natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should be noted at the outset that the receipt, by a shareholder resident or established in a Member State, of dividends from nonresident companies constitutes a movement of capital within the meaning of Article 56 EC. 25
Kõigepealt tuleb meelde tuletada, et liikmesriigis elavale või asutatud aktsionärile dividendide jaotamine mitteresidendist äriühingute poolt kujutab endast kapitali vaba liikumist EÜ artikli 56 mõttes. 25
According to the caselaw, national legislation which makes the receipt of dividends liable to tax, where the rate depends
Kohtupraktikast nähtub, et liikmesriigi õigusnormid, mille kohaselt maksustatakse residendist äriühingu poolt dividendide saamist maksuga, mille määr oleneb sellest, kas dividendid on pärit samast liikmesriigist või välisriigist, sõltumata osalusest, mis aktsionäril dividende maksvas äriühingus on,
24 — Case C-376/03 D. [2005] ECR I-5821.
24 — 5. juuli 2005. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-376/03: D. (EKL 2005, lk I-5821).
The Court held that that wealth tax could be treated in the same way as income tax in that it was established on the basis of the taxpayer’s capacity to pay.
Euroopa Kohus leidis, et see kapitalimaks on võrdsustatav tulumaksuga, kuna see oli kehtestatud sõltuvalt maksukohustuslase maksmisvõimest.
It inferred from this that a nonresident taxpayer who held only a small portion of his wealth in the Netherlands was not in the same situation as a resident taxpayer, with the result that he was not eligible for the allowance at issue.
Kohus järeldas sellest, et mitteresidendist maksumaksja, kelle varast väiksem osa asub Madalmaades, ei ole samas olukorras kui residendist maksumaksja, seega ei saa ta nõuda mahaarvamises seisnevat soodustust.
The next question was whether D. was the subject of discrimination on the ground that a taxpayer resident in Belgium in a situation similar to his own was eligible for the disputed allowance by virtue of the convention concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium.
Seejärel oli vaja uurida küsimust, kas D.-d diskrimineeriti, kuna temaga analoogilises olukorras olev Belgia residendist maksumaksja võis kasutada vaidlusalust mahaarvamist vastavalt Madalmaade Kuningriigi ja Belgia Kuningriigi vahel sõlmitud lepingule.
The Court held that such a difference in treatment was not contrary to Community law.
Euroopa Kohus leidis, et selline kohtlemiserinevus ei ole ühenduse õigusega vastuolus.
See also, to the same effect, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, with regard to the difference in circumstances resulting from the fact that only some of the bilateral conventions concluded between Member States and other States provided for a tax credit for residents of the contracting States.
Vt selle kohta veel eespool viidatud kohtuotsus Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation seoses olukorra erinevusega, mis tuleneb asjaolust, et liikmesriigi ja teiste liikmesriikide vahel sõlmitud kahepoolsete lepingute hulgast näeb ainult mõni leping ette lepinguosaliste riikide residentidele soodustuse maksu ümberarvutuse näol.
25 — Verkooijen, paragraphs 28 to 30.
25 — Eespool viidatud Verkooijeni kohtuotsus (punktid 28–30).
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND first question, parts (a) and (b), it asks the Court whether the two limitations at issue are compatible with the provisions of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND esimese küsimuse punktidega a ja b soovib ta Euroopa Kohtult teada, kas kaks kõnesolevat piirangut on asutamislepingu artiklitega 56 ja 58 kooskõlas.
on whether the source of those dividends is national or otherwise, irrespective of the extent of the holding which the shareholder has in the company making the distribution, may fall within the scope of both Article 43 EC on freedom of establishment and Article 56 EC on free movement of capital.
võivad tegelikult jääda nii asutamisvabadust reguleeriva EÜ artikli 43 kui ka kapitali vaba liikumist reguleeriva EÜ artikli 56 kohaldamisalasse.
26 However, where the shareholder’s interest in the capital of a company does not give him definite influence over the decisions of that company and does not allow him to determine its activities, the provisions of Article 56 EC alone are applicable. 27
26Kuid kui aktsionäri osalus aktsiakapitalis ei anna talle võimalust teataval määral mõjutada selle äriühingu otsuseid või otsustada selle tegevuse üle, on kohaldatavad üksnes EÜ artikli 56 sätted. 27
By its second question, parts (a) to (c), to which I attach the third question, parts (b) and (c), the Hoge Raad seeks to ascertain what conclusions should be drawn from the fact that a fiscal investment enterprise such as OESF has invested in nonmember countries and itself has shareholders who are resident or established in nonmember countries.
Oma teise küsimuse punktidega a–c, millele ma liidan kolmanda küsimuse punktid b ja c, soovib ta teada, milliseid järeldusi tuleb teha asjaolust, et selline investeerimisfond nagu OESF on investeerinud kolmandasse riiki ja tal on aktsionäre, kes elavad või on asutatud kolmandates riikides.
It is clear from the information provided by the referring court that, during the relevant financial year, the interest held by OESF in the capital of the companies making distributions did not permit it to determine the activities of those companies.
Eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtu edastatud teabest nähtub, et OESF-i osalus dividende jaotavate äriühingute kapitalis asjaomasel aruandeaastal ei võimaldanud tal otsustada nende äriühingute tegevuse üle.
I shall therefore examine the compatibility of the contested limitations with Community law in the light of the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, and in the light of those provisions alone.
Seega uurin ma vaidlusaluste piirangute ühenduse õigusele vastavust üksnes kapitali vaba liikumist käsitlevate asutamislepingu sätete alusel.
(b) Substance of the questions referred and the order in which they are to be examined
b) Eelotsuse küsimuste sisu ja nende uurimise järjekord
Finally, by its third question, part (a), the Hoge Raad asks whether the fact that the tax deducted in another country is higher than the tax payable on dividends distributed to foreign shareholders in the Member State in which the fiscal investment enterprise is established affects the answers to the preceding questions.
Oma kolmanda küsimuse punktiga a küsib eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus, kas asjaolu, et teises riigis kinnipeetud maks on suurem kui maks dividendidelt, mida jaotatakse välismaistele aktsionäridele liikmesriigis, kus investeerimisfond on asutatud, mõjutab vastuseid eelmistele küsimustele.
The Hoge Raad has referred three sets of questions for preliminary ruling.
Eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus esitab kolm seeriat eelotsuse küsimusi.
By its
Oma
26 — Case C-157/05 Holböck [2007] ECR I-4051, paragraph 24 and the caselaw cited.
26 — 24. mai 2007. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-157/05: Holböck (EKL 2007, lk I-4051, punkt 24 ja viidatud kohtupraktika).
27 — See, to that effect, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 38.
27 — Vt selle kohta eespool viidatud kohtuotsus Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation (punkt 38).
I shall examine those three sets of questions in turn.
Uurin neid kolme küsimusteseeriat järjekorras.
The first set of questions referred established in the Netherlands enjoys a full refund of the Netherlands tax on dividends deducted at source by those companies.
Esimene eelotsuse küsimuste seeria arvestades asjaolu, et investeerimisfondile, kes saab dividende Madalmaades asutatud äriühingutelt, hüvitatakse täielikult Madalmaade maks, mida kõnesolevad äriühingud on neilt dividendidelt kinni pidanud.
(a) First question, part (a)
a) Esimese küsimuse punkt a
OESF and the Commission of the European Communities submit, in the light of that statement, that the contested scheme unjustifiably affords different treatment to tax deducted at source in Germany and Portugal and to tax deducted at source in the Netherlands and that it is therefore contrary to Community law.
OESF ja Euroopa Ühenduste Komisjon leiavad selles osas, et vaidlusaluse korra alusel kohaldatakse Saksamaal ja Portugalis kinnipeetud maksude ja Madalmaades kinnipeetud maksude suhtes õigustamatult erinevat kohtlemist ning järelikult on see ühenduse õigusega vastuolus.
By its first question, part (a), the Hoge Raad asks in essence whether 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 deducted at source by another Member State on dividends paid to those enterprises, restricts that concession to the amount which a natural person resident in the Netherlands could have offset under a convention for the prevention of double taxation concluded with that other Member State.
Oma esimese küsimuse punktiga a küsib eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus sisuliselt seda, kas EÜ artikleid 56 ja 58 tuleb tõlgendada nii, et nendega on vastuolus niisugused liikmesriigi õigusaktid nagu kõnesolevad Madalmaade õigusaktid, mis näevad ette maksusoodustuse investeerimisfondidele, et tasakaalustada neile väljamakstud dividendidelt teise liikmesriigi poolt kinni peetud makse, ning piiravad selle maksusoodustuse suurust summaga, mille Madalmaade territooriumil elav füüsiline isik võiks maha arvata vastavalt teise liikmesriigiga sõlmitud topeltmaksustamise vältimise lepingule.
OESF further submits that the scheme is also contrary to Articles 56 EC and 58 EC because, if it invests in any Member State other than Germany and Portugal, the fiscal investment enterprise receives a concession intended to prevent or mitigate the double taxation of the dividends.
OESF väidab veel, et see kord on vastuolus ka EÜ artiklitega 56 ja 58, kuna investeerimise korral igas muus liikmesriigis peale Saksamaa ja Prantsusmaa saab investeerimisfond dividendide topeltmaksustamise vältimiseks või vähendamiseks maksusoodustuse.
By that question, the Hoge Raad seeks to ascertain whether the refusal by the Netherlands tax authority to take account of the tax paid by OESF in Germany and Portugal on dividends originating in those States is contrary to Articles 56 EC and 58 EC.
Selle küsimusega soovib eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus teada, kas Madalmaade maksuameti keeldumine nende maksude arvessevõtmisest, mida OESF on tasunud Saksamaal ja Portugalis neist riikidest pärit dividendidelt, on vastuolus EÜ artiklitega 56 ja 58.
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 receives dividends from companies
Eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus selgitab, et ta küsib seda Euroopa Kohtult
The Netherlands Government argues that the contested scheme complies with Community law.
Madalmaade valitsus on seisukohal, et vaidlusalune kord on ühenduse õigusega kooskõlas.
In its opinion, that scheme makes no distinction based on the origin of the dividends because the refund of the Netherlands tax is in reality an exemption, with the result that fiscal investment enter-
Tema arvates ei tee see kord mingit vahet dividendide päritolu alusel, sest Madalmaade maksu hüvitamine on tegelikult erand, nii et investeerimisfondidelt ei võeta maksu ei oma riigis saadud dividendide
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND prises are taxed neither on national dividends nor on foreign dividends.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND eest ega välismaalt saadud dividendide eest.
Consequently, the double taxation of the dividends from Germany and Portugal follows in this case from the exercise by each of those Member States of its respective powers in matters of taxation and the situation in the present case is comparable to that in Kerckhaert and Morres.
Saksamaalt ja Portugalist pärit dividendide topeltmaksustamine tuleneb antud juhul sellest, et kumbki nimetatud riik teostab oma maksustamispädevust, ning käesolevas asjas esinev olukord on võrreldav olukorraga eespool viidatud kohtuotsuse Kerckhaert ja Morres aluseks olnud asjas.
In my opinion, limiting the benefit of the concession provided for under that scheme to taxes deducted at source in Member States other than Germany and Portugal cannot be considered to be a difference in treatment which is inherent in the bilateral conventions concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Member States, within the meaning of the judgment in D.
Leian, et selle korra alusel ette nähtud maksusoodustuse kohaldamist ainult maksudele, mis on kinni peetud muus liikmesriigis kui Saksamaa ja Portugal, ei saa pidada kohtlemiserinevuseks, mis johtub Madalmaade Kuningriigi ja teiste liikmesriikide vahel sõl -mitud kahepoolsetest lepingutest eespool vii -datud D. kohtuotsuse mõttes.
I shall deal with each of those points in turn.
Käsitlen nüüd neid küsimusi järjekorras.
The Netherlands Government also explains that the fact that the tax deducted in Germany and Portugal does not give rise to a concession, unlike the tax deducted at source in other Member States such as Italy, is inherent in the content of the bilateral conventions concluded with those other States, with the result that, from that point of view, the situation in this case is comparable to that in the judgment in D.
Madalmaade valitsus on samuti seisukohal, et asjaolu, et erinevalt teistes liikmesriikides, näiteks Itaalias kinnipeetud maksudest, ei hüvitata Saksamaal ja Portugalis kinnipeetud makse, johtub nende teiste liikmesriikidega sõlmitud kahepoolsete lepingute sisust, nii et selles aspektis on käesolevas asjas esinev olukord võrreldav olukorraga eespool viidatud D. kohtuotsuse aluseks olnud asjas.
It should be noted at the outset that, under the contested tax scheme, a fiscal investment enterprise is taxed on its profits at a zero rate and that its shareholders are taxed on the entirety of the profits distributed to them by that enterprise irrespective of their origin, that is to say, both dividends paid by companies established in the Netherlands and foreign-sourced dividends.
Kõigepealt peab meelde tuletama, et vaidlusaluse maksustamiskorra alusel maksustatakse investeerimisfondi kasumit nullmääraga ning selle aktsionäridelt võetakse maksu kogu kasumi eest, mida investeerimisfond neile jaotab, olenemata kasumi päritolust, see tähendab nii dividendide eest, mida maksavad Madalmaa- des asutatud äriühingud, kui ka välismaist päritolu dividendide eest.
The profits distributed to a fiscal investment enterprise by companies established in Germany and Portugal therefore form part of the profits taxed in the Netherlands on their distribution to the shareholders of that enterprise by means of deduction at source by the latter.
Kasum, mille investeerimisfondile jaotavad Saksamaal ja Portugalis asutatud äriühingud, on seega osa kasumist, mis selle investeerimisfondi poolt aktsionäridele jaotamisel maksustatakse Madalmaades maksu kinnipidamise teel, mida teeb see investeerimisfond.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-194/06 provisions of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC only if they result from discrimination, whether overt or covert, that is to say, if they are attributable to a single tax scheme in a Member State which applies a different rule to comparable situations or the same rule to different situations.
KOHTUJURIST BOT’ ETTEPANEK — KOHTUASI C-194/06
It is also common ground that the Netherlands tax on dividends, which is deducted at source by companies established in the Netherlands, is refunded to the fiscal investment enterprise and that that enterprise receives from the Kingdom of the Netherlands a concession for taxes deducted at source in Member States other than Germany and Portugal.
Vaidlust ei ole ka selles, et maks Madalmaade dividendidelt, mille peavad kinni Madalmaades asutatud äriühingud, hüvitatakse investeerimisfondile ning investeerimisfond saab Madalmaade Kuningriigilt maksusoodustuse nende maksude tasakaalustamiseks, mis on kinni peetud muus liikmesriigis kui Saksamaa ja Portugal.
A comparison of the treatment afforded under the contested tax scheme to dividends originating in Germany and Portugal and that afforded to dividends originating in the Netherlands shows that, at the level of the fiscal investment enterprise, those dividends, whatever their origin, are not taxed under Netherlands law.
Kui vaidlusaluses maksustamiskorras võrrelda Saksamaalt ja Portugalist pärit dividendide kohtlemist Madalmaadest pärit dividendide kohtlemisega ning lähtuda investeerimisfondi tasandist, siis võib tõdeda, et Madalmaade õigusaktide alusel ei maksustata dividende, sõltumata nende päritolust.
In those circumstances, it is more advantageous for a fiscal investment enterprise to invest in companies established in the Netherlands and in Member States other than Germany and Portugal than to invest in companies established in the latter two Member States.
Neil asjaoludel on investeerimisfondi jaoks soodsam investeerida Madalmaades ja muudes liikmesriikides peale Saksamaa ja Portugali asutatud äriühingutesse, kui investeerida kahes viimati nimetatud riigis asutatud äriühingutesse.
While dividends originating in the Netherlands are taxed only once at the level of the shareholders, and while dividends originating in Member States other than Germany and Portugal give rise to a concession in respect of the tax deducted at source, dividends from the latter two Member States still remain subject to double taxation.
Kui Madalmaadest pärit dividende maksustatakse ainult üks kord aktsionäride tasandil ja muudest liikmesriikidest kui Saksamaalt ja Portugalist pärit dividendide puhul saab kinnipeetud maksude tasakaalustamiseks maksusoodustuse, siis kahest viimati nimetatud riigist pärit dividendid kuuluvad topeltmaksustamisele.
Indeed, as the Netherlands Government states, refunding the Netherlands tax on dividends, levied in the form of a deduction at source by the distributing companies established in the Netherlands, is in reality tantamount to exempting the fiscal investment enterprise from that tax.
Nagu Madalmaade valitsus märgib, võrdub dividende jaotavate Madalmaades asutatud äriühingute poolt dividendidelt kinnipeetud Madalmaade maksu hüvitamine tegelikkuses investeerimisfondi vabastamisega sellest maksust.
Deduction at source by those companies is, after all, no more than a means of recovering the tax on dividends owed by the person receiving them.
Nende äriühingute poolt maksu kinnipidamine kujutab endast tegelikult vaid viisi nõuda sisse maks dividendidelt, mida peab tasuma dividendide saaja. 28
28 — The purpose of this system of deduction at source, according to the explanations provided by the Netherlands Government, is to collect in advance the income tax or corporation tax payable on dividends in order to avoid any concealment on the part of shareholders.
28 — Madalmaade valitsuse esitatud selgituste kohaselt on selle kinnipidamise süsteemi eesmärk dividendidelt maksta oleva üksikisiku tulumaksu või ettevõtte tulumaksu ettemaksmine, et vältida tulude varjamist aktsionäride poolt.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND prise is taxed on its profits at a zero rate, it is logical that such deductions at source should be refunded to it. 29
Kuna investeerimisfondi kasumit maksustatakse nullmääraga, on loogiline, et kinnipeetud maks talle hüvitatakse. 29
Similarly, the dividends paid to such an enterprise by companies established in Germany and Portugal are not taxed at the level of the enterprise under Netherlands law.
Samuti ei maksustata Madalmaade õigusaktide alusel investeerimisfondi tasandil dividende, mida sellisele fondile maksavad Saksamaal ja Portugalis asutatud äriühingud.
At this stage, Netherlands law does not therefore apply to dividends originating in Germany and Portugal treatment differing from that afforded to Netherlands dividends.
Seega ei kohelda Madalmaade õiguse alusel Saksamaalt ja Portugalist pärit dividende selles staadiumis teistmoodi kui Madalmaa -dest pärit dividende.
The situation in this case is therefore different, in my view, from that at issue in Manninen, which was referred to both by the Hoge Raad and by OESF and the Commission.
Seega on käesolevas asjas esinev olukord minu arvates erinev eespool viidatud Mannineni kohtuotsuse aluseks olnud asjas esinenud olukorrast, millele on viidanud eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus ning OESF ja komisjon.
In Manninen, the Finnish rules granted to persons primarily taxable in Finland a tax credit in respect of dividends paid by companies established in that Member State.
Nimetatud kohtuasjas nägi Soome õigusakt Soomes üldise tulumaksu maksukohustuslastele ette maksu ümberarvutuse seoses dividendidega, mida maksid selles liikmesriigis asutatud äriühingud.
The tax credit was intended to prevent the economic double taxation of those dividends.
Maksu ümberarvutuse eesmärk oli dividendide majandusliku topeltmaksustamise vältimine.
It involved setting off the tax payable in the form of corporation tax by the company distributing the dividends against that payable by the shareholder in the form of income tax.
See seisnes selles, et maks, mida pidi ettevõtte tulumaksuna tasuma dividendidelt neid jaotav äriühing, arvati maha tulumaksust, mida pidi tasuma aktsionär.
Next, an examination of the contested tax scheme at the level of the shareholders of a fiscal investment enterprise indicates that they are taxed under Netherlands law on the entirety of the profits distributed by that enterprise, with no distinction being made on the basis of the origin of the dividends which it receives.
Kui uurida vaidlusalust maksustamiskorda investeerimisfondi aktsionäride tasandil, võib tõdeda, et aktsionäridelt võetakse Madalmaade õigusaktide kohaselt maksu kogu kasumilt, mille investeerimisfond on neile jaotanud, ilma et tehtaks vahet vastavalt saadud dividendide päritolule.
At this stage too, the scheme does not contain different rules for dividends originating in Germany and Portugal and for those originating in the Netherlands.
Ka selles staadiumis ei näe kõnesolev kord ette erinevaid reegleid Saksamaalt ja Portugalist pärit dividendidele ning Madalmaadest pärit dividendidele.
29 — The Netherlands Government explained in its written observations that its legislation initially provided for an exemption from the tax on dividends but that that exemption had had to be replaced by the contested scheme because of the administrative constraints which it imposed on the fiscal investment enterprises in terms of justifying their situation to the companies making a distribution prior to each dividend payment.
29 — Oma kirjalikes märkustes selgitas Madalmaade valitsus, et algselt nägid tema õigusaktid ette dividendidelt võetavast maksust vabastamise, kuid see tuli asendada vaidlusaluse süsteemiga halduskohustuste tõttu, mille see maksuvabastus pani investeerimisfondidele, kes pidid enne igakordset dividendide ülekandmist selgitama dividende jaotavatele äriühingutele oma olukorda.
First, as has been seen, the purpose of the refund is not to take account of the corporation tax payable by companies established
Esiteks, nagu ma juba märkisin, ei ole selle hüvitamise eesmärk võtta arvesse
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-194/06 dividends originating in the other Member States.
KOHTUJURIST BOT’ ETTEPANEK — KOHTUASI C-194/06 kohaldamine ainult omamaistele dividendile omamaiste dividendide ja teistest liikmesriikidest pärit dividendide erinevat kohtlemist.
in the Netherlands but to exempt a fiscal investment enterprise from tax on dividends.
Madalmaades asutatud äriühingute tasutavat ettevõtte tulumaksu, vaid vabastada investeerimisfond maksust dividendidelt.