natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter min opfattelse kan den nederlandske lovgiver fra det øjeblik, hvor han beslutter at tildele investeringsinstitutter en godtgørelse for den kildeskat, der anvendes på udbytte fra visse medlemsstater — selv om han ikke, således som Nederlandene selv har anført, var forpligtet af bilaterale overenskomster med disse stater — ikke udelukke udbytte fra andre medlemsstater, såsom Tyskland og Portugal, fra denne fordel.
In my opinion, as soon as the Netherlands legislature decided to grant fiscal investment enterprises a concession for deductions at source applied to dividends originating in certain Member States, when, as it itself indicates, it was not required to do so by the bilateral conventions concluded with those States, it could not exclude from that advantage dividends originating in other Member States such as Germany and Portugal.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-194/06 til kildeskat på udbytte fra andre lande i forhold til udenlandske aktionærers kapital i instituttet, er derfor ikke i strid med fællesskabsretten, henset til det forhold, at dette institut er fritaget for nederlandsk udbytteskat, uafhængigt af aktionærernes bopæl eller hjemsted.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-194/06 reduction in the concession intended to take account of deductions at source on dividends originating in other countries in line with the holdings of foreign shareholders in its capital is not contrary to Community law in view of the fact that that enterprise is exempt from the Netherlands tax on dividends irrespective of the place of residence or establishment of its shareholders.
Den forelæggende ret har med dette spørgsmål ønsket oplyst, om nedsættelsen af den godtgørelse, som OESF blev indrømmet, til den kapital, som aktionærer med bopæl eller hjemsted i andre medlemsstater end Nederlandene (Belgien, Tyskland, Frankrig, Luxembourg og Det Forenede Kongerige) og i tredjelande (USA og Schweiz) har indskudt i instituttet, er i overensstemmelse med de frie kapitalbevægelser.
By this question, the Hoge Raad seeks to ascertain whether the reduction in the concession granted to OESF in proportion to the holdings in the capital of that enterprise by shareholders resident or established in Member States other than the Netherlands (Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom) and in nonmember countries (the United States and Switzerland) is in accordance with the free movement of capital.
Det er derimod min opfattelse, at den omtvistede begrænsning er i strid med artikel 56 EF og 58 EF, når jeg undersøger dens virkninger på kapitalbevægelser mellem et investeringsinstitut og dets aktionærer.
However, I take the view that the contested limitation is contrary to Art -icles 56 EC and 58 EC from the point of view of its effects on movements of capital between a fiscal investment enterprise and its shareholders.
Den forelæggende ret har redegjort for, at den forelægger Domstolen dette spørgsmål, henset til, at et investeringsselskab, der investerer i Nederlandene, modtager godtgørelse med hensyn til kildeskat af nationalt udbytte, uafhængigt af aktionærernes bopæl eller hjemsted.
The Hoge Raad explains that it is putting this question to the Court in the light of the fact that a fiscal investment enterprise which invests in the Netherlands benefits from the refund of tax deducted at source on nationallysourced dividends irrespective of the place of residence or establishment of its shareholders.
Den pågældende begrænsning begrænser for det første disse kapitalbevægelser.
First, the limitation at issue restricts such movements of capital.
Et investeringsinstitut, hvis aktionærer alle har bopæl eller hjemsted i Nederlandene, og som investerer i udlandet, modtager således en godtgørelse for kildeskat svarende til den nederlandske skat, der finder anvendelse på udenlandsk udbytte.
Thus, a fiscal investment enterprise all of the shareholders of which are resident or established in the Netherlands and which invests abroad benefits from a concession for tax deducted at source up to the amount of the Netherlands tax which would be applicable to the foreign dividends.
Et investeringsinstitut, hvis aktionærer er udlændige, får derimod sin godtgørelse nedsat i forhold til disse aktionærers deltagelse i instituttets kapital.
By contrast, a fiscal investment enterprise some of the shareholders of which are foreign has its concession reduced in line with the holdings of those shareholders in its capital.
I modsætning til Kommissionen er det ikke min opfattelse, at den omtvistede ordning er i strid med fællesskabsretten i den henseende.
Unlike the Commission, I do not believe that the contested scheme is contrary to Community law in this respect.
Som påvist ved undersøgelsen af den første begrænsnings forenelighed med fællesskabsretten, forpligter fritagelsen af investeringsinstitutter for nederlandsk udbytteskat ikke Kongeriget Nederlandene til at fastsætte en ordning med fradrag for kildeskat på udenlandsk udbytte.
As we saw when examining the compatibility of the first limitation with Community law, the exemption of fiscal investment enterprises from the Netherlands tax on dividends did not oblige the Kingdom of the Netherlands to provide for a system for offsetting tax deducted at source on foreign dividends.
Den omstændighed, at et investeringsinstitut får nedsat godtgørelsen med hensyn
Consequently, the fact that a fiscal investment enterprise is subjected to a
Det skal herved bemærkes, at ifølge den pågældende skatteordning beregnes det
It should be noted in this respect that, under the tax scheme at issue, the amount of profits distributed to shareholders is
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND overskud, der udloddes til aktionærerne, under hensyntagen til den godtgørelse med hensyn til kildeskat på udbytte, der udloddes af selskaber med hjemsted i Nederlandene, og til den godtgørelse, der ydes med hensyn til kildeskat i udlandet på udbytte fra andre stater.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND calculated with reference to the refund of tax deducted at source on dividends paid by companies established in the Netherlands and the concession granted for deductions at source made abroad on dividends originating in other States.
Det således fastsatte overskud, der skal udloddes, fordeles dernæst mellem investeringsinstituttets aktionærer i henhold til deres deltagelse i instituttets kapital, og disse aktionærer beskattes af dette udbytte i Nederlandene med kildeskat, som instituttet indeholder.
The amount of profit to be distributed, as thus established, is then divided among the shareholders in the fiscal investment enterprise according to their respective holdings in the latter’s capital and those shareholders are taxed on those dividends in the Netherlands in the form of deduction at source by the enterprise.
Således som den forelæggende ret har understreget, beskattes alle et investeringsinstituts aktionærer i Nederlandene af udbytte udloddet af dette institut, uanset hvor de har bopæl eller hjemsted. Det følger heraf, at et investeringsinstitut, der investerer i udlandet og har udenlandske aktionærer, i denne henseende befinder sig i samme situation som et investeringsinstitut, der investerer i udlandet, og hvis aktionærer alle har bopæl eller hjemsted i Nederlandene.
As the Hoge Raad points out, all the shareholders of a fiscal investment enterprise are taxed in the Netherlands on the dividends distributed by that enterprise, whatever their place of residence or establishment.
Det følger heraf, at begrænsningen af godtgørelsen for udenlandsk skat i henhold til udenlandske aktionærers deltagelse i det pågældende instituts kapital vilkårligt straffer alle instituttets aktionærer, eftersom den har den virkning, at det samlede overskud til udlodning nedsættes.
It follows that limiting the concession for foreign tax according to the respective holdings of foreign shareholders in the capital of the enterprise concerned indiscriminately penalises all of the latter’s shareholders since it has the effect of reducing the total amount of profit available for distribution.
I overensstemmelse med retspraksis ifølge dommen i sagen Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation samt i sagen Denkavit Internationaal og Denkavit France skal Kongeriget Nederlandene derfor fra det tidspunkt, hvor det besluttede at tildele investeringsinstitutter en godtgørelse med hensyn til skat indeholdt i udlandet og at beskatte disse institutters aktionærer uafhængigt af deres bopæl eller hjemsted, udvide denne godtgørelse til investeringsinstitutter med ikkehjemmehørende aktionærer 32.
As a consequence, and in accordance with the rule established in Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation and Denkavit Internationaal and Denka -vit France, as soon as the Kingdom of the Netherlands decided to grant fiscal investment enterprises a concession for tax deducted abroad and to tax the shareholders of those enterprises irrespective of their place of residence or establishment, it had to extend the benefit of that concession to fiscal investment enterprises some of the shareholders of which are non-resident. 32
Dernæst, og i modsætning til det af den nederlandske regering anførte, kan
Such a limitation therefore constitutes an obstacle to the raising of capital by a fiscal investment enterprise in other Member States and in nonmember countries and deters foreign investors from acquiring shares in that enterprise.
Jeg foreslår derfor Domstolen at besvare spørgsmål 1, litra b), med, at artikel 56 EF og 58 EF skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for en lovgivning i en medlemsstat, der — som den pågældende nederlandske lovgivning — foreskriver en godtgørelse til et investeringsinstitut for kildeskat — der i en anden medlemsstat er indeholdt af udbytte modtaget af investeringsinstituttet — der er begrænset, når og for så vidt som investeringsinstituttets aktionærer er fysiske personer uden bopæl i Nederlandene, eller selskaber, der ikke underlagt nederlandsk selskabsbeskatning.
I therefore propose that the Court’s answer to the first question, part (b), should be that Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the Netherlands legislation at issue, which, in providing for the benefit of fiscal investment enterprises a concession intended to take account of tax levied at source by another Member State on dividends paid to those enterprises, restricts that concession where and to the extent to which the shareholders of the enterprise concerned are made up of natural persons not resident in the Netherlands or enterprises not subject to Netherlands corporation tax.
For det andet har den forelæggende ret ønsket oplyst, om forbuddet i artikel 56 EF har samme rækkevidde for så vidt angår kapitalbevægelser fra og til et tredjeland som inden for Den Europæiske Union og EØS.
Second, the Hoge Raad raises the question whether the prohibition laid down in Article 56 EC has the same scope with respect to movements of capital from and to nonmember countries as it does within the European Union and the EEA.
Retten har i denne henseende ønsket præciseret, om denne artikel pålægger en medlemsstat at give afkald på en fordel i forbindelse med kapitalbevægelser med et tredjeland, selv om tredjelandet hypotetisk ikke er bundet af traktaten og dermed ikke skal bringe et tilsvarende offer.
It seeks clarification in this regard as to whether that article requires a Member State to waive an advantage within the context of movements of capital with a nonmember country when that country is by definition not bound by the Treaty and does not therefore have an obligation to make a similar concession.
Der er dermed på grund af denne manglende gensidighed tale om at afgøre, om begrænsningerne kan være berettiget af årsager, som ikke kan anvendes inden for en fællesskabsretlig ramme.
Because of that lack of reciprocity, the issue is therefore whether restrictions might be justified on grounds which would not be acceptable in an intraCommunity context.
Den anden række præjudicielle spørgsmål
The second set of questions referred
Den forelæggende ret har redegjort for, at den står over for to spørgsmål.
The Hoge Raad explains that it is faced with two issues to be resolved.
På grundlag af disse betragtninger har den forelæggende ret med spørgsmål 2, litra b), spurgt, om artikel 56 EF har samme rækkevidde for så vidt angår kapitalbevægelser til og fra et tredjeland som inden for en fællesskabsretlig ramme, og dernæst med spørgsmål 2, litra c), om artikel 56 EF i benægtende fald er til hinder for den første begrænsning, i det omfang den skal tage hensyn til kildeskat i et tredjeland, selv om denne begrænsning er begrundet i den omstændighed, at det pågældende instituts aktionærer ligeledes omfatter udenlandske aktionærer.
It is in the light of those considerations that the Hoge Raad asks, by its second question, part (b), whether Article 56 EC has the same scope with respect to movements of capital to and from nonmember countries as within the intraCommunity context, and then, by its second question, part (c), whether, if the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, Article 56 EC precludes the first limitation in so far as the latter is intended to take account of deductions at source made in a nonmember country, when that limitation is based on the fact that some of the shareholders of the enterprise concerned are foreign.
For det første har den ønsket oplyst, om der skal sondres mellem udbytte fra en af Fællesskabets eller Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområdes medlemsstater (EØS) og udbytte fra et tredjeland.
First, it seeks to ascertain whether it is appropriate to make a distinction between dividends originating in a Member State of the Community or of the European Economic Area (EEA) and dividends originating in a nonmember country.
Retten har redegjort for, at den står over for dette spørgsmål, fordi OESF i det relevante regnskabsår modtog udbytte fra et selskab med hjemsted i Schweiz.
It states that it is faced with this question because, during the financial year in question, OESF received dividends from a company established in Switzerland.
»direkte investeringer« i artikel 57, stk. 1, EF, som giver medlemsstaterne mulighed for at opretholde restriktioner for kapitalbevægelser fra tredjelande, der eksisterede den 31. december 1993, når de vedrører sådanne investeringer, også omfatter indehavelse af en aktiepost i et selskab, som ikke gør det muligt at udøve en afgørende indflydelse på selskabets drift eller kontrol hermed.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND within the meaning of Article 57(1) EC, which permits Member States to maintain such restrictions on the movement of capital to or from nonmember countries involving direct investment as existed on 31 December 1993, includes the holding of a block of shares in a company which does not place the holder in a position to exercise a decisive influence over the management or control of the company.
Den forelæggende ret har forelagt Domstolen spørgsmål 2, litra a)-c), henset til det forhold, at OESF modtog udbytte fra et selskab med hjemsted i Schweiz.
The Hoge Raad puts the second question, parts (a) to (c), to the Court in light of the fact that OESF received dividends from a company established in Switzerland.
Det er min opfattelse, at dette spørgsmål ikke kan antages til realitetsbehandling, fordi det ikke er nødvendigt for at løse tvisten i hovedsagen.
I take the view that that question is inadmissible because it is not necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Det fremgår nemlig af det af den forelæggende ret anførte, at der ved beregningen af godtgørelsen blev taget hensyn til kildeskatten i Schweiz af udbytte udloddet til OESF fra dette land.
It is clear from the information provided by the Hoge Raad that the deductions at source made by Switzerland on the dividends paid to OESF originating in that country were taken into account in the calculation of the concession.
Det fremgår ligeledes af det anførte, at det alene var kildeskat i medlemsstater, dvs. Tyskland og Portugal, der ikke blev taget hensyn til.
It also follows from that information that the only deductions at source which were not taken into account were made in Member States, namely Germany and Portugal.
Endelig har den forelæggende ret med spørgsmål 3, litra b) og c), spurgt Domstolen, om den omstændighed, at det pågældende investeringsinstituts udenlandske aktionærer har bopæl eller hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat eller i et land, hvormed dette instituts oprindelsesland har indgået en overenskomst, som på gensidig vis foreskriver fradrag for kildeskat af udbytte, har betydning for besvarelsen af de forrige spørgsmål.
Finally, by its third question, parts (b) and (c), it asks the Court whether the fact that foreign shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise in question are resident or established in another Member State or in a country with which the Member State in which the enterprise is established has concluded a convention making provision for the reciprocal offsetting of deductions at source on dividends affects the answers given to the preceding questions.
Jeg vil nu undersøge spørgsmål 2, litra b), idet det henviser til deltagelsen af aktionærer med bopæl eller hjemsted i tredjelande i OESF’s kapital, og spørgsmål 3, litra b) og c).
I shall now examine the second question, part (b), in so far as it refers to the participation in the capital of OESF of shareholders resident or established in nonmember countries, and the third question, parts (b) and (c).
Jeg vil først undersøge spørgsmål 2, litra b), for så vidt som det vedrører OESF’s investeringer i et tredjeland, og spørgsmål 2, litra c) og a), der udelukkende vedrører disse investeringer.
I shall first examine the second question, part (b), in so far as it refers to OESF’s investments in a nonmember country, and the second question, parts (c) and (a), which relates solely to those investments.
Jeg vil derefter analysere spørgsmål 2, litra b), idet det tager hensyn til, at en vis del af OESF’s aktionærer har bopæl eller hjemsted i et tredjeland, og spørgsmål 3, litra b) og c), som vedrører denne situation.
I shall then analyse the second question, part (b), in so far as it takes account of the fact that some of OESF’s shareholders are resident or established in a nonmember country, and the third question, parts (b) and (c), which relates to that situation.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-194/06 manglende gensidighed i overholdelsen af forpligtelserne i artikel 56 EF.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-194/06 lack of reciprocity in compliance with the obligations in Article 56 EC.
Henset til årsagen til, at den forelæggende ret har forelagt disse spørgsmål, foreslår jeg Domstolen at behandle dem samlet og forstå dem således, at retten har spurgt, om de pågældende begrænsninger kan være berettiget i det forhold, at en del af det pågældende investeringsinstituts aktionærer ikke har bopæl eller hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat eller i et tredjeland, hvormed dette instituts oprindelsesland har indgået en overenskomst, som på gensidig vis foreskriver fradrag for kildeskat på udbytte.
In the light of the grounds on which the Hoge Raad raises these questions, I propose that the Court should examine them together and take them to mean that the Hoge Raad is asking whether the limitations at issue can be justified by the fact that some of the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise concerned are not resident or established in another Member State or in a nonmember country with which the Member State in which that enterprise is established has concluded a convention making provision for the reciprocal offsetting of deductions at source on dividends.
Det er under alle omstændigheder ikke min opfattelse, at de omtvistede begrænsninger under omstændighederne i denne sag kan berettiges i en begrundelse vedrørende kapitalbevægelser med tredjelande.
In any event, I do not believe that, in the circumstances of the present case, the contested limitations can be justified on grounds relating to movements of capital with nonmember countries.
Således som jeg ovenfor har redegjort for, har de omtvistede begrænsninger den virkning, at de nedsætter det samlede beløb, der skal udloddes til aktionærerne, uafhængigt af deres bopæl eller hjemsted, og straffer således aktionærerne vilkårligt.
As I explained earlier, the contested limitations have the effect of reducing the total amount of profit available for distribution among all shareholders, irrespective of their place of residence or establishment, and thus penalise them without distinction.
Det fremgår i øvrigt af det af den forelæggende ret anførte, at en del af OESF’s aktionærer i det relevante regnskabsår havde bopæl eller hjemsted i andre medlemsstater.
Moreover, it follows from the information provided by the Hoge Raad that some of the foreign shareholders of OESF were resident or established in other Member States during the relevant financial year.
Som bemærket ovenfor, har Domstolen ganske vist anerkendt, at det ikke kan udelukkes, at en restriktion for kapitalbevægelser til eller fra tredjelande er berettiget med en begrundelse under omstændigheder, hvor denne begrundelse ikke efter sin art kan udgøre en gyldig berettigelse for en restriktion for kapitalbevægelserne mellem medlemsstater.
Admittedly, as I pointed out earlier, the Court has accepted that a restriction on movements of capital to or from nonmember countries may be justified on a particular ground in circumstances in which that ground would not be such as to constitute a valid justification for a restriction on movements of capital between Member States.
Selv om det derfor antages, at de omtvistede begrænsninger kunne berettiges i en begrundelse vedrørende kapitalbevægelser til eller fra et tredjeland, hvis alle investeringsinstituttets aktionærer havde bopæl eller hjemsted i et tredjeland, kan der ikke tages hensyn til en sådan berettigelse i denne sag.
Consequently, assuming that the contested limitations could have been justified on grounds relating to movements of capital to and from nonmember countries if all the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise concerned had been resident or established in a nonmember country, such a justification cannot be taken into account in this case.
Domstolen har fremlagt vejledning i, hvilke begrundelser der kan anvendes.
The Court has given some indications as to which grounds may be relied on.
Disse begrundelser følger af det forhold, at et tredjeland ikke er forpligtet af fællesskabsretten, navnlig af alle samarbejdsforpligtelserne vedrørende fremsendelse af oplysninger og bistand ved indsamlingen heraf.
Those grounds follow from the fact that a nonmember country is not bound by Community law, in particular by the full range of obligations relations to cooperation in the provision of information and assistance with recovery.
Den nederlandske regering har anført, at disse begrundelser ligeledes kan udledes af den
The Netherlands Government submits that those grounds may also be derived from the
Jeg foreslår derfor, at spørgsmål 2, litra b), samt spørgsmål 3, litra b) og c), besvares
I shall therefore propose that the answer to the second question, part (b), and the third
Det er min opfattelse, at denne omstændighed er uden betydning for de svar, jeg forslår at give den første række præjudicielle spørgsmål.
I am of the opinion that this fact has no bearing on the answers which I have proposed should be given to the first set of questions referred.
med, at de pågældende begrænsninger ikke kan berettiges i det forhold, at en del af det pågældende investeringsinstituts aktionærer ikke har bopæl eller hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat eller i et land, hvormed dette instituts oprindelsesland har indgået en overenskomst, som på gensidig vis foreskriver fradrag for kildeskat af udbytte.
question, parts (b) and (c), should be that the limitations at issue cannot be justified by the fact that some of the shareholders of the fiscal investment enterprise concerned are not resident or established in another Member State or in a nonmember country with which the Member State in which that enterprise is established has concluded a convention making provision for the reciprocal offsetting of deductions at source on dividends.