided to stay proceedings and to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Det præjudicielle spørgsmål
The question referred to the Court
Det fremgår af første betragtning til forordning nr. 1639/91, at fællesskabslovgiver har villet efterkomme Domstolens afgørelse i Rauhdommen ved i artikel 3a i forordning nr. 857/84 at henvise til producenter, der har modtaget bedriften ved arv eller ved »overførsel svarende til arv«.
Mr Bredemeier stated before the national court that the rent was DEM 500 per hectare, after deduction of DEM 3 6(K) per annum for the rent of the farm buildings, whereas the normal market price would at the time have been DEM 800 to DEM 1 000 per hectare. The national court states that the rent was agreed on terms which place Mr Bredemeier in a much better position than that of operators who take a comparable holding on market terms.
Ved sit præjudicielle spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om udtrykket »producenter [...] som har modtaget bedriften [...] ved overførsel svarende til arv« i artikel 3a, stk. 1, andet afsnit, andet led, i forordning nr. 857/84, skal fortolkes således, at det omfatter en producent, som er den udpegede arvings ægtefælle, der har forpagtet bedriften på gunstigere vilkår end markedsvilkårene efter udløbet af den ikke-markedsføringsforpligtelse, bortforpagteren — arveladeren — havde påtaget sig i henhold til forordning nr. 1078/77, men inden den 29. juni 1989.
By its question, the national court is essentially asking whether the words 'producers ... who have received the holding through ... similar means' in the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 3a(l) of Regulation No 857/84 are to be interpreted as meaning that they refer to a producer who is the spouse of the designated heir and to whom the holding has been leased on conditions more favourable than market conditions, following expiry of the nonmarketing undertaking entered into by the lessor, the deviser, under Regulation No 1078/77, but before 29 June 1989.
Under disse omstændigheder skal det fastslås, at det sidstnævnte begreb svarer til begrebet »på anden måde, der kan sidestilles med arv« i artikel 7a, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1546/88.
In June 1989 and on 26 September 1991 (and therefore, in the case of the latter date, within the three-month period laid down in Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84), Mr Bredemeier submitted two applications to the Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover for a provisional reference quantity for the holding which his father-in-law had leased to him.
Det skal indledningsvis bemærkes, at Domstolen i Von Deetzen li-dommen fortolkede begrebet »på anden måde, der kan sidestilles med arv« i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i artikel 7a, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1546/88.
In Von Deetzen II, the Court interpreted the expression 'similar means' within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 7a of Regulation No 1546/88.
Det skal således fastslås, at begrebet »overførsel svarende til arv« uafhængigt af overførslens retlige udformning — omfatter enhver overdragelse med virkninger, der kan sammenlignes med virkningerne af en overgang ved arv.
Mr Bredemeier appealed against that judgment before the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht.
Det er korrekt, således som generaladvokaten har anført i punkt 13-15 i sit forslag til afgørelse, at den pågældende bestemmelse ikke omhandlede tildeling af en specifik referencemængde til producenten, der har modtaget bedriften ved arv eller ved overførsel svarende til arv, men den vedrørte overdragelse af en specifik referencemængde, der allerede var tildelt producentens bedrift, til den producent, der har fået overført bedriften ved arv eller ved
On the issue whether a special reference quantity should have been granted to Mr Bredemeier pursuant to Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84, that court observes that the holding in question was not transferred to Mr Bredemeier in his capacity as potential beneficiary, a question
I præmis 38 i Von Deetzen II-dommen fastslog Domstolen, at der foreligger en sådan overførsel, såfremt den pågældende disposition er udformet på en sådan måde, at den ifølge sit formål og
It is true, as the Advocate General has observed in points 13 to 15 of his Opinion, that that provision related not to the allocation of a special reference quantity to a producer who received the holding by inheritance or similar means, but to the transfer of the special reference quantity already granted to the holding to the producer to whom the holding was then
anden person end den formodede arving, skal der ikke kun tages hensyn til forpagtningsprisen i forpagtningsaftalen, men ligeledes andre forhold, f.eks. varigheden af aftalen og parternes mulighed for ensidigt at opsige aftalen.
judgment, that that is the case where the conditions of the contract embodying the transaction in question place the potential beneficiary in a privileged position compared with that of an operator taking over a comparable holding on an arm's length basis.
indhold i første række tager sigte på, at den formodede arving kan fortsætte med at drive bedriften, og ikke på, at arveladeren realiserer bedriftens handelsværdi.
transferred by inheritance or by any similar transaction and that, furthermore, in certain language versions the wording of that provision was slightly different from that of the provision to which the present reference for a preliminary ruling relates.
Domstolen bemærkede herefter i samme doms præmis 39, at dette er tilfældet, såfremt betingelserne i den aftale, der ligger til grund for den pågældende retshandel, stiller den formodede arving bedre end en erhvervsdrivende, der overtager en tilsvarende bedrift på markedsvilkår.
The taking of a holding can there be regarded as having been effected by a similar means to inheritance only if it favours the potential beneficiary in the way stated in the preceding paragraph.
Overtagelsen af en bedrift skal således kun betragtes som overførsel svarende til arv, såfremt den begunstiger den formodede arving som anført i præmissen ovenfor.
It is true, admittedly, that in Von Deetzen II the Court made the above observations with reference, in particular, to transactions between a producer and his potential beneficiary.
Når bedriften som i hovedsagen er bortforpagtet til den udpegede arvings ægtefælle, er det væsentligt, hvilket Kommissionen med rette har understreget i sine skriftlige indlæg, at retsforholdet mellem kontraktparterne er udformet på en sådan måde, at den begunstigelse, som arveladeren har til hensigt at give sin arving — selv i tilfælde af ægtefællernes separation eller ægteskabets opløsning — sikres varigt.
It thus held, in paragraphs 12 and 25 of that judgment, that under that provision a special reference quantity may be granted to a producer who has taken over a holding by way of succession or a similar transaction after the expiry of a nonmarketing undertaking entered into pursuant to Regulation No 1078/77 by his predecessor in title, notwithstanding the fact that the predecessor in title is not already himself the beneficiary of such a special reference quantity.
Ganske vist fastslog Domstolen i Von Deetzen li-dommen ovennævnte i forbindelse med navnlig dispositioner mellem en producent og hans formodede arving.
However, as the use of the expression 'in particular' in paragraph 38 of Von Deetzen II suggests, those are not the only transactions capable of favouring the potential beneficiary in the sense indicated by the Court in that judgment.
Det tilkommer den forelæggende ret under hensyntagen til alle de faktiske og retlige forhold, der kendetegner bortforpagtningen i hovedsagen, at fastslå, om bortforpagtningen opfylder betingelserne i de to foregående præmisser.
It follows from the first recital of the preamble to Regulation No 1639/91 that it was in order to comply with the interpretation given by the Court in Rauh that the Community legislature referred, in Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84, to producers who have received the holding through an inheritance or 'similar means'.
Af oplysningerne i sagens akter, der er forelagt Domstolen, skal det imidlertid i den forbindelse bemærkes, at den omstændighed, at vedkommende bedrift er bortforpagtet til den udpegede arvings ægtefælle til en gunstigere pris end markedsprisen, og den omstændighed, at den pågældende bedrift forvaltes af ægtefællerne i fællesskab, udgør væsentlige forhold, der taler for, at den pågældende forpagtning sidestilles med en overtagelse af en bedrift ved overførsel svarende til arv i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk anvendes i artikel 3a, stk. 1, andet afsnit, andet led, i forordning nr. 857/84.
More specifically, it is conceivable that taken together the elements of fact and of law which characterise the operation concerned give reason to consider that the main intention of the operation is not that the market value of the holding be realised by the predecessor but that the activity of the holding be pursued for the benefit of the potential beneficiary, even though it is not the latter who takes over the holding. In order to determine whether that condition is satisfied in the present case, where the holding is leased to a person other than the potential beneficiary, it is necessary to take into consideration not only the amount of the rent specified in the lease but also other factors such as the duration of the lease and the possibility of termination by one of the parties.
Det er især tænkeligt, at de faktiske og retlige omstændigheder omkring den pågældende disposition tillader at antage, at denne i første række ikke tager sigte på, at arveladeren realiserer bedriftens handelsværdi, men at den formodede arving fortsat kan drive bedriften, selv om det ikke er arvingen, der overtager bedriften.
It must therefore be held that the words 'any similar transaction' refer to any operation, whatever its legal basis, which produces effects comparable to those of inheritance.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
It further stated, in paragraph 39 of that
•Udtrykket »producenter [...] som har modtaget bedriften [...] ved overførsel svarende til arv« i artikel 3a, stk 1, andet afsnit, andet led, i Rådets forordning nr. 857/84 af 31. marts 1984 om almindelige regler for anvendelsen af den i artikel 5c i forordning (EØF) nr. 804/68 omhandlede afgift på mælk og mejeriprodukter, som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1639/91 af 13. juni 1991, skal fortolkes således, at det omfatter en producent, som er den udpegede arvings ægtefælle, der har forpagtet bedriften på gunstigere vilkår end markedsvilkårene efter udløbet af den ikke-markedsføringsforpligtelse, bortforpagteren arveladeren — havde påtaget sig i henhold til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1078/77 af 17. maj 1977 om indførelse af en præmieordning for ikke-markedsføring af mælk og mejeriprodukter og for omstilling af malkekvægsbesætninger, såfremt det af de samlede faktiske og retlige forhold omkring bortforpagtningen fremgår, at
Where, as in the case before the national court, the holding is leased to the spouse of the designated heir, it is important, as the Commission has rightly stated in its written observations, that the terms of the legal relations between the parties to the contract be such that the advantage which the deviser intends to confer on his heir is guaranteed in the long term, even if the spouses should separate or the marriage be dissolved.
den i første række tager sigte på, at den udpegede arving fortsat kan drive bedriften, og ikke på, at arveladeren realiserer bedriftens handelsværdi, og at retsforholdet mellem kontraktparterne er udformet på en sådan måde, at den begunstigelse, som arveladeren har til hensigt at give sin arving — selv i tilfælde af ægtefællernes separation eller ægteskabets opløsning — sikres varigt.«
It is for the national court to ascertain, by assessing all the elements of fact and of law which characterise the lease in issue in the main proceedings, whether the lease satisfies the conditions set out in the two preceding paragraphs.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Anden Afdeling) den 28. februar 2002.
In that regard, however, the fact that, according to the information in the file submitted to the
Sag C-142/01 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik Fri bevægelighed for personer
Court, the holding in question was let to the spouse of the designated heir of the lessor at a more advantageous price than the market price, and also the fact that the holding is worked jointly by the two spouses, argue strongly in favour of assimilating the letting in question to the taking of a holding by a similar means to inheritance, within the meaning of the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 3a(l) of Regulation No 857/84.
Da Kommissionen fandt, at lov nr. 81 indeholdt et krav om gensidighed, som ikke fremgik af direktiv 92/51, indledte den traktatbrudsproceduren.
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Second Chamber on 28 February 2002.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 28. marts 2001 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 226 EF anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 92/5 l/EØF af 18. juni 1992 om anden generelle ordning for anerkendelse af erhvervsuddannelser til supplering af direktiv 89/48/EØF, idet den har opretholdt artikel 12, stk. 1, i legge nr. 81, Leggequadro per la professione di maestro di sci e ulteriori disposizioni in materia di ordinamento della professione di guida alpina (rammelov for skilærererhvervet og supplerende bestemmelser om ordningen for bjergførererhvervet) af 8. marts 1991, som gør anerkendelse af eksamensbeviset som skilærer betinget af gensidighed.
'The lease of a holding to the spouse of the presumed heir to the holding constitutes transfer "through an inheritance or similar means" for the purposes of Article 3a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 provided that: the terms of the lease are such that, according to its purpose and subject-matter, the main intention is that the holding should continue to be exploited by the potential beneficiary and not that the marketable value of the holding should be realised by the person from whom he or she stands to inherit: and
anerkendelsen af eksamensbeviset som skilærer, er under udarbejdelse.
the presumed heir is the real beneficiary of the transfer and his or her rights will be preserved, even in the event of divorce or separation.'
Under disse omstændigheder bør Kommissionen gives medhold.
Case C-142/01 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic Freedom of movement for persons
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Fjerde Afdeling) den 19. marts 2002.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations recognition of professional education and training (Fourth Chamber) infringement procedure.
Han foreslog Domstolen at give Kommissionen medhold og træffe følgende afgørelse:
In its defence, the Italian Government states that it has never applied the condition of reciprocity that was the subject of the action.
»1) Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 92/51/EØF af 18. juni 1992 om anden generelle ordning for anerkendelse af erhvervsuddannelser til supplering af direktiv 89/48/EØF, idet den har opretholdt artikel 12, stk. 1, i lov nr. 81 af 8. marts 1991, rammelov for skilærererhvervet og supplerende bestemmelser om ordningen for bjergførererhvervet.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 28 March 2001, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by maintaining in force the first paragraph of Article 12 of Law No 81, Legge-quadro per la professione di maestro di sci e ulteriori disposizioni in materia di ordinamento della professione di guida alpina (Framework Law for the profession of ski monitor and supplementary provisions relating to the regulation of the profession of mountain guide) of 8 March 1991, which makes recognition of a ski-monitor diploma subject to a condition of reciprocity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC.
Sag C-232/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Spanien Fri etableringsret
Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.'