natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission received comments from the following interested parties: Sea Invest, user of the ports of Antwerp, Ghent and Zeebrugge (14 September 2016), the Port of Rotterdam, acting on behalf of five Dutch publicly owned seaports (16 September 2016), the Port of Brussels (16 September 2016), the Flemish Port Commission (Vlaamse Havencommissie) (19 September 2016) and, after an extension of the deadline to present comments, the ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge (4 October 2016).
(Valonska regija i valonske luke). (8) Komisija je zaprimila primjedbe od sljedećih zainteresiranih strana: Sea Invest, korisnik luka gradova Antwerpen, Gent i Zeebruges (14. rujna 2016.), luke grada Rotterdama, djelujući u ime pet javnih nizozemskih morskih luka (16. rujna 2016.), luke grada Bruxellesa (16. rujna 2016.), Flamanskog povjerenstva za luke (Vlaamse Havencommissie) (19. rujna 2016.) te, nakon produljenja roka za dostavu primjedbi, luka gradova Antwerpen i Zeebruges (4. listopada 2016.).
The European Commission forwarded those comments to Belgium, which was given the opportunity to respond.
Komisija je te primjedbe dostavila Belgiji i dala joj mogućnost da dostavi opaske.
A further meeting was organised between the Belgian federal and regional authorities, certain beneficiaries of the measure and the Commission on 10 January 2017.
Dana 10. siječnja 2017. organiziran je novi sastanak belgijskih saveznih i regionalnih nadležnih tijela, od kojih su neka korisnici mjere, i Komisije.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE AND ITS CONTEXT
OPIS MJERE I OKOLNOSTI
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF PORTS IN BELGIUM
VLASNIŠTVO I OPOREZIVANJE LUKA U BELGIJI
In Belgium, the land occupied by ports is part of public property (domaine public/openbaar domein).
U Belgiji zemljište na kojemu se nalaze luke čini dio javnog dobra.
In the 1990s, the operation of the main Belgian ports was transferred to decentralised bodies.
Tijekom devedesetih godina 20. stoljeća upravljanje glavnim belgijskim lukama preneseno je na decentralizirana tijela.
Some ports are operated by autonomous municipal port authorities (such as the ports of Ghent, Ostend and Antwerp), while others are operated by legal persons under public law (such as the autonomous ports of the Centre and West, Liège, Charleroi and Namur) or by a limited liability company under public law for the port of Zeebrugge.
Određenim lukama upravljaju samostalne općinske lučke kapetanije gradova (to je slučaj, primjerice, kod luka gradova Gent, Oostende i Antwerpen); drugim lukama upravljaju javnopravne osobe (kao što su samostalne luke Centre i Ouest i luke gradova Liège, Charleroi i Namur) ili dionička društva, što je slučaj kod luke Zeebruges.
The ports are operated by port authorities, which are public entities.
Lukama upravljaju javna tijela, odnosno lučke uprave. 2.2. PRAVILA O POREZU NA DOBIT PRIMJENJIVA NA LUKE
On the other hand, resident legal persons other than ‘companies’ are subject to income tax in the form of a tax on legal persons [10].
Međutim, rezidentne pravne osobe koje nisu „društva” podliježu „porezu za pravne osobe” [10] (u daljnjem tekstu: porez za pravne osobe).
Article 2 of the CIR defines a ‘company’ as ‘any company, association, establishment or body of any kind, duly constituted, which has legal personality and engages in a business or transactions of a profit-making nature’.
Člankom 2. zakona CIR definicija „društva” glasi kako slijedi: „sva propisno osnovana društva, udruženja, ustanove ili organizacije koja imaju pravnu osobnost te ostvaruju profit od upravljanja ili poslovanja”.
Article 180(2) of the CIR provides that a certain number of Belgian ports are not subject to corporate tax [11].
Člankom 180. stavkom 2. zakona CIR utvrđeno je da određeni broj belgijskih luka ne podliježe porezu na dobit [11].
Article 220(2) of the CIR provides that legal persons who are not subject to corporate tax pursuant to Article 180 of the CIR are subject to the tax on legal persons [12].
Člankom 220. stavkom 2. zakona CIR predviđeno je da pravne osobe koje ne podliježu porezu na dobit u skladu s člankom 180. zakona CIR podliježu porezu za pravne osobe [12].
The tax on legal persons is not charged on the total amount of income or profits, but only certain types of income.
Porez za pravne osobe ne obuhvaća ukupan iznos dobiti ili profita, nego samo određene vrste dobiti.
Thus, in accordance with Article 221 of the CIR, for legal persons that are subject to this tax, tax is levied only on the cadastral income of property located in Belgium and the income and proceeds from investment capital and movable assets [13].
U skladu s člankom 221. zakona CIR pravne osobe koje podliježu porezu za pravne osobe podliježu oporezivanju isključivo zbog katastarskog prihoda od njihovih nekretnina koje se nalaze u Belgiji te prihoda i proizvoda kapitala i pokretnina [13].
In its letter of 8 July 2016, the Commission considered that the Belgian authorities had not accepted the timetable for the implementation of the appropriate measures indicated by the Commission in its letter of 21 January 2016 and that the Belgian Government apparently did not clearly accept even the principle of subjecting the ports to corporate tax or undertaking to abolish the tax exemption in favour of the Belgian ports.
Komisija je u dopisu od 8. srpnja 2016. ocijenila da belgijska nadležna tijela nisu prihvatila raspored provedbe odgovarajućih mjera koji je Komisija navela u svojem dopisu od 21. siječnja 2016. te da belgijska vlada niti je jasno prihvatila samo načelo oporezivanja luka porezom na dobit niti se obvezala na ukidanje oslobođenja od poreza na dobit za luke.
The Commission concluded from this that the Belgian authorities had not accepted the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission on 21 January 2016 unconditionally, unequivocally and in full.
Komisija je iz navedenoga zaključila da belgijska nadležna tijela nisu bezuvjetno i nedvosmisleno prihvatila sve odgovarajuće mjere koje je Komisija predložila 21. siječnja 2016.
Since the Commission still considered that the corporate tax exemption in favour of Belgian ports, where they engaged in economic activities, constituted an existing State aid scheme and since it had doubts about the compatibility of this aid scheme with the internal market, it decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Procedural Regulation.
Budući da je Komisija uvijek smatrala da oslobođenje od poreza na dobit odobreno belgijskim lukama uključenima u obavljanje gospodarskih djelatnosti čini postojeću državnu potporu te da nije imala sumnje u pogledu spojivosti tog sustava potpora s unutarnjim tržištem, odlučila je pokrenuti postupak predviđen člankom 108. stavkom 2. UFEU-a, na temelju članka 23. stavka 2. postupovne uredbe.
COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE INITIATION OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
PRIMJEDBE ZAPRIMLJENE NAKON POKRETANJA SLUŽBENOG ISTRAŽNOG POSTUPKA
UNDERTAKINGS/ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
PODUZETNICI/GOSPODARSKE DJELATNOSTI
The Belgian ports and Belgian authorities consider that ports are not ‘undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since their tasks, notably the administrative management of public and private property, are not of an economic nature.
Belgijske luke i belgijska nadležna tijela smatraju da luke nisu „poduzetnici” u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. UFEU-a jer njihove zadaće, među ostalim administrativno upravljanje javnim i privatnim dobrom, nisu gospodarske naravi.
They stress that these tasks are of general interest and are imposed on or delegated to them by the public authorities, which are free to define the scope of non-economic services of general interest.
Ističu da su te zadaće zadaće od općeg interesa te da ih lukama nameću ili dodjeljuju javna nadležna tijela, koja su slobodna definirati opseg negospodarskih usluga od općeg interesa.
They point out that the port authorities have special powers to carry out these tasks, are subject to the control of the authorities and do not have a profit-oriented objective, the surplus being reinvested in the port infrastructure and, in the case of some ports, paid to their shareholder municipality.
Napominju da lučke uprave raspolažu posebnim ovlastima za obavljanje tih zadaća, da podliježu nadzoru nadležnih tijela i da njihov cilj nije ostvarivanje dobiti s obzirom na to da se viškovi reinvestiraju u lučku infrastrukturu te se, u slučaju određenih luka, plaćaju općini koja je njihov dioničar.
The ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge and the Belgian authorities consider that the Court of Justice case-law on airports (case C-82/01 Aéroports de Paris [15]) is not applicable to ports, which are a different form of infrastructure.
Luke gradova Antwerpen i Zeebruges, kao i belgijska nadležna tijela, smatraju da se sudska praksa Suda Europske unije u području zračnih luka (predmet C-82/01 Aéroports de Pariz [15]) ne primjenjuje na luke jer one nisu ista vrsta infrastrukture.
They point out in particular that the monopoly of the ports results from administrative decentralisation in favour of a public-law entity which is not profit-oriented, whereas the management of the airports is entrusted to private persons under the exclusive concession of an economic activity with transfer of the economic operational risk.
Osobito napominju da monopol luka proizlazi iz administrativne decentralizacije u korist javnopravnog tijela koje ne nastoji ostvariti dobit, dok je upravljanje zračnim lukama prepušteno privatnim osobama u okviru ekskluzivne koncesije za gospodarsku djelatnost, uz prijenos operativnog gospodarskog rizika.
They also consider that the legal dispute examined by the Court of Justice in the Aéroports de Paris case did not relate to the supply of ‘infrastructure services’, so the analogy with the provision of the port infrastructure by the Belgian authorities is inappropriate.
Nadalje, smatraju da se spor o kojem je Sud Europske unije odlučivao u predmetu Aéroports de Pariz ne odnosi na pružanje „usluga povezanih s infrastrukturom”, zbog čega je analogija sa stavljanjem na raspolaganje lučkog dobra od strane belgijskih lučkih uprava neprikladna.
The majority of interested parties and the Belgian authorities dispute the economic nature of the activities mentioned by the Commission in the opening decision, in particular making the port infrastructure available to shipping and renting land and infrastructure to undertakings. They explain that the tariffs for land rental, infrastructure concessions and access to the port infrastructure (port charges) are public, non-discriminatory and fixed unilaterally in advance by the port authorities and are not determined by the interaction of supply and demand.
Većina zainteresiranih strana i belgijska nadležna tijela osporavaju gospodarsku narav djelatnosti koje je Komisija spomenula u odluci o pokretanju postupka, odnosno, među ostalim, stavljanje na raspolaganje lučke infrastrukture plovilima, najam zemljišta i infrastrukture poduzetnicima te objašnjavaju da su cijene najma zemljišta, koncesije za infrastrukturu i pristupa lučkoj infrastrukturi (lučke pristojbe) javne i nediskriminirajuće i da su ih prethodno jednostrano utvrdile lučke uprave te da nisu utvrđene na temelju odnosa ponude i potražnje.
They mention in particular a judgment by the Belgian Constitutional Court of 19 November 2015 [16] recognising that the port charges constitute ‘pure remuneration’, by third parties, for the intervention of the port authorities.
Osobito se pozivaju na presudu belgijskog Ustavnog suda od 19. studenoga 2015. [16] u kojoj je navedeno da su lučke pristojbe „čista naknada” od trećih osoba za intervenciju lučkih uprava.
They also refer to the Flemish Port Decree of 2 March 1999 on seaport policy and management [17] ( ‘Flemish Port Decree of 2 March 1999’), which provides that port charges must be set in ‘reasonable proportion’ to the value of the consideration received.
Jednako tako, pozivaju se na flamansku uredbu o lukama od 2. ožujka 1999. o politici i upravljanju morskim lukama [17] (u daljnjem tekstu: flamanska uredba o lukama od 2. ožujka 1999.), kojom je predviđeno da lučke pristojbe moraju biti utvrđene„razmjerno” vrijednosti naknade.
Moreover, they point out that the concession fees are proportionally lower for the sites generating higher added value, are based on objective parameters (relating to the sites concerned) and reflect the intrinsic value generated by the service provided.
Nadalje, navode da su naknade za koncesiju razmjerno niže za zemljišta koja stvaraju veću dodanu vrijednost, da se temelje na nepristranim parametrima (koji se odnose na predmetna zemljišta) te da odražavaju intrinzičnu vrijednost koja nastaje pružanjem usluge.
Likewise, the Walloon Region and the Walloon ports consider that the payment of charges for the use of the infrastructure does not necessarily point to the economic nature of the port activities, since the fact that these charges do not cover the reconstitution of the capital invested indicates that the port activities are services of general interest.
Jednako tako, Valonska regija i valonske luke smatraju da plaćanje naknade za upotrebu infrastrukture nije nužno pokazatelj gospodarske naravi djelatnosti luka te da je činjenica da naknade ne pokrivaju povrat uloženog kapitala pokazatelj da lučka djelatnost ima narav usluge od općeg interesa.
In their view, the principal economic activities which take place in the ports are carried out by concessionaires which take care of the handling (loading and unloading) of goods, while the port authorities have nothing at all to do with the commercial contracts concluded between concession-holding companies and shipowners.
Nadalje, smatraju da glavne gospodarske djelatnosti koje se provode u lukama obavljaju koncesionari koji pružaju usluge rukovanja (utovar i istovar) robom, pri čemu lučke uprave ni na koji način ne sudjeluju u komercijalnim ugovorima koje su zaključili koncesionari i brodovlasnici.
The ports are therefore not operated commercially by the port authorities but by the companies to which the infrastructure concession is granted and on which these companies must themselves construct the superstructures (cranes, warehouses) necessary for the handling services.
Prema tome, komercijalnu upotrebu luka ne provode lučke uprave, nego društva koja imaju koncesiju nad infrastrukturom, na kojoj ta društva sama moraju izgraditi nadgradnju (dizalice, hangare) potrebnu za usluge rukovanja.
They add that the port authorities must increasingly finance non-economic activities coming within the remit of the regions, and even activities unrelated to the operation of the port [18].
Dodaju da lučke uprave sve više moraju financirati negospodarske djelatnosti obuhvaćene ovlastima regija, odnosno djelatnosti koje nisu povezane s upotrebom luka [18].
They mention several Commission decisions and Court of Justice judgments which, in their view, establish that neither making available infrastructure open to all potential users on a fair and non-discriminatory basis, nor the management and operation of sites of a public authority with a view to the development of industrial and commercial activities for the private sector constitute economic activities.
Spominju nekoliko odluka Komisije i presuda Suda Europske unije kojima je, kako tvrde, utvrđeno da ni stavljanje na raspolaganje infrastrukture dostupne svim potencijalnim korisnicima na jednakoj i nediskriminirajućoj osnovi ni upravljanje i upotreba zemljišta javne zajednice u svrhu razvoja industrijskih i komercijalnih djelatnosti za privatni sektor ne čine gospodarske djelatnosti.
Finally, they consider that the economic activities of the ports, such as lifting (crane services) and towing, are entirely ancillary in nature.
Konačno, smatraju da su gospodarske djelatnosti luka kao što su podizanje (usluga dizalica) i tegljenje u potpunosti sporedne naravi.
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE GRANTED THROUGH STATE RESOURCES
GOSPODARSKA PREDNOST DODIJELJENA S POMOĆU DRŽAVNIH SREDSTAVA
The Flemish Port Commission considers that, since the port authorities increasingly have to finance non-economic infrastructures coming within the remit of the regions, the corporate tax exemption does not constitute an advantage.
Budući da lučke uprave u sve većoj mjeri moraju financirati negospodarsku infrastrukturu obuhvaćenu ovlastima regija, Flamanska lučka uprava smatra da oslobođenje od poreza na dobit nije prednost.
The Port of Rotterdam points out that the ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ghent have a real tax rate below 1 % of accounting profit.
Luka grada Rotterdama navodi da luke gradova Antwerpen, Zeebruges i Gent imaju stvarnu poreznu stopu manju od 1 % računovodstvene dobiti.
The Belgian authorities maintain that, since the ports pay the tax on legal persons, the condition that the advantage must be granted from State resources is not met.
Belgijska nadležna tijela tvrde da, s obzirom na to da luke plaćaju porez za pravne osobe, nije ispunjen uvjet prema kojem prednost mora biti dodijeljena državnim sredstvima.
Most of the interested parties and the Belgian authorities consider that the reference system with regard to the taxation of legal persons is not corporate tax (as stated in the opening decision), but Article 1 of the CIR, which establishes two taxation systems in parallel for resident legal persons (corporate tax and tax on legal persons) according to the criteria defined in Article 2 of the CIR (activity of the legal person consisting, or not, in a ‘business’ or ‘operations of a profit-making nature’).
Većina zainteresiranih strana i belgijska nadležna tijela smatraju da referentni sustav u području oporezivanja javnih osoba nije porez na dobit (kako je navedeno u odluci o pokretanju postupka), nego članak 1. zakona CIR, u kojim su paralelno utvrđena dva sustava oporezivanja za rezidentne pravne osobe (porez na dobit i porez za pravne osobe) s obzirom na kriterije utvrđene člankom 2. zakona CIR (je li djelatnost pravne osobe „upravljanje” ili „poslovanje koje ostvaruje profit”).
They add that Article 180 of the CIR, which provides that the ports are not subject to corporate tax, merely clarifies and applies Article 1 of the CIR.
Dodaje da se člankom 180. zakona CIR, kojim je predviđeno da luke ne podliježu porezu na dobit, tek pojašnjava i primjenjuje članak 1. zakona CIR.
Certain interested parties and the Belgian authorities also consider that the tax on legal persons is the reference system for the ports, which are not ‘companies’ within the meaning of Article 2 of the CIR, and that Article 180(2) of the CIR does not derogate from the general rules for the taxation of legal persons, but merely applies these general rules.
Jednako tako, određene zainteresirane strane i belgijska nadležna tijela smatraju da je porez za pravne osobe referentni sustav za luke koje nisu „društva” u smislu članka 2. zakona CIR jer se člankom 180. stavkom 2. ne dovode u pitanje opća pravila oporezivanja pravnih osoba, nego se tek primjenjuju ta opća pravila.
They therefore maintain that, even if Article 180(2) were deleted, the ports would not necessarily be subject to corporate tax since the administration would have to examine their situation individually in the light of the general criteria of Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR and, since the ports are not ‘companies’ within the meaning of Article 2 of the CIR, they would not be subject to corporate tax.
Prema tome, tvrde da, čak i kad bi članak 180. stavak 2. bio izbrisan, luke ne bi nužno podlijegale porezu na dobit jer bi uprava morala pojedinačno ispitati njihov status u pogledu općih kriterija iz članaka 1. i 2. zakona CIR te da, s obzirom na činjenicu da luke nisu „društva” u smislu članka 2. zakona CIR, ne bi podlijegale porezu na dobit.
The Walloon Region and the Walloon ports add that this duality (existence of two systems for the taxation of income: corporate tax and tax on legal persons) is essential and inherent in the income tax system and derives from the Belgian Constitution.
Valonska regija i valonske luke dodaju da je ta dvojnost (postojanje dvaju sustava oporezivanja dobiti, odnosno poreza na dobit i poreza za pravne osobe) suštinska i svojstvena sustavu oporezivanja dobiti te da proizlazi iz belgijskog ustava.
Moreover, in their view, the Belgian Constitution does not require the legislator to subject certain activities to tax and, for the public administrations by definition (the State, communities, regions, provinces and municipalities), the public and private property assigned to a public service is exempt from taxation by virtue of a generally accepted principle of law.
Nadalje, belgijskim ustavom zakonodavcu nije propisano da oporezuje određene djelatnosti, dok su, za upravna tijela koja su javne naravi (država, zajednice, regije, pokrajine i općine), javna i privatna dobra namijenjena javnoj usluzi izuzeta iz oporezivanja na temelju općeg načela prava.
The Belgian authorities also point out that, according to the case-law of the national courts, public services, tasks and goods are not taxed unless expressly provided for by law.
Nadalje, belgijska nadležna tijela navode da, u skladu sa sudskom praksom nacionalnih sudova usluge, zadaće i javna dobra nisu nametnuti, osim ako je tako izričito predviđeno zakonom.
For the port authorities of Antwerp and Zeebrugge and the Belgian authorities, entities which, like the ports, do not distribute their profit but reinvest it or which pursue an objective beyond their own interests are subject to the tax on legal persons, which is in keeping with the logic of the system.
Lučke uprave luka gradova Antwerpen i Zeebruges, kao i belgijska nadležna tijela, smatraju da subjekti, kao što su to luke, a koji ne distribuiraju dobit, nego je reinvestiraju ili nastoje ostvariti cilj koji premašuje njihov interes, podliježu porezu za pravne osobe, što odgovara logici sustava.
They also maintain that they are in a different situation from that of other undertakings subject to corporate tax.
Jednako tako, tvrde da se nalaze u drugačijoj situaciji nego što je to slučaj s ostalim poduzetnicima koji podliježu porezu na dobit.
Although enjoying a certain autonomy and notwithstanding the possible existence of economic activities, the port authorities are public authorities and carry out tasks of general interest, on a non-profit basis, in accordance with their statutes.
Unatoč činjenici da uživaju određenu samostalnost i ne dovodeći u pitanje moguće postojanje gospodarskih djelatnosti, lučke uprave čine dio tijela javne vlasti i jamče obavljanje zadaća od općeg interesa te su neprofitne, kako proizlazi iz njihovih statuta.
They do not use industrial or commercial methods and their actions are not guided by short-term returns on investments.
Ne upotrebljavaju industrijske i komercijalne metode, a svrha njihova postupanja nije kratkoročni povrat ulaganja.
The concession fees and port charges do not always cover the costs they incur.
Naknade za koncesiju i lučke pristojbe ne pokrivaju uvijek njihove troškove.
They carry out public service tasks, the net cost of which would not be deductible from the corporate tax base pursuant to Article 49 of the CIR. If this net cost were subject to corporate tax, this would lead to discrimination in relation to other undertakings and to a reduction in the investment capacity of the ports.
Obavljaju zadaće javne usluge čiji se neto trošak ne može odbiti od osnovice poreza na dobit u skladu s člankom 49. zakona CIR, što bi, u slučaju oporezivanja porezom na dobit, činilo diskriminaciju u odnosu na ostale poduzetnike i smanjenje ulagačkih sposobnosti luka.
The Belgian authorities point out that, in a judgment of 1 December 2016 [19], the Belgian Constitutional Court confirmed the choice of the legislator to exempt the ports from corporate tax.
Belgijska nadležna tijela navode da je belgijski Ustavni sud u presudi od 1. prosinca 2016. [19], potvrdio izbor zakonodavca da oslobodi luke poreza na dobit.
The Flemish Port Commission maintains that, in other Member States, and in particular the Netherlands, the same port activities are financed by the public authorities, so the conditions of competition are not distorted.
Flamanska lučka uprava tvrdi da u ostalim državama članicama, osobito Nizozemskoj, djelatnosti luka financiraju javna nadležna tijela, tako da uvjeti tržišnog natjecanja nisu pristrani.