natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Der foreligger intet forhold, som opvejer den ulempe, som arbejdsgiveren udsættes for i forhold til en arbejdsgiver, som har tegnet en tilsvarende forsikring hos et selskab i Sverige.
There is no compensatory measure to offset the disadvantage he suffers compared with an employer who takes out comparable insurance with a company established in Sweden.
For det andet kan det af den danske og den svenske regering fremførte synspunkt om, at forsikringspræmien i realiteten er en del af den ansattes løn, ikke forklare, hvorfor præmien umiddelbart kan fradrages, når arbejdsgiveren har tegnet forsikringen hos et forsikringsselskab i indlandet, men fradragsretten udskydes, når forsikringen er tegnet hos et forsikringsselskab i en anden medlemsstat.
Moreover, the argument of the Swedish and Danish Governments that the insurance premium is, essentially, a part of the employee's remuneration does not explain why it can be deducted immediately the employer takes out the occupational insurance with an insurer established in Sweden while deduction is deferred where it is taken out with an insurer established in another Member State.
En medlemsstat er i stand til at kontrollere, om der rent faktisk er indbetalt præmier fra en skattepligtig i medlemsstaten til et forsikringsselskab i en anden medlemsstat.
A Member State is in a position to check whether contributions have actually been paid by one of its taxpayers to an insurance company established in another Member State.
Der er heller intet til hinder for, at de pågældende skattemyndigheder kræver, at den skattepligtige selv fremlægger de beviser, som de finder nødvendige for at kunne bedømme, om de i lovgivningen fastsatte betingelser for fradragsret for præmierne er opfyldt, og dermed afgøre, om det krævede fradrag skal godkendes.
In addition, there is nothing to prevent the tax authorities concerned from requiring the taxpayer to provide such proof as they may consider necessary in order to determine whether the conditions for deducting contributions provided for in the legislation at issue have been met and, consequently, whether to allow the deduction requested.
»Artikel 49 EF er til hinder for, at en forsikring, som er tegnet hos et selskab i en anden medlemsstat, og som opfylder alle de betingelser f or en erhvervstilknyttetpensionsforsikring, der opstilles i national ret — bortset fra betingelsen om, at den skal være tegnet hos et forsikringsselskab i indlandet — behandles forskelligt i skattemæssig henseende, hvilket med hensyn til indkomstskatten kan have virkninger, der, alt efter de konkrete omstændigheder, kan være mindre fordelagtige.*
'Article 49 EC precludes an insurance policy issued by an insurance company established in another Member State which meets the conditions laid down in national law for occupational pension insurance, apartfrom the condition that the policy must be issued by an insurance company operating in the national territory, from being treateddifferently in terms oftaxation, with income tax effects which, depending on the circumstances in the individual case, may be lessfavourable. '
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 3. april 2003.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 3 April 2003.
»Artikel 49 EF skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for anvendelse af en national lovgivning som den her omhandlede, hvorefter der gælder skatteregler, som er mindre fordelagtige, når en erhvervstilknyttet pensionsforsikring tegnes hos et forsikringsselskab i en anden medlemsstat, end når den tegnes hos et forsikringsselskab i den pågældende medlemsstat.«
'Article 49 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes application of national legislation such as that in issue in the present case which lays down tax rules which are less favourable where an occupational pension insurance policy is taken out with an insurance company established in another Member State than when it is taken out with an insurance company established in the Member State in question.' '
Sag C-233/00 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
Case C-233/00 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Environment and consumers
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 90I3131EØF — fri adgang til miljøoplysninger — ufuldstændig eller ukorrekt gennemførelse* (Sjette Afdeling)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations —Directive 90/313/EEC —Freedom of access to information on the environment —Incomplete or incorrect transposition) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 13. juni 2000 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter Rådets direktiv 90/313/EØF af 7. juni 1990, og EF-traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3 (nu artikel 249, stk 3, EF), da den ikke har gennemført direktivets artikel 2, litra a), og artikel 3, stk. 2, 3 og 4, korrekt.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 13 June 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing correctly to transpose Articles 2(a) and 3(2), (3) and (4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of Article 249 EC).
Til støtte for sine påstande har Kommissionen fremført følgende fem klagepunkter:
In support of its application, the Commission relies on five grounds:
Ufuldstændig gennemførelse af artikel 2, litra a), jf. artikel 3, stk. 1, i direktiv 90/313, idet anvendelsesområdet for de franske retsforskrifter vedrørende forpligtelsen til at meddele miljøoplysninger er mindre vidtgående end efter direktivet.
— incomplete transposition of Article 2(a) in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Directive 90/313, in that the scope of the obligation to supply information relating to the environment is narrower under the French legislation than under that directive;
Ukorrekt gennemførelse af artikel 3, stk. 2, første afsnit, i direktiv 90/313, da et af de hensyn, som ifølge de franske retsforskrifter kan begrunde en undtagelse fra forpligtelsen til at meddele miljøoplysninger, ikke udgør en hjemmel efter direktivet til at afslå en anmodning om oplysninger.
— incorrect transposition of the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 90/313, inasmuch as the French legislation provides, among the exceptions to the obligation to supply that information, a ground for refusal which is not provided for by the directive;
Manglende gennemførelse af artikel 3, stk. 2, andet afsnit, i direktiv 90/313, da de franske retsforskrifter ikke fastsætter nogen forpligtelse til at meddele miljøoplysninger i uddrag, når det er muligt heri at udelade oplysninger om forhold, som kan begrunde et afslag på en anmodning om oplysninger.
— failure to transpose the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Directive 90/313, because of the failure of the French legislation to mention the obligation to supply in part information relating to the environment where it is possible to separate out information on items which mayjustify a refusal;
Manglende gennemførelse af artikel 3, stk. 3, i direktiv 90/313, da de franske retsforskrifter ikke indeholder nogen mulighed for at afslå en anmodning om oplysninger, som indebærer fremlæggelse af ufærdige dokumenter eller data eller interne meddelelser, eller når anmodningen er åbenlyst urimelig eller for generelt formuleret.
— failure to transpose Article 3(3) of Directive 90/313, in that the French legislation has not provided for the possibility of refusing a request for the supply of unfinished documents or data or internal communications or a request which is manifestly unreasonable or formulated in too general a manner, and
Ukorrekt gennemførelse af artikel 3, stk. 4, i direktiv 90/313, da de franske retsforskrifter indeholder mulighed for at afslå en anmodning om miljøoplysninger ved en stiltiende, ubegrundet afgørelse.
— incorrect transposition of Article 3(4) of Directive 90/313, on the ground that the French legislation allows requests for information relating to the environment to be refused by implied decisions for which reasons are not given.
Ifølge Domstolen har Kommissionen ikke til støtte for sit fjerde klagepunkt påberåbt sig nogen afgørelser fra de franske domstole, hvori der er anlagt en fortolkning af lov nr. 78-753, der ikke er i overensstemmelse med direktivets artikel 3, stk. 3, og i øvrigt er der ikke efter sagens akter noget grundlag for at antage, at disse domstole ikke vil fortolke national ret på grundlag af direktivets ordlyd og formål og sikre dets fulde anvendelse i overensstemmelse med traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3.
According to the Court, the Commission did not put forward in support of its fourth ground any decision by the French courts which affirms an interpretation of Law No 78-753 inconsistent with Article 3(3) ofthat directive and, moreover, mere is no reason to consider, in the light of the documents in the case, that those courts do not interpret national law in the light of the wording and the objective of that directive and do not actually ensure its full application in accordance with the requirements of the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty.
Da det påhviler Kommissionen at godtgøre det påståede traktatbrud ved fremlæggelse af de omstændigheder, som er nødvendige for, at Domstolen kan efterprøve dette, og da Kommissionen ikke kan påberåbe sig nogen formodning herfor, må Kommissionens fjerde klagepunkt forkastes.
The Court notes that it must be concluded that the Commission's fifth complaint is well founded only in so far as it alleges that the French Republic has failed to provide, in the case of an implied refusal of a request for information relating to the environment, that the public authorities are required to provide the reasons for that refusal automatically and at the latest within two months of the submission of the initial request The remainder of the complaint must, on the other hand, be dismissed.
— ved at begrænse forpligtelsen til at meddele miljøoplysninger til »administrative dokumenter* i henhold til lov nr. 78-753 af 17. juli 1978 om forskellige foranstaltninger til forbedring af forholdet mellem myndighederne og offentligheden og forskellige administrative, sociale og fiskale bestemmelser
Declares that: by restricting the obligation to supply information relating to the environment to "administrative documents" within the meaning of Law No 78-753 of 17 July 1978 establishing various measures to improve relations between the administrative authorities and the public and various administrative, social and fiscal provisions; by providing, as one of the grounds for refusing to supply such information, that consultation órprovision of the document wouldprejudice, "generally, secretsprotected by legislation"; by failing to include in the national legislation a provision under which information relating to the environment is to be supplied in part where it is possible to separate out information on items concerning the interests referred to in Article 3(2) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment, which may accordinglyjustify a refusal, and by failing to provide, in the case of an implied refusal of a request for information relating to the environment, that the public authorities are required to provide the reasons for that refusal automatically and at the latest within two months of the submission of the initial request, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(a) and 3(1), (2) and (4) ofthat directive;
I øvrigt frifindes Den Franske Republik
Dismisses the remainder of the application;
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet fSiette Afdeling) den 14. januar 2003.
Advocate General C. Stix-Hackl delivered her Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 14 January 2003.
»Trafoatbrud — statsstøtte —forordning (EF) nr. 1013/97 — støtte til statsejede skibsværfter — Kommissionens beslutning 2000/131/EF om tilbagesøgning — manglende gennemførelse*
(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations —State aid —Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 —Aid to publicly-owned shipyards — Commission Decision 2000/131'/EC ordering repayment —Nonimplementation) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 7. november 2000 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 88, stk. 2, EF anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 249, stk. 4, EF og artikel 2 og 3 i Kommissionens beslutning 2000/13l/EF af 26. oktober 1999 om Spaniens statsstøtte til statsejede skibsværfter ved ikke inden for den fastsatte frist at have truffet de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at efterkomme beslutningen om, at denne støtte er ydet ulovligt og følgelig er uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 7 November 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under the second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC for a declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2000/131/EC of 26 October 1999 on the State aid implemented by Spain in favour of the publicly-owned shipyards, which declares that that aid was granted illegally and is therefore incompatible with the common market, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 ofthat decision.
De faktiske omstændigheder og beslutning 2000/131
Factual background and Decision 2000/131
De faktiske omstændigheder, som de er beskrevet i punkt 6-9 i begrundelsen for beslutning 2000/131, er som følger:
The factual background, as outlined in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the grounds of Decision 2000/131, is as follows:
»(6) I henhold til sin beslutning fra august 1997 godkendte Kommissionen statsstøtte på i alt maksimalt 229,008 mia. ESP til omstrukturering af de statsejede værfter i Spanien [(herefter »godkendelsesbeslutningen«)].
'(6) Under its August 1997 decision in State aid Case C 56/95, the Commission [approved] State aids totalling a maximum of ESP 229 008 billion in support of the restructuring of the publicly-owned yards in Spain.
Pakken af godkendt støtte omfattede (særlige) skattefradrag på op til 58 mia. ESP i perioden 1995-1999.
The package of approved aids included "special" tax credits of up to ESP 58 billion in the period 1995 to 1999.
(9) Støttepakken blev godkendt på den betingelse, at såvel det samlede beløb som beløbene pr. støttekategori var maksimumsbeløb.
(9) The aid package was approved on the condition that the total sum, as well as the amounts per category of aid were maximum amounts.
Denne betingelse tjente til at sikre, at støtten blev brugt til det påtænkte formål, og til at begrænse støttens konkurrencefordrejende virkninger for skibsbygningsindustrien.
Such conditions were set to ensure that the aids were used for the purposes intended and to limit die distortive effect of the aid on the shipbuilding industry.
Ifølge de oplysninger, som Kommissionen har modtaget som led i sin overvågning af omstruktureringsplanens gennemførelse, blev værfterne i 1998 tildelt et særligt skattefradrag på 18,451 mia. ESP, uanset at de i 1998 — som følge af deres optagelse i SEPI — også modtog skattefradrag for at kompensere for deres tab i 1997 i henhold til generelle foranstaltninger baseret på de generelle spanske skattekonsolideringsregler.«
According to the information available to the Commission within the context of its monitoring of the restructuring plan, the yards received in 1998 a special tax credit of ESP [ 18.451 ] billion, notwithstanding the fact [that] the yards also received a tax credit under general measures in 1998, corresponding to their losses in 1997, based on general Spanish tax consolidation rules, as a result of their integration [into] SEPI.'
Under disse omstændigheder nærede Kommissionen tvivl med hensyn til dels, om det særlige skattefradrag på 18,451 mia. ESP var i overensstemmelse med godkendelsesbeslutningen, dels, om det var foreneligt med fællesmarkedet
In those circumstances, die Commission expressed doubts as to me consistency of the special tax credit of ESP 18.451 billion with the authorising decision and as to its compatibility with the common market
I punkt 57 i begrundelsen for beslutning 2000/131 konkluderer Kommissionen, at de statsejede værfter i Spanien har modtaget støtte i form af et særligt skattefradrag på 18,451 mia. ESP, der ikke havde hjemmel i lovgivningen.
At paragraph 57 of the grounds of Decision 2000/131, the Commission concluded that the publicly-owned yards in Spain had received aid in the form of special tax credits of ESP 18.451 billion which could not be legally justified.
Kommissionen fastslår, at selv om det samlede loft for denne støtte ikke er blevet overskredet, udgjorde det nævnte beløb kun et maksimum.
Although the overall limit on such aid payment had not been exceeded, that amount represented solely a maximum.
Inden for dette maksimum skulle støtten efter Kommissionens opfattelse kun stå i relation til det skattepligtige resultat og måtte kun ydes, hvis værfterne ikke kunne medtage skattefradrag i henhold til Spaniens generelle skattekonsolideringsregler.
Within that maximum the aid was to correspond only to taxable losses and was based on the assumption that the yards were unable to benefit from tax credits under Spain's general tax consolidation system.
Der var for Kommissionen tale om en vigtig betingelse for godkendelsen af støtten og dermed for støttens forenelighed med fællesmarkedet i henhold til artikel 87, stk. 3, litra e), EF.
According to the Commission, this was an essential condition for approval of the aid and therefore for the compatibility of the aid with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3Xe) EC.
Under disse omstændigheder har Kommissionen besluttet at anlægge nærværende sag ud fra den opfattelse, at Kongeriget Spanien ikke har truffet de fornødne foranstaltninger til at efterkomme beslutning 2000/131.
In those circumstances, the Commission took the view that the Kingdom of Spain had not taken the measures necessary to comply with Decision 2000/131 and decided to bring the present action.
Det bemærkes indledningsvis — i modsætning til det, der er blevet hævdet af den spanske regering, som mener, at de fornødne foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af beslutning 2000/131 i overensstemmelse med national ret var blevet truffet inden den relevante dato for konstateringen af traktatbruddet — at den spanske regering alene havde indledt forhandlinger vedrørende vilkårene for tilbagesøgning af den støtte, som var blevet erklæret ulovlig, men ikke havde taget nogen konkrete skridt til tilbagesøgning af støtten over for de spanske statsejede skibsværfter.
First of all, contrary to the Spanish Government's assertion that until the relevant date for the finding of an infringement, the measures necessary to implement Decision 2000/131 in accordance with national law had been taken, the Spanish Government had embarked only on consultations concerning the procedures for recovering the aid declared illegal and had taken no actual steps vis-à-vis the Spanish publicly-owned shipyards for the purpose of recovering the aid.
Endvidere bemærkes, at det på grundlag af sagens akter ikke forekommer at have været umuligt at påbegynde tilbagesøgningen af den nævnte støtte fra de pågældende skibsværfter.
Nor is it apparent from the documents in the file that it was absolutely impossible to begin to obtain repayment of the aid from those shipyards.
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. '
Generaladvokat L. A. Geelhoed fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling1) den 7. marts 2002.
Advocate General L. A. Geelhoed delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 7 March 2002.
Præjudiciel »Merværdiafgift — sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF — anvendelsesområde — factoring — factoringselskab, der opkøber fordringer med overtagelse af tabsrisikoen*
Preliminary ruling (Value added tax -Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC —Field of application —Factoring —Factoring companypurchasing debts and assuming the risk of the debtors' default) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 17. maj 2001 har Bundesfinanzhof forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af visse bestemmelser i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977.
By order of 17 May 2001 the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977.
For de således købte fordringer overtog Factoring KG tabsrisikoen uden regresret mod M-GmbH.
By a factoring contract of 27 June 1991, Factoring KG agreed with M-GmbH to purchase, within a framework laid down by it in advance in each case, the debts owed to M-GmbH by dealers arising from vehicle deliveries.
Hæftelsen for fordringen indtrådte ved forhandlerens manglende betaling 150 dage efter den pågældende regnings forfald.
The del credere took effect if a dealer failed to pay the relevant invoice 150 days after it was due.
Factoring KG forpligtede sig på den anden side til at inddrive den resterende del af M-GmbH's fordringer, men med regresret mod M-GmbH, og til at føre debitorbogholderiet og til at fremsende bilag til M-GmbH, som skulle sætte denne i stand til at have et overblik over situationen for sine til enhver tid værende debitorer.
Factoring KG also agreed under the contract to recover the remainder of M-GmbH's debts, but with a right of recourse against it, and to manage the debtor accounts and provide M-GmbH with documents allowing it to ascertain the position with regard to its business relations with each debtor.
Factoring KG skulle på den tredje hverdag i ugen efter købet erlægge den pålydende værdi af de af M-GmbH købte fordringer med fradrag af det aftalte gebyr.
Factoring KG had to pay to M-GmbH the face value of the debts purchased by it in each calendar week, less agreed charges, on the third working day of the following week.
Det aftalte gebyr var et factoringgebyr på 2% og et hæftelsesgebyr på 1% af de pålydende værdier af de overtagne fordringer.
The agreed charges comprised factoring commission of 2% and a del credere fee of 1% of the face value of the debts.
M-GmbH forpligtede sig til ud over de nævnte gebyrer at betale renter, hvis beregningsgrundlag skulle være forhandlernes daglige debitorstatus hos Factoring KG. Rentesatsen skulle ligge 1,8% over den gennemsnitlige rentesats, som Factoring KG skulle betale for sin refinansiering.
M-GmbH agreed to pay, in addition to those charges, interest calculated on the basis of the daily outstanding debit balance of the dealers with Factoring KG.
Factoring KG var af den opfattelse, at det også leverede M-GmbH afgiftspligtige ydelser, da det foretog »ægte« factoring med overtagelse af tabsrisikoen for de opkøbte fordringer, og fakturerede M-GmbH disse ydelser med tilsvarende gebyrer og renter.
Factoring KG took the view that it also made taxable supplies to M-GmbH where it engaged in 'true' factoring, entailing assumption of the risk of loss in relation to the debts acquired, and it issued invoices for those supplies together with the corresponding charges and interest In its value-added-tax declaration for 1991, it accordingly deducted the sum of DEM 1 028 100 in respect of input transactions which related to those supplies.
Selskabet fremsatte i sin momsangivelse for 1991 et krav om fradrag på 1 028 100 DEM for de med ydelserne forbundne indgående transaktioner.
In accordance with the third sentence of Part 18, paragraph 4 of the UStR 2000, it treated MKG-GmbH as not being a business in so far as it had carried out true factoring.