natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om artikel 6 i forordning nr. 3118/93 er til hinder for nationale retsforskrifter i en værtsmedlemsstat, som fører til, at denne opkræver afgifter for benyttelse af motorkøretøjer til godstransport med den begrundelse, at køretøjerne har deres sædvanlige stationeringssted på værtsmedlemsstatens område, selv om de er registreret i etableringsmedlemsstaten og anvendes i værtsmedlemsstaten til cabotagekørsel i overensstemmelse med tilladelser, der er lovligt udstedt af etableringsmedlemsstaten.
Luxembourg transport licences, which had to be applied for each year, were used; the regulations and conditions of access to the occupation of road haulier in force in Luxembourg were complied with; the Hoves company was regularly inspected and assessed for the tax.
Indlæg for Domstolen lastvognene var forsikret i Luxembourg, hvor også chaufførerne var registreret og forsikret
Stating its opinion on both questions at the same time, the Hoves company suggests that they should be answered in the affirmative.
— der blev anvendt luxembourgske transportlicenser, som blev fornyet hvert år efter ansøgning
To maintain that the issuing of transport authorisations in Luxembourg was devoid of significance would imply that the action of the Luxembourg Ministry of Transport was not in accordance with Community law, since the issuing of licences and transport undertakings' access to the market are governed in a harmonised manner at Community level.
— den i Luxembourg gældende ordning for erhvervet og betingelserne for adgangen hertil blev overholdt
The Commission considers that, since the provisions referred to in Article 6 of Regulation No 3118/93 are exhaustive, and do not include the tax on motor vehicles, that article precludes the levying of such a tax by the host Member State for the duration of the cabotage authorisation issued by the Member State of establishment, whatever the regular base of the motor vehicle used for the transport of goods by road during the period in question.
Hoves Sari blev regelmæssigt kontrolleret og pålagt skat.
The Hoves company does not deny that it never had a real depot in Luxembourg or parking spaces for the lorries.
Hoves Sari har taget stilling til begge spørgsmål under ét og foreslået at de besvares bekræftende.
It considers, however, that that was not compulsory.
Selskabet gør gældende, at det luxembourgske transportministerium havde udstedt licenser eller tilladelser til cabotagekørsel inden for Fællesskabet for samtlige køretøjer, og at ministeriet hvert år kontrollerede, at betingelserne for udstedelsen heraf var overholdt, herunder betingelsen vedrørende selskabets hjemsted og køretøjernes stationeringssted samt overholdelsen af de gældende tekniske og økonomiske forskrifter.
In its submission, if those were conditions precedent for operating a transport undertaking, the Ministry of Transport would not have issued the corresponding licences.
Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at under hensyn til, at bestemmelserne i artikel 6 i forordning nr. 3118/93 er udtømmende og ikke omfatter motorkøretøjsafgift, er de til hinder for, at værtsmedlemsstaten opkræver en sådan afgift inden for den periode, hvor den tilladelse til cabotagekørsel, som er udstedt af etableringsmedlemsstaten, har gyldighed, uanset hvor det motorkøretøj, som anvendes til godstransport i den pågældende periode, har sit sædvanlige stationeringssted.
In accordance with Article 61 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 51 EC), freedom to provide services in the field of transport is to be governed by the provisions of the Title relating to transport.
værtsmedlemsstatens love og administrative bestemmelser på en række områder. Ifølge denne bestemmelses ordlyd indeholder stk. 1, litra a)-e), en udtømmende opregning af de områder, for hvilke der hverken består en forpligtelse til at registrere køretøjet i værtsmedlemsstaten eller til at betale motorkøretøjsafgift dér.
In that respect, to require the carrier to register the vehicle in the host Member State would be the very negation of the freedom to provide the cabotage service by road, the exercise of which presupposes, as the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 3118/93 provides, that the motor vehicle is registered in the Member State of establishment.
EF-traktatens artikel 75 (efter ændring nu artikel 71 EF) bestemmer, at Rådet, med henblik på gennemførelsen af den fælles transportpolitik og under hensyntagen til transportspørgsmålenes særlige karakter, efter en bestemt fremgangsmåde bl.a. skal fastsætte de betingelser, under hvilke transportvirksomheder har adgang til at udføre interne transporter i en medlemsstat, hvor de ikke er hjemmehørende.
Artide 75 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 71 EC) provides that, for the purpose of implementing the common transport policy, and taking into account the distinctive features of transport, the Council is required to establish, in accordance with a given procedure, inter alia, the conditions under which non­resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State.
Rådet har opfyldt denne forpligtelse med vedtagelsen af forordning nr. 4059/89 og nr. 3118/93, der begge er udstedt med hjemmel i traktatens artikel 75.
The Council carried out that obligation by successively adopting Regulations Nos 4059/89 and 3118/93, both based on Article 75 of the Treaty.
På samme måde vil en forpligtelse for en transportvirksomhed til at betale motorkøretøjsafgift i værtsmedlemsstaten, når virksomheden i forvejen har betalt en sådan afgift i etableringsmedlemsstaten, være i strid med formålet med forordning nr. 3118/93, som ifølge den anden betragtning er at fjerne enhver restriktion over for den virksomhed, der udfører tjenesteydelsen, på grundlag af nationalitet eller som følge af, at virksomheden er etableret i en anden medlemsstat end den medlemsstat, hvor tjenesteydelsen skal udføres.
Similarly, to require a carrier to pay a tax on the motor vehicles in the host Member State, even though he has already paid such a tax in the Member State of establishment, would be contrary to the objective of Regulation No 3118/93, which, according to the second recital in its preamble, is aimed at removing all restrictions against the person providing the services on the grounds of his nationality or the fact that he is established in a different Member State from the one in which the service is to be provided.
Denne frihed til at udføre interne transporter i en anden medlemsstat tilkommer ifølge artikel 1 i forordning nr. 3118/93 »[ejnhver transportvirksomhed, der udfører vejgodstransport for fremmed regning, og som er indehaver af en fællesskabstilladelse i henhold til forordning (EØF) nr. 881/92«.
Under Article 1 of Regulation No 3118/93, the beneficiaries of that freedom to operate national road haulage services in another Member State are '[a]ny road haulage carrier for hire or reward who is a holder of the Community authorisation provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 881/92'.
Ifølge sidstnævnte forordnings artikel 3, stk. 2, udstedes fællesskabstilladelse til »enhver transportvirksomhed, der udfører vejgodstransport for fremmed regning, og som [...] er etableret i en medlemsstat [...] i overensstemmelse med denne stats lovgivning«, når virksomheden i denne medlemsstat »i overensstemmelse med Fællesskabets og medlemsstatens retsforskrifter om adgang til transporterhvervet har ret til at udføre international vejgodstransport«.
That latter regulation states, in Article 3(2), that Community authorisation is to be issued to 'any haulier carrying goods by road for hire or reward who ... is established in a Member State ... in accordance with the legislation of that Member State', and who 'is entitled in that Member State, in accordance with the legislation of the Community and of that State concerning admission to the occupation of road haulage operator to carry out the international carriage of goods by road'.
Det er i denne henseende uden betydning, at køretøjernes stationeringssted i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk anvendes i tysk retspraksis — som begrundelse for opkrævning af den tyske motorkøretøjsafgift — er beliggende i Tyskland, fordi det sted, hvor der træffes bestemmelse om køretøjets benyttelse, befinder sig i denne medlemsstat.
It is irrelevant in that respect that, under German law, the regular base of the vehicles, justifying the levying of the German tax on motor vehicles, is situated in Germany by reason of the fact that it is in that Member State that the place where decisions are taken concerning the use of the vehicles is situated.
Et selskab som Hoves Sari var nemlig berettiget til at samarbejde med et selskab, som er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, og at overlade til dette selskab at træffe visse afgørelser om tilrettelæggelsen af transporterne, uden at det dermed ophørte med at være et selskab, som præsterede tjenesteydelser på cabotageområdet.
A company such as the Hoves company was entitled to collaborate with a company situated in another Member State and to entrust to the latter certain decisions concerning the organisation of transport operations, without thereby ceasing to be a company providing cabotage services by road.
Følgelig hører et selskab som Hoves Sari, der er lovligt stiftet i overensstemmelse med den luxembourgske lovgivning, og som har tilladelse i Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg til at udføre international vejgodstransport, til de virksomheder, som er omfattet af friheden til at udføre intern transport i en anden medlemsstat, forudsat selskabet har fået udstedt tilladelse til cabotagekørsel af de kompetente myndigheder i etableringsmedlemsstaten, dvs. i det konkrete tilfælde i hovedsagen af de luxembourgske myndigheder.
It follows that a company such as the Hoves company, lawfully constituted in accordance with Luxembourg legislation and empowered, in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, to carry out the international carriage of goods by road, is one of the beneficiaries of the freedom to operate national road haulage services in another Member State, so long as it obtains cabotage authorisations issued by the competent authorities of the Member State of establishment, which, in the case at issue in the main proceedings, means the Luxembourg authorities.
Under alle omstændigheder bestemmes det i artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 3118/93, at medlemsstaterne yder hinanden gensidig bistand med henblik på anvendelsen af forordningen.
As Article 6 of Regulation No 3118/93 provides, the performance of cabotage transport operations is to be subject to the laws, regulations and administrative provisions in force in the host Member State in a number of areas.
Hvis de tyske myndigheder var i tvivl om lovligheden af de tilladelser til cabotagekørsel,
The wording of that provision shows that the areas listed in Article 6(l)(a) to (e) constitute an exhaustive list which does not include either the obligation to register the vehicle in the host Member State or the obligation to pay the tax on motor vehicles.
Som fastsat i artikel 6 i forordning nr. 3118/93 er udførelse af cabotagekørsel undergivet
In any event, Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3118/93 provides that Member States are to assist one another in applying that regulation.
godstransport, endnu ikke er harmoniseret, er konflikter vedrørende registreringen uundgåelige og bør løses.
Banks and Others ν Theatre Royal de la Monnaie [2000], paragraphs 38 to 43).
De gør det dog ikke i sig selv berettiget at bryde den uadskillelige forbindelse mellem retten til opkrævning af afgift og registreringen. De bør ikke medføre, at der i strid med gældende regler opkræves afgift af motorkøretøjer på andet grundlag end registreringen.
The second question not a substitute for it. It therefore proposes that the answer to the question should be that, for the duration of registration in another Member State, Article 5 of the directive precludes a national provision which attaches the levying of the tax referred to in Article 3 of the directive to unlawful use of the vehicle, namely its use on the public highway without its being lawfully registered in accordance with road traffic legislation.
Domstolens besvarelse
Arguments before the Court
Tvisten i hovedsagen skyldes en positiv lovkonflikt om registrering af køretøjer og dermed om opkrævning af afgifter heraf.
The dispute in the main proceedings arises from a positive conflict of laws concerning the registration of vehicles, and thus concerning their taxation.
På den ene side er det et krav efter den luxembourgske lovgivning, at Hoves Sari's køretøjer registreres som følge af, at selskabet har hjemsted i Luxembourg, og på den anden side kræver den tyske lovgivning, at samme køretøjer registreres med den begrundelse, at deres sædvanlige stationeringssted befinder sig i Tyskland.
On the one hand, Luxembourg legislation requires registration of the Hoves company's vehicles in so far as that company has its principal office in Luxembourg, whereas, on the other hand, German legislation requires registration of those same vehicles on the ground that they have their regular base in Germany.
Begge landes lovgivning kræver, at der svares motorkøretøjsafgift på grund af forbindelsen mellem registreringen af køretøjerne og opkrævningen af afgifter.
By reason of the link between the registration of vehicles and their taxation, levying of the tax on motor vehicles is required pursuant to the legislation of both countries.
Det må konstateres, at direktiv 93/89 med henblik på at fjerne konkurrencefordrejninger mellem medlemsstaternes transportvirksomheder har harmoniseret de nationale afgiftsordninger for visse erhvervskøretøjer, hvis totalvægt med last overstiger et bestemt niveau.
It should be noted in that respect that, in order to eliminate distortions of competition between the transport undertakings of Member States, Directive 93/89 has harmonised the national systems of taxes on certain commercial vehicles of more than a certain gross laden weight.
Finanzamt Borken har fremhævet, at der er en forbindelse mellem retten for en medlemsstat til at kræve registrering af et køretøj og retten til at kræve betaling af afgiften for dette køretøj.
The Finanzamt Borken emphasises the connection which exists between the right of a Member State to require registration of a vehicle and the right to require payment of the tax on that vehicle.
Da der ikke findes nogen fællesskabsbestemmelse, som harmoniserer registreringen, kan to medlemsstater godt begge anse en registrering for nødvendig i en bestemt situation og derfor begge opkræve afgift.
Since there is no Community harmonisation provision on the matter of registration, two Member States might take the view that registration was necessary in a given situation and, in consequence, both demand the tax.
Artikel 5 i direktiv 93/89 er ikke til hinder herfor.
In the Finanzamt's submission, Article 5 of Directive 93/89 does not prevent that.
Det fremgår af opbygningen af direktiv 93/89, at det forudsættes i direktivet, at der kun findes én medlemsstat, hvor køretøjerne er registreret.
The general scheme of Directive 93/89 shows that the latter assumes the existence of a single Member State where the vehicles are registered.
Det bestemmes således i direktivets artikel 5, at afgifterne »kun« kan opkræves »på køretøjer, der er registreret i medlemsstaten selv«.
Thus Article 5 of that directive provides that the taxes are levied 'solely by the Member State of registration'.
Kommissionen har fremhævet, at direktivet er baseret på, at der består en uadskillelig forbindelse mellem retten til opkrævning af afgift og registreringen, uden at direktivet dog griber ind i selve registreringen.
The Commission maintains that the directive creates an indissoluble link between the right to tax and registration, without however becoming involved in registration itself.
Da kriterierne for registrering af køretøjer, som anvendes til
They do not however, as such, authorise the breaking of the indissoluble link between the right to tax and registration.
Direktiv 93/89 indeholder imidlertid ingen kollisionsnorm, hvorefter det kan fastslås, hvilken
The Commission therefore considers that, according to Directive 93/89, tax on motor vehicles is the consequence of registration and
værtsmedlemsstaten under henvisning til, at et køretøj omfattes af anvendelsesområdet for dens lovgivning om opkrævning af afgifter for køretøjer, kunne tvinge en transportvirksomhed, som benytter dette køretøj til cabotagekørsel i overensstemmelse med tilladelser, som er lovligt udstedt af etableringsmedlemsstaten, til at betale en af de i direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, omhandlede afgifter for køretøjet, selv om der i forvejen er betalt en sådan afgift i etableringsmedlemsstaten.
harmonisation of taxes on certain commercial vehicles effected by Directive 93/89, could not be achieved if the host Member State were able, on the ground that a vehicle falls within the scope of the national law on the taxation of vehicles, to require a carrier using that vehicle for cabotage in accordance with authorisations lawfully issued by the Member State of establishment, to pay in respect of that vehicle one of the taxes referred to in Article 3(1) of that directive, when such a tax has already been paid in the Member State of establishment.
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Domstolens plenum1) den 27. november 2001.
Advocate General P. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 27 November 2001.
Sag C-499/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Spanien Statsstøtte
Case C-499/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Spain State aid
»Traktatbrud—statsstøtte—støtte til virksomhederne i Magefesakoncernen —Kommissionens beslutninger 9111¡EØF og 19991509¡EF om pålæg om tilbagesøgning — manglende opfyldelse« (Sjette Afdeling)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State aid — Aid granted to companies in the Magefesa group Commission Decisions 91/1/EEC and 1999/509/EC Non-performance) (Sixth Chamber)
I slutningen af 1985 var Magefesakoncernen på randen af konkurs og overdrog ledelsen til et privat konsulentfirma, Gestiber, for at undgå, at driften måtte opgives.
At the end of 1985 the Magefesa group was on the brink of insolvency and, to avoid its having to cease trading, a private consultancy firm (Gestiber) was appointed to manage the group.
Dette firma fremlagde et handlingsprogram, som bla. forudsatte en personalenedskæring og tildeling af støtte fra centralregeringen og de regionale myndigheder i de selvstyrende regioner Baskerlandet, Cantabrien og Andalusien, hvor koncernens fabrikker lå.
Gestiber put forward an action plan which, among other things, provided for a reduction in the workforce and for securing aid from central government and from the Governments of the autonomous regions of the Basque country, Cantabria and Andalucía, where the group's various factories were situated.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 22. december 1999 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 88, stk. 2, andet afsnit, EF anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 249, stk. 4, EF samt artikel 2 og 3 i Kommissionens beslutning 91/1/EØF af 20. december 1989 om støtte ydet i Spanien af centralregeringen og en række autonome regeringer til Magefesa, der producerer husholdningsartikler af rustfrit stål og mindre elapparater, og Kommissionens beslutning 1999/509/EF af 14. oktober 1998 om Spaniens støtte til virksomhederne i Magefesakoncernen og deres efterfølgere, hvori det fastslås, at visse former for støtte til Magefesa-koncernens virksomheder er ydet ulovligt og desuden er uforenelige med fællesmarkedet, idet Kongeriget Spanien ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har truffet de foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme beslutningerne.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 December 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under the second paragraph of Article 88(2) EC for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to comply with Commission Decision 91/1/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning aids in Spain which the central and several autonomous Governments have granted to Magefesa, producer of domestic articles of stainless steel and small electric appliances and Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their successors, declaring that certain aid to companies in the Magefesa group was granted unlawfully and is incompatible with the common market, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of those decisions.
Baggrunden for tvisten
Background to the litigation
Faktiske omstændigheder
Gursa was inactive from 1994.
Da situationen fortsat forværredes, blev Indosa erklæret konkurs den 19. april 1994, men fortsatte sine aktiviteter, Cunosa ophørte med sin virksomhed i 1994 og blev erklæret konkurs den 13. april 1994, Migsa ophørte med sin virksomhed i 1993 og blev erklæret konkurs den 27. maj 1999, og endelig var Gursa fra 1994 inaktiv og blev erklæret insolvent.
The Magefesa group consists, so far as concerns the present case, of four industrial companies which manufacture household goods: Industrias Domésticas SA ('Indosa'), based in the Basque Country, Cubertera del Norte SA ('Cunosa') and Manufacturas Gur SA ('Gursa') based in Cantabria, and Manufacturas Inoxidables Gibraltar SA ('Migsa') based in Andalucía.
Hvad angår forvaltningsselskaberne, blev Ficodesa erklæret konkurs den 19. januar 1995, og Manufacturas Damma har været inaktiv siden 1993, men er ikke erklæret konkurs.
As regards the intermediary companies, Ficodesa was declared insolvent on 19 January 1995 and Manufacturas Damma has been inactive since 1993 but has not been declared insolvent.
Gemacasas aktuelle situation er ikke kendt.
The current situation in respect of Gemacasa is not known.
— for Indosas vedkommende efter konkurserklæringen frem til maj 1997.
By the same decision, the Spanish authorities were asked to take the measures necessary to recover the aid from the recipient companies.
Kommissionen indledte proceduren i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2 (nu artikel 88, stk. 2, EF) og erklærede ved beslutning 91/1, der blev meddelt den spanske regering den 5. marts 1990, følgende former for støtte ulovlige og uforenelige med fællesmarkedet:
It initiated the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) and, by Decision 91/1, notified to the Spanish Government on 5 March 1990, it identified the following aid as illegal and incompatible with the common market: loan guarantees amounting to ESP 1 580 thousand million;
Ved samme beslutning blev de spanske myndigheder pålagt at træffe de fornødne foranstaltninger for at tilbagesøge støtten hos støttemodtagerne, og det blev fastsat, at de tilbagebetalingspligtige beløb skulle omfatte renter beregnet fra datoen for støttens udbetaling indtil den faktiske tilbagebetaling.
Article 3 of Decisions 91/1 and 1999/509 called on the Spanish authorities to inform the Commission, within two months from the date of notification of each decision, of the measures taken for their implementation.
Kommissionen pålagde i artikel 3 i beslutning 91/1 og 1999/509 de spanske myndigheder senest to måneder efter meddelelsen af hver af disse beslutninger at underrette Kommissionen om de foranstaltninger, der var truffet for at efterkomme dem.
Taking the view that the Kingdom of Spain had not complied with either Decision 91/1 or Decision 1999/509 within the time-limit prescribed, the Commission brought the present proceedings.
— et anslået rentetilskud på 9 mio. ESP.
an interest subsidy estimated at ESP 9 million.
De af de spanske foranstaltninger
Actions of the Spanish Government