natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Spanish authorities acknowledged that the companies that carried out indirect acquisitions of shareholdings in non-resident companies until 21 December 2007 and that did not include the deduction of the financial goodwill arising from indirect acquisitions could now rectify their tax declarations in order to deduct the financial goodwill arising from them.
Hispaania peab kokkusobimatu abi seepärast tagasi nõudma.
In the case of companies that included in their past tax declarations the deduction of the financial goodwill arising from indirect acquisitions and which had already been subject to the assessment of the tax administration, will not be able to request the rectification of the tax declarations already submitted; however, given that the deduction is spread out over 20 years, it does not preclude these companies from deducting the financial goodwill in future tax declarations.
Asjaomase aasta ja abisaaja puhul vastab abi väärtus maksuvähendusele, mis on tehtud TRLISe artikli 12 lõike 5 kohaldamisel seoses tegutsevas mitteresidendist äriühingus kaudse osaluse omandamisega, mis tuleneb varasemast osaluse omandamisest valdusettevõtjas.
To begin with, whether the new administrative measure has retroactive effect or not has no legal consequence as to the scope of the First and Second Decisions, and namely whether they also cover indirect acquisitions.
Õiguspärased ootused
In any case, the new administrative interpretation has legal retroactive effects.
Hispaania ametiasutused ja huvitatud kolmandad isikud väidavad, et esimeses ja teises otsuses tunnustatud õiguspärased ootused peaksid kehtima ka osaluse kaudsel omandamisel, mis tuleneb valdusettevõtjas osaluse otsesest omandamisest.
Indeed the new administrative interpretation of 21 March 2012 can be applied to acquisitions that were carried out before that date.
Nad väidavad, et õiguspäraseid ootusi tuleks tunnustada esimese ja teise otsuse tekstis kaudsele omandamisele viitamise tõttu, vastuste tõttu parlamendi esitatud küsimustele ja 2007. aasta menetluse algatamise otsuse pressiteates nimetatud omandamiste tõttu.
Compatibility of the aid
Komisjon ei nõustu Hispaania ametiasutuste ja huvitatud kolmandate isikute esitatud põhjendustega ja leiab, et esimeses ja teises otsuses tunnustatud õiguspäraseid ootusi ei saa panna kehtima olukordades (osaluse kaudne omandamine, mis tuleneb valdusettevõtjas osaluse omandamisest), mis ei olnud nende otsuste vastuvõtmise ajal meetme kohaldamisalaga hõlmatud.
Having preliminarily established that the scheme at issue involves State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, it is necessary to consider whether the amended scheme can be found to be compatible with the internal market pursuant Article 107(2) and (3) of the TFEU.
Tegelikult võivad õiguspäraste ootuste aluseks olla ainult otsuse vastuvõtmise ajal teadaolevad faktilised andmed, mitte tulevikusündmused, näiteks uue haldusliku tõlgenduse kasutuselevõtt.
The Spanish authorities did not present any argument in this respect.
Vastavalt väljakujunenud kohtupraktikale [62] on igal üksikisikul õigus tugineda õiguspärase ootuse kaitse põhimõttele olukorras, mille puhul Euroopa Liidu institutsioon on tekitanud temas hästi põhjendatud lootused, olles andnud talle konkreetse kinnituse.
The Commission considers that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12(5) TRLIS cannot be considered compatible with the internal market.
Olenemata sellest, mis kujul need kinnitused antakse, on need seotud täpse, tingimusteta ja järjepideva teabega.
In this respect, the Commission considers that the same reasoning followed in the First and Second Decision applies.
Seda, et kõnealuses abikavas puuduvad selged piirangud, ei saa pidada komisjoni täpseks, tingimusteta ja järjepidevaks kinnitavaks avalduseks asjaomastele ettevõtjatele seoses meetme kohaldamisega ka osaluse kaudsel omandamisel, mis tuleneb otsese osaluse omandamisest valdusettevõtjas.
Therefore, the Commission refers to paragraphs 140 and following of the First Decision and to paragraphs 166 and following of the Second Decision.
Seega ei saa nende selgete piirangute puudumine tekitada asjaomastele ettevõtjatele õiguspäraseid ootusi, et meedet võib seaduslikult kohaldada ka kaudse omandamise suhtes [63].
In particular, as regards the application of Article 107(3)(c), the tax deductions granted under Article 12(5) TRLIS are not related to investment, job creation or specific projects.
Isegi kui esimeses ja teises otsuses kaudsele omandamisele tehtud viited oleksid tekitanud asjaomastele ettevõtjatele ootusi, on tarbetu kaaluda, kas sel viisil tekkinud ootus on õiguspärane [64].
The tax deductions relieve the undertakings of charges normally borne by those undertakings, and must therefore be considered as operating aid.
Hispaania ametiasutused väidavad, et piirava haldusliku tõlgenduse olemasolu ei vähenda õiguspärast ootust, et ettevõtjad, kes omandasid kaudselt osaluse valdusettevõtjas otsese osaluse omandamise teel, võisid tugineda TRLISe artikli 12 lõike 5 kehtivusele.
As a general rule, operating aid does not fall within the scope of Article 107(3)(c) since it distorts competition in the sectors in which it is granted.
Selle põhjusteks on asjaolud, et 1) TRLISe artikli 12 lõige 5 on selge; 2) selles viidatakse ühemõtteliselt TRLISe artiklile 21, milles nimetatakse otsest ja kaudset omandamist; 3) see sisaldab otsest viidet konsolideeritud raamatupidamise eeskirjadele; 4) selle eesmärk on Hispaania äriühingute rahvusvahelistumise edendamine.
The aid cannot be considered compatible with the internal market, as it does neither facilitate the development of any activities or economic areas nor it is limited in time, digressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy that specific economic situation in the areas concerned.
Komisjon ei nõustu eespool nimetatud väitega.
In conclusion, the Commission does not consider the measure compatible with the internal market.
TRLISe artikli 12 lõige 5 on osutunud ebaselgeks sätteks, sest sealne viide konsolideeritud raamatupidamise eeskirjadele on ebamäärane ja sätte kehtivuse avardamine TRLISe artikli 21 kriteeriumidele on ebatäpne.
B. LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS, LEGAL CERTAINTY, PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL AND RECOVERY OF THE AID
Artikli 21 koostamise esialgne eesmärk oli õigupoolest sätestada tingimused erandi tegemiseks dividendidele ja välismaist päritolu tuludele.
Principles of estoppel and legal certainty
Artikli 21 viide kaudsele omandamisele on vastuolus nõudega, et otse omandatud äriühing peab ellu viima majandustegevust.
The Commission considers that there is no reason to depart from the considerations expressed in the Opening Decision.
Lisaks ei saa õiguspäraseid ootusi rajada abikava aluspõhimõttele, TRLISe artikli 12 lõikele 5, mis oli esimeses ja teises otsuses tunnistatud juba ebaseaduslikuks ja kokkusobimatuks abiks Hispaania residendist äriühingute välismaiste ja kodumaiste omandamiste erineva maksustamislahenduse tõttu.
Indeed, the Commission did neither violate the estoppel principle nor the legal certainty principle.
Komisjon on veendunud, et sätte ebatäpsus ja ebaselgus on põhjustanud vastuolu selle tõlgendamisel.
The ‘consulta vinculante’ of 21 March 2012, which introduced the new administrative interpretation, is the result of a choice made by the Spanish authorities.
Tegelikult on sellist vastuolu täheldatud enamikus DGT consulta'des ja TEAC resolutsioonides.
This administrative act, which gave rise to a situation of new aid illegally granted without having been previously notified to the Commission, is an act of the Spanish authorities and not an act of the Commission.
Seetõttu ei saa Hispaania ametiasutused väita, et vaatamata piiravale halduslikule tõlgendusele oleks TRLISE artikli 12 lõige 5 võinud tekitada õiguspäraseid ootusi nende ettevõtjate hulgas, kes omandasid osaluse kaudselt.
Therefore, the estoppel principle is irrelevant.
Kui vaadata lähemalt Scottish Poweri omandamist Iberdrola poolt, siis märgib komisjon, et ühinemisotsuses (COMP M.4517) märgiti selgelt, et ühinemisotsuse seisukohast ei olnud vajalik ega asjakohane määrata, kas TRLISe artikli 12 lõige 5 kätkes riigiabi (vt otsuse punkt 42).
As regards the alleged violation of the legal certainty principle, the Commission reminds that, according to the ECJ case-law, the scope of a State aid decision must be determined not only by reference to the actual wording of that decision but also by taking account of the aid scheme as described and concretely applied by the Member State concerned [61].
Viidates Hispaania ja huvitatud kolmandate isikute väidetele, mille kohaselt tekitasid vastused parlamendi esitatud kirjalikult vastatavatele küsimustele abisaajates õiguspäraseid ootusi, märgib komisjon, et parlamendi esitatud kirjalikult vastatavates küsimustes ei keskendutud otsese ja kaudse omandamise eristamisele, vaid küsiti, kas TRLISe artikli 12 lõikes 5 sätestatud kava võib kujutada endast riigiabi.
In this respect, if a violation of this principle may be found, the Commission considers that it was Spain that would have infringed the legal certainty principle.
Seetõttu ei saa komisjoni vastustest parlamendi esitatud kirjalikult vastatavatele küsimustele järeldada, et hõlmatud on nii otsene kui ka kaudne omandamine.
Moreover, the Commission believes that the creation of legal uncertainty, if any, would stem from the imprecise and unclear character of the wording of certain provisions of the scheme.
Seoses väidetega, mille kohaselt tekitavad esimene ja teine otsus õiguspäraseid ootusi, sest mõlemas neist räägitakse kaudsest omandamisest, tuletab komisjon meelde, et need viited tehti ainult seepärast, et liikmesriigi õigusnormides nimetatakse nii otsest kui ka kaudset omandamist.
Recovery of the aid
Täpsemalt öeldes tehakse TRLISe artikli 12 lõikes 5 ristviide TRLISe artiklile 21, milles nõutakse, et Hispaania äriettevõte peab omandama vähemalt 5 % mitteresidendist äriühingu aktsiatest aastase katkematu ajavahemiku jooksul.
The contested measure has been implemented without having been notified in advance to the Commission in accordance with Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Asjaolu, et Hispaania ametiasutused kohaldasid TRLISe artikli 12 lõiget ainult otsese omandamise suhtes, ei vaidlusta ei Hispaania ega huvitatud kolmandad isikud.
Therefore, the measure constitutes unlawful aid.
Nagu juba eespool märgitud, on komisjonil seetõttu õigus toetuda asjaomase liikmesriigi antud selgitustele ja seega võis ta õiguspäraselt eeldada, et kava kohaldati nii, nagu liikmesriik oli osutanud.
Where unlawfully granted State aid is found to be incompatible with the internal market, the consequence of such a finding is that the aid should be recovered from the recipients pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Lisaks leiab komisjon, et kuigi otsuste tekstis ei kajastata Hispaania ametiasutuste ja komisjoni teabevahetust – milles selgitati, et praktikas võib maha arvata ainult tegutsevates äriühingutes otsesest osaluse omandamisest tuleneva rahalise firmaväärtuse – ei tekita see abisaajatele õiguspäraseid ootusi, et TRLISe artikli 12 lõikes 5 on hõlmatud ka kaudne omandamine.
Through recovery of the aid, the competitive position that existed before it was granted is restored as far as is possible.
Abisaajad olid juba teadlikud järjepidevast ja süstemaatilisest haldustavast, mis jättis osaluse omandamise teel valdusettevõtjas kaudse osaluse omandamise TRLISe artikli 12 lõike 5 kohaldamisalast välja ja mis kehtis kuni 2012. aastani.
The amount to be recovered should be such as to eliminate the economic advantage given to the beneficiaries.
Kokkuvõttes ei saa esimeses ja teises otsuses tunnustatud õiguspäraseid ootusi laiendada olukordadele, mis ei olnud esimese ja teise otsuse tegemise ajal vaidlustatud meetme kohaldamisalaga hõlmatud.
No arguments raised by the Spanish authorities or by the thirty parties justified a general departure from this basic principle.
JÄRELDUSED
For a given year and a given beneficiary, the value of the aid corresponds to the tax reduction provided by the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS for indirect acquisitions of shareholdings of non-resident operating companies that result from previous acquisitions of shareholdings of holding companies.
Komisjon ei pea meedet aluslepingu artikli 107 lõigete 2 ja 3 alusel siseturuga kokkusobivaks.
Legitimate expectations
Abi tuleb abisaajatelt määruse (EÜ) nr 659/1999 artikli 14 alusel sisse nõuda.
The Spanish authorities and the interested parties argue that the legitimate expectations recognised in the First and Second Decision should also apply to indirect acquisitions of shareholdings that result from a direct acquisition of shareholdings of a holding company.
ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
In this regard, they claim that legitimate expectations should be recognised due to the references made to indirect acquisitions in the wording of the First and Second Decisions, the replies to written parliamentary questions and the acquisitions mentioned in the press release of the 2007 opening Decision.
Artikkel 1
The Commission does not agree with the arguments presented by the Spanish authorities and interested third parties and considers that the legitimate expectations that were recognised in the First and Second Decision cannot be extended to situations (indirect acquisitions of shareholdings that result from the acquisition of shareholdings of a holding company), which were not covered by the scope of application of the measure at the time of the adoption of these Decisions.
Hispaania Kuningriigi vastu võetud uus halduslik tõlgendus, mis laiendas 5. märtsi 2004. aasta ettevõtte tulumaksu seaduse Real Decreto Legislativo 4/2004 artikli 12 lõike 5 kohaldamisala, millega konsolideeritakse Hispaania ettevõtte tulumaksu seadusesse tehtud muudatused, et hõlmata mitteresidendist valdusettevõtjas otsese osaluse omandamise kaudu kaudne osaluse omandamine mitteresidendist äriühingutes, ja mis jõustati ebaseaduslikult, sest Hispaania Kuningriik rikkus ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõiget 3, on siseturuga kokkusobimatu.
Indeed, legitimate expectations can be based only on factual elements known at the moment of the adoption of a decision and not on future events, such as the introduction of a new administrative interpretation.
Artikkel 2
In accordance with settled case-law [62], the right to rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations applies to any individual in a situation in which an institution of the European Union, by giving that person precise assurance, has led him to entertain well-founded expectations.
Artikli 1 kohase kava alusel antud individuaalne abi ei ole abi, kui see vastas selle andmise ajal nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 994/98 [65] artikli 2 kohaselt vastu võetud ja abi andmise ajal kohaldatavas õigusaktis sätestatud tingimustele.Artikkel 3
Such assurances, in whatever form they are given, constitute precise, unconditional and consistent information.
Artikli 1 kohase kava alusel antud individuaalne abi, mis vastas selle andmise ajal määruse (EÜ) nr 994/98 artikli 1 kohaselt vastu võetud õigusaktis või mõnes muus heaks kiidetud abikavas sätestatud tingimustele, on siseturuga kokkusobiv, kui see ei ületa kõnealust liiki abi ülemmäära.
The absence of explicit restrictions in the aid scheme in question cannot be deemed to constitute a precise, unconditional and consistent statement made by the Commission to the undertakings concerned with regard to the application of the measure also to indirect acquisitions of shareholdings that result from the direct acquisition of shareholdings of a holding company.
Artikkel 4
Therefore, the absence of those explicit restrictions cannot create legitimate expectations for the undertakings concerned that the measure could be lawfully applied also to indirect acquisitions.
Hispaania Kuningriik lõpetab artiklis 1 osutatud abikava, mis hõlmab abisaajatele antud abi mitteresidendist äriühingutes kaudse osaluse omandamisel otsese osaluse omandamise teel valdusettevõtjates, ulatuses, mis ei on ühisturuga kokkusobimatu.
[63]
Hispaania Kuningriik nõuab abisaajatelt tagasi artiklis 1 osutatud kava alusel antud kokkusobimatu abi.
Even if it had been the case that the references made to indirect acquisitions in the First and Second decisions could have created an expectation for the undertakings concerned, it is necessary to consider whether the expectation reached on that basis is a legitimate one [64].
Tagasimakstavatelt summadelt arvestatakse intressi alates kuupäevast, mil need abisaajate kasutusse anti, kuni nende tegeliku tagas imaksmise kuupäevani.
The Commission is of the opinion that the undertakings that carried out indirect acquisitions cannot plead a legitimate expectation that the indirect shareholding acquisitions were covered by Article 12(5) TRLIS, given that these undertakings were well aware of the administrative practice of the tax administration and the TEAC that was in place until 2012.
Intress arvutatakse liitintressina komisjoni määruse (EÜ) nr 794/2004 [66] V peatüki kohaselt.
These undertakings were aware that the tax scheme communicated to the Commission — Article 12(5) TRLIS — was implemented at that time excluding from its scope indirect shareholding acquisitions that result from a direct shareholding acquisition of a holding company.
Alates käesoleva otsuse vastuvõtmise kuupäevast tühistab Hispaania Kuningriik kõik artiklis 1 osutatud kava alusel veel tegemata abimaksed.
The Spanish authorities allege that the existence of a restrictive administrative interpretation does not diminish the legitimate expectations that the operators that carried out indirect acquisitions of shareholdings through a direct acquisition of shareholdings of a holding company might have had on the validity of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Artikkel 5
This is because: (1) Article 12(5) TRLIS is a clear provision; (2) it expressly refers to Article 21 TRLIS, which mentions direct and indirect acquisitions; (3) it contains a express reference to the consolidated accounting rules; (4) it aims at fostering the international investment of Spanish companies.
Artiklis 1 osutatud kava alusel antud abi nõutakse tagasi viivitamata ja tõhusalt.
The Commission does not agree with the abovementioned statement.
Hispaania Kuningriik tagab käesoleva otsuse rakendamise nelja kuu jooksul pärast käesoleva otsuse teatavakstegemisest.
Article 12(5) TRLIS has proven to be an unclear provision because of the undetermined reference to the consolidation accounting rules and the imprecise extrapolation to the criteria contained in Article 21 TRLIS.
Artikkel 6
Indeed, Article 21 is initially conceived for laying down the conditions for exempting dividends and income of foreign origin.
Hispaania Kuningriik esitab kahe kuu jooksul alates käesoleva otsuse teatavakstegemisest järgmise teabe:
The reference of Article 21 to indirect acquisitions contrasts with the requirement of carrying an economic activity by the directly acquired company.
artiklis 1 osutatud kava alusel abi saanute nimekiri ja neist igaühele kava alusel antud abi kogusumma;
Moreover, legitimate expectations cannot be founded on the rationale of an aid scheme, Article 12(5) TRLIS, which had already been declared unlawful and incompatible aid in the First and Second Decisions due to the differential tax treatment between foreign acquisitions and domestic acquisitions carried out by companies resident in Spain.
igalt abisaajalt tagasi nõutav kogusumma (põhisumma ja intressid);
The Commission believes that the imprecise and unclear character of the provision led to a controversy in its interpretation.
käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks juba võetud ja kavandatud meetmete üksikasjalik kirjeldus;
In fact, this controversy is evidenced in most of the consultas of the DGT and TEAC resolutions.
dokumendid, millega tõendatakse, et abisaajatele on antud korraldus abi tagasi maksta.
Therefore, the Spanish authorities cannot claim that, despite the restrictive administrative interpretation, Article 12(5) TRLIS could have created legitimate expectations for those undertakings that carried out indirect acquisitions of shareholdings.
Hispaania Kuningriik teavitab komisjoni käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks võetud riiklike meetmete rakendamisest, kuni artiklis 1 osutatud kava alusel antud abi on täielikult tagasi makstud.
As regards more specifically the acquisition of Scottishpower by Iberdrola, the Commission observes that the merger decision (COMP M.4517) clearly indicated that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to determine if Article 12(5) TRLIS constituted State aid (see paragraph 42 of the decision) for the purposes of the merger decision.
Hispaania esitab komisjoni taotluse korral viivitamata teabe käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks juba võetud ja kavandatud meetmete kohta.
With reference to the allegations of Spain and of the interested third parties, according to which the replies to the written parliamentary questions created legitimate expectations for the beneficiaries of the aid, the Commission observes that the written parliamentary questions did not focus on the differentiation between direct and indirect acquisition, but questioned whether the scheme provided for in Article 12(5) TRLIS might constitute State aid.
Ta esitab ka üksikasjalikud andmed abisaajatelt juba tagasi saadud abisummade ja intresside kohta.
Therefore, it could not be inferred from the replies given by the Commission to the written parliamentary questions that both direct and indirect acquisitions would have been covered.
Artikkel 7
As regards the allegation according to which the First and Second decisions would create new legitimate expectations, since they both make reference to indirect acquisitions, the Commission recalls that those references were exclusively made because the national legal provisions mention both direct and indirect acquisition.
Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Hispaania Kuningriigile.
More precisely, Article 12(5) TRLIS cross-refers to Article 21 TRLIS, which requires that at least 5 % of the shareholdings of the non-resident company must be held directly or indirectly by the Spanish company for an interrupted period of one year.
Brüssel, 15. oktoober 2014
The fact that the Spanish authorities were applying Article 12(5) TRLIS only to direct acquisitions is not contested neither by Spain nor by the interested third parties.
Komisjoni nimel
As already indicated above, the Commission is therefore entitled to rely on the explanations provided by the Member State concerned and therefore it could legitimately assume that the regime was applied as the Member State had indicated.
Joaquín Almunia
Moreover, the Commission considers that even though the communication between the Spanish authorities and the Commission — whereby it was explained that in practice it could only be deducted the financial goodwill arising from direct shareholding acquisitions of operating companies — is not reflected in the wording of the decisions, it does not create legitimate expectations for the beneficiaries of the aid that indirect acquisitions were also covered by Article 12(5) TRLIS.
ELT C 258, 7.9.2013, lk 8.
The beneficiaries of the aid were already aware of the consistent and systematic administrative practice that excluded indirect shareholdings acquisitions through the shareholding acquisition of a holding from the scope of application of Article 12(5) TRLIS and which had been in place until 2012.
ELT L 7, 11.1.2011, lk 48.
In conclusion, the legitimate expectations recognised in the First and Second Decisions cannot be extended to situations that were not covered by the scope of application of the contested measure at the time of the First and Second Decisions.
ELT L 135, 21.5.2011, lk 1.
CONCLUSIONS
Vt consulta vinculante, V0608-12, 21. märts 2012.
In light of the above, the Commission considers that the new administrative interpretation, which has enlarged the scope of the application of a scheme already declared illegal and incompatible aid without being notified to the Commission, constitutes unlawful incompatible aid in the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Vt joonealune märkus 1.
The Commission does not consider the measure compatible with the internal market pursuant Article 107(2) and (3) of the Treaty.
Vt TRLISe artikli 21 lõike 1 punkt a.