natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter at have bemærket, at en sådan lovgivning indfører en forskellig behandling af datterselskaber hjemmehørende i samme medlemsstat, alt efter om deres moderselskab har hjemsted i denne medlemsstat eller ej, og at denne forskellige behandling indebærer en restriktion for etableringsfriheden, fandt Domstolen, at denne restriktion var begrundet i kombinationen af nødvendigheden af at sikre en afbalanceret fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne og nødvendigheden af at forebygge skatteunddragelse. Disse betragtninger udgør som helhed legitime mål, som er forenelige med EF-traktaten, og som vedrører tvingende almene hensyn.
The Court held that such a dierence in treatment constitutes indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality, contrary to the freedom of establishment, since, first, the income received by a resident taxpayer and by a nonresident taxpayer in the context of a self-employed activity in the territory of the Member State concerned are in the same category of income, that is to say, income arising from self-employed activity carried out in the territory of the Member State and, second, that treatment is liable to operate mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States, since non-residents are in the majority of cases foreign nationals.
Udviklingen og arbejdet datterselskabets beskatningsgrundlag, og idet det medregnes i moderselskabets skattepligtige indkomst, når bidraget anses for skattepligtig indkomst i det modtagende moderselskabs medlemsstat, hvilket ville bringe selve systemet med fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne i fare.
Proceedings taxpayers is immaterial in this regard. The Court then explained that, while the need to ensure the eectiveness of fiscal supervision constitutes an overriding reason in the public interest, it cannot justify this indirect discrimination, since the same practical diculties exist for the fiscal supervision of residents and there are other mechanisms enabling the exchange of tax-related information between Member States.
Desuden indebærer muligheden for at overføre skattepligtige indkomster fra et datterselskab til et moderselskab, hvis hjemsted er i en anden medlemsstat, risiko for, at der ved hjælp af rent kunstige arrangementer foretages overførsler af indkomst inden for en koncern i retning mod selskaber, hvis hjemsted bender sig i de medlemsstater, der anvender de laveste skattesatser.
Finally, in Case C-150/04 Commission v Denmark [2007] ECR I-1169 the Court upheld an application for failure to full obligations brought by the Commission against the Kingdom of Denmark, declaring that Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC were infringed by legislation permitting taxpayers to deduct or exclude from their taxable income contributions paid to pension schemes in so far as the pension contract was concluded with an institution established on national territory, while excluding any tax advantage for contracts entered into with pension institutions established in other Member States.
Endelig fandt Domstolen, at selv om en sådan lovgivning ikke har som specikt formål at udelukke rent kunstige arrangementer, kan den imidlertid anses for afpasset efter de forfulgte mål som helhed, for så vidt som en udvidelse af skattefordelen til grænseoverskridende situationer ville have som virkning, at koncerner får mulighed for frit at vælge den medlemsstat, hvori deres overskud beskattes, til skade for datterselskabets medlemsstats ret til at beskatte overskud, der optjenes ved virksomhed, der udføres på dens område.
The Court found that such legislation was liable to deter the freedom of pension institutions in other Member States to provide assurance services and also the freedom of establishment and freedom of movement of workers who originated from or who had worked in another Member State and had already entered into a contract in respect of a pension scheme there. The Court rejected the arguments relating to the need to maintain eective fiscal supervision and to prevent tax avoidance, holding that less restrictive means of achieving those two objectives existed.
På området for beskatning af privatpersoner er flere nationale foranstaltninger blevet fundet uforenelige med traktatens grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, idet de behandlede identiske situationer forskelligt uden gyldig grund.
Nor was a justication relating to the cohesion of the tax system upheld, in the absence of proof of a direct link requiring preservation between a tax advantage and a corresponding disadvantage.
Således fastslog Domstolen i Meindldommen (dom af 25.1.2007, sag C-329/05), at en medlemsstat ikke kan nægte en hjemmehørende skattepligtig sambeskatning med sin ægtefælle, med hvem samlivet ikke er ophævet, og som bor i en anden medlemsstat, med den begrundelse, at denne ægtefælle i den anden medlemsstat har oppebåret mere end 10% af de samlede indtægter og mere end et vist niveau, når de indtægter, som nævnte ægtefælle har oppebåret i den anden medlemsstat, ikke indkomstbeskattes dér.
The factor liable adversely to aect that cohesion was to be found in the transfer of the residence of the taxpayer between the time of payment of contributions and that of payment of the corresponding benets, and less in the fact that the pension institution concerned was in another Member State.
En sådan skattepligtig behandles således forskelligt, selv om han objektivt set bender sig i samme situation som en hjemmehørende skattepligtig, hvis ægtefælle bor i den samme medlemsstat og dér alene oppebærer skattefrie indtægter.
In Case C-77/05 United Kingdom v Council and Case C-137/05 United Kingdom v Council (judgments of 18 December 2007), the Court had to interpret the Schengen Protocol (18) in relation to the adoption of Regulations No 2007/2004 (19
Domstolen fastslog desuden, at bopælsstaten for en sådan skattepligtig er den eneste stat, der kan tage dennes personlige og familiemæssige forhold i betragtning, eftersom den pågældende ikke blot bor i denne stat, men tillige dér indtjener hele husstandens skattepligtige indtægt.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which had been excluded by the Council from participating in the adoption of those regulations, sought their annulment, arguing that its exclusion infringed the Schengen Protocol.
I mangel af en begrundelse udgør den omstændighed, at der ikke inden for rammerne af sambeskatning tages hensyn til denne skattepligtige persons personlige og familiemæssige forhold, men at denne tværtimod må se sig omfattet af den skat, som nder anvendelse på enlige, til trods for sin civilretlige status som gift, således en forskelsbehandling, som er forbudt i medfør af princippet om etableringsfriheden.
The Court held that the Schengen Protocol had been applied correctly and that Article 5(1) of the protocol must be interpreted as meaning that the participation of a Member State in the adoption of a measure pursuant to that article is conceivable only to the extent that that State has been authorised by the Council to accept the area of the Schengen
Talotta-dommen (dom af 22.3.2007, sag C-383/05) er et andet eksempel på en afgørelse, som fastslår, at en foranstaltning på indkomstskatteområdet er uforenelig med EF-traktaten, fordi den behandler hjemmehørende og ikke-hjemmehørende skattepligtige, som bender sig i objektivt set sammenlignelige situationer, forskelligt.
Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the EU Treaty and the EC Treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Den omhandlede lovgivning foreskrev, at i mangel af dokumentation fastsattes en hjemmehørende skattepligtigs indkomst fra selvstændig virksomhed efter sammenligning med andre skattepligtiges indkomst fra selvstændig virksomhed, mens indkomsten for en ikke-hjemmehørende skattepligtig fastsattes på grundlag af minimumsbeskatningsgrundlaget.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (OJ 2004 L 349, p. 1).
Domstolen fastslog, at en sådan dierentieret behandling udgør indirekte forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet, som er i strid med etableringsfriheden, for det første fordi indkomst oppebåret af en hjemmehørende skattepligtig og af en ikke-
Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1).
Den omstændighed, at anvendelse af minimumsbeskatningsgrundlaget ofte er gunstigere for ikke-hjemmehørende skattepligtige, er i denne forbindelse uden relevans.
Court of Justice acquis which is the context of the measure or of which it is a development, which was not the position in the case in point.
Domstolen præciserede dernæst, at nødvendigheden af at sikre en eektiv skattekontrol, selv om den udgør et tvingende alment hensyn, ikke kan begrunde denne indirekte forskelsbehandling, eftersom de samme praktiske vanskeligheder gør sig gældende med hensyn til kontrol af hjemmehørende skattepligtige, og at der ndes andre mekanismer, som muliggør udveksling af skatteoplysninger mellem medlemsstaterne.
According to the Court’s reasoning, the interpretation put forward by the United Kingdom would have the consequence of depriving Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol of all eectiveness, in that Ireland and the United Kingdom could then take part in all proposals and initiatives to build upon the Schengen acquis under Article 5(1) of the protocol even though they had not accepted the relevant provisions of that acquis or had not been authorised to take part in them.
Domstolen fastslog således, at en sådan lovgivning kan have en afskrækkende virkning for den frie udveksling af forsikringsydelser foretaget af et pensionsinstitut i en anden medlemsstat samt for etableringsfriheden og den frie bevægelighed for arbejdstagere, som kommer fra eller har arbejdet i en anden medlemsstat, og som dér har oprettet en pensionsordning. Domstolen forkastede argumenterne vedrørende nødvendigheden af at sikre en eektiv skattekontrol og forhindre skatteunddragelse, idet den fastslog, at der ndes mindre indgribende midler for at virkeliggøre disse to mål.
When the entity having committed an infringement of the competition rules is subject to a legal or organisational change, this change does not necessarily create a new undertaking free of liability for the conduct of its predecessor that infringed the competition rules if, from an economic point of view, the two are identical.
Ligeledes afviste Domstolen argumentet vedrørende sammenhængen i skattesystemet, eftersom det ikke var dokumenteret, at der fandtes nogen sammenhæng mellem en skattemæssig fordel og en skattemæssig byrde, som burde bevares.
Last, the Court emphasised that applying penalties in this way is permissible, particularly where those entities have been subject to control by the same person and have, given the close economic and organisational links between them, carried out, in all material respects, the same commercial instructions.
Den eneste faktor, som kan være til skade for denne sammenhæng, består således i, at den skattepligtige ytter sin bopæl mellem tidspunktet for indbetalingen af bidrag til en pensionsordning og tidspunktet for de modsvarende udbetalinger, og ikke så meget i den omstændighed, at det pågældende pensionsinstitut er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat.
The Court therefore held that in the case of entities answering to the same public authority, where conduct amounting to one and the same infringement of the competition rules was adopted by one entity and subsequently continued until it ceased by another entity which succeeded the first, which has not ceased to exist, that second entity may be penalised for that infringement in its entirety if it is established that those two entities were subject to the control of the said authority.
I sagerne Det Forenede Kongerige mod Rådet (domme af 18.12.2007, sagerne C-77/05 og C-137/05) skulle Domstolen fortolke Schengenprotokollen 18 i anledning af vedtagelse af
Second, attention will be given to Case C-95/04 P British Airways v Commission [2007] ECR I-2331 in which the Court explained the system of bonuses and discounts granted by an undertaking in a dominant position.
Protokol om integration af Schengenreglerne i Den Europæiske Union, der er knyttet som bilag til EU-traktaten og EF-traktaten ved Amsterdamtraktaten.
The Court held that, in determining whether, in the case of an undertaking in a dominant position, a system of discounts or bonuses which constitute neither quantity discounts or bonuses nor delity discounts or bonuses, constitutes an abuse, it is necessary to consider all the circumstances, particularly the criteria and rules governing the grant of those discounts or bonuses.
Storbritannien og Nordirland, som af Rådet var blevet udelukket fra deltagelse i vedtagelsen af disse forordninger, havde nedlagt påstand om annullation af disse, idet det gjorde gældende, at denne udelukkelse udgjorde en overtrædelse af Schengenprotokollen.
Proceedings specied the conditions for applying the prohibition of discrimination laid down in subparagraph (c) of the second paragraph of Article 82 EC to the bonuses and discounts granted by an undertaking in a dominant position, stressing that it must be found not only that the behaviour of that undertaking on a market is discriminatory, but also that it tends to distort the competitive relationship between the co-contractors.
Tre domme på konkurrenceområdet påkalder sig særlig opmærksomhed. For det første skal fremhæves sagen Autorità garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (dom af 11.12.2007, sag C-280/06), som behandler kriterierne for pålæggelse af ansvar for en overtrædelse af konkurrencereglerne i tilfælde af økonomisk succession, som sorterer under samme oentlige myndighed.
In Case C-284/04 T-Mobile Austria and Others (judgment of 26 June 2007) and Case C-369/04 Hutchison 3G and Others (judgment of 26 June 2007), the Court had occasion to dene the ambit of the term ‘economic activities’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth
Domstolen oentlige myndighed, pålægges en sanktion for overtrædelsen i sin helhed, hvis det er godtgjort, at disse to enheder har været underlagt denne myndigheds kontrol.
In consequence, such a grant does not constitute an economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(2) and does not, therefore, fall within the scope of Directive 77/388.
Der skal for det andet henvises til sagen British Airways mod Kommissionen (dom af 15.3.2007, sag C-95/04 P), hvori Domstolen klarlagde ordningen med præmier og rabatter, der tildeles af en dominerende virksomhed.
In Case C-73/06 Planzer Luxembourg (judgment of 28 June 2007), the Court considered the conditions and detailed rules for refund of VAT such as those laid down by the Eighth Directive 79/1072 (23) and by Thirteenth Directive 86/560 (24).
Domstolen fastslog, at for at afgøre en eventuel karakter af misbrug i en dominerende virksomheds rabat- eller præmieordning, der hverken udgør mængderabatter eller -præmier, der udelukkende er forbundet med salgsmængderne, eller loyalitetsrabatter eller -præmier, skal man vurdere samtlige omstændigheder, navnlig kriterierne og reglerne for tildeling af disse rabatter eller præmier.
This case arose from the refusal of the tax authorities of one Member State to refund to a taxable person having its registered oce in another Member State the VAT paid by that person on goods acquired in the first Member State for its taxable transactions, on the ground that there were doubts concerning the actual place from which the business of the taxable person concerned was managed — in the Member State of its registered oce or from the parent company established outside Community territory — even though the administration of the Member State of the taxable person’s registered oce had issued a certicate concerning that person’s liability to VAT in that State.
Det må først efterprøves, om disse rabatter eller præmier kan skabe en fortrængende virkning, dvs. om de kan gøre den dominerende virksomheds konkurrenters adgang til markedet mere vanskelig, eller endog umulig, og om de kan gøre det mere vanskeligt,eller endog umuligt,for denne virksomheds medkontrahenter at vælge mellem flere leverandører eller handelspartnere.
First of all, the Court conrmed that a certicate in accordance with the model in Annex B to the Eighth Directive does, as a rule, allow the presumption not only that the person concerned is subject to VAT in the Member State of issue, but also that he is established in that State in one way or another, which as a rule binds in fact and law the authorities of the Member State in which refund is sought.
Det skal endvidere undersøges, om der er en objektiv økonomisk begrundelse for de indrømmede rabatter og præmier.
Determination of that place is based on a series of factors, foremost amongst which are its registered oce, the place of its central administration, the place where its directors meet and the place, usually identical, where the general policy
Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4064/89 af 21.12.1989 om kontrol med virksomhedssammenslutninger (EFT L 395, s. 1; som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1310/97 af 30.6.1997 (EFT L 180, s. 1).
Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326, p. 40).
Udviklingen og arbejdet er derfor alle elementer, som Kommissionen skal tage i betragtning i forbindelse med undersøgelsen af spørgsmålet om sagens realitet, dvs. hvorvidt fusionen er forenelig med fællesmarkedet, men disse tilsagn kan derimod ikke fratage Kommissionen dens kompetence, da denne er blevet undersøgt i procedurens første fase.
Proceedings of that company is determined. Other factors, such as the place of residence of the main directors, the place where general meetings are held, the place where administrative and accounting documents are kept, and the place where the company’s nancial, and particularly banking, transactions mainly take place, may also need to be taken into account.
Det følger heraf, at Kommissionens kompetence til at undersøge en fusion skal fastslås for hele procedurens varighed på et bestemt tidspunkt, idet dette tidspunkt nødvendigvis må være tæt forbundet med anmeldelsen.
So, a ctitious presence, such as that of a ‘letter- box’ or ‘brass-plate’ company, cannot be described as a place of business for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth Directive.
Skatter og afgifter
Approximation and harmonisation of laws
På dette område må navnlig fremhæves tre sager vedrørende merværdiafgift (herefter »moms«).
As in the past, this eld has yielded copious decisions, certain among which call for particular mention.
I sagen T-Mobile Austria m.. og Hutchison 3G m.. (dom af 26.6.2007, forenede sager C-284/04 og C-369/04) k Domstolen lejlighed til at præcisere anvendelsesområdet for begrebet økonomisk virksomhed som omhandlet i artikel 4, stk. 2, i sjette direktiv nr. 77/388 22.
In Case C-470/03 AGM-COS.MET (judgment of 17 April 2007), the question before the Court was whether the conduct of an ocial who, in public statements, warned against the unreliability of certain vehicle lifts, could be attributed to the State.
Disse to sager vedrørte tildeling af rettigheder såsom brugsrettigheder til frekvenser inden for det elektromagnetiske spektrum med henblik på levering af mobilkommunikationstjenester til oentligheden ved afholdelse af auktion, som foretages af den nationale tilsynsmyndighed, som er ansvarlig for frekvenstildelingen.
The Court ruled that an ocial’s statements which, by reason of their form and circumstances, give the persons to whom they are addressed the impression that they are ocial positions taken by the State, not personal opinions of the ocial, are attributable to the State.
Domstolen fandt, at tildeling af sådanne tilladelser skal anses for en nødvendig og forudgående betingelse for adgangen til telekommuni-kationsmarkedet for erhvervsdrivende og ikke kan anses for at udgøre deltagelse på dette marked fra den kompetente nationale myndigheds side.
The decisive factor is whether the persons to whom those statements are addressed can reasonably suppose, in the given context, that they are positions taken by the ocial with the authority of his oce.
Det er nemlig kun erhvervsdrivende, som er indehavere af tildelte rettigheder, der driver virksomhed på det pågældende marked ved at udnytte det pågældende gode med henblik på opnåelse af indtægter af en vis varig karakter, hvilket ikke er tilfældet for de kompetente myndigheder.
In this case, statements by an ocial describing machinery certied as conforming to Directive 98/37 (25) as contrary to the relevant harmonised standard and dangerous are capable of hindering, at least indirectly and potentially, the placing on the market of such machinery and cannot be justied either on the basis of the objective of protection of health or on the basis of the freedom of expression of ocials.
Den omstændighed, at tildelingen af de pågældende brugsrettigheder har resulteret i betaling af vederlag, ændrer ikke ved denne argumentation.
Article 4(1) of Directive 98/37 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, it confers rights on individuals and, second, it leaves the Member States no discretion in this case as regards machinery that complies with the directive or is presumed to do so.
En sådan tildeling udgør derfor ikke økonomisk virksomhed som omhandlet i artikel 4, stk. 2, og henhører derfor ikke under anvendelsesområdet for sjette direktiv 77/388.
Failure to comply with that provision as a result of statements made by an ocial, assuming that they are attributable to the Member State, constitutes a suciently serious breach of Community law for the Member State to incur liability.
I Planzer Luxembourg-sagen (dom af 28.6.2007, sag C-73/06) behandlede Domstolen de nærmere betingelser for og foranstaltninger til tilbagebetaling af moms som fastsat i
Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others (judgment of 26 June 2007) raised the question whether the imposition on lawyers of obligations of information and of cooperation with the authorities responsible for combating money laundering, laid down in Article 6(1) of Directive 91/308 (26), when they act in certain transactions of a financial nature not linked to judicial proceedings, infringes the right to a fair trial.
Rådets sjette direktiv 77/338/EØF af 17.5.1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter – Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag (EFT L 145, s. 1).
Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (OJ 1998 L 207, p. 1).
Rådets trettende direktiv 86/560/EØF af 17.11.1986 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter – foranstaltninger til tilbagebetaling af merværdiafgift til afgiftspligtige personer, der ikke er etableret på fællesskabets område (EFT L 326, s. 40).
Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (OJ 1991 L 166, p. 77).
Domstolen afgiftspligtige transaktioner, med den begrundelse, at der herskede tvivl med hensyn til, hvor den pågældende afgiftspligtige persons ledelse rent faktisk var etableret – i den medlemsstat, hvor selskabet har sit vedtægtsmæssige hjemsted, eller ved selskabets moderselskab etableret uden for Fællesskabets område – og dette til trods for fremlæggelse af en attestation udstedt af forvaltningen i den medlemsstat, hvor den afgiftspligtige person har sit hjemsted vedrørende momspålæggelse af selskabet i denne stat.
Court of Justice essentially of a financial nature or concerning real estate, or when they act for and on behalf of their client in any financial or real estate transaction.