natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
90 However, the Court added, in paragraph 76 of Arblade and Others, that where there is an obligation to keep available and retain certain documents at the address of a natural person residing in the host Member State who holds them as the agent or representative of the employer by whom he has been designated, even after the employer has ceased to employ workers in that State, it is not sufficient, for the purposes of justifying such a restriction on the freedom to provide services, that the presence of such documents within the territory of the host Member State may make it generally easier for the authorities of that State to perform their supervisory task. It must also be shown that those authorities cannot carry out their supervisory task effectively unless the undertaking has, in that Member State, an agent or representative designated to retain the documents in question. In that connection, the Court has held that a requirement that a natural person domiciled in the territory of a host Member State should retain documents cannot be justified (see, Arblade and Others, paragraph 77).
90 Sud je međutim u točki 76. gore navedene presude Arblade i dr. dodao, da u pogledu obveze držanja na raspolaganju i čuvanja određenih dokumenata u mjestu boravka fizičke osobe koja ima boravište u državi članici domaćinu i koja ih čuva kao zastupnik ili predstavnik poslodavca koji ga je imenovao, čak i nakon što je poslodavac prestao zapošljavati radnike u toj državi, za opravdanje takvog ograničenja slobodnog pružanja usluga nije dovoljno da prisutnost tih dokumenata na području države članice domaćina tijelima te države provođenje zadaće nadzora olakšava općenito. Potrebno je i da ta tijela ne budu ni u stanju učinkovito provoditi svoju zadaću nadzora ako to poduzeće u toj državi članici nema zastupnika ili predstavnika koji čuva navedene dokumente. S tim u vezi Sud je presudio da obveza čuvanja dokumenata kod fizičke osobe koja ima domicil na području države članice domaćina ne može biti opravdana (vidjeti navedenu presudu Arblade i dr., t. 77.).
91 In this case, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg does not submit any specific evidence in support of the argument that only the retention of the documents concerned by an agent residing in Luxembourg enables the authorities to carry out the checks for which they are responsible. In any event, a worker present in the place where the services were provided could be designated to ensure that documents necessary for monitoring purposes were made available to the competent national authorities, which would be a measure less restrictive of freedom to provide services and just as effective as the contested obligation.
91 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg u ovom slučaju nije podnijelo nijedan konkretan element u potporu argumentu da samo to što dotične dokumente čuva zastupnik koji ima boravište u Luksemburgu omogućuje navedenim tijelima provedbu nadzora za koji su odgovorni. U svakom slučaju, imenovanje radnika prisutnog na mjestu pružanja usluga kako bi se nacionalnim tijelima stavili na raspolaganje dokumenti potrebni za nadzor predstavlja mjeru koja bi manje ograničavala slobodu pružanja usluga a bila bi jednako učinkovita kao i osporavana obveza.
95 Lastly, it must be pointed out that, although Article 8(2) of the Law of 20 December 2002 does not expressly provide that documents necessary for monitoring purposes must be retained in Luxembourg before the commencement of work, that provision states that the identity of the agent must be communicated to the competent authorities prior to the employment activities envisaged at the latest. Therefore, the interpretation put forward by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, according to which the documents do not have to be available until the date on which the work commences, has no basis in the provision in question. In any event, such an obligation to retain such documents prior to the commencement of work would constitute an obstacle to freedom to provide services which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg would have to justify by arguments other than mere doubts as to the effectiveness of the organised system of cooperation or exchanges of information between the Member States provided for in Article 4 of Directive 96/71.
95 Konačno valja naglasiti da iako članak 8. stavak 2. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. ne predviđa izričito obvezu čuvanja dokumenata potrebnih za nadzor u Luksemburgu prije početka obavljanja rada, ta odredba jasno određuje da identitet zastupnika treba javiti nadležnim tijelima najkasnije prije početka obavljanja predviđenog nesamostalnog rada. Stoga tumačenje koje zastupa Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, prema kojem ti dokumenti trebaju biti dostupni na dan početka rada nema temelja u osporavanoj odredbi. U svakom slučaju, takva obveza čuvanja navedenih dokumenata prije početka obavljanja rada predstavlja ograničenje slobode pružanja usluga koju Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg treba opravdati drugim argumentima, a ne jednostavnim sumnjama o učinkovitosti organiziranog sustava suradnje ili razmjene informacija među državama članicama iz članka 4. Direktive 96/71.
"– by declaring the provisions of points (1), (2), (8) and (11) of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 to be mandatory provisions falling under national public policy;"
"proglašenjem odredaba članka 1. točaka 1., 2., 8. i 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. prisilnim odredbama nacionalnog javnog poretka;"
"– by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71;"
"nepotpunim prenošenjem članka 3. stavka 1. točke (a) Direktive 96/71;"
"– by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law of 20 December 2002, conditions relating to access to the basic information necessary for monitoring purposes by the competent national authorities with insufficient clarity to ensure legal certainty for undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg; and"
navođenjem, u članku 7. stavku 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002., uvjeta u pogledu pristupa nadležnih nacionalnih tijela podacima neophodnim za nadzor koje nije dovoljno jasno da poduzećima koja žele uputiti svoje radnike u Luksemburg osigura pravnu sigurnost, i
– by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents necessary for monitoring purposes be retained in Luxembourg by an ad hoc agent resident there,
propisujući, u članku 8. tog Zakona, čuvanje dokumenata potrebnih za nadzor u Luksemburgu pri ad hoc zastupniku koji ima boravište u Luksemburgu,
98 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked that for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has asked that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg be ordered to pay the costs and the latter has been unsuccessful, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg must be ordered to pay the costs.
98 U skladu s člankom 69. stavkom 2. Poslovnika, na zahtjev protivne stranke, svakoj stranci koja izgubi spor nalaže se snošenje troškova. Budući da je Komisija postavila zahtjev da se Velikom Vojvodstvu Luksemburg naloži snošenje troškova i da ono nije uspjelo u postupku, Velikom Vojvodstvu Luksemburg nalaže se snošenje troškova.
1. Declares that,
1. Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg,:
"– by declaring the provisions of points (1), (2), (8) and (11) of Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 transposing Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and the monitoring of the implementation of labour law to be mandatory provisions falling under national public policy;"
"proglašenjem odredaba članka 1. stavka 1. točaka 1., 2., 8. i 11. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. o prijenosu Direktive 96/71/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. prosinca 1996. o upućivanju radnika u okviru pružanja usluga i uređenju nadzora primjene radnog prava prisilnim odredbama nacionalnog javnog poretka;"
"– by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services;"
"nepotpunim prenošenjem odredaba članka 3. stavka 1. podstavka 1. točke (a) Direktive 96/71/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. prosinca 1996. o upućivanju radnika u okviru pružanja usluga;"
Case C-414/06
Predmet C- 414/06
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG
Finanzamt Heilbronn
Finanzamt Heilbronn
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof)
(zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je uputio Bundesfinanzhof)
15 May 2008 (*)
15. svibnja 2008.
(Freedom of establishment – Direct taxation – Taking account of losses incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State and belonging to a company which has its registered office in another Member State)
„Sloboda poslovnog nastana — Izravno oporezivanje — Uzimanje u obzir gubitaka stalne poslovne jedinice, smještene u jednoj državi članici, trgovačkog društva s registriranim sjedištem u drugoj državi članici”
In Case C-414/06,
U predmetu C-414/06,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 28 June 2006, received at the Court on 11 October 2006, in the proceedings
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Bundesfinanzhof (Njemačka), odlukom od 28. lipnja 2006., koju je Sud zaprimio 11. listopada 2006., u postupku
Finanzamt Heilbronn,
Finanzamt Heilbronn,
– Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG, by W. Schön and M. Schaden, Rechtsanwälte,
– za Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG, W. Schön i M. Schaden, Rechtsanwälte,
– Finanzamt Heilbronn, by C.-F. Vees, acting as Agent,
– za Finanzamt Heilbronn, C.-F. Vees, u svojstvu agenta,
– the German Government, by M. Lumma, C. Blaschke and H. Kube, acting as Agents,
– za njemačku vladu, M. Lumma, C. Blaschke i H. Kube, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Greek Government, by M. Papida, I. Pouli and K. Georgiadis, acting as Agents,
– za grčku vladu, M. Papida, I. Pouli i K. Georgiadis, u svojstvu agenata,
– the French Government, by G. de Bergues and J.-C. Gracia, acting as Agents,
– za francusku vladu, G. de Bergues i J.-C. Gracia, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Netherlands Government, by H.G. Sevenster, P. van Ginneken and M. de Grave, acting as Agents,
– za nizozemsku vladu, H. G. Sevenster, P. van Ginneken i M. de Grave, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Finnish Government, by J. Heliskoski and J. Himmanen, acting as Agents,
– za finsku vladu, J. Heliskoski i J. Himmanen, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Swedish Government, by K. Wistrand and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents,
– za švedsku vladu, K. Wistrand i S. Johannesson, u svojstvu agenata,
– the United Kingdom Government, by Z. Bryanston-Cross, acting as Agent, and S. Lee, Barrister,
– za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, Z. Bryanston-Cross, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju S. Lee, barrister,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents,
– za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, R. Lyal i W. Mölls, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 14 February 2008,
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisne odvjetnice na raspravi održanoj 14. veljače 2008.,
2 The reference was made in proceedings between Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (‘Lidl Belgium’) and the Finanzamt Heilbronn (‘the Finanzamt’) relating to the tax treatment by the German competent authorities of losses incurred by a permanent establishment of Lidl Belgium situated in Luxembourg.
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (u daljnjem tekstu: Lidl Belgija) i Finanzamt Heilbronn (u daljnjem tekstu: Finanzamt) o poreznom tretmanu koji su njemačka nadležna tijela primijenila na gubitak stalne poslovne jedinice navedenog trgovačkog društva smještene u Luksemburgu.
3 The second subparagraph of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Convention between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and relating to mutual administrative and legal assistance in the fields of taxation of income and capital and of business and land taxation of 23 August 1958 (BGBl. II 1959, p. 1270), as amended by the additional protocol of 15 June 1973 (‘the Convention’), provides that the expression ‘permanent establishment’ is to mean ‘a fixed place of business at which the undertaking carries on all or part of its activities’.
3 U skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom 2. Konvencije o izbjegavanju dvostrukog oporezivanja i o uzajamnoj administrativnoj pomoći u području poreza na dohodak i dobit kao i u području trgovačkog poreza i poreza na imovinu sklopljene između Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburg i Savezne Republike Njemačke 23. kolovoza 1958. (BGBl. II 1959., str. 1270.) kako je izmijenjena dodatnim protokolom od 15. lipnja 1973. (u daljnjem tekstu: konvencija), izraz „stalna poslovna jedinica” označava „stalno mjesto poslovanja u kojem se poslovanje društva obavlja u cijelosti ili djelomično”.
‘1. Where a person residing in one of the Contracting States receives income in his capacity as owner or co-owner of an industrial or commercial undertaking the activities of which extend to the territory of the other Contracting State, that income shall be taxable in that other State only in so far as it is attributable to a permanent establishment situated in the territory of that State.
„(1) Ako osoba s prebivalištem u jednoj od država ugovornica ostvaruje prihod bilo kao voditelj industrijskog ili trgovačkog poduzeća čije se djelatnosti proširuju na područje druge države ugovornice, toj drugoj državi ugovornici pripada pravo oporezivanja samo u pogledu dohotka koji se može pripisati stalnoj poslovnoj jedinici smještenoj na njezinom području.
‘Where an undertaking of one of the Contracting States, by reason of its participation in the management or financial structure of an undertaking of the other State, agrees economic or financial conditions with that undertaking which differ from those which would have been agreed with an independent undertaking, or imposes such conditions on it, the income which would in the normal case have been received by one of those undertakings, but which by reason of those conditions was not in fact so paid, may be included in the income of that undertaking and taxed accordingly.’
„Ako su, zbog sudjelovanja društva iz jedne od država ugovornica u upravljanju ili kapitalu društva druge države ugovornice, između ta dva društva određeni trgovački ili financijski uvjeti različiti od onih koji bi bili određeni između samostalnih društava, prihod koji bi bez tih uvjeta nastao za jedno od društava, ali zbog tih uvjeta nije nastao, može se uključiti u prihod tog društva i prema tome oporezivati.”
‘1. Where, in accordance with the preceding articles, the State of residence has the right to tax income or capital, the other State shall not tax such income or capital. …
„(1) Ako u skladu s prethodnim člancima država mjesta prebivališta ima pravo oporezivanja prihoda ili aktive, druga država ne može oporezivati taj prihod ili aktivu. […]
2. There shall, unless paragraph 3 applies, be excluded from the tax base of the State of residence any income and capital which is taxable in the other State by virtue of the preceding articles. However, taxes on income or capital which may be taxed in the State of residence shall be levied at the rate applicable to the taxpayer’s total income or total capital.
(2) Prihod i aktiva koje druga država ima pravo oporezivati u skladu s prethodnim člancima isključeni su iz porezne osnovice države mjesta prebivališta ako se ne primjenjuje stavak 3. Međutim, porez na prihod ili aktivu koji ubire država mjesta prebivališta naplaćuje se po stopi koja odgovara ukupnom prihodu ili ukupnoj aktivi predmetnog subjekta.
8 Lidl Belgium is a member of the Lidl and Schwarz group and carries on business as a distributor of goods. Lidl Belgium, which had initially developed its business on the Belgian market, was given the further task of establishing itself in Luxembourg from 1999. To that end, Lidl Belgium created a permanent establishment there.
8 Lidl Belgium dio je grupacije Lidl i Schwarz i obavlja svoju trgovačku djelatnost u području distribucije robe. Lidl Belgium, koji je u početku poslovao na belgijskom tržištu, dobio je zadatak etablirati se i u Luksemburgu počevši od 1999. U tu je svrhu Lidl Belgium ondje osnovao stalnu poslovnu jedinicu.
10 During the 1999 accounting period, which is the period at issue in the main proceedings, Lidl Belgium’s permanent establishment in Luxembourg incurred a loss.
10 Tijekom poreznog razdoblja 1999. iz glavnog postupka stalna poslovna jedinica društva Lidl Belgium smještena u Luksemburgu zabilježila je gubitak.
11 When calculating its revenue for tax purposes, Lidl Belgium sought to deduct that loss from the amount of its tax base. The Finanzamt disallowed the deduction of that loss on the basis, inter alia, of the exemption of income relating to that permanent establishment by virtue of the provisions of the Convention.
11 Tijekom postupka utvrđivanja poreza društvo Lidl Belgium taj je gubitak željelo odbiti od svoje porezne osnovice. Finanzamt nije prihvatio odbitak tog gubitka pozivajući se, između ostalog, na izuzeće prihoda koji se odnose na tu stalnu poslovnu jedinicu na temelju odredbi konvencije.
12 On 30 June 2004, the Finanzgericht Baden-Würtemberg (Finance Court, Baden-Würtemberg), before which Lidl Belgium had brought proceedings, dismissed the latter’s action against the decision of the Finanzamt.
12 30. lipnja 2004. Finanzgericht Baden-Würtemberg (financijski sud, Baden-Würtemberg), pred kojim je društvo Lidl Belgium pokrenulo postupak, odbio je tužbu tog društva koju je ono podnijelo protiv odluke Finanzamta.
‘Is it compatible with Articles 43 EC and 56 EC for a German company with income from industrial or commercial activities to be precluded, when calculating its income, from deducting losses from a permanent establishment in another Member State (in this case, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) on the ground that, according to [the Convention], the corresponding income from such a permanent establishment is not subject to taxation in Germany?’
„Je li u skladu s člancima 43. UEZ-a i 56. UEZ-a da njemačko društvo koje ostvaruje prihod od industrijske ili trgovačke djelatnosti ne može kod utvrđivanja financijskih rezultata odbiti gubitke koji se odnose na poslovnu jedinicu smještenu u drugoj državi članici (u ovom slučaju Velikom Vojvodstvu Luksemburg) zato što, na temelju konvencije, prihodi povezani s takvom poslovnom jedinicom ne podliježu oporezivanju u Njemačkoj [...]?”
"16 Even if it were to be accepted that the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings has restrictive effects on the free movement of capital, such effects would have to be seen as an unavoidable consequence of any restriction on freedom of establishment and they do not justify an examination of that regime in the light of Article 56 EC (see, to that effect, Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas [2006] ECR I-7995, paragraph 33; Case C-452/04 Fidium Finanz [2006] ECR I-9521, paragraphs 48 and 49; and Case C-524/04 Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation [2007] ECR I-2107, paragraph 34)."
"16 Čak i uz pretpostavku da porezni sustav iz glavnog postupka ima restriktivne učinke na slobodno kretanje kapitala, te bi se učinke smatralo neizbježnom posljedicom eventualnog ograničenja slobode poslovnog nastana i oni ne opravdavaju ispitivanje spomenutog poreznog sustava s obzirom na članak 56. UEZ-a (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 12. rujna, Cadbury Schweppes i Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, C-196/04, Zb., str. I-7995., t. 33.; od 3. listopada 2006., Fidium Finanz, C-452/04, Zb., str. I-9521., t. 48. i 49. , kao i od 13. ožujka 2007., Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, C-524/04, Zb., str. I-2107., t. 34.)."
"18 It should be noted at the outset that freedom of establishment entails for companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the European Community, the right to exercise their activity in other Member States through a subsidiary, branch or agency (see Case C-307/97 Saint-Gobain ZN [1999] ECR I-6161, paragraph 35; Case C-141/99 AMID [2000] ECR I-11619, paragraph 20; and Case C-471/04 Keller Holding [2006] ECR I-2107, paragraph 29)."
"18 Najprije valja podsjetiti da sloboda poslovnog nastana za društva osnovana u skladu sa zakonodavstvom neke države članice i sa registriranim sjedištem, središnjom upravom ili glavnim mjestom poslovanja unutar Europske zajednice podrazumijeva pravo obavljanja vlastite aktivnosti u drugim državama članicama posredstvom društva kćeri, podružnice ili zastupništva (vidjeti presude od 21. rujna 1999., Saint Gobain ZN, C-307/97, Zb., str. I-6161., t. 35.; od 14. prosinca 2000., AMID, C-141/99, Zb., str. I-11619., t. 20., i od 23. veljače 2006., Keller Holding, C-471/04, Zb., str. I-2107., t. 29.)."
21 Indeed, and as is shown by the provisions of the Convention, a permanent establishment constitutes, under tax convention law, an autonomous entity. Thus, those to whom the Convention applies comprise, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, not only natural and legal persons, but also all those types of permanent establishment which are listed in the second subparagraph, point (a), of the first paragraph of Article 2, in a manner which distinguishes them from other categories of entity listed in the second subparagraph, point (b), of that article, which are excluded from the definition of permanent establishment under the Convention.
21 Kako je pokazano odredbama konvencije, stalna poslovna jedinica prema poreznom pravu konvencije predstavlja samostalan subjekt. Tako subjekti na koje se konvencija primjenjuje u skladu s njezinim člankom 2. obuhvaćaju, uz fizičke i pravne osobe, i sve vrste stalnih poslovnih jedinica koje su navedene u stavku 1. podstavku 2. točki (a) tog članka, dok su iz te definicije stalne poslovne jedinice u skladu s konvencijom isključene druge kategorije subjekata navedene u stavku 1. podstavku 2. točki (b) tog članka.
22 That definition of a permanent establishment as an autonomous fiscal entity is consonant with international legal practice as reflected in the model tax convention drawn up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in particular Articles 5 and 7 thereof. The Court has already held that, for the purposes of the allocation of fiscal competence, it is not unreasonable for the Member States to draw guidance from international practice and, particularly, the model conventions drawn up by the OECD (see Case C-336/96 Gilly [1998] ECR I-2793, paragraph 31, and Case C-513/03 van Hilten-van der Heijden [2006] ECR I-1957, paragraph 48).
22 Takvo određenje stalne poslovne jedinice kao samostalnog poreznog subjekta usklađeno je s međunarodnom pravnom praksom kako se odražava u fiskalnom modelu konvencije koji je izradila Organizacija za ekonomsku suradnju i razvoj (OECD), i to osobito u njezinim člancima 5. i 7. Međutim, Sud je već imao priliku odlučiti da u svrhu raspoređivanja porezne nadležnosti nije nerazumno da se države članice vode međunarodnom praksom, između ostalog i modelima konvencije koje je izradio OECD (vidjeti presude od 12. svibnja 1998., Gilly, C-336/96, Zb., str. I-2793., t. 31., i od 23. veljače 2006., van Hilten-van der Heijden, C-513/03, Zb., str. I-1957., t. 48.).
25 In those circumstances, the tax situation of a company which has its registered office in Germany and has a permanent establishment in another Member State is less favourable than it would be if the latter were to be established in Germany. By reason of that difference in tax treatment, a German company could be discouraged from carrying on its business through a permanent establishment situated in another Member State.
25 U tim uvjetima, društvo koje ima registrirano sjedište u Njemačkoj i stalnu poslovnu jedinicu u drugoj državi članici ima nepovoljniji porezni položaj od onoga kakav bi imalo da je potonja poslovna jedinica smještena u Njemačkoj. Ta razlika u poreznom tretmanu mogla bi odvratiti neko njemačko društvo od obavljanja djelatnosti posredstvom stalne poslovne jedinice u drugoj državi članici.