natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen bemærkede, at for så vidt angår en sådan lovgivning er situationen for et selskab, der som aktionær modtager udbytte af udenlandsk oprindelse, sammenlignelig med situationen for et selskab, der som aktionær modtager udbytte af indenlandsk oprindelse, eftersom det opnåede overskud i begge tilfælde principielt vil kunne blive genstand for kædebeskatning.
National measures held incompatible with Community law include, first, measures which, although dictated by overriding reasons in the general interest, prove disproportionate to the objective pursued.
Såfremt den viser sig ikke at være ufordelagtig med hensyn til udbytte af udenlandsk oprindelse, er denne forskellige behandling imidlertid ikke i strid med artikel 43 EF og 56 EF, hvilket det tilkommer de nationale retter at efterprøve.
An example of this is provided by N. A taxpayer holding shares who becomes liable, simply by reason of transfer of his residence abroad, to taxation of increases in value which have not yet been realised, whereas, if he were to remain in the territory of the Member State of which he is a national, increases in value would become taxable only when, and to the extent that, they are actually realised, is deterred from exercising his right to freedom of movement.
Andre nationale foranstaltninger, som blev fundet forenelige med fællesskabsretten, er foranstaltninger, der behandler situationer, der ikke er sammenlignelige, forskelligt. Dette
The Court acknowledged that the national provisions at issue pursued an objective in the general interest in that they allocated the power to tax between Member States on the basis of the territoriality principle, thereby avoiding cases
De omtvistede foranstaltninger vedrørte denne gang reglerne om beskatning af udbytte udloddet af hjemmehørende selskaber.
Court of Justice of a double legal charge to tax (double taxation of the same income in the hands of the same taxpayer).
Mens et hjemmehørende selskab, der modtog udbytte fra et andet hjemmehørende selskab, indrømmedes en skattegodtgørelse, fik et ikkehjemmehørende selskab, der modtog sådant udbytte, ikke nogen skattegodtgørelse.
Nonetheless, both the obligation to provide guarantees in order to obtain a deferral of payment of the tax normally due and the inability to rely on reductions in value arising after the transfer of residence rendered the tax regime at issue disproportionate to the objective pursued.
Domstolen fastslog imidlertid, at denne forskellige skattemæssige behandling af hjemmehørende og ikkehjemmehørende selskaber ikke udgør en forskelsbehandling.
National measures held incompatible with Community law also include measures treating comparable situations dierently.
Selv om situationen for hjemmehørende aktionærer, der modtager udbytte af national oprindelse, må betragtes som sammenlignelig med situationen for hjemmehørende aktionærer, der modtager udbytte af udenlandsk oprindelse (dommen i sagen Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation), er dette imidlertid ikke nødvendigvis tilfældet i forhold til skattelovgivningen i den medlemsstat, hvor det udloddende selskab er hjemmehørende, for så vidt angår de modtagende aktionærer, der er hjemmehørende i denne medlemsstat, og de modtagende aktionærer, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat.
In Ritter-Coulais, the Court held that national legislation constitutes an obstacle where it does not permit natural persons in receipt of income from employment in one Member State and assessable to tax on their total income there to request that account be taken, for the purposes of determining the rate of taxation applicable to that income in that State, of income losses resulting from their own use of a house located in another Member State which they own and use as their principal residence, whereas rental income would be taken into account.
Når det udloddende selskab og den modtagende aktionær ikke er hjemmehørende i samme medlemsstat, befinder den medlemsstat, hvor det udloddende selskab er hjemmehørende, dvs. den medlemsstat, hvor kilden til overskuddet ligger, sig således ikke i den samme situation med hensyn til forebyggelse og mindskelse af »kædebeskatning« og økonomisk dobbeltbeskatning som den medlemsstat, hvor den modtagende aktionær er hjemmehørende.
While that legislation is not specically directed at non-residents, the latter are more likely to own a home outside national territory than resident citizens and are also more often than not nationals of other Member States.
I et sådant tilfælde er den forskellige behandling af hjemmehørende og ikkehjemmehørende selskaber således ikke forbudt i medfør af artikel 43 EF og 56 EF.
The less favourable treatment accorded to them is consequently contrary to Article 39 EC.
Endelig blev nogle nationale foranstaltninger, der afstedkom en forskellig behandling, som imidlertid var begrundet i tvingende almene hensyn, som i sagen FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen (dom af 3.10.2006, sag C-290/04, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser), fundet forenelige med fællesskabsretten.
In Case C-386/04 Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauer (judgment of 14 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court was asked whether a Member State may treat a non-resident foundation which satises the conditions in that State for recognition as a charity less favourably than a resident foundation of the same kind.
Tvisten i hovedsagen vedrørte en national lovgivning, hvorefter der i forhold til vederlag til tjenesteydere, som ikke er hjemmehørende i den medlemsstat, hvor tjenesteydelserne præsteres, anvendes en skatteindeholdelsesprocedure, mens vederlag til hjemmehørende tjenesteydere ikke er genstand for en sådan indeholdelse.
The Court pointed out that, while Article 58 EC authorises the Member States to accord dierent fiscal treatment to non-resident taxpayers, it prohibits, however, measures constituting a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital.
Domstolen kvalificerede forpligtelsen for modtageren af tjenesteydelserne til at foretage nævnte indeholdelse, idet den pågældende ellers ville blive pålagt hæftelse, som en hindring for den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
Accordingly, dierent treatment of foundations with unlimited tax liability — which resident foundations have — and those with limited liability — which non-resident foundations have — is permissible only if it concerns situations which are not objectively comparable or is justied by overriding reasons in the general interest.
Den fastslog imidlertid, at en sådan lovgivning var begrundet i kravet om at sikre en effektiv opkrævning af indkomstskat fra personer, som er hjemmehørende uden for beskatningsstaten, og desuden udgjorde et forholdsmæssigt middel til at opnå det forfulgte formål.
Foreign foundations recognised as having charitable status in their Member State of origin which satisfy the requirements imposed for that purpose by the law of another Member State and whose object is to promote the very same interests of the general public as those promoted in the latter State are in a situation comparable to that of resident foundations of the same kind.
De nationale foranstaltninger, der blev fundet uforenelige med fællesskabsretten, omfatter for det første foranstaltninger, som, selv om de tilskrives tvingende almene hensyn, viser sig at være uforholdsmæssige i forhold til det forfulgte formål. N-sagen er et eksempel herpå.
The Court had therefore held in Case C-234/01 Gerritse [2003] ECR I-5933 that a national provision which refuses to allow non-residents to deduct business expenses, where residents are allowed to do so, risks operating mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States and therefore constitutes indirect discrimination contrary to the Treaty.
En skattepligtig person, der var indehaver af kapitalandele, og som alene på grund af, at han flyttede til udlandet, skulle svare skat af en værdistigning, som han endnu ikke havde realiseret, hvorimod værdistigningen, såfremt han blev boende i den medlemsstat, hvor han var statsborger, først ville blive beskattet, når – og i det omfang – den faktisk blev realiseret, afholdes fra at udøve sin ret til fri bevægelighed. De omtvistede nationale
Here, the Court held that it was also contrary to the Treaty for national legislation not to allow business expenses to be taken into account in the very procedure for retention of tax at source but only in a subsequent refund procedure.
Udviklingen og arbejdet bestemmelser forfølger ganske vist et alment hensyn, idet de sikrer en fordeling i henhold til territorialitetsprincippet mellem medlemsstaterne af beskatningskompetencen, hvorved det samtidig undgås, at der sker juridisk dobbeltbeskatning (dobbeltbeskatning af den samme indtægt hos den samme skattepligtige person).
Lastly, in Case C-520/04 Turpeinen (judgment of 9 November 2006, not yet published in the ECR) the Court held that Article 18 EC, relating to freedom of movement of citizens of the Union, is infringed by legislation of a Member State under which a retirement pension paid by an institution of that State to a non-resident is taxed, in certain cases, more heavily than a pension paid to a resident would be, where that pension constitutes all or nearly all of the non-resident’s income.
Ikke desto mindre indebærer såvel forpligtelsen til at stille sikkerhed for at opnå henstand med betaling af den skat, som normalt ville være forfalden til betaling, som den manglende mulighed for at tage hensyn til de kurstab, der kan være indtrådt efter fraflytningen, at de omtvistede skatteregler er uforholdsmæssige i forhold til det forfulgte formål.
In such a case, the situation of a non-resident taxpayer is, so far as concerns income tax, objectively comparable to that of a resident taxpayer.
For det andet omfatter de nationale foranstaltninger, der blev fundet uforenelige med fællesskabsretten, foranstaltninger, som behandler sammenlignelige situationer forskelligt.
With regard to freedom of establishment, the Court held in two parallel cases, one of which (Case C-506/04 Wilson) resulted from a reference for a preliminary ruling while the other (Case C-193/05 Commission v Luxembourg) was an action for failure to full obligations (judgments of 19 September 2006, neither yet published in the ECR), that the provisions of Luxembourg law making the registration of lawyers who have obtained their professional qualication in another Member State subject to a prior test to establish prociency in the three national languages were incompatible with the directive on practice of the profession of lawyer under the home-country professional title 14.
I Ritter-Coulais-sagen fandt Domstolen således, at en national lovgivning, der ikke tillader fysiske personer, som oppebærer lønindtægter i en medlemsstat, hvor de er undergivet ubegrænset skattepligt, med henblik på fastsættelsen af skatteprocenten for de nævnte indtægter i denne stat at anmode om medregning af tab af indtægt på grund af anvendelsen til personlige formål af et hus, der er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, og som de ejer og benytter som fast bopæl, hvorimod lejeindtægter ville kunne medregnes, udgør en hindring.
The Court explained that presentation of a certicate attesting to registration in the home Member State, in accordance with Article 3 of the directive, is the only condition to which registration in the host Member State may be subject, enabling the person concerned to practise in the latter State under his home-country professional title. The Court pointed out in this regard that the lack of a system of prior testing of knowledge under the directive is accompanied by a set of rules ensuring the protection of consumers and the proper administration of justice, in particular the obligation on the lawyer to practice under his home-country professional title and the obligation of professional conduct not to handle matters for which he lacks competence, for instance owing to lack of linguistic knowledge.
Selv om denne lovgivning således ikke direkte tager sigte på ikkehjemmehørende personer, er disse oftere end hjemmehørende personer ejere af et hus, der er beliggende uden for det nationale område, og de er oftere statsborgere i andre medlemsstater.
In Wilson, the Court also found that the Luxembourg legislation was not compatible with Article 9 of the directive under which, where a decision is made refusing registration, a remedy must be available before a court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of domestic law.
Den mindre fordelagtige behandling, som bliver dem til del, er følgelig i strid med artikel 39 EF.
The Court considered that a sucient guarantee of impartiality was not ensured since in the case in point decisions refusing registration were subject to review by a body composed exclusively — at first instance — or for the most part — on appeal — of national lawyers, and an appeal to the Court of Cassation enabled judicial review of the law only and not the facts.
I Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer-sagen (dom af 14.9.2006, sag C-386/04, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser) var Domstolen blevet forelagt spørgsmålet, om en medlemsstat kan behandle en ikkehjemmehørende almennyttig institution, som opfylder kravene i denne medlemsstat med hensyn til almennytte, mindre fordelagtigt end en hjemmehørende almennyttig institution af samme type.
As regards, finally, freedom to provide services, in Case C-452/04 Fidium Finanz (judgment of 3 October 2006, not yet published in the ECR) the Court held that Community law does not preclude national legislation under which the granting of credit on national territory by a company established in a non-member country is subject to prior authorisation and such authorisation can be granted only if that company has its central administration or a branch on national territory.
Domstolen bemærkede, at selv om medlemsstaterne i medfør af artikel 58 EF kan behandle ikkehjemmehørende skattepligtige forskelligt fra hjemmehørende skattepligtige i skattemæssig henseende, er foranstaltninger, der udgør et middel til vilkårlig forskelsbehandling eller en skjult begrænsning af den frie bevægelighed for kapital, imidlertid forbudt i medfør af samme artikel.
Since the freedom to provide services, unlike the free movement of capital, cannot be relied upon by a company established in a non-member country, the Court sought to determine which of these fundamental freedoms related to the activity in question.
I mangel af begrundelse er en ufordelagtig behandling af ikkehjemmehørende almennyttige institutioner følgelig i strid med fællesskabsretten.
Relying on a series of precedents, the Court stated that in such cases it is necessary to consider to what extent the exercise of those freedoms is aected and
I sagen FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen blev Domstolen på ny stillet over for spørgsmålet om fradragsret for erhvervsmæssige udgifter afholdt af en ikkehjemmehørende tjenesteyder.
Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualication was obtained (OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36).
Domstolen havde også, i Gerritse-dommen (dom af 12.6.2003, sag C-234/01, Sml.
Court of Justice whether, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, one of them is entirely secondary in relation to the other and may be considered together with it.
I, s. 5933), fastslået, at en national lovgivning, der nægter ikkehjemmehørende samme skattefradrag af erhvervsmæssige udgifter som hjemmehørende, risikerer navnlig at ramme borgere fra andre medlemsstater og således indebærer en indirekte forskelsbehandling i strid med traktaten.
Where that is the position, the measure at issue is in principle examined in relation to only one of those two freedoms.
Domstolen fastslog endvidere, at en national lovgivning, hvorefter der ikke kan tages hensyn til erhvervsmæssige udgifter i forbindelse med selve indeholdelsen af kildeskat, men kun i forbindelse med en efterfølgende tilbagebetalingssag, ligeledes var i strid med traktaten.
In the case in point, the Court held that the contested rules governing authorisation aected primarily the freedom to provide services, the requirement of a permanent establishment being the very negation of that freedom. By contrast, any restrictive eects of such rules on the free movement of capital are merely an inevitable consequence of the restriction imposed on the provision of services.
I et sådant tilfælde er situationen for den ikkehjemmehørende skattepligtige person for så vidt angår indkomstskat objektivt sammenlignelig med situationen for den hjemmehørende skattepligtige person.
With regard to social security, attention is drawn to three judgments relating to the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended 15.
For så vidt angår etableringsfriheden fastslog Domstolen i to parallelle sager af 19. september 2006, hvoraf den ene udsprang af et præjudicielt spørgsmål (Wilson, sag C-506/04, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser), den anden af et traktatbrudssøgsmål (Kommissionen mod Luxembourg, sag C-193/05, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser), at de bestemmelser i den luxembourgske lovgivning, hvorefter registrering af en advokat, der har opnået sin beskikkelse i en anden medlemsstat, er betinget af en forudgående kontrol af, at den pågældende behersker de tre nationale sprog, var uforenelige med direktivet om udøvelse af advokaterhvervet under hjemlandets advokattitel 14.
First of all, in the context of what is sometimes called ‘the free movement of patients’, the important judgment delivered in Case C-372/04 Watts [2006] ECR I-4325 is to be noted. Here, the Court was required to consider the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the light of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and of Article 49 EC.
Domstolen præciserede således, at fremlæggelsen af bevis for registreringen i hjemlandet i henhold til det nævnte direktivs artikel 3 udgør den eneste betingelse, der kan stilles for den registrering i værtslandet, der giver den pågældende adgang til at udøve virksomhed dér under hjemlandets advokattitel.
The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 provides that the competent institution may not refuse a patient authorisation to go to another Member State to receive treatment there (that is to say, in practice, refuse to issue an E112 form) ‘where he cannot be given such treatment within the time normally necessary for obtaining the treatment in question in the Member State of residence taking account of his current state of health and the probable course of his disease’.
Domstolen fremhævede i denne forbindelse, at opgivelsen af en forudgående kontrol af kundskaber i direktivet er knyttet sammen med en række regler, der sikrer beskyttelsen af borgerne og en ordnet retspleje, bl.a. forpligtelsen for advokaten til at udøve sin virksomhed under hjemlandets advokattitel, og den fagetiske forpligtelse til ikke at behandle sager, som falder uden for den pågældendes kompetence, eksempelvis på grund af manglende sprogkundskaber.
Hospital treatment is free under the NHS but subject to some quite lengthy waiting lists for the least urgent treatment, and the question thus arose as to the extent to which it is permitted to take account of waiting times in the State of residence when assessing the‘time normally necessary for obtaining the treatment’, as referred to in Article 22 of the regulation.
I Wilsonsagen fastslog Domstolen desuden, at den luxembourgske lov ikke var i overensstemmelse med artikel 9 i det nævnte direktiv, hvorefter afslag på registrering skal kunne indbringes for domstolene med henblik på prøvelse efter reglerne i national ret.
While the Court acknowledged the legitimacy of a system of waiting lists, it held that, in order to be entitled to refuse authorisation on a ground related to waiting time, the competent institution must establish that the waiting time does not exceed the period which is acceptable having regard to an objective medical assessment of the clinical needs of the person concerned in the light of his medical condition and the history and probable course of his illness, the degree of pain he is in and/or the nature of his disability at the time when the authorisation is sought.The Court added that the setting of waiting times should be carried out flexibly and dynamically, so that they may be reconsidered in the light of any deterioration in the patient’s state of health.
Domstolen fandt således, at der ikke var sikret en tilstrækkelig garanti for upartiskhed, idet afslagene på registrering i det foreliggende tilfælde bliver efterprøvet af et organ, der – i første instans – udelukkende eller – i appelinstansen – for flertallets vedkommende består af nationale advokater, og en kassationsanke kun giver adgang til en prøvelse af retlige og ikke af faktiske spørgsmål.
Regarding the freedom to provide services, the Court ruled that Article 49 EC applies where a person whose state of health necessitates hospital treatment goes to another Member State and there receives the treatment in question for consideration, regardless of the way in which the national system with which that person is registered and from which reimbursement of the cost of those services is subsequently sought operates.
Hvad endelig angår den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser fastslog Domstolen i Fidium Finanzsagen (dom af 3.10.2006, sag C-452/04, endnu ikke trykt i Samling af Afgørelser), at en national
It then found that a national system, such as that under the NHS, where prior authorisation is a prerequisite for the
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 98/5/EF af 16.2.1998 om lettelse af adgangen til varig udøvelse af advokaterhvervet i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor beskikkelsen er opnået (EFT L 77, s. 36).
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997, p. 1).
Da den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser, i modsætning til kapitalens frie bevægelighed, ikke kan påberåbes af et selskab med hjemsted i et tredjeland, tog Domstolen stilling til, under hvilken af disse grundlæggende friheder den omhandlede virksomhed henhørte.
Proceedings assumption of the costs of hospital treatment available in another Member State whilst on the other hand the receipt of free treatment under that system does not depend on such authorisation, constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide services.
Den fastslog herved, at den principielt henhørte under dem begge. Med støtte i en række fortilfælde udtalte Domstolen, at det i et sådant tilfælde skal undersøges, i hvilket omfang udøvelsen af disse friheder påvirkes, og om en af disse under de i hovedsagen foreliggende omstændigheder er helt sekundær i forhold til den anden og kan henføres til denne.
That restriction may nevertheless be justied by overriding planning objectives of such a kind as to ensure that there is sucient and permanent access to a balanced range of high-quality hospital treatment, control costs and prevent any wastage of financial, technical and human resources.The Court added that the conditions attached to the grant of such authorisation must be justied in the light of the overriding considerations in question and must satisfy the requirement of proportionality.