natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
98 Article 43 EC has accordingly no bearing on the application of national legislation such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings to a situation in which a resident company is granted a loan by a company which is resident in another Member State and which does not itself have a controlling shareholding in the borrowing company and where each of those companies is directly or indirectly controlled by a common parent company which is resident, for its part, in a non-member country.
98 Stoga članak 43. UEZ-a nema utjecaja na primjenu nacionalnog zakonodavstva kao što je ono o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku na situaciju u kojoj rezidentno društvo dobiva zajam od društva koje je rezident druge države članice i koje sâmo nema većinski udjel u društvu korisniku zajma te ako je svako od tih društava izravno ili neizravno pod nadzorom zajedničkog društva majke rezidenta treće zemlje.
99 Where, in such a situation, the Member State which has adopted that legislation treats interest paid by the borrowing company as a distribution, that measure affects freedom of establishment, not as regards the lending company, but only as regards the parent company which enjoys a level of control over each of the other companies concerned allowing it to influence the funding decisions of those companies.
99 Ako u takvoj situaciji država članica koja je donijela to zakonodavstvo kamate koje plaća društvo korisnik zajma kvalificira kao raspodjelu dobiti, ta mjera utječe na slobodu poslovnog nastana ne u pogledu društva davatelja zajma, već samo u pogledu društva majke koje nad obama drugim predmetnim društvima ima takav nadzor da može utjecati na financijske odluke tih društava.
In so far as that related company is not established in a Member State for the purposes of Article 48 EC, Article 43 EC is not applicable.
Međutim, ako to povezano društvo nema sjedište u državi članici u smislu članka 48. UEZ-a, članak 43. UEZ-a se ne primjenjuje.
100 For the same reasons, Article 43 EC has no bearing on the application of that legislation to a situation in which both the lending company and the common parent company are resident in a non-member country, nor does it have any bearing on a situation in which a lending company which is resident in another Member State and does not itself control the borrowing company grants the loan through a branch established in a non-member country, where the common parent company is also resident in a non-member country.
100 Iz istog razloga članak 43. UEZ-a nema utjecaja na primjenu tog zakonodavstva na situaciju u kojoj su društvo davatelj zajma i zajedničko društvo majka rezidenti treće zemlje, kao ni na situaciju u kojoj društvo davatelj zajma koje je rezident druge države članice i koje sâmo ne nadzire društvo korisnika kredita, odobri zajam preko podružnice sa sjedištem u trećoj državi, pri čemu je i zajedničko društvo majka rezident treće zemlje.
101 As regards the other provisions of the Treaty relied on by the claimants in the main proceedings, it must be pointed out that, as was stated in paragraphs 33 and 34 of this judgment, legislation such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which is targeted only at relations within a group of companies, primarily affects freedom of establishment.
101 U pogledu drugih odredaba Ugovora na koje se pozivaju tužitelji u glavnom postupku, valja naglasiti da se, kao što je navedeno u točkama 33. i 34. ove presude, zakonodavstvom kao što je ono o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku, koje je usmjereno samo na odnose unutar grupe društava, ponajprije utječe na slobodu poslovnog nastana.
Even if it were to be accepted that such legislation might have restrictive effects on the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, such effects must be seen as an unavoidable consequence of any restriction on freedom of establishment and do not justify an independent examination of that legislation in the light of Articles 49 EC and 56 EC.
Čak i ako bi to zakonodavstvo imalo ograničavajuće učinke na slobodu pružanja usluga i slobodno kretanje kapitala, ti bi učinci bili neizbježna posljedica eventualnog ograničenja slobode poslovnog nastana, što ne bi opravdalo ispitivanje navedenog zakonodavstva uzimajući u obzir članke 49. i 56. UEZ-a.
102 The answer to Question 2 must therefore be that Article 43 EC has no bearing on legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation referred to in Question 1, where that legislation applies to a situation in which a resident company is granted a loan by a company which is resident in another Member State or in a non-member country and which does not itself control the borrowing company and where each of those companies is controlled, directly or indirectly, by a common parent company which is resident in a non-member country.
102 Stoga na drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 43. UEZ-a nema utjecaja na zakonodavstvo države članice kao što je ono iz prvog pitanja ako se ono primjenjuje na situaciju u kojoj rezidentno društvo dobiva zajam od društva koje je rezident druge države članice ili treće zemlje i koje sâmo ne nadzire društvo korisnika zajma te ako su ta društva izravno ili neizravno pod nadzorom zajedničkog društva majke rezidenta treće zemlje.
103 By Question 4, the national court essentially asks whether, if legislation such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings were to constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital between Member States and non-member countries within the terms of Article 56 EC, such a restriction falls to be treated as existing on 31 December 1993 for the purposes of Article 57(1) EC.
103 Svojim četvrtim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li smatrati da je, ako bi zakonodavstvo kao što je ono o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku činilo ograničenje slobodnog kretanja kapitala između država članica i trećih zemalja iz članka 56. UEZ-a, takvo ograničenje postojalo 31. prosinca 1993. u svrhu primjene članka 57. stavka 1. UEZ-a.
104 It must be stated at the outset, as is clear from paragraphs 33, 34 and 101 of this judgment, that legislation such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings must be examined in the light of Article 43 EC and not Article 56 EC.
104 Najprije valja naglasiti da, kao što proizlazi iz točaka 33., 34. i 101. ove presude, zakonodavstvo kao što je ono o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku treba ispitati uzimajući u obzir članak 43. UEZ-a, a ne članak 56. UEZ-a.
105 It is therefore unnecessary to reply to Question 4.
105 Stoga na četvrto pitanje ne treba odgovoriti.
Questions 5 to 10
Peto do deseto pitanje
106 By Questions 5 to 10, which should be considered together, the national court essentially asks whether, in the event that the national measures referred to in the preceding questions are incompatible with Community law, claims such as those brought by the claimants in the main proceedings in order to remedy such an incompatibility must be classified as actions for restitution of sums unduly levied or advantages unduly refused or, conversely, as claims for compensation in respect of damage suffered.
106 Svojim petim do desetim pitanjem, koja valja razmotriti zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li, u slučaju da nacionalne mjere iz prethodnih pitanja nisu u skladu s pravom Zajednice, tužbe koje su podnijeli tužitelji u glavnom postupku s ciljem otklanjanja takve neusklađenosti kvalificirati kao tužbe za povrat neopravdano naplaćenih iznosa ili neopravdano odbijenih pogodnosti ili, suprotno tomu, kao tužbe za naknadu pretrpljene štete.
In the latter case, it asks whether it is necessary to satisfy the conditions laid down in the judgment in Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame and whether account must be taken, in that regard, of the form in which such claims must be brought under national law.
U potonjem slučaju pita je li potrebno ispuniti pretpostavke utvrđene u gore navedenoj presudi Brasserie du Pêcheur i Factortame i mora li se s tim u vezi uzeti u obzir oblik u kojem te tužbe moraju biti podnesene u skladu s nacionalnim pravom.
107 As regards the application of the conditions under which a Member State is liable to make reparation for the loss and damage caused to claimants as a result of an infringement of Community law, the national court asks the Court to provide guidance as to the need for a sufficiently serious breach of that law and the need for a causal link between the breach of the obligation imposed on the Member State and the loss and damage suffered by the injured parties.
107 U pogledu primjene pretpostavaka na temelju kojih je država članica obvezna nadoknaditi štetu koju su zbog povrede prava Zajednice pretrpjeli tužitelji, sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita može li Sud dati smjernice u vezi sa zahtjevom za dovoljno ozbiljnom povredom tog prava i zahtjevom za uzročnom vezom između povrede obveze nametnute državi članici i štete koju su pretrpjele oštećene stranke.
108 Lastly, the national court asks whether, in determining the losses which are to be reimbursed or in respect of which compensation is to be provided, it is appropriate to have regard to the question whether the injured parties showed reasonable diligence in order to avoid their loss, in particular in bringing actions before the courts.
108 Naposljetku, sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita je li pri određivanju gubitaka koje treba vratiti ili nadoknaditi prikladno uzeti u obzir pitanje jesu li oštećene stranke postupale s odgovarajućom pažnjom kako bi izbjegle gubitke, osobito primjenom pravnih sredstava.
109 It must be stated in that regard that it is not for the Court to assign a legal classification to the actions brought before the national court by the claimants in the main proceedings.
109 S tim u vezi valja naglasiti da nije na Sudu da pravno kvalificira tužbe koje su tužitelji u glavnom postupku podnijeli sudu koji je uputio zahtjev.
In the circumstances, it is for the latter to specify the nature and basis of their actions (whether they are actions for restitution or actions for compensation for damage), subject to the supervision of the national court (see Metallgesellschaft and Others, paragraph 81, and Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 201).
U ovom slučaju na potonjima je da pod nadzorom suda koji je uputio zahtjev utvrde narav i osnovu svojih tužbi (je li riječ o tužbama za povrat ili zahtjevu za naknadu štete) (vidjeti gore navedene presude Metallgesellschaft i dr., t. 81., i Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 201.).
110 However, the fact remains that, according to well-established case-law, the right to a refund of charges levied in a Member State in breach of the rules of Community law is the consequence and complement of the rights conferred on individuals by Community provisions as interpreted by the Court.
110 Međutim, ostaje činjenica da je prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi pravo na povrat pristojba koje su u državi članici naplaćene protivno pravilima prava Zajednice posljedica i dodatak pravima koja su pojedincima dodijeljena odredbama prava Zajednice, kako ih je protumačio Sud.
The Member State is therefore required in principle to repay charges levied in breach of Community law (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 202 and the case-law cited there).
Stoga je država članica u načelu dužna vratiti sve pristojbe naplaćene protivno pravu Zajednice (gore navedena presuda Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 202., i navedena sudska praksa).
111 In the absence of Community rules on the refund of national charges levied though not due, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, secondly, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 203 and the case-law cited there).
111 U nedostatku propisa Zajednice u području povrata neopravdano naplaćenih nacionalnih pristojba, na nacionalnom je pravnom poretku svake države članice da odredi nadležne sudove i uredi postupovna pravila o pravnim sredstvima namijenjenima zaštiti pravâ koja pojedinci uživaju na temelju prava Zajednice, uz uvjet da, kao prvo, ta pravila nisu manje povoljna od onih koja se tiču sličnih pravnih sredstava nacionalnog prava (načelo ekvivalentnosti) i, kao drugo, da u praksi ne onemogućavaju ili pretjerano otežavaju ostvarivanje pravâ koja se dodjeljuju pravnim poretkom Zajednice (načelo djelotvornosti) (gore navedena presuda Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 203., i navedena sudska praksa).
112 In addition, where a Member State has levied charges in breach of the rules of Community law, individuals are entitled to reimbursement not only of the tax unduly levied but also of the amounts paid to that State or retained by it which relate directly to that tax.
112 Osim toga, ako je država članica naplatila pristojbe protivno pravilima prava Zajednice, pojedinci imaju pravo ne samo na povrat neopravdano naplaćenog poreza, već i iznosa izravno povezanih s tim porezom koji su plaćeni toj državi ili koje je ona zadržala.
As the Court held in paragraphs 87 and 88 of the judgment in Metallgesellschaft and Others, that also includes losses constituted by the unavailability of sums of money as a result of a tax being levied prematurely (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 205 and the case-law cited there).
Kao što je Sud zaključio u točkama 87. i 88. gore navedene presude Metallgesellschaft i dr., to uključuje i gubitke nastale zbog nedostupnosti novčanih iznosa kao posljedica prijevremene naplate poreza (gore navedena presuda Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 205.).
113 However, contrary to what the claimants in the main proceedings contend, neither the reliefs or other tax advantages waived by a resident company in order to be able to offset in full a tax levied unlawfully against an amount due in respect of another tax, nor the loss and damage suffered by such a company because the group to which it belongs saw itself as having to substitute financing by way of equity capital for loan capital in order to reduce its overall charge to tax, nor the expenses incurred by the companies in that group in order to comply with the national legislation at issue, can form the basis of an action under Community law for the reimbursement of the tax unlawfully levied or of sums paid to the Member State concerned or withheld by it directly against that tax.
113 Međutim, suprotno onomu što tvrde tužitelji u glavnom postupku, ni olakšice ili druge porezne pogodnosti kojih se odreklo rezidentno društvo kako bi moglo u cijelosti odbiti nezakonito naplaćeni porez od nekog dospjelog iznosa drugog poreza, ni štete koje je to društvo pretrpjelo jer je grupa kojoj pripada smatrala da financiranje vlasničkim kapitalom mora zamijeniti posuđenim kapitalom kako bi smanjila svoje cjelokupno porezno opterećenje, ni troškovi koje su imala društva te grupe u vezi s usklađivanjem s predmetnim nacionalnim zakonodavstvom ne mogu činiti osnovu tužbe u skladu s pravom Zajednice za povrat nezakonito naplaćenog poreza ili iznosa izravno povezanih s tim porezom koji su plaćeni predmetnoj državi članici ili koje je ona zadržala.
Such expenditure is the result of decisions taken by those companies and does not constitute, on their part, an inevitable consequence of the decision by the United Kingdom to treat certain interest paid to non-resident companies as a distribution.
Takvi su izdaci rezultat odluka koje su donijela ta društva i za njih nisu neizbježna posljedica odluke Ujedinjene Kraljevine da određene kamate plaćene nerezidentnim društvima kvalificira kao raspodjelu dobiti.
114 That being the case, it is for the national court to determine whether the expenditure referred to in the preceding paragraph represents, in the case of the companies concerned, financial losses suffered by reason of a breach of Community law for which the Member State in question is responsible.
114 U tim je uvjetima na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi jesu li izdaci iz prethodne točke za predmetna društva financijski gubici koje su pretrpjela zbog povrede prava Zajednice za koju je odgovorna predmetna država članica.
115 While it has not gone so far as to rule out the possibility of a State being liable in less restrictive conditions on the basis of national law, the Court has held that there are three conditions under which a Member State will be liable to make reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law for which it can be held responsible, namely that the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals, that the breach must be sufficiently serious, and that there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties (see Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, paragraphs 51 and 66; Case C-224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239, paragraphs 51 and 57; and Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 209).
115 Iako nije isključio mogućnost da se nacionalnim pravom za odgovornost države utvrde manje strogi uvjeti, Sud je presudio da je država članica dužna nadoknaditi štetu koju su pretrpjeli pojedinci zbog povrede prava Zajednice za koju se ona može smatrati odgovornom ako su ispunjene tri pretpostavke: povrijeđeno pravno pravilo mora imati za cilj dodjelu prava pojedincima, povreda mora biti dovoljno ozbiljna i, naposljetku, mora postojati izravna uzročna veza između povrede obveze države i štete koju su pretrpjele oštećene stranke (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Brasserie du Pêcheur i Factortame, t. 51. i 66., presudu od 30. rujna 2003., Köbler, C-224/01, Zb., str. I-10239., t. 51. i 57., i gore navedenu presudu Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 209.).
116 It is, in principle, for the national courts to apply the criteria for establishing the liability of Member States for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Court for the application of those criteria (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 210 and the case-law cited there).
116 Načelno, nacionalni sudovi trebaju primijeniti uvjete koji omogućuju da se utvrdi odgovornost država članica za štete nastale pojedincima povredom prava Zajednice, u skladu s uputama za tu primjenu koje im je dao Sud (gore navedena presuda Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 210., i navedena sudska praksa).
117 In the main proceedings, the first condition is plainly satisfied as regards Article 43 EC.
117 U glavnom postupku očito je ispunjena prva pretpostavka u pogledu članka 43. UEZ-a.
That provision confers rights on individuals (see Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, paragraphs 23 and 54, and Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 211).
Tom se odredbom pojedincima dodjeljuju prava (vidjeti gore navedene presude Brasserie du Pêcheur i Factortame, t. 23. i 54., i Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 211.).
118 As regards the second condition, it should be pointed out, first, that a breach of Community law will be sufficiently serious where, in the exercise of its legislative power, a Member State has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion.
118 U pogledu druge pretpostavke valja podsjetiti da je, s jedne strane, povreda prava Zajednice dovoljno ozbiljna ako tijekom obavljanja svojih zakonodavnih ovlasti država članica očito i grubo nije poštovala granice svojih diskrecijskih ovlasti.
Secondly, where, at the time when it committed the infringement, the Member State in question had only considerably reduced, or even no, discretion, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 212 and the case-law cited there).
S druge strane, ako je predmetna država članica u trenutku u kojem je počinila povredu imala znatno ograničene ili uopće nije imala diskrecijske ovlasti, sama povreda prava Zajednice može biti dovoljna za utvrđivanje postojanja dovoljno ozbiljne povrede (gore navedena presuda Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 212., i navedena sudska praksa).
119 In order to determine whether a breach of Community law is sufficiently serious, it is necessary to take account of all the factors which characterise the situation brought before the national court.
119 Kako bi se utvrdilo je li povreda prava Zajednice dovoljno ozbiljna, valja uzeti u obzir sve čimbenike kojima je obilježen predmet koji se vodi pred nacionalnim sudom.
Those factors include, in particular, the clarity and precision of the rule infringed, whether the infringement and the damage caused were intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable, and the fact that the position taken by a Community institution may have contributed to the adoption or maintenance of national measures or practices contrary to Community law (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 213 and the case-law cited there).
Ti čimbenici osobito uključuju jasnoću i preciznost povrijeđenog pravila, činjenicu jesu li povreda i prouzročena šteta namjerne ili nenamjerne, može li se eventualna pogrešna primjena prava opravdati ili ne i mogućnost da su stajališta institucije Zajednice doprinijela donošenju ili zadržavanju nacionalnih mjera ili prakse suprotnih pravu Zajednice (gore navedena presuda Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 213., i navedena sudska praksa).
120 On any view, a breach of Community law will clearly be sufficiently serious if it has persisted despite a judgment finding the infringement in question to be established, or a preliminary ruling or settled case-law of the Court on the matter from which it is clear that the conduct in question constituted an infringement (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, paragraph 214 and the case-law cited there).
120 U svakom slučaju, povreda prava Zajednice dovoljno je ozbiljna ako se nastavila usprkos objavi presude kojom je predmetna povreda utvrđena, presude u povodu zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku ili usprkos ustaljenoj praksi Suda o toj problematici iz koje je jasno da postupanje o kojem je riječ predstavlja povredu (gore navedena presuda Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, t. 214., i navedena sudska praksa).
121 In the present case, in order to determine whether a breach of Article 43 EC committed by the Member State concerned was sufficiently serious, the national court must take into account the fact that, in a field such as direct taxation, the consequences arising from the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the Treaty have been only gradually made clear, in particular by the principles identified by the Court since delivering judgment in Case 270/83 Commission v France.
121 U ovom slučaju, prilikom odlučivanja o tome je li povreda članka 43. UEZ-a koju je počinila predmetna država članica dovoljno ozbiljna, nacionalni sud mora uzeti u obzir činjenicu da su u području kao što je područje izravnog oporezivanja posljedice proizišle iz sloboda kretanja zajamčenih Ugovorom samo postupno pojašnjene, osobito načelima koja je Sud utvrdio nakon donošenja gore navedene presude od 28. siječnja 1986., Komisija/Francuska.
Until delivery of the judgment in Lankhorst-Hohorst, the problem raised by the current reference for a preliminary ruling had not, as such, been addressed in the Court's case-law.
Do donošenja gore navedene presude Lankhorst-Hohorst pitanje postavljeno u zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku nije se kao takvo razmatralo u okviru sudske prakse Suda.