natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Spørgsmålet om der skal gives medhold i begæringen om, at det fastslås, at det er ufornødent at træffe afgørelse, og om søgsmålet kan antages til realitetsbehandling
In support of its claim that there is no need to adjudicate, or that the action should be declared inadmissible, the Commission argues, as a preliminary, that the formal examination procedure initiated by the contested decision particularly concerns the so-called "balancing' subsidy, calculated in such a way as to cover the losses of each financial year, the measures connected with the Tirrenia group's industrial plan and the preferential tax treatment for fuels and lubricants, which constituted a public financing of the Tirrenia group.
Ved skrivelse af 19. august 1999 anmodede de italienske myndigheder Kommissionen om dels at forlænge den fastsatte frist en måned med henblik på at give et svar angående selve støtten, dels at redegøre for rækkevidden af skrivelsen af
The Commission indicates that those measures affect trade between Member States following the 'normative' liberalisation of maritime transport and that they have never been either notified or authorised.
Til støtte for sin begæring om, at Domstelen skal fastslå, at det er ufornødent at træffe afgørelse, eller at sagen ikke kan antages til
The Commission argues in that respect that these are clearly not existing aids within the meaning of Article 88(1) EC and the
medlemsstat om oplysninger vedrørende forholdet, anser for at kunne udgøre en ny støtte eller en ændring af en eksisterende støtte, der giver anledning til tvivl for så vidt angår dens forenelighed med fællesmarkedet.
Italian authorities to suspend the payment of aid exceeding strict compensation for additional costs arising from public service obligations, reminding them of the suspensory effect of Article 88(3) EC.
Når den berørte medlemsstat ikke indstiller gennemførelsen af foranstaltningen for dermed at efterkomme forpligtelsen til ikke at gennemføre nye støtteforanstaltninger eller ændringer af eksisterende støtteforanstaltninger, inden Kommissionens, eller i givet fald Rådets, godkendelse foreligger — en forpligtelse der fremgår af bestemmelserne i artikel 88, stk. 3, sidste punktum, EF og af artikel 3 i forordningen om »statsstøtteproceduren« — har Kommissionen mulighed for i medfør af artikel 11, stk. 1, i nævnte forordning, efter at have givet medlemsstaten mulighed for at fremsætte sine bemærkninger, at træffe en beslutning, hvorved det pålægges medlemsstaten at indstille denne gennemførelse, indtil der foreligger en endelig afgørelse vedrørende foreneligheden af støtten.
In this case, in order to give judgment on the claim that there is no need to adjudicate and, if appropriate, as to the admissibility of the action under Article 230 EC brought by the Italian Republic, it needs to be verified whether that action does have a purpose in relation to the content of the contested decision and whether the latter produces legal effects.
Kommissionen har påpeget, at disse foranstaltninger påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne som følge af den »lovgivningsmæssige« liberalisering af søtransporten, og at de aldrig er blevet anmeldt eller godkendt.
The Italian Republic has brought its action against the contested decision in so far as it rules on the suspension of the measures in question, regarded by the Commission as unlawful new aid.
I den forbindelse har Kommissionen fastholdt, at det er åbenbart, at der ikke er tale om eksisterende støtte i henhold til artikel 88, stk. 1, EF eller i henhold til forordningen om »statsstøtteproceduren«, hvilket ikke reelt er bestridt af den italienske regering.
Therefore, contrary to what the Commission maintains, the contested decision has direct consequences on the suspension of the measures in question, and the action by the Italian Republic seeking the annulment of that decision in so far as it rules on the suspension is not devoid of purpose.
Med henblik på at tage stilling til begæringen om, at det fastslås, at det i denne sag er ufornødent at træffe afgørelse, samt til spørgsmålet, om sagen, der er anlagt af den Italienske Republik i henhold til artikel 230, EF, kan antages til realitetsbehandling, skal det undersøges, om dette søgsmål faktisk har en genstand, der har relation til indholdet af den anfægtede beslutning, og om denne har nogen retsvirkninger.
In that respect, if a decision of the Commission comprises an injunction to suspend a measure capable of constituting State aid, an action brought against the suspension obligation contained in that decision has a purpose and that decision, having an immediately binding character, produces legal effects.
Kommissionen har endvidere anført, at da den traf sin beslutning om at indlede proceduren efter artikel 88, stk. 2, EF, havde en af klagerne truet den med passivitetssøgsmål.
The action by the Italian Republic must therefore be declared admissible in so far as it seeks the annulment of the part of the contested decision which rules on the suspension of the payments made pursuant to the public service contract of 30 July 1991, concluded between the Italian Ministry of Transport and the Tirrenia group.
Den Italienske Republik har anlagt sag til prøvelse af den anfægtede beslutning, for så vidt som den vedrører en indstilling af de omtvistede foranstaltninger, som Kommissionen betragter som en ny, ulovlig støtte.
In this case, despite a formulation which, in certain paragraphs of the part of the contested decision headed 'Conclusions', may appear to be ambiguous, and an order of paragraph presentation which may not assist in their understanding, it does not appear that the contested decision comprises a suspension injunction such as provided for in Article 11(1) of the regulation on procedure in State aid cases.
Den har i den forbindelse understreget, at den italienske regering kun har rejst tvivl om den del af den anfægtede beslutning, som vedrører indstilling af den støtte, der formodes at være ulovlig.
Therefore, the action must also be held admissible in so far as it refers to the part of the contested decision which refers to the suspension of those other measures.
Såfremt en beslutning fra Kommissionen indeholder et påbud om indstilling af en foranstaltning, som kan udgøre en statsstøtte, har søgsmålet til prøvelse af pligten til at indstille støtten, der er indeholdt i denne beslutning, en genstand, og nævnte beslutning, som er umiddelbart bindende, har retsvirkninger.
In this case, it is undisputed that, by initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC, the Commission took the view that the measures examined raised doubts concerning the existence of new unauthorised State aid and invited the
Det må følgelig fastslås, at Den Italienske Republiks søgsmål kan fremmes til realitetsbehandling, for så vidt som det vedrører annullation af den del af den anfægtede beslutning, som vedrører indstillingen af de bidrag, der er udbetalt i henhold til kontrakten om forsyningspligt af 30. juli 1991, som er indgået mellem det italienske transrxjrtirunisterium og Tirrenia-koncernen.
Case C-409/98 Commissioners of Customs & Excise ν Mirror Group pic Taxation 9 October 2001 property
Søgsmålet skal antages til realitetsbehandling for så vidt angår den del af den anfægtede beslutning, som vedrører indstillingen af disse andre foranstaltninger.
Preliminary ruling (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for the leasing or letting of immovable - Undertaking to become a tenant) (Sixth Chamber)
I modsætning til det af Kommissionen anførte har den anfægtede beslutning således direkte konsekvenser for indstillingen af de omtvistede foranstaltninger, og det af Den Italienske Republik anlagte søgsmål med påstand om annullation af denne beslutning, for så vidt som den vedrører en indstilling af støtten, er ikke uden genstand.
On 20 June 1993, Mirror Group entered into the following agreements with Olympia & York Canary Wharf Ltd (in administration) ('O & Y'): an agreement to lease floors 20 to 24 of One Canada Square, London ('the building') ('the principal agreement'); By order of 15 October 1998, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court), referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (77/388/EEC) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (hereinafter 'the Sixth Directive').
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
the actual lease of those five floors;
*1) Begæringen, der er fremsat af Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i henhold til artikel 91, stk 1, i Domstolens procesreglement, om at det fastslås, at det er ufornødent at træffe afgørelse, eller at sagen afvises, tages ikke tilfølge.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Mirror Group pic and the Commissioners of Customs & Excise, who are responsible for the collection of value added tax ('VAT') in the United Kingdom, concerning the liability to VAT of an undertaking given by Mirror Group agreeing in essence to become a tenant. an option agreement giving Mirror Group an initial option, exercisable within six months, to take a lease or leases of up to four more floors of the building and — if that option was not exercised in respect of more than two floors during the sixmonth period a second option, exercisable within 18 months thereafter, to take a lease or leases of one or two more floors ('the option agreement').
Afgørelsen om sagens omkostninger udsættes.«
Background and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Generaladvokat C. Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Domstolens plenunO den 29. marts 2001.
The principal agreement stipulated that O & Y would pay Mirror Group a net 'inducement' of £12 002 590, plus VAT, on or before 2 July 1993. That sum was described therein as consideration for the tenant entering into the agreement and as an inducement to it to take on the lease. In 1993, Mirror Group, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, was looking at various sites in London to which to move its newspaper publishing operations.
Sag C-409/98 Commissioners of Customs & Excise / Mirror Group pic Fiskale bestemmelser 9. oktober 2001 fritagelse for udlejning affasi ejendom — begreb —forpligtelse til at
In accordance with the principal agreement, the following arrangements for payment were implemented:
Præjudiciel »Sjette momsdirektiv blive lejer« (Sjette Afdeling)
It then appealed against the decision to the London VAT and Duties Tribunal.
One Canada Square i London (herefter »bygningen«)
Therefore the Tribunal held that Mirror Group had made a supply of services for consideration.
— den egentlige lejekontrakt for disse fem etager
approximately £5.5 million (exclusive of VAT) was paid to Mirror Group and was immediately placed by it, as it was required to do, in an escrow account by way of security.
Ved kendelse af 15. oktober 1998 har High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) forelagt to præjudiciellespørgsmålvedrørendefortolkningen af artikel 13, punkt B, litra b), i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter - Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag (herefter »sjette direktiv«). Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag anlagt af Mirror Group pic mod Commissioners of Customs & Excise, der har kompetence til opkrævning af TVA i Det Forenede Kongerige, vedrørende spørgsmålet, om en forpligtelse for Mirror Group i det væsentlige til at blive lejer, er momspligtig. en optionsaftale (herefter »optionsaftalen«), som gav Mirror Group første option, som kunne udøves inden for seks måneder, på at indgå lejekontrakt om yderligere 14 etager af bygningen og endnu en option — betinget af, at den første option ikke var blevet udnyttet for mere end to etagers vedkommende inden for seksmånedersfristen — på at indgå lejekontrakt om yderligere 12 etager i bygningen inden for de følgende 18 måneder.
In those circumstances, there was no proper reason for excluding from Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive a transaction resulting in a lease where, in contrast to the standard situation, it was not the tenant who paid a sum to the landlord in order to enter into the lease but, as in the main proceedings, the landlord who agreed to pay consideration to the tenant to ensure that the latter entered into the lease and subsequently complied with its terms. As regards the £5.5 million, the Tribunal found that it was an inducement payment relating solely to the options and that therefore it was not exempt.
Det bestemtes i hovedaftalen, at O & Y skulle betale Mirror Group et »nettoincitament« på 12 002 590 GBP plus moms senest den 2. juli 1993. Beløbet blev deri betegnet som et vederlag for lejerens indgåelse af aftalen og som et incitament til, at lejeren skulle acceptere lejemålet. I 1993 så Mirror Group, der var etableret i Det Forenede Kongerige, på adskillige lokaler i London, hvortil den kunne flytte sin avisudgivelsesvirksomhed.
Both Mirror Group and the Commissioners appealed against that decision to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court). By order of 15 October 1998, to which the decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal was annexed, that court decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Ifølge den forelæggende ret kunne virksomheden regne med at opnå favorable lejevilkår i sin egenskab af »prestigegivende lejer« (»anchor tenant«).
Provision was made for the leases of the additional floors, in respect of which Mirror Group exercised its option, to include essentially the same provisions about rent.
I overensstemmelse med hovedaftalen blev de følgende betalingsvilkår opfyldt:
It actually spent about £7.2 million on fitting out floors 20 to 24 and about £1.4 million on fitting out the additional floors, 17 to 19, in respect of which it exercised its option.
Den 20. juni 1993 indgik Mirror Group med Olympia & York Canary Wharf Ltd (under betalingsstandsning) (herefter »O & Y«) følgende aftaler: - en aftale (herefter »hovedaftalen«) vedrørende leje af 20.24. etage i bygningen
Following the decision of the Court in Case C63/92 (Lubbock Fine & Co. ν Commissioners of Customs and Excise), does Article 13B(b) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC exempt from VAT a supply made by a person ("the person") who does not initially have any interest in the immovable property, where that person enters into an agreement for lease of that immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts the grant of a lease by the landlord in return for a sum of money paid by the landlord? According to the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom), the inducement was not, however, paid by O & Y to Mirror Group as consideration for the latter fitting out the premises. Mirror Group claimed repayment of VAT of £2.1 million on the £12 million inducement, which the
således blev forpligtet til at leje etagerne for hele lejeperioden på 25 år.
interest in the immovable property, where that person: that 'the leasing or letting of immovable property' for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive covers the case where a tenant surrenders his lease and returns the immovable property to his immediate landlord.
I medfør af optionsaftalen blev der udbetalt 5,5 mio. GBP, ekskl. moms, til Mirror Group, som straks opfyldte sin forpligtelse til at indbetale beløbet på en spærret konto til sikkerhed. Mirror Group udnyttede dog kun sin option på yderligere tre etager og beholdt derfor kun ca. 4,1 mio. GBP.
(a) enters into an option agreement in relation to leases of that immovable property in return for a sum of money being paid to the person, on terms that the money will remain in a special account as security for its obligations under the option agreement; and/or
Under disse omstændigheder var der ikke nogen fornuftig grund til at udelukke en transaktion, hvorved der indgås et lejemål, fra anvendelsesområdet for artikel 13, punkt B, litra b), i sjette direktiv, når det til forskel fra den typiske situation ikke er lejeren, der betaler et beløb til ejeren for at indgå lejeaftalen, men det som i hovedsagen er ejeren, der forpligter sig til at betale lejeren en godtgørelse for at sikre, at han accepterer lejemålet og efterfølgende opfylder bestemmelserne i lejekontrakten.
However, the Court must make clear that that judgment was given in respect of a tenant who had returned the immovable property leased to the landlord and who, consequently, for the purposes of taxation, had assigned his right to occupy the property back to the landlord by surrendering it.
Med hensyn til de 5,5 mio. GBP fandt retten, at der var tale om betaling af et incitament, der kun vedrørte optionerne, og at beløbet derfor ikke var fritaget.
That is why the Court ruled, in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the judgment, that the tenant's surrender of the supply of services made by the landlord, which involves a change in the contractual relationship, has to be exempt where the supply itself is exempt.
Det blev aftalt, at der de første fem år ikke skulle betales nogen leje for 20.24. etage i bygningen.
Those conditions are not met in the case before the national court.
Det blev aftalt, at lejemål for yderligere etager, som Mirror Group havde option på, i det væsentlige skulle være på de samme vilkår med hensyn til lejen.
Mirror Group, as a prospective tenant, is not surrendering its right to occupy the property to the landlord.
I henhold til hovedaftalen var Mirror Group forpligtet til at foretage indretning af bygningens 20.24. etage.
It has consistently been held that the terms used to specify the exemptions provided for by Article 13 of the Sixth Directive are to be interpreted strictly, since they constitute exceptions to the general principle that VAT is to be levied on all services supplied for consideration by a taxable person (see, inter alia, Case 348/87 Stichting Uitvoering Financiële Acties; Case C-358/97 Commission ν Ireland; Case C-359/97 Commission ν United Kingdom; and Case C-150/99 Stockholm Lindepark).
Til opfyldelse heraf afholdt Minor Group ca. 7,2 mio. GBP til indretningen af 20.24. etage og ca. 4,4 mio GBP til indretningen af de yderligere etager, 17.-19. etage, som den udnyttede optionen på.
So far as the first part of the second question is concerned, the Commission rightly points out that a taxable person who merely enters into an option agreement of the kind at issue before the national court without a mutual exchange of supplies does not make a supply of services within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (Det Forenede Kongerige), var af den opfattelse, at O & Y ikke havde betalt incitamentet til Mirror Group, for at Mirror Group skulle foretage indretningen. Indeholder artikel 13, punkt B, litra b), i Rådets direktiv 77/388/EØF efter Domstolens afgørelse i sag C-63/92 (dom af 15.12.1993, Lubbock Fine & Co. mod Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Sml. I, s. 6665) en regel om momsfritagelse for den ydelse, der udføres af en person, som ikke inden da har rettigheder over den faste ejendom, når den pågældende med udlejeren indgår en aftale om at leje den faste ejendom og/eller accepterer et lejemål fra udlejeren mod, at denne betaler den pågældende en sum penge? 2)
The letting of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive essentially involves the landlord of property assigning to the tenant, in return for rent and for an agreed period, the right to occupy his property and to exclude other persons from it (see, to that effect, Commission ν Ireland, paragraphs 52 to 57, and Commission ν United Kingdom, paragraphs 64 to 69, cited above, and Case C-326/99 Goed Wonen).
Mirror Group rejste krav om refusion af 2,1 mio. GBP i moms af incitamentet på 12 mio. GBP, hvilket blev afslået ved afgørelse truffet af Commissioners den 1. januar 1997.
It is thus the landlord who makes a taxable supply of services and the tenant who, in return for the supply, pays consideration.
Mirror Group anlagde derefter sag til prøvelse af denne afgørelse ved VAT and Duties Tribunal, London.
That is not the case in the proceedings before the national court.
Denne ret anså derfor Mirror Group for at have udført en tjenesteydelse mod vederlag.
In the second case, nothing points to the tenant making a supply of services falling within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive.
Domstolen har i Lubbock Fine-dommen fastslået, at begrebet »udlejning af fast ejendom«, der er anvendt i sjette direktivs artikel 13, punkt B, litra b), dækker det tilfælde, at en lejer giver afkald på sit lejemål og lader rådigheden over den faste ejendom gå tilbage til den, han har afledt sin ret fra.
A person who does not initially have any interest in the immovable property and who enters into an agreement for lease of that immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts the grant of a lease of the property in return for a sum of money paid by the landlord does not make a supply of services falling within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
og/eller b) efterfølgende udøver optionerne i henhold til optionsaftalen og accepterer et lejemål i den faste ejendom mod, at pengene på den særlige konto frigives til den pågældende?«
A person who does not initially have any interest in the immovable property and who enters into an option agreement such as the one before the national court in relation to leases of that immovable property in return for a sum of money paid by the landlord, on terms that the money will remain in a special account as security for its obligations under the option agreement, and who subsequently exercises the options under the option agreement and accepts the grant of leases of the immovable property in return for the release of the money in its special account, at no time makes a supply of services falling within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388. '
Dette var grunden til, at Domstolen i dommens præmis 9 og 12 fandt, at lejerens afkald på ejerens tjenesteydelse, hvilket er en ændring i lejekontrakten, skal fritages, når den pågældende ydelse selv er fritaget.
Advocate General A Tizzano delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 23 January 2001.
Disse betingelser er ikke opfyldt i hovedsagen.
He proposed that the Court reply as follows:
Det andet spørgsmål
In Case C-409/98 Mirror Group:
Det bemærkes, at det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at de udtryk, der anvendes til at betegne de fritagelser, som er fastsat i sjette direktivs artikel 13, skal fortolkes strengt, da de er undtagelser fra det almindelige princip om, at der opkræves moms af enhver tjenesteydelse, der udføres mod vederlag af en afgiftspligtig person (jf. bla. dom af 15.6.1989, sag 348/87, Stichting Uitvoering Financiële Acties, domme af 12.9.2000, sag C358/97, Kommissionen mod Irland, og sag C359/97, Kommissionen mod Det Forenede Kongerig, samt af 18.1.2001, sag C-150/99, Stockholm Lindöpark).
'In accordance with the judgment of the Court in Case C63/92 Lubbock Fine, Article 13B(b) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (the Sixth Directive):
For så vidt angår det første led af det andet spørgsmål har Kommissionen med rette anført, at en afgiftspligtig person, som kun indgår en optionsaftale, som den i hovedsagen omhandlede, uden at der sker en udveksling af gensidige ydelser, ikke derved udfører en tjenesteydelse i sjette direktivs artikel 2, stk. 1,'s forstand.
(1) exempts from VAT a transaction consisting in the grant of a lease of immovable property to a person who does not initially have any interest in the property, where that person enters into an agreement with the landlord for lease of that immovable property and/or accepts the grant of a lease of that property in return for a sum of money paid by that landlord; and