natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, at the end of that procedure, the Commission's analysis may have changed, which implies that the final decision may differ somewhat from the opening decision, without those differences affecting the legality of the final decision [356].
Ta se gospodarska jedinica tada smatra predmetnim poduzetnikom koji je ostvario korist od mjere potpore.
It is as a consequence of the extensive written submissions that were provided by Ireland and Apple on the State aid concerns raised by the Commission in the Opening Decision that the Commission's analysis further developed in this case.
Kao što je Sud prije smatrao, „[p]ojam poduzetnika u kontekstu prava tržišnog natjecanja mora se razumjeti kao pojam kojim se označava gospodarska jedinica, […] čak i ako, s pravnoga gledišta, tu gospodarsku jedinicu čini nekoliko fizičkih ili pravnih osoba” [347].
In response to a request by Ireland to further clarify its State aid assessment in light of those elements and in light of the allegation made by Ireland that the Commission's assessment appeared to be based on a misapprehension by the Commission as to the applicable national law, the Commission's services sent the letter of 17 April 2015 to Ireland in the interest of transparency, which the latter transmitted to Apple.
Kako bi utvrdio čini li više subjekata jednu gospodarsku jedinicu, Sud razmatra postojanje kontrolnog udjela ili funkcionalnih, gospodarskih ili organskih poveznica [348].
However, since the adoption of the Opening Decision the subject matter of the Commission's State aid investigation has never changed (the profit allocation methods endorsed by the contested tax rulings), nor has its principal doubts as to the compliance of the contested measures with the State aid rules (whether those methods produced a taxable profit for ASI and AOE that complies with the arm's length principle).
U ovom predmetu ASI i AOE u konačnici su u stopostotnom vlasništvu društva Apple Inc.
In any event, since the letter of 17 April 2015, Ireland has been given ample opportunity to make its views known to the Commission on the position expressed in that letter and it has effectively made use of that opportunity on multiple occasions, both in writing and orally [357].
[349], a većina članova upravnih odbora ASI-ja i AOE-a zaposlenici su društva Apple Inc.
As regards Apple, the Commission recalls that, as an interested party, it only has the right to submit observations in response to the Opening Decision.
[350] tako da se može reći da Apple Inc. kao subjekt koji nadzire grupu Apple nadzire i ASI i AOE putem funkcionalnih, gospodarskih i organskih poveznica.
Nevertheless, Apple was given and has effectively made use of the opportunity to submit its observations to the Commission on numerous occasions, both in writing and orally, since the letter of 17 April 2015 was transmitted to it [358].
Štoviše, grupa Apple donijela je odluku o osnivanju ASI-ja i AOE-a u Irskoj i grupa Apple odlučila je o strukturi na temelju koje će se ASI i AOE osnovati u Irskoj te da će se prisutnost tih društava u Irskoj za svako od njih ograničiti na jednu podružnicu.
Consequently, the Commission considers that Ireland's and Apple's procedural rights have been respected in this case.
Stoga grupa Apple u cjelini ima koristi od državne potpore koju je Irska dodijelila ASI-ju i AOE-u putem spornih poreznih rješenja jer svaki povlašteni porezni tretman koji irska porezna uprava pruži ASI-ju i AOE-u u konačnici ide u korist grupi Apple u cjelini oslobađanjem dodatnih financijskih resursa koji se mogu upotrijebiti u korist cijele grupe društava.
RECOVERY
Zaključno, neovisno o činjenici da je grupa Apple organizirana u različite pravne osobe tu bi grupu ipak trebalo smatrati jedinstvenom gospodarskom jedinicom koja ima koristi od državne potpore koju je Irska dodijelila putem spornih poreznih rješenja [351].
THE RECOVERY OBLIGATION
SPOJIVOST SPORNIH MJERA
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 establishes an obligation on the Commission to order recovery of unlawful and incompatible aid.
Državna potpora smatra se spojivom s unutarnjim tržištem ako je obuhvaćena bilo kojom od kategorija navedenih u članku 107. stavku 2.
That provision also provides that the Member State concerned must take all necessary measures to recover unlawful aid that is found to be incompatible with the internal market.
Ugovora [352] i može se smatrati spojivom s unutarnjim tržištem ako Komisija utvrdi da je obuhvaćena bilo kojom od kategorija navedenih u članku 107. stavku 3.
Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 establishes that the aid is to be recovered, including interest from the date on which the unlawful aid was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its effective recovery.
Ugovora [353].
Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [359] sets out the methods to be used for the calculation of recovery interest.
Međutim, država članica koja je dodijelila potporu snosi teret dokazivanja da je državna potpora koju je dodijelila spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 2. ili 3.
Finally, Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 states, that ‘recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures under the national law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Commission's decision’.
Ugovora [354].
NEW AID
Irska se nije pozvala ni na jedan od razloga za utvrđivanje spojivosti iz bilo koje od tih odredaba u pogledu državne potpore koju je dodijelila putem spornih poreznih rješenja.
According to Article 1(c) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 ‘‘new aid’ means all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’.
Štoviše, kako je navedeno u uvodnim izjavama (222) i (415), trebalo bi smatrati da se spornim poreznim rješenjima dodjeljuje operativna potpora ASI-ju, AOE-u i grupi Apple kao cjelini.
In accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, the power of the Commission to recover aid is subject to a limitation period of 10 years.
Konkretno, potpore te vrste ne mogu se obično smatrati spojivima s unutarnjim tržištem u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 3. točkom (c) Ugovora, s obzirom na to da se njima ne olakšava razvoj određenih djelatnosti ili određenih gospodarskih područja te da predmetni porezni poticaji nisu vremenski ograničeni, degresivni ili razmjerni onome što je potrebno za ublažavanje određene nepovoljne gospodarske situacije u predmetnim područjima.
The limitation period begins on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as aid under an aid scheme.
S obzirom na navedeno, državna potpora koju je Irska dodijelila spornim poreznim rješenjima nije spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem.
Any action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid interrupts the limitation period.
NEZAKONITOST POTPORE
Each interruption starts time running afresh.
U skladu s člankom 108. stavkom 3.
The limitation period is suspended for as long as the decision of the Commission is the subject of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice.
Ugovora, države članice dužne su obavijestiti Komisiju o svim planovima za dodjelu potpora (obveza prijave) i ne smiju primijeniti predložene mjere potpore dok Komisija ne donese konačnu odluku o predmetnoj potpori (obveza mirovanja).
Finally, any aid with regard to which the limitation period has expired is deemed to be existing aid.
Obveza prijave ponavlja se u članku 2.
The 1991 tax ruling was issued more than 10 years ago.
Uredbe Vijeća (EU) 2015/1589 [355], a obveza mirovanja u članku 3. te uredbe.
In the present case, the limitation period laid down by Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 was interrupted on 12 June 2013, the date on which the Commission sent a letter to Ireland requesting that it provide the Commission with information on its tax ruling practice and, in particular, information on any rulings granted by Ireland in favour of AOI, ASI and AOE.
U članku 1. točki (f) te uredbe nova potpora čija je primjena u suprotnosti s člankom 108. stavkom 3.
This means that any aid granted under the 1991 tax ruling before 12 June 2003 must be deemed to be ‘existing’ aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(iv) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.
Ugovora definirana je kao nezakonita potpora.
By contrast, any aid granted after that date, either under the 1991 tax ruling or under the 2007 tax ruling, constitutes ‘new’ aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.
Komisija napominje da Irska nije obavijestila Komisiju da namjerava izdati sporna porezna rješenja niti je poštovala obvezu mirovanja.
Ireland argues that any aid granted in this case could only be existing aid, since it arises from Irish Revenue's failure to apply the arm's length principle, which was not applicable in Ireland when it joined the Union on 1 January 1973, and has not been applicable at any time since.
Stoga u skladu s člankom 1. točkom (f) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 sporna porezna rješenja čine nezakonitu potporu čija je primjena u suprotnosti s člankom 108. stavkom 3.
According to Ireland, Section 25 TCA 97 merely replicates Section 201 of the Income Tax Act 1967, which was in force at the time Ireland acceded to the Union, and neither provision refers to the arm's length principle or the OECD framework.
Ugovora.
Thus, given that the legal basis for profit allocation to an Irish branch has not substantially changed since Ireland acceded to the Union, the measure, if it amounts to State aid, constitutes existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 [361].
NAVODNE NEPRAVILNOSTI U POSTUPKU
That argument cannot be accepted, since the aid granted in this case is individual aid granted to ASI, AOE and the Apple group in the form of the contested tax rulings, which endorse profit allocation methods that grant ASI and AOE a reduction of their taxable base for Irish corporation tax purposes, and not, as Ireland seems to claim, an aid scheme based on Section 25 TCA 97 and Section 201 of the Income Tax Act 1967.
Irska i Apple tvrde da je Komisija povrijedila njihovo pravo na saslušanje jer se istražni postupak Komisije navodno preusmjerio od donošenja odluke o pokretanju postupka, kako je dokazano dopisom od 17. travnja 2015., i navodno nisu dobili priliku da na odgovarajući način iznesu svoje stavove u pogledu stajališta koja je Komisija izrazila u tom dopisu.
Put differently, the aid measure granting the aid is the contested tax rulings as applied by ASI and AOE on a yearly basis to determine those companies' taxable profit for Irish corporation tax purposes and, on the basis of that determination, their yearly corporation tax liability.
Irska i Apple stoga tvrde da je Komisija trebala proširiti odluku o pokretanju postupka ili donijeti novu odluku o pokretanju službenog istražnog postupka u kojoj se utvrđuje navodni novi smjer istražnog postupka.
In other words, the aid granted by those rulings is granted annually, at the moment when the corporation tax has to be paid by ASI and AOE and those companies rely on the profit allocation methods endorsed by those rulings to calculate the amount of tax due.
Komisija smatra da su se postupovna prava Irske i društva Apple u potpunosti poštovala u ovom predmetu.
The aid granted to ASI, AOE and the Apple group by way of the contested tax rulings therefore constitutes new aid, granted annually [362].
Komisija najprije i u prvom redu napominje da je područje primjene Komisijina istražnog postupka u pogledu državne potpore ostalo isto između odluke o pokretanju postupka i donošenja ove Odluke.
LEGAL CERTAINTY AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS
Obje odluke odnose se na iste mjere (porezna rješenja iz 1991. i 2007. koja je izdala irska porezna uprava), iste korisnike (ASI, AOE i grupu Apple) i ista pitanja o državnoj potpori (proizlazi li iz metoda raspodjele dobiti odobrenih tim rješenjima odgovarajuća raspodjela dobiti na irske podružnice ASI-ja i AOE-a ili na temelju njih nastaje selektivna prednost za ta društva tako što im se omogućuje da određuju svoju oporezivu dobit na način koji odstupa od rezultata u skladu s tržišnim uvjetima).
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 provides that the Commission must not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of law.
U odluci o pokretanju postupka Komisija je izrazila svoje početne sumnje o usklađenosti metoda raspodjele dobiti odobrenih spornim poreznim rješenjima s pravilima o državnim potporama, posebno s načelom poslovanja po tržišnim uvjetima kako proizlazi iz članka 107. stavka 1.
Both Ireland and Apple raise the argument that by opening the formal investigation procedure and calling into doubt, 22 years later, the State aid compliance of the two tax rulings, the Commission has violated the principle of legal certainty.
Ugovora.
According to Ireland, State aid rules must be predictable and the Commission is not entitled to develop Union law by extending the boundaries of those rules in a novel way or by reference to international developments like the OECD framework [363].
Svrha je faze detaljne istrage nakon odluke o pokretanju postupka Komisiju upozoriti na dodatne činjenične i pravne elemente.
By applying the arm's length principle and the OECD framework, in particular the OECD guidance of 2010, the Commission is retrospectively imposing an external reference framework that was not part of Irish domestic law at the time [364].
Tim se elementima mogu dodatno razviti ili riješiti početne dvojbe Komisije navedene u odluci o pokretanju postupka.
Finally, Ireland argues that the Commission's retroactive application of today's principles means that Ireland is being held to a standard that it (and Apple) could not have anticipated when the rulings were issued [365].
U skladu s tim, na kraju tog postupka analiza Komisije može se promijeniti, što znači da se konačna odluka može u određenoj mjeri razlikovati od odluke o pokretanju postupka, a da te razlike ne utječu na zakonitost konačne odluke [356].
According to the case-law, the fundamental principle of legal certainty has the effect of preventing the Commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its powers [366].
Komisijina analiza dodatno se razvila u ovom predmetu kao posljedica opširnih pisanih podnesaka koje su dostavili Irska i Apple u pogledu pitanja o državnim potporama koja je Komisija navela u odluci o pokretanju postupka.
However, for the principle of legal certainty to apply, there has to have been a prolonged lack of action on the part of the Commission from the moment that it became aware of the aid and a situation of uncertainty.
Kao odgovor na zahtjev Irske da Komisija dodatno pojasni svoju ocjenu državne potpore s obzirom na te elemente i s obzirom na tvrdnju Irske da se čini da se ocjena Komisije temeljila na zabludi Komisije u pogledu primjenjivog nacionalnog prava službe Komisije poslale su Irskoj dopis od 17. travnja 2015. u svrhu transparentnosti, a Irska je dopis proslijedila društvu Apple.
A long lapse of time as such is insufficient to claim legal certainty and a delay can be imputed to the Commission only from the time when it learnt of the existence of the aid.
Međutim, od donošenja odluke o pokretanju postupka predmet Komisijina istražnog postupka u pogledu državne potpore nije se promijenio (metoda raspodjele dobiti odobrena spornim poreznim rješenjima) niti su se promijenile Komisijine osnovne dvojbe o usklađenosti spornih mjera s pravilima o državnim potporama (je li na temelju tih metoda nastala oporeziva dobit za ASI i AOE koja je u skladu s načelom poslovanja po tržišnim uvjetima).
In this case, since the contested tax rulings were never notified to the Commission by Ireland, nor otherwise publicly available, the Commission could only have learnt of the existence of those rulings when their existence was publicly disclosed, which happened for the first time during hearings of the US Senate.
U svakom slučaju, nakon dopisa od 17. travnja 2015.
Those hearings took place on 21 May 2013, following which the Commission sent a request for information to Ireland on 12 June 2013.
Irska je imala dovoljno prilika da obavijesti Komisiju o svojim stavovima u pogledu stajališta navedenog u tom dopisu i stvarno je iskoristila tu mogućnost u brojnim prilikama, pisanim i usmenim putem [357].
The Commission can therefore not be accused of having infringed the principle of legal certainty due to prolonged lack of action since, from the moment that the Commission could have become aware of the rulings (21 May 2013), it took action within less than a month (12 June 2013).
Kad je riječ o društvu Apple Komisija podsjeća na to da, kao zainteresirana osoba, ima pravo samo dostavljati očitovanja kao odgovor na odluku o pokretanju postupka.
As regards Ireland's argument that the principle of legal certainty has been breached because the Commission is acting against its decisional practice that the only valid reference point is the national tax system, the Commission recalls that the reference system against which it assesses the existence of a selective advantage in this case is the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Ireland.
Međutim, Apple je dobio i stvarno iskoristio brojne prilike da dostavi svoja očitovanja Komisiji, pisanim i usmenim putem, otkad mu je proslijeđen dopis od 17. travnja 2015.
It further recalls that, while the Member States enjoy fiscal autonomy in the field of direct taxation, any fiscal measure a Member State adopts must comply with the Union State aid rules, which bind the Member States and enjoy primacy over their domestic legislation [367].
[358]
In that regard, the Commission recalls that Article 107(1) of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, [368] prohibits a fiscal measure which allows an integrated company to determine its taxable profit in a manner that does not reflect a profit which would arise in conditions of free competition, that is to say on the basis of prices negotiated by independent undertakings negotiating under comparable circumstances at arm's length.
S obzirom na navedeno Komisija smatra da je poštovala postupovna prava Irske i društva Apple u ovom predmetu.
In adopting this Decision, the Commission is applying Article 107(1) of the Treaty to the contested tax rulings, which the Commission has found to produce an outcome that deviates from the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Ireland in that they allow ASI and AOE to determine their taxable profit in a manner that does not reflect an arm's length profit.
POVRAT
As regards Ireland's argument that the Commission is imposing international standards and applying guidance from 2010 to rulings issued before that date, the Commission recalls that its conclusion in this Decision is based on an infringement of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, which has been a part of Ireland's legal order since 1973, and not the OECD framework.
OBVEZA POVRATA
To the extent the Commission refers to the OECD framework in this Decision, it does so because that framework provides value guidance on whether a method for determining the taxable profit of a branch produces a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle, since it is the result of expert discussions in the context of the OECD and it elaborates on techniques aimed to address common challenges in international taxation.
Člankom 16. stavkom 1.
Finally, in response to the Joint Submission signed by several trade associations, Ireland raised the principle of legitimate expectations as barring recovery in this case.
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 utvrđuje se obveza Komisije da zahtijeva povrat nezakonite i nespojive potpore.
It also referred to the France Télécom decision [369] in its observations when arguing that the amount of the aid granted by the contested tax rulings would be difficult to quantify in this case [370].
Tom odredbom predviđeno je i da predmetna država članica mora poduzeti sve potrebne mjere za povrat nezakonite potpore za koju je utvrđeno da nije spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem.
However, a Member State whose authorities have granted aid in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty may not plead the legitimate expectations of a recipient to justify a failure to comply with the obligation to take the steps necessary to implement a Commission decision instructing it to recover the aid.
Člankom 16. stavkom 2.
If it were allowed to do so, Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty would be deprived of all practical force, since national authorities would be able to rely on their own unlawful conduct to render decisions taken by the Commission under those provisions of the Treaty ineffective [371].
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 utvrđeno je da iznos potpore koji se treba vratiti uključuje i kamatu koja se naplaćuje počevši od dana kada je nezakonita potpora stavljena na raspolaganje korisniku do dana povrata njezina iznosa.
Thus, it is not for the Member State concerned, but for the recipient undertaking, to invoke the existence of exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had entertained legitimate expectations, leading it to decline to repay the unlawful aid [372].
U Uredbi Komisije (EZ) br. 794/2004 [359] navedene su metode za izračun kamate na povrat.
Since Apple did not invoke that principle in any of its observations submitted to the Commission, Ireland's reliance on legitimate expectations is for that reason alone unfounded.
Naposljetku, u članku 16. stavku 3.
In any event, where aid is implemented without prior notification to the Commission, the recipient of the aid cannot, in the absence of special circumstances, have a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful [373].
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 navedeno je da se „povrat potpore izvršava […] bez odgađanja i u skladu s postupcima predviđenim nacionalnim pravom dotične države članice, pod uvjetom da isti omogućavaju neposredno i stvarno izvršenje odluke Komisije”.
Neither Ireland, nor the Joint Statement demonstrate that the Commission has ever given a precise assurance that the contested tax rulings complied with the State aid rules, or that Article 107(1) of the Treaty does not apply to tax rulings or any similar fiscal measure that endorses a method that allows an integrated company to determine its taxable profit.
U skladu s člankom 1. točkom (c) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 „‚nova potpora’ znači svaka potpora, to jest programi potpora i pojedinačna potpora koje ne predstavljaju postojeću potporu, uključujući i izmjene postojećih potpora”.
Quite the contrary, the Commission identified tax rulings as fiscal measures capable of giving rise to State aid in its 1998 Notice on the Application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation [376] and it has applied the State aid rules to fiscal measures enabling integrated companies to determine their taxable profit in a series of decisions since then [377].
U skladu s člankom 17.
There is therefore no basis for Ireland to invoke the principle of legitimate expectations to prevent recovery.
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 ovlast Komisije u pogledu povrata potpore podliježe roku zastare od deset godina.
As regards the alleged difficulty in quantifying the aid amount, this case deals with the relatively straightforward situation where a fiscal measure grants its beneficiary a reduction in its taxable base and thus its corporation tax liability.
Rok zastare počinje danom kada je nezakonita potpora dodijeljena korisniku, bilo kao pojedinačna potpora ili u okviru programa potpora.
The Commission can identify no difficulty in determining the amount to be recovered in such a situation, and does not see any parallels to the aid measure identified in the France Telecom decision, which concerned a situation where aid was granted on the basis of a public pronouncement by a government minister having the effect of increasing that company's creditworthiness on the market.
Rok zastare prekida se bilo kojom radnjom koju Komisija ili neka država članica, djelujući na zahtjev Komisije, poduzme u vezi s nezakonitom potporom.
METHOD FOR RECOVERY
Nakon svakog prekida rok zastare počinje se računati iznova.