natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I tilfælde, hvor et datterselskab, der er hjemmehørende i en medlemsstat, har været forpligtet til at betale en forskudsselskabsskat i forbindelse med udbetaling af udbytte til sit moderselskab, der har hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat, mens datterselskaber af moderselskaber, der er hjemmehørende i den førstnævnte medlemsstat, under tilsvarende omstændigheder har kunnet være frivilligt sambeskattet og dermed har kunnet undgå forpligtelsen til at betale en sådan skat, kræver traktatens artikel 52, at de hjemmehørende datterselskaber og de ikkehjemmehørende moderselskaber har en effektiv søgsmålsadgang med henblik på at opnå tilbagebetaling eller erstatning af det finansielle tab, som de har lidt til fordel for den pågældende medlemsstats myndigheder som følge af, at datterselskaberne har betalt skatten i form af en forskudsskat.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 11 May 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directives %/24/EC of 29 April 19%, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and those directives.
Den omstændighed, at der under et sådant søgsmål kun rejses krav om betaling af den rente, der svarer til det finansielle tab, der er lidt som følge af, at der ikke har kunnet disponeres over de beløb, der er betalt i forskudsskat, udgør ikke i sig selv en grund til ikke at give medhold i kravet.
The Hellenic Republic's defence does not dispute that the measures necessary for the
Fællesskabsretten er til hinder for, at en national ret ikke giver medhold i eller nedsætter et krav, der er fremsat for retten af et hjemmehørende datterselskab og dets ikkehjemmehørende moderselskab med henblik på at opnå tilbagebetaling eller erstatning af det finansielle tab, som de har lidt som følge af, at datterselskabet har betalt forskudsselskabsskat, alene med den begrundelse, at de ikke har anmodet skattemyndighederne om adgang til at benytte den beskatningsordning, der ville have fritaget datterselskabet for pligten til forskudsbetaling, og dermed ikke har benyttet de retsmidler, de har til rådighed for at anfægte skattemyndighedernes afslag under påberåbelse af fællesskabsbestemmelsernes forrang og direkte virkning, selv om den nationale lovgivning under alle omstændigheder hindrede hjemmehørende datterselskaber og deres ikkehjemmehørende moderselskaber i at få adgang til denne beskatningsordning. «
'— by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive %/24/EC of 29 April 19% amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs and Council Directive %/25/EC of 29 April 19% on the circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing Directive 77/101/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98
Præjudiciel »Moms — sjette momsdirektivs artikel 2, nr. 1, artikel 5, stk. 6, og artikel 11, punkt A, stk. 1, litra a) — gode med blandet anvendelse — henførelse til den afgiftspligtige persons private
Preliminary ruling (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Advance payment of corporation tax on profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company — Parent company having its
— brugt genstand erhvervet fra en formue eller erhvervsformue — salg af et virksomhedsgode privatperson« (Femte Afdeling)
law — Action for restitution or action seat in another Member State —Breach of Community for damages — Interest) (Fifth Chamber)
Herefter har Bundesfinanzhof besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål.
In Case C-410/98, Hoechst UK Ltd, a company resident in the United Kingdom, distributed dividends to its parent company, Hoechst AG, which has its seat in Germany, and paid the ACT due on those dividends in the United Kingdom.
Ved kendelse af 24. september 1998 har Bundesfinanzhof forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977.
It was subsequently able to set off that ACT against the MCT for which it was liable.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst i en sag mellem Laszlo Bakcsi og Finanzamt Fürstenfeldbruck angående forpligtelsen til at svare merværdiafgift (herefter »moms«) ved salg af en bil, som Laszlo Bakcsi havde erhvervet fra en privatperson uden ret til momsfradrag, og som han både har anvendt til private og erhvervsmæssige formål.
By two orders of 2 October 1998, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling five questions on the interpretation of Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC and Article 43 EC), Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) and/or Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC).
Laszlo Bakcsi har gjort gældende, at en afgiftspligtig person bør have mulighed for i sin private formue at bevare et gode med blandet anvendelse, som han har købt af en privatperson, og som ikke har givet ham ret til fradrag af moms.
Hoechst also brought proceedings before the High Court against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in which they sought a ruling that they had suffered loss by virtue of the fact that the dividends distributed by Hoechst UK Ltd to Hoechst AG between 16 January 1989 and 26 April 1994 had been subject to ACT.
Tvisten i hovedsagen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the amounts of ACT paid between 14 April 1989 and 13 July 1994.
Det bemærkes, at Domstolen i Ambrechtdommen udtalte, at det fremgår af ordlyden af sjette direktivs artikel 2, nr. 1, at en afgiftspligtig person skal optræde »i denne egenskab«, for at en transaktion kan pålægges moms.
In Case C-397/98, Metallgesellschaft Ltd and The Metal and Commodity Company Ltd, companies resident in the United Kingdom, paid dividends to their respective parent companies, Metallgesellschaft AG and Metallgesellschaft Handel & Beteiligungen AG, companies having their seat in Germany, and were therefore required to pay ACT. The two subsidiaries were subsequently able to set off that ACT against the MCT for which they were liable. In each of the cases in the main proceedings, the parent companies maintain that, because it was impossible for them and their subsidiaries to make a group income election, which would have enabled the subsidiaries to avoid payment of ACT, those subsidiaries suffered a cashflow disadvantage which subsidiaries of parent companies resident in the United Kingdom did not incur.
Ifølge dommens præmis 17 optræder en afgiftspligtig person, der udfører en privat transaktion, imidlertid ikke i egenskab af afgiftspligtig person.
By making a group income election, the latter were able to retain, until the date when the MCT to which they were liable fell due, the sums which they would otherwise have had to pay as ACT on the distribution of dividends to their parent companies.
Følgelig henhører en transaktion, der udføres af en afgiftspligtig person som privatperson — som det fremgår af dommens præmis 18 — ikke under momsens anvendelsesområde.
In their view, that disadvantage amounts to indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality contrary to the EC Treaty.
Den 16. maj 1990 solgte Laszlo Bakcsi bilen for 19 000 DEM uden at anføre momsen særskilt i en faktura.
The first question submitted for preliminary ruling
Domstolen bemærkede også i Ambrechtdommens præmis 19, at direktivet ikke indeholder nogen bestemmelse, der er til hinder for, at en afgiftspligtig person, der ønsker at bevare en del af et gode i sin private formue, kan udelukke det fra momssystemet.
Metallgesellschaft and Others instituted proceedings before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in which they sought a ruling that they had suffered loss by virtue of the fact that the distribution of dividends by the subsidiaries to their parent companies had been subject to ACT.
Ved afgiftsafgørelse af 24. maj 1994 fandt Finanzamt Fürstenfeldbruck, at Laszlo Bakcsi's salg af bilen var momspligtigt, idet afgiftsgrundlaget blev fastsat til købsprisen, dvs. 19 000 DEM med fradrag af den deri indeholdte moms, dvs. 2 334 DEM.
The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the amounts of ACT paid between 16 April 1974 and 1 November 1995 by Metallgesellschaft Ltd and between 11 April 1991 and 13 October 1995 by The Metal and Commodity Company Ltd.
Efter at Laszlo Bakcsi havde fået afslag på sin klage over afgiftsafgørelsen, blev sagen indbragt for Finanzgericht, som ligeledes fandt, at salget var momspligtigt, idet Laszlo Bakcsi ved at anmode om fradrag for indgående moms af udgifterne til reparation på bilen havde givet udtryk for, at han ville henføre bilen til sit selskab. Ifølge Finanzgericht havde Laszlo Bakcsi »indskudt« bilen i selskabet den 17. april 1989.
By its first question, the national court is in substance asking whether it is contrary to Articles 6,52,58 and/or 73b of the Treaty for the tax legislation of a Member State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, to afford companies resident in that Member State the possibility of benefiting from a taxation regime allowing them to pay dividends to their parent company without having to pay advance corporation tax where their parent company is
Der foreligger et gode, som er henført til virksomheden, og salget heraf udgør en afgiftspligtig leverance i sjette direktivs forstand.
also resident in that Member State but to deny them that possibility where their parent company has its seat in another Member State.
Den tyske og den græske regering samt Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at når en afgiftspligtig person mod vederlag overdrager et gode, som han har henført til sin virksomhed, skal han i henhold til sjette direktivs artikel 2, nr. 1, og artikel 11, punkt A, stk. 1, litra a), svare moms af hele modydelsen, uanset om han ikke har kunnet fradrage moms, der tidligere er betalt af godet, fordi det er blevet erhvervet fra en privatperson.
It should be remembered that, according to settled case-law, although direct taxation falls within their competence, Member States must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community law and avoid any discrimination on grounds of nationality.
Når en afgiftspligtig person har valgt fuldt ud at lade et investeringsgode, som han har brugt til såvel erhvervsmæssige som private formål, indgå i sin erhvervsformue, er salget af godet i sin helhed momspligtigt i overensstemmelse med sjette direktivs artikel 2, nr. 1, og artikel 11, punkt A, stk. 1, litra a).
principal place of business within the Community, to pursue their activities in the Member State concerned through a branch or agency. With regard to companies, it should be noted in this context that it is their corporate seat in the above sense that serves as the connecting factor with the legal system of a particular State, like nationality in the case of natural persons.
Såfremt den afgiftspligtige person ikke har ret til at fradrage residualværdien af momsen af et virksomhedsgode, der er købt brugt af en ikkeafgiftspligtig, må godet anses for ikke at have givet ret til fradrag af moms i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i sjette direktivs artikel 5, stk. 6, og det er derfor i henhold til denne bestemmelse udelukket at kræve afgift af udtagelsen.
It follows from the Court's case-law that the general prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down by Article 6 of the Treaty applies independently only to situations governed by Community law for which the Treaty lays down no specific non discrimination rules.
Såfremt den afgiftspligtige person senere sælger godet, udfører han denne transaktion i en privat egenskab og ikke som afgiftspligtig person. Denne transaktion falder således uden for momssystemet.
It is common ground that, in relation to the right of establishment, the principle of non discrimination was implemented and specifically laid down by Article 52 of the Treaty.
Når den afgiftspligtige person kun har henført den del af godet, som er benyttet til erhvervsmæssige formål, til sin erhvervsformue, er kun salget af denne del momspligtigt (jf. i denne retning Armbrecht-dommen, præmis 24).
It is not disputed that the subsidiary of a parent company resident in the United Kingdom a cashflow advantage inasmuch as it retains the sums which it would otherwise have had to pay by way of ACT until such time as MCT becomes payable, that is to say, for a period of between eight and a half months, at the least, and 17 and a half months, at the most, depending on the date of distribution.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Consequently, Article 6 of the Treaty is not applicable to the cases in the main proceedings.
»1) En afgiftspligtig person, som erhverver et investeringsgode til brug for såvel erhvervsmæssige som private formål, kan bevare godet fuldt ud isin private formue og således holde det helt ude fra merværdiafgiftssystemet.
They would thus enjoy the same cashflow advantage as resident subsidiaries of resident parent companies, there being no other difference — assuming equal bases of assessment — between the amounts of MCT for which the two types of subsidiary are liable in respect of the same accounting period.
Når en afgiftspligtig person har valgt fuldt ud at lade et investeringsgode, som han har brugt til såvel erhvervsmæssige som private formål, indgå i sin erhvervsformue, er salget af godet i sin helhed merværdiafgip^pligtigt i overensstemmelse med artikel 2, nr. 1, og artikel 11, punkt A, stk 1, litra a), i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter — Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag.
As regards the risk of tax avoidance, the Court has already held that the establishment of a company outside the United Kingdom does not, of itself, necessarily entail tax avoidance, since that company will in any event be subject to the tax legislation of the State of establishment.
Når den afgiftspligtige person kun har ladet den del af godet, som er benyttet til erhvervsmæssige formål, indgå i sin erhvervsformue, skal der kun svares merværdiafgift af salget af denne deL I den forbindelse er det uden betydning, at godet er købt brugt af en ikke-afgiftspligtig person, og at den afgiftspligtige person således ikke har haft ret til at fradrage residualværdien af merværdiafgiften af godet.
Freedom of establishment includes, the right of companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or
Såfremt den afgiftspligtige person imidlertid udtager et sådant gode fra sin virksomhed, må godet anses for ikke at have givet ret til fradrag af merværdiafgift i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i direktivets artikel 5, stk 6, og i henhold til denne bestemmelse er det derfor udelukket at kræve afgift af udtagelsen.
The difference in the tax treatment of parent companies depending on whether or not they are resident cannot justify denial of a tax advantage to subsidiaries, resident in the United Kingdom,
Såfremt den afgiftspligtige person senere sælger godet, udfører han denne transaktion i en privat egenskab, hvorfor transaktionen falder uden for merværdiafgiftssystemet.«
of parent companies having their seat in another Member State where that advantage is available to subsidiaries, resident in the United Kingdom, of parent companies also resident in the United Kingdom, since all those subsidiaries are liable to MCT on their profits irrespective of the place of residence of their parent companies.
Generaladvokat A Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling') den 13. april 2000.
The Court of Justice has, it is true, held that the need to safeguard the cohesion of a tax system may justify rules that are liable to restrict fundamental freedoms.
Sag C-276/98 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Portugisiske Republik Fiskale bestemmelser
The national court frames that question in two hypotheses: in the first alternative, where the claim by the subsidiary and/or parent company is made in an action for restitution of taxes levied in breach of Community law and, in the second, where the claim is made in an action for compensation for damage resulting from the breach of Community law.
— artikel 12 og artikel 28, stk 2 reduceret momssats«
That is not, however, the case here.
»Traktatbrud — sjette momsdirektiv (Sjette Afdeling)
In the circumstances, it is for Metallgesellschaft and Others and Hoechst to specify the nature and basis of their actions (whether they are actions for restitution or actions for compensation for damage), subject to the supervision of the national court.
Ved skrivelser af 2. juli og 20. november 1996 meddelte de portugisiske myndigheder Kommissionen, at de havde til hensigt at indføre en ny reduceret sats på 12%, som der ikke tidligere havde været i Portugal, bl.a. for transaktioner, der ikke var nævnt i bilag H til sjette direktiv, med henblik på gradvis at få disse transaktioner bragt op på normalsatsen på 17%, der var gældende i Portugal.
Whereas in the cases of Bachmann and Commission ν Belgium, cited above, there was a direct link between the deductibility of contributions paid for old-age and life assurance contracts and the taxation of the sums paid out under those contracts, a link which had to be maintained in order to safeguard the cohesion of the tax system in question, there is no such direct link in the present cases between, on the one hand, the refusal to exempt subsidiaries in the United Kingdom of nonresident parent companies from payment of ACT under a group income election and, on the other, the fact that parent companies having their seat in another Member State and receiving dividends from their subsidiaries in the United Kingdom are not liable to corporation tax in the United Kingdom.
Ved stævning indgivet til Domstolens Justitskontor den 20. juli 1998 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Portugisiske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 12 og artikel 28, stk. 2, i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977, idet den har opretholdt eller indført lovbestemmelser om anvendelse af en reduceret momssats på 5% ved import og levering af visse varer og visse tjenesteydelser, der står opført på liste I i et bilag til den portugisiske momslov.
It is important to bear in mind in this regard that what is contrary to Community law, in the disputes in the main proceedings, is not the levying of a tax in the United Kingdom on the payment of dividends by a subsidiary to its parent company but the fact that subsidiaries, resident in the United Kingdom, of parent companies having their seat in another Member State were required to pay that tax in advance whereas resident subsidiaries of resident parent companies were able to avoid that requirement.
Da Kommissionen ikke anså bemærkningerne fra den portugisiske regering for fyldestgørende, fremsatte den den 10. juni 1997 i medfør af traktatens artikel 169 en begrundet udtalelse til Den Portugisiske Republik.
Since legislation such as that in question runs counter to the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment, it is unnecessary to consider whether it also runs counter to the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital.
Ved åbningsskrivelse af 10. april 1996 meddelte Kommissionen den portugisiske regering, at lovens artikel 18, stk. 1, litra a), efter dens opfattelse var i strid med artikel 12 og artikel 28, stk. 2, i sjette direktiv, for så vidt som der i den pågældende nationale bestemmelse blev fastsat en sats på 5% for visse transaktioner, der ikke var nævnt i bilag H til sjette direktiv.
Having regard to the answer given to the first question, the second question seeks in substance to ascertain whether, on a proper construction of Article 52 of the Treaty, where a subsidiary resident in the Member State concerned and its parent company having its seat in another Member State have been wrongfully deprived of the benefit of a taxation regime which would have enabled the subsidiary to pay dividends to its parent company without having to pay advance corporation tax, that subsidiary and/or its parent company are/is entitled to obtain a sum
og udstyr til indvinding af alternative former for energi, samt landbrugsredskaber og -udstyr, og indført en reduceret sats på 5% for den tjenesteydelse, der er nævnt i punkt 2.19 på listen, vedrørende benyttelse af betalingsbroen over Tejo-floden i Lissabon.
The fifth question submitted for preliminary ruling of charges improperly levied, such as the payment of interest, including the rate of interest and the date from which it must be calculated.
Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at Den Portugisiske Republik har tilsidesat sjette direktivs artikel 12, stk. 3, og artikel 28, stk. 2, ved at fastsætte en reduceret sats på 5% for bropenge, der opkræves for benyttelse af broen over Tejo-floden i Lissabon i stedet for normalsatsen i Portugal på 17%.
In such circumstances, where the breach of Community law arises, not from the payment of the tax itself but from its being levied prematurely, the award of interest represents the 'reimbursement' of that which was improperly paid and would appear to be essential in restoring the equal treatment guaranteed by Article 52 of the Treaty.
Det bemærkes, at i henhold til sjette direktivs artikel 2, stk. 1, pålægges moms kun tjenesteydelser, som foretages af en afgiftspligtig person, der optræder i denne egenskab.
Article 52 of the Treaty entitles a subsidiary resident in the United Kingdom and/or its parent company having its seat in another Member State to obtain interest accrued on the ACT paid by the subsidiary during the period between the payment of ACT and the date on which MCT became payable, and that sum may be claimed by way of restitution.
Uanset den portugisiske regerings anbringender kan Domstolen ikke udsætte sagen, men må give Kommissionen medhold for så vidt angår den reducerede momssats for transaktioner vedrørende de pågældende varer.
In circumstances such as those in the cases in the main proceedings, the award of interest would therefore seem to be essential if the damage caused by the breach of Article 52 of the Treaty is to be repaired.
Bropenge for benyttelse af broen over Tejo-floden
The third and fourth questions submitted for preliminary ruling
Sagsøgte bør derfor frifindes, for så vidt som påstanden angår afgifter for benyttelse af broen over Tejo-floden i Lissabon.
In light of the answer given to the first question, it is unnecessary to reply to the third and fourth questions.
»1) Den Portugisiske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 12 og artikel 28, stk 2, i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivningom omsætningsafgifter—Det]'ællesmerværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 92/77/EØF af 19. oktober 1992 om tilføjelse til det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem og om ændring af direktiv 77/388/EØF (indbyrdes tilnærmelse af momssatserne), idet den har opretholdt en reduceret meromsætningsafgiftssats på 5% for transaktioner vedrørende varerne i punkt 1.8, 2.11 og 3.8 i liste I i bilaget til den portugisiske lov om meromsætningsafgifter, der henholdsvis omfatter vin, maskiner og udstyr til indvinding af alternative former for energi samt landbrugsredskaber og -udstyr.
The exercise of rights conferred on private persons by directly applicable provisions of Community law would, however, be rendered impossible or excessively difficult if their claims for restitution or compensation based on Community law were rejected or reduced solely because the persons concerned had not applied for a tax advantage which national law denied them, with a view to challenging the refusal of the tax authorities by means of the legal remedies provided for that purpose, invoking the primacy and direct effect of Community law.