natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen henviste ganske vist i Marks & Spencerdommen til de »tre forhold som helhed«, hvilket støtter dette synspunkt. I N-dommen udtalte Domstolen imidlertid, at »opretholdelsen af fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne er et lovligt formål«, uden at henvise til andre begrundelser 16. I AA-dommen anerkendte Domstolen, at en medlemsstats lovgivning, der var til hinder for, at et datterselskab, der var hjemmehørende i denne medlemsstat, kunne fradrage et økonomisk bidrag ydet til dets moderselskab i sin skattepligtige indkomst, medmindre moderselskabet havde hjemsted i samme medlemsstat, i princippet kunne begrundes i to af de tre begrundelser, der er nævnt i Marks & Spencerdommen, nemlig den første og den tredje 17. Og i Amurta-dommen gik Domstolen, efter at den havde udtalt, at den første og den anden begrundelse i Marks & Spencerdommen ikke var blevet påberåbt, alligevel videre til at undersøge (og forkaste) et argument, der var baseret på nødvendigheden af at sikre en afbalanceret fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne 18. Det fremgår derfor, at de tre begrundelser ikke nødvendigvis alle skal finde anvendelse i en given sag. Efter min opfattelse kunne den 16 — Dom af 7.9.2006, sag C-470/04, Sml. I, s. 7409, præmis 42.
Admittedly the Court in Marks & Spencer referred to the ‘three justifications, taken together’, which supports that view. In N, however, the Court stated that ‘preserving the allocation of the power to tax between Member States is a legitimate objective’ without reference to other grounds. 16In AA, the Court accepted that legislation of a Member State which precludes a subsidiary resident in that Member State from deducting a financial transfer to its parent company from its taxable income unless that parent company is established in the same Member State could in principle be justified on the basis of two of the three Marks & Spencer grounds, namely the first and the third. 17And in Amurta the Court, having stated that the second and third Marks & Spencer justifications had not been pleaded, none the less went on to consider (and reject) an argument based on the need to safeguard the balanced allocation between the Member States of the power to tax. 18 It seems, therefore, that the three justifications do not necessarily all have to be applicable in a given case. In my view the legislation at issue in the present case could in principle be justified 16 — Case C-470/04 [2006] I-7409, paragraph 42.17 — Case C-231/05 [2007] ECR I-6373, paragraphs 51 to 60.18 — Case C-379/05 [2007] ECR I-9569, paragraphs 57 to 59.
Bundesfinanzhof har i forelæggelseskendelsen anført, at den er i tvivl om, hvorvidt
The Bundesfinanzhof notes in the order for reference that it is uncertain whether the Court intended the three justifications in
LIDL BELGIUM situation, hvor den omtvistede nationale lovgivning pr. definition er meget restriktiv, er det så meget desto mere vigtigt nøje at overveje, om lovgivningens mål kunne nås med mindre restriktive foranstaltninger.
19In such a situation, where the national legislation at issue is by definition severely restrictive, it is all the more important to consider carefully whether its aim could not be attained by less restrictive measures.
For at være begrundet skal en restriktiv foranstaltning desuden overholde proportionalitetsprincippet, således at den skal være egnet til at nå de tilstræbte mål, og den ikke må være mere vidtgående end nødvendigt for at nå disse mål.
In order for a restrictive measure to be justified it must in addition comply with the principle of proportionality, in that it must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objectives it pursues and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives.
I den foreliggende sag er den anfægtede foranstaltning til hinder for, at et selskab fradrager underskud pådraget af et fast driftssted i en anden medlemsstat i sit overskud.
In the present case, the contested measure precludes a company from offsetting against its profits losses made by a permanent establishment in another Member State.
Virkningen er, at et selskab under visse omstændigheder bliver beskattet af mere end sit samlede overskud.
The effect is that, in certain circumstances, a company will be taxed on more than its total net profits.
Dette forekommer mig at være en åbenbart uforholdsmæssig måde at nå målet om at sikre en afbalanceret fordeling af beskatningskompetencen og undgå risikoen for dobbelt fradrag for underskud.
That, to me, is a manifestly disproportionate means to the ends of preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes and of avoiding the danger that losses may be used twice.
Jeg kan derimod ikke anerkende, at den ikke er mere vidtgående end nødvendigt for at nå dem, eller med andre ord at det ville have været muligt at nå det samme resultat med mindre restriktive foranstaltninger.
In contrast, I cannot accept that it does not go beyond what is necessary to attain them, or, in other words, that it would not have been possible to achieve the same result by less stringent measures.
Det er desuden åbenbart, at mindre restriktive foranstaltninger er mulige.
It is, moreover, clear that less restrictive measures are possible.
Det er ubestridt, at tysk lovgivning 20før 1999 udtrykkeligt bestemte, at et selskab kunne fradrage underskud pådraget af et fast driftssted i en anden medlemsstat, for så vidt som det oversteg det overskud, der var optjent i det faste driftssted, og således at der toges
It is common ground that, prior to 1999, German legislation 20 expressly provided that a company could deduct a loss made by a permanent establishment in another Member State to the extent to which it exceeded profits made by the permanent establishment and subject to the
19 — Dom af 4.3.2004, sag C-334/02, Kommissionen mod Frankrig, Sml. I, s. 2229, præmis 28.
19 — Case C-334/02 Commission v France [2004] ECR I-2229, paragraph 28.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT SHARPSTON — SAG C-414/06 hensyn til fradraget i efterfølgende år, hvori det faste driftssted optjente et overskud.
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-414/06 deduction being brought back into account in subsequent years in which the permanent establishment made a profit.
Det afspejler efter min opfattelse således klart bedre behovet for proportionalitet end den løsning, der er valgt af Domstolen i Marks & Spencer-dommen. 24.
To my mind, it thus manifestly better reflects the need for proportionality than the solution adopted by the Court in Marks & Spencer. 24.
En sådan regel, der giver mulighed for fradrag af underskud samtidig med, at den foreskriver genbeskatning af underskudsfradrag i fremtidige skatteår med overskud, ville åbenbart være en mindre restriktiv måde at undgå risikoen for dobbelt fradrag for underskud end en regel, der helt udelukker fradrag for sådanne underskud.
Such a rule, which allowed the deduction of losses while providing for the recapture of the loss relief in future profitable periods, would manifestly be a less restrictive means of avoiding the risk that losses might be used twice than a rule altogether excluding relief for such losses.
Selv om en fradrags- og genbeskatningsregel indebærer en tab af symmetri og således ikke helt når målet om en afbalanceret fordeling af beskatningskompetencen, er denne asymmetri kun midlertidig, når det faste driftssted efterfølgende giver overskud.
Although a deduction-and-recapture rule involves a loss of symmetry and hence does not wholly attain the objective of the balanced allocation of the power to tax, that asymmetry is merely temporary where the permanent establishment subsequently becomes profitable.
Der kunne desuden foreskrives automatisk genbeskatning af beløb, der tidligere er blevet fradraget, hvis genbeskatningen endnu ikke har fundet sted efter f.eks. fem år, eller hvis det faste driftssted er ophørt med at eksistere i den form 21.
Moreover provision could be made for automatic reincorporation of amounts previously deducted if reincorporation had still not occurred after, for example, five years, or if the permanent establishment ceased to exist in that form. 21
Det skal imidlertid holdes in mente, at Marks & Spencer-sagen vedrørte underskud pådraget af datterselskaber, der var blevet afviklet eller solgt. Der var således 25.
The Court stated in Marks & Spencer itself that the restrictive measure (group loss relief legislation not extending to foreign subsidiaries) went beyond what was necessary to attain the essential part of the objectives pursued where the possibilities for having the losses taken into account in the subsidiary’s State of residence had been exhausted. 22It may therefore be assumed (although the judgment is extremely laconic on this issue) that the Court considered that in other circumstances the restrictive measure would have been proportionate. 25.
En sådan fradrags- og genbeskatningsregel er ubestrideligt mindre restriktiv for den skattepligtige persons grundlæggende etableringsret end et direkte forbud mod fradrag i et selskabs overskud for underskud pådraget af et fast driftssted i en anden medlemsstat.
Such a deduction-and-recapture rule is unarguably less restrictive of the taxpayer’s fundamental right of establishment than an outright prohibition of deducting from the profits of a company losses made by a permanent establishment in another Member State.
21 — Som foreslået i Kommissionens forslag til Rådets direktiv om regler for virksomhedernes medregning af underskud i deres faste driftssteder og i datterselskaber i andre medlemsstater (KOM(90) 595 endelig), 24.1.1991 (EFT C 53, s. 30), jf. artikel 58 og begrundelsen.
It must, however, be borne in mind that Marks & Spencer concerned losses made by subsidiaries which had been wound up or sold. There was accordingly no possibility 21 — As suggested in the Commission’s Proposal for a Council directive concerning arrangements for the taking into account by enterprises of the losses of their permanent establishments and subsidiaries situated in other Member States, COM(90) 595 final; 24 January 1991 (OJ 1991 C 53, p. 30): see Articles 5 to 8 and the Explanatory Memorandum.
Domstolen fastsatte en dobbelttest: udtømning af muligheden for at tage hensyn til underskuddene med hensyn til det pågældende og tidligere skatteår, og ingen »mulighed for at tage hensyn til det udenlandske datterselskabs underskud i dettes hjemstat i forbindelse med senere skatteår«.
The Court lays down a double test: exhaustion of the possibility of loss relief for the current and previous accounting periods, and ‘no possibility for the foreign subsidiary’s losses to be taken into account in its State of residence for future periods’.
LIDL BELGIUM ingen mulighed (i det mindste i det første tilfælde) for i fremtiden at genvinde eventuel indrømmet fradrag for underskud 23.
(at least in the former case) of recapturing in the future any loss relief given.
Under disse omstændigheder er det måske forståeligt, at Domstolen afgrænsede sin besvarelse, som den gjorde, og undlod at fuldende sin analyse med i detaljer at undersøge, om likviditetstabet ved at skulle fremføre underskud i stedet for at anvende dem straks, ikke var en for restriktiv måde at nå det forfulgte mål.
23 In those circumstances it is perhaps understandable that the Court framed its answer as it did and failed to complete its analysis by examining in detail whether the cash-flow disadvantage of having to carry losses forward instead of using them immediately was not an overly restrictive way of attaining the objectives sought.
situation, hvor den er til stede i en tilsvarende indenlandsk situation, er en restriktion for etableringsfriheden 24.
ation where it is available in an equivalent domestic situation is a restriction on the freedom of establishment.
Den var således meget klar på dette punkt i Marks & Spencer-dommen. Heri udtalte den, at ved at fremskynde udligningen af underskud i underskudsgivende selskaber, idet de umiddelbart kan modregnes i overskud i andre af koncernens selskaber, giver den pågældende koncernlempelse koncernen en likviditetsmæssig fordel. Udelukkelse af en sådan fordel med hensyn til underskud pådraget af et datterselskab, der har hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat, kunne hindre moderselskabet i at udøve sin etableringsfrihed, idet det afskrækkes fra at oprette datterselskaber i andre medlemsstater. Udelukkelsen udgjorde således en hindring for etableringsfriheden 25. 28.
24Indeed it made this very point forcefully in Marks & Spencer. There, it explained in terms that, by speeding up the relief of the losses of the loss-making companies by allowing them to be set off immediately against the profits of other group companies, the group loss relief at issue conferred a cash advantage on the group. The exclusion of such an advantage in respect of the losses incurred by a subsidiary established in another Member State was such as to hinder the exercise by that parent company of its freedom of establishment by deterring it from setting up subsidiaries in other Member States. Thus, it constituted a restriction on freedom of establishment. 25 28.
I tilfælde som det foreliggende, som derimod vedrører et vedvarende fast driftssted, kan det ikke argumenteres, at muligheden for at fremføre underskud i det faste driftssteds stat er en acceptabel erstatning for at indrømme fradrag i den stat, hvori selskabet er hjemmehørende.
In cases such as the present, in contrast, which concern an ongoing permanent establishment, it cannot be argued that the possibility of carrying forward losses in the State of the permanent establishment is an acceptable substitute for granting relief in the State of residence of the company.
Selv når et underskud, der er fremført, efterfølgende modregnes, vil selskabet i mellemtiden pr. definition have lidt et likviditetstab.
Even where a loss which is carried forward is subsequently offset, the company will in the mean time by definition have suffered a cash-flow disadvantage.
Denne udtalelse kom i forbindelse med det (analytisk set forudgående) spørgsmål, om den manglende mulighed for at fradrage grænseoverskridende underskud var en restriktion i strid med artikel 43 EF.
That statement was made in the (analytically prior) context of whether the inability to deduct crossborder losses was a restriction contrary to Article 43.
Det forekommer unormalt, at Domstolen, efter at den klart havde anerkendt den potentielle betydning af at nægte en likviditetsfordel og (korrekt) havde anset det for en umiddelbar overtrædelse af artikel 43 EF, ikke også udtrykkeligt undersøgte, om nægtelsen af en likviditetsfordel, der var en uundgåelig
It seems anomalous that, having clearly accepted the potential significance of the denial of a cash-flow advantage and categorised it (correctly) as a prima facie infringement of Article 43 EC, the Court did not also examine expressly whether, where the restriction was prima
Domstolen er opmærksom på likviditetens betydning for virksomheder.
The Court is well aware of the significance of cash flow to undertakings.
Den har gentagne gange fastslået, at udelukkelse af en likviditetsfordel i en grænseoverskridende
It has repeatedly held that the exclusion of a cash-flow advantage in a crossborder situ-
23 — Generaladvokat Kokott var af den opfattelse i hendes forslag til afgørelse i AA-sagen, der er nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 16, at Domstolens afgørelse vedrørende proportionaliteten i Marks & Spencer-sagen skyldtes sagens ekstraordinære faktiske omstændigheder (punkt 70 og 71). Jeg er enig. 25 — Præmis 32-34.
23 — Advocate General Kokott took the view in her Opinion in AA, cited in footnote 17, that, essentially, the Court’s ruling on proportionality in Marks & Spencer derived from its exceptional facts (points 70 and 71). I agree. 25 — Paragraphs 32 to 34.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT SHARPSTON — SAG C-414/06 konsekvens, når restriktionen var umiddelbart begrundet, var uforholdsmæssig.
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-414/06 practical difficulties cannot justify infringement of a Treaty freedom.
heder ikke begrunde en tilsidesættelse af en traktatsikret frihedsrettighed 30.
30 facie justified, the denial of a cash-flow advantage which was an unavoidable consequence was disproportionate.
Jeg er derfor enig med Lidl, den finske regering og Kommissionen i, at den nationale lovgivning er mere vidtgående end nødvendigt for at nå målene om at sikre en afbalanceret fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne og risikoen for dobbelt fradrag for underskud.
I accordingly agree with Lidl, the Finnish Government and the Commission that the national legislation goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of preserving the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes and of avoiding the danger that losses would be used twice.
Endelig har Tyskland (mere) subsidiært gjort gældende, at Domstolen, hvis den skulle finde, at etableringsfriheden er blevet tilsidesat, skulle begrænse dommens tidsmæssige virkninger.
Finally, Germany submits in the (further) alternative that, if the Court were to rule that the freedom of establishment has been infringed, it should limit the effects of the judgment in time.
Tyskland, Sverige og Det Forenede Kongerige har argumenteret for, at betydelige praktiske vanskeligheder er til hinder for at indføre et system, der giver mulighed for fradrag for underskud kombineret med genbeskatning af fradraget.
Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom argue that significant practical difficulties preclude adopting a system allowing for deduction of losses combined with recapture of loss relief.
Som anført ovenfor fremgår det, at tysk lovgivning tidligere foreskrev et sådant system. Lidl og Kommissionen har således uden at blive modsagt gjort gældende, at lovgivning med i det væsentlige dette indhold var gældende i Tyskland fra 1969 26, til den blev ophævet i 1999 27.
However, as indicated above it appears that German legislation previously provided for such a system; indeed Lidl and the Commission have stated without being contradicted that legislation to essentially the same effect was in force in Germany from 1969 26until its repeal in 1999.
Der er endvidere i henhold til en nylig meddelelse fra Kommissionen 28på nuværende tidspunkt fem medlemsstater, der giver adgang til fradrag for underskud i faste driftssteder, der er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, selv om overskud er fritaget i henhold til en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst.
27Moreover, according to a recent Communication from the Commission 28 five Member States currently provide for deduction of losses sustained by permanent establishments situated in another Member State, even though profits are exempted under a double taxation convention.
Det er på denne baggrund vanskeligt at tage et argument om, at betydelige praktiske vanskeligheder er til hinder for et sådant system, alvorligt 29.
Against that background it is difficult to take seriously the argument that significant practical difficulties preclude such a system.
26 — § 2 i Gesetz über steuerliche Massnahmen bei Auslandin-vestitionen der deutschen Wirtschaft (lov om skattemæssige foranstaltninger ved tyske virksomheders investeringer i udlandet) af 18.8.1969 (BGBl. 1969 I, s. 1211, på s. 1214).
26 — Paragraph 2 of the Gesetz über steuerliche Massnahmen bei Auslandinvestitionen der deutschen Wirtschaft (Law on fiscal measures applicable to foreign investments of German industry) of 18 August 1969 (BGBl. 1969 I, pp. 1211, 1214).
27 — Ved Steuerentlastungsgesetz (lov om skattefradrag) 1999/2000/2002 af 24.3.1999 (BGBl. 1999 I, s. 402).
27 — By the Steuerentlastungsgesetz (Law on tax relief) 1999/2000/2002 of 24 March 1999 (BGBl. 1999 I, p. 402).
28 — Meddelelse fra Kommissionen til Rådet, Europa-Parla-mentet og Det Europæiske Økonomiske og Sociale Udvalg — Den skattemæssige behandling af underskud i grænseoverskridende situationer (KOM(2006) 824 endelig, 19.12.2006), jf. punkt 2, stk. 2, litra b), nr. 2.
28 — Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on Tax Treatment of Losses in Cross-Border Situations (COM(2006) 824 final, 19 December 2006); see point 2.2(b)(2).
29 — Det bemærkes, at Rådets direktiv 77/799/EØF af 19.12.1977 om gensidig bistand mellem medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder inden for området direkte skatter og afgiftsbelastning af forsikringspræmier (EFT L 366, s. 15) giver en medlemsstat mulighed for at anmode en anden medlemsstats kompetente myndighed om alle oplysninger, der gør det muligt for den at foretage en korrekt ansættelse af selskabsskat.
29 — It may be noted that Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) allows a Member State to request from the competent authorities of another Member State all the information enabling it to ascertain the correct amount of corporate tax.
30 — Dommen i sagen Kommissionen mod Frankrig, nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 19, præmis 29, hvori der henvises til punkt 30 i generaladvokat Ruiz-Jarabo Colomers forslag til afgørelse: »Når det er blevet fastslået, at det mål, der forfølges, kan nås med andre midler, udelukker proportionalitetsprincippet, at rent administrative vanskeligheder kan hævdes at være absolutte hensyn, som kan berettige en forskelsbehandling, der, i det omfang den er i strid med ovennævnte friheder, kun kan legitimeres med særdeles tungtvejende argumenter.« jf. også dommen i sagen Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 24, præmis 155-157.
30 — Commission v France, cited in footnote 19, paragraph 29, referring to point 30 of the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer: ‘Once it has been established that the objective pursued can be fulfilled by other means, the principle of proportionality precludes mere administrative difficulties from being cited as absolute grounds justifying discriminatory treatment which, because it is contrary to the fundamental freedoms, must be based on strong reasons in order to be lawful’. See also Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, cited in footnote 24, paragraphs 155 to 157.
LIDL BELGIUM i sig selv kan begrunde en begrænsning af dommens tidsmæssige virkninger, og at en sådan begrænsning kun vil blive fastsat under meget bestemte omstændigheder, nemlig hvor (a) der ellers er risiko for alvorlige økonomiske følger, navnlig fordi der var stiftet mange retsforhold i god tro i henhold til de pågældende retsforskrifter, som blev anset for at være lovligt i kraft, og (b) det fremgår, at såvel borgerne som de nationale myndigheder var blevet tilskyndet til at følge en adfærd, som ikke var i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten, på grund af en objektiv og betydelig usikkerhed vedrørende fællesskabsforskrifternes rækkevidde, en usikkerhed, som de øvrige medlemsstater eller Kommissionen eventuelt selv havde bidraget til med den af dem fulgte adfærd 31.
LIDL BELGIUM repercussions owing in particular to the large number of legal relationships entered into in good faith on the basis of rules considered to be validly in force and (b) it appears that both individuals and national authorities have been led into adopting practices which did not comply with Community law by reason of objective, significant uncertainty regarding the implications of Community provisions, to which the conduct of other Member States or the Commission may even have contributed.
vedrørende rækkevidden af artikel 43 EF. I 1999 havde Domstolen allerede fastslået, at national lovgivning, som i det væsentlige udelukker koncernlempelse, når flertallet af datterselskaberne er hjemmehørende i andre medlemsstater, var i strid med artikel 43 EF 32, og at friheden for selskaber, der udøver deres etableringsfrihed, til at vælge, om de vil gøre dette gennem et datterselskab eller en filial (fast driftssted), ikke må begrænses af diskriminerende skattebestemmelser 33.
31 of the subsidiaries were resident in other Member States was contrary to Article 43 EC 32and that the freedom of companies exercising their right of establishment to choose whether to do so by a subsidiary or branch (permanent establishment) must not be limited by discriminatory tax provisions.