natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
UFEU-a, na temelju članka 23. stavka 2. postupovne uredbe.
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.
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.
UFEU-a jer njihove zadaće, među ostalim administrativno upravljanje javnim i privatnim dobrom, nisu gospodarske naravi.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[16] u kojoj je navedeno da su lučke pristojbe „čista naknada” od trećih osoba za intervenciju lučkih uprava.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].
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 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.
Dodaju da lučke uprave sve više moraju financirati negospodarske djelatnosti obuhvaćene ovlastima regija, odnosno djelatnosti koje nisu povezane s upotrebom luka [18].
Finally, they consider that the economic activities of the ports, such as lifting (crane services) and towing, are entirely ancillary in nature.
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.
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE GRANTED THROUGH STATE RESOURCES
Konačno, smatraju da su gospodarske djelatnosti luka kao što su podizanje (usluga dizalica) i tegljenje u potpunosti sporedne naravi.
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.
GOSPODARSKA PREDNOST DODIJELJENA S POMOĆU DRŽAVNIH SREDSTAVA
The Port of Rotterdam points out that the ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ghent have a real tax rate below 1 % of accounting profit.
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 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.
Luka grada Rotterdama navodi da luke gradova Antwerpen, Zeebruges i Gent imaju stvarnu poreznu stopu manju od 1 % računovodstvene dobiti.
SELECTIVITY
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’).
SELEKTIVNOST
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.
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”).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
They also maintain that they are in a different situation from that of other undertakings subject to corporate tax.
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.
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.
Jednako tako, tvrde da se nalaze u drugačijoj situaciji nego što je to slučaj s ostalim poduzetnicima koji podliježu porezu na dobit.
They do not use industrial or commercial methods and their actions are not guided by short-term returns on investments.
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.
The concession fees and port charges do not always cover the costs they incur.
Ne upotrebljavaju industrijske i komercijalne metode, a svrha njihova postupanja nije kratkoročni povrat ulaganja.
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.
Naknade za koncesiju i lučke pristojbe ne pokrivaju uvijek njihove troškove.
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.
DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE
[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.
NARUŠAVANJE TRŽIŠNOG NATJECANJA I UTJECAJ NA TRGOVINU
The port authorities of Antwerp and Zeebrugge, referring to paragraph 188 of the Commission Notice on the notion of State aid [20] (‘the Notice of 19 July 2016’), explain that each port has a legal monopoly over its port area, with this monopoly excluding not only ‘competition on the market, but also for the market’.
Flamanska lučka uprava tvrdi da u ostalim državama članicama, osobito Nizozemskoj, djelatnosti luka financiraju javna nadležna tijela, tako da uvjeti tržišnog natjecanja nisu pristrani.
They conclude from this that the measure does not introduce any distortion of competition.
Pozivajući se na točku 188.
They also mention an opinion by the Dutch competition authority [21], according to which the Port of Rotterdam is not in competition with the operators of other ports since the port charges represent only a limited fraction of the transport costs of the shipowners, so that increasing or decreasing these tariffs would have no impact on port traffic.
Obavijesti Komisije o pojmu državne potpore [20] (u daljnjem tekstu: Obavijest od 19. srpnja 2016.), lučke uprave gradova Antwerpen i Zeebruges navode da svaka luka ima pravni monopol nad svojim lučkim područjem, kojim se istodobno ne isključuje samo „tržišno natjecanje na tržištu nego i za tržište”.
They indicate that, according to the Notice of 19 July 2016, in a network infrastructure different elements of the network complement each other, instead of competing with one another (paragraph 211 and footnote 311), which rules out a distortion of competition.
Iz navedenoga zaključuju da mjera ne prouzročuje narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja.
They point out that, in this Notice, the Commission applies this principle to the construction of railway infrastructure (paragraph 219) and the construction of road infrastructure, including toll-roads (paragraph 220), but they consider that it also applies to ports.
Nadalje, spominju mišljenje nizozemske agencije za tržišno natjecanje [21], prema kojem luka grada Rotterdama ne sudjeluje u tržišnom natjecanju s operaterima drugih luka jer lučke pristojbe čine tek ograničeni dio troškova prijevoza brodovlasnika, zbog čega povećanje ili smanjivanje tih pristojbi ne bi utjecalo na lučki promet.
The Walloon Region and the Walloon ports note in particular that the inland ports exempt from corporate tax are not in competition with other private inland ports making the same infrastructure accessible to the public.
Navode da se, u skladu s Obaviješću od 19. srpnja 2016., u mrežnim infrastrukturama različiti elementi mreže nadopunjuju, a ne natječu jedan s drugim (t. 211. i bilješka na stranici 311.), zbog čega je tržišno natjecanje isključeno.
The Federal authorities add that the inland ports, which are small, are complementary to the other ports and are in competition only with road transport.
Primjećuju da Komisija u toj obavijesti primjenjuje to načelo na izgradnju željezničke infrastrukture (t. 219.) te na izgradnju cestovne infrastrukture, uključujući ceste s naplatom cestarine (t.
The Port of Rotterdam points out that the Dutch public ports are in competition in particular with the ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ghent.
220.), ali smatraju da se ono primjenjuje i na luke.
COMPATIBILITY
Valonska regija i valonske luke osobito napominju da se luke unutarnjih plovnih putova koje su oslobođene poreza na dobit ne natječu s drugim unutarnjim privatnim lukama koje stavljaju na raspolaganje istu infrastrukturu dostupnu javnosti.
The Walloon Region and the Walloon ports consider that Article 106(2) TFEU constitutes an appropriate basis for the compatibility of the measure: the ports have a clear legal mandate and the ports undeniably meet all the conditions laid down by that Article.
Savezna nadležna tijela dodaju da se luke unutarnjih plovnih putova koje su male veličine nadopunjuju s ostalim lukama te da se natječu samo s cestovnim prometom.
They stress that compatibility in terms of Article 93 TFEU, which does not make the absence of an effect on trade a condition of its application, must be evaluated extensively.
Luka grada Rotterdama napominje da se nizozemske javne luke osobito natječu s lukama gradova Antwerpena, Zeebrugesa i Genta.
The port authorities of Antwerp and Zeebrugge consider that the Commission's response to the arguments presented concerning the compatibility of the measure is insufficiently reasoned.
SPOJIVOST
They add that Article 93 TFEU could be used as a basis for the compatibility of the measure, since the ports have to finance infrastructure contributing to the trans-European transport networks.
Valonska regija i valonske luke smatraju da je članak 106. stavak 2.
NEED FOR A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD
UFEU-a dostatan temelj za spojivost mjere: luke imaju jasan zakonski mandat i ne može se tvrditi da ne ispunjavaju sve uvjete predviđene tim člankom.
The Belgian authorities ask the Commission for a transitional period with respect to subjecting the ports to corporate tax.
Ističu da valja opsežno ocijeniti spojivost u pogledu članka 93.
They stress that the time limit provided for in the opening decision of 8 July 2016 (subjecting the ports to corporate tax from 1 January 2017) is too short, especially in relation to the time limit allowed the Netherlands in the context of case SA.25338.
UFEU-a, koji u tim uvjetima primjene ne uključuje nepostojanje učinka na trgovinu.
They emphasise that the deletion of Article 180(2) CIR would involve a legislative procedure lasting ‘generally speaking, at least three to six months’.
Lučke uprave gradova Antwerpen i Zeebruges smatraju da je Komisija nedovoljno argumentirano odgovorila na argumente iznesene u pogledu spojivosti mjere.
In their view, legislative amendments which are far more complex than merely deleting Article 180(2) are required, since (i) this deletion would not necessarily result in the ports being made subject to corporate tax, (ii) the preparation of a new tax regime for the ports must take account of the constitutional principle of equality and (iii) the transition by a legal person from the tax on legal persons to corporate tax is not explicitly regulated in Belgian tax law.
Dodaju da se članak 93.
They add that the Commission, in the case of expiry of an aid scheme presumed to be existing, must respect a Member State's legitimate interests in ensuring legal certainty for beneficiaries.
UFEU-a može upotrijebiti kao temelj za spojivost mjere jer luke moraju financirati infrastrukturu koja pridonosi transeuropskim prometnim mrežama.