natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
83 In order for such legislation to remain compatible with the principle of proportionality, it is necessary, in the second place, that, where the consideration of those elements leads to the conclusion that the transaction in question represents a purely artificial arrangement without any underlying commercial justification, the re-characterisation of interest paid as a distribution is limited to the proportion of that interest which exceeds what would have been agreed had the relationship between the parties or between those parties and a third party been one at arm's length. 
83 Kako bi takvo zakonodavstvo ostalo usklađeno s načelom proporcionalnosti, važno je, kao drugo, da se, ako se na temelju ispitivanja tih dokaza zaključi da je predmetna transakcija potpuno umjetna konstrukcija za koju ne postoje stvarni poslovni razlozi, plaćene kamate kvalificiraju kao raspodjela dobiti samo u dijelu u kojem premašuju ono što bi bilo dogovoreno da nije bilo posebnog odnosa između stranaka ili između tih stranaka i treće osobe.
84 In the present case, the documents before the Court show that, prior to the amendments made in 1995, the legislation in force in the United Kingdom provided that interest paid by a resident subsidiary in respect of a loan granted by a non-resident parent company was treated, in its entirety, as a distribution, with no assessment of whether the loan satisfied a relevant criterion, such as that of being granted at arm's length, and without that subsidiary being given any opportunity to provide evidence as to any valid commercial justifications there may have been for the loan. 
84 U ovom slučaju iz spisa proizlazi da je prije izmjena iz 1995. zakonodavstvom koje je bilo na snazi u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini bilo predviđeno da se kamate koje rezidentno društvo kći plaća prilikom otplate zajma koji je odobrilo nerezidentno društvo majka u potpunosti kvalificiraju kao raspodjela dobiti te se nije ocjenjivalo je li zajam u skladu s relevantnim kriterijem, kao što su uvjeti nepristrane transakcije, a društvu kćeri nije bilo omogućeno da predoči dokaze o realnim poslovnim razlozima na kojima se temeljio taj zajam.
85 However, those documents also show that that legislation did not apply in cases involving a DTC which prevented the application of those rules and thus ensured that the interest in question was allowed as a deduction for tax purposes, provided that the rate of interest did not exceed what would have been agreed upon on an arm's-length basis. 
85 Međutim, iz spisa proizlazi i da se to zakonodavstvo nije primjenjivalo na slučajeve u kojima je na temelju UDO-a bila spriječena njegova primjena i osigurana mogućnost odbitka predmetnih kamata u porezne svrhe pod uvjetom da kamatna stopa nije premašivala ono što bi bilo dogovoreno u uvjetima nepristrane transakcije.
Under such a DTC, only that proportion of the interest which exceeded what would have been paid on an arm's-length basis was treated as a distribution. 
Na temelju takvog UDO-a samo je onaj dio kamata koji je premašivao ono što bi bilo plaćeno u uvjetima nepristrane transakcije bio kvalificiran kao raspodjela dobiti.
86 Whilst a tax regime such as the regime which arises, in cases to which they apply, under the DTCs concluded by the United Kingdom appears initially to be based on a consideration of objective and verifiable elements which make it possible to determine whether a purely artificial arrangement, entered into for tax reasons alone, is involved, it is for the national court to determine, should it be established that the claimants in the main proceedings benefited from such a regime, whether that regime gave them an opportunity, if their transactions did not satisfy the conditions laid down under the DTC in order to assess their compatibility with the arm's-length criterion, to provide evidence as to any commercial justification there may have been for the transactions, without being subject to any undue administrative constraints. 
86 Iako se na prvi pogled čini da se porezni sustav kao što je onaj koji, u slučajevima u kojima se primjenjuju, proizlazi iz UDO-a koje je sklopila Ujedinjena Kraljevina temelji na ispitivanju objektivnih i provjerljivih dokaza na osnovi kojih se može utvrditi postojanje potpuno umjetne konstrukcije iz isključivo poreznih razloga, na sudu je koji je uputio zahtjev da utvrdi je li im, ako se ustanovi da su tužitelji glavnog postupka ostvarili korist od takvog sustava, tim sustavom bilo omogućeno da, u slučaju da njihove transakcije nisu udovoljavale uvjetima utvrđenima UDO-om za ocjenu njihove usklađenosti s kriterijem uvjeta nepristrane transakcije, predoče bez nepotrebnih administrativnih ograničenja dokaze o potencijalnim poslovnim razlozima na kojima su se temeljile te transakcije.
87 The same applies to the national provisions in force after the legislative amendments introduced in 1995 and 1998. 
87 Isto vrijedi i za nacionalne odredbe koje su na snazi od zakonodavnih izmjena iz 1995. i 1998.
It is a matter of agreement that, under those provisions, it is only interest which exceeds what would be paid on an arm's-length basis that falls to be re-characterised as a distribution. 
Nije sporno da se u skladu s tim odredbama kao raspodjela dobiti kvalificira samo onaj dio kamata koji premašuje ono što bi bilo plaćeno u uvjetima nepristrane transakcije.
Whilst, at first sight, the criteria laid down by those provisions appear to require a consideration of objective and verifiable elements in order to determine whether a purely artificial arrangement, entered into for tax reasons alone, is involved, it is for the national court to determine whether those provisions allow taxpayers, where the transaction does not satisfy the arm's-length criterion, to produce evidence of the commercial justifications for that transaction, under the conditions referred to in the preceding paragraph. 
Iako se na prvi pogled čini da se kriterijima utvrđenima tim odredbama zahtijeva ispitivanje objektivnih i provjerljivih dokaza kako bi se utvrdilo postojanje potpuno umjetne konstrukcije iz isključivo poreznih razloga, na sudu je koji je uputio zahtjev da utvrdi omogućava li se tim odredbama poreznim obveznicima, u slučajevima u kojima transakcija ne ispunjava kriterij uvjeta nepristrane transakcije, da u uvjetima navedenima u prethodnoj točki predoče dokaze o poslovnim razlozima na kojima se temelji ta transakcija.
88 Contrary to what the Commission submits, where a Member State treats all or part of the interest paid by a resident company to a non-resident company belonging to the same group of companies as a distribution, after having determined that a purely artificial arrangement, designed to circumvent its tax legislation, is involved, that Member State cannot be obliged to ensure in such a case that the State in which the latter company is resident does everything necessary to avoid the payment which is treated as a dividend being taxed, as such, at group level both in the Member State in which the former company is resident and in the Member State in which the latter company is resident. 
88 Suprotno onomu što tvrdi Komisija, ako država članica kao raspodjelu dobiti kvalificira cjelokupni iznos ili dio kamata koje rezidentno društvo plaća nerezidentnom društvu iz iste grupe društava, nakon što je utvrdila da je riječ o potpuno umjetnoj konstrukciji čiji je cilj izbjegavanje primjene njezina poreznog zakonodavstva, od te se države članice u tom kontekstu ne može zahtijevati da osigura da država čiji je potonje društvo rezident učini sve što je potrebno kako bi spriječila da se na razini grupe plaćanje koje je kvalificirano kao dividenda oporezuje kao takvo u državi članici čiji je prvo društvo rezident i u državi članici čiji je potonje društvo rezident.
89 In so far as, in such a case, the Member State in which the former company is resident may lawfully treat interest paid by that company as a distribution of profits, it is not, in principle, for that State to ensure that profits distributed to a non-resident shareholder company are not subject to a series of charges to tax (see, to that effect, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, paragraphs 59 and 60). 
89 U mjeri u kojoj u takvom slučaju država članica čiji je prvo društvo rezident može zakonito tretirati kamate koje je platilo to društvo kao raspodjelu dobiti, u načelu nije na toj državi da osigura da dobit isplaćena nerezidentnom dioničkom društvu ne podliježe lančanom oporezivanju (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, t. 59. i 60.).
90 It is only where a Member State decides to exercise its powers of taxation not only, as regards resident subsidiaries, in relation to profits made in that State but also, as regards non-resident companies receiving distributions, in relation to the income which the latter receive from those subsidiaries, that that State is obliged, in order for the latter companies not to be confronted with a restriction on freedom of establishment which is prohibited, in principle, by Article 43 EC, to ensure that, under the procedures laid down by its national law in order to prevent or mitigate a series of liabilities to tax, non-resident companies receiving distributions are subject to the same treatment as resident companies which receive such distributions (see, to that effect, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, paragraph 70, and Denkavit Internationaal and Denkavit France, paragraph 37). 
90 Samo ako se država članica odluči provoditi svoju poreznu nadležnost ne samo, kada je riječ o rezidentnim društvima kćerima, u pogledu dobiti ostvarene u toj državi, već i, kada je riječ o nerezidentnim društvima primateljima raspodjele dobiti, u pogledu prihoda koje su potonja društva ostvarila od svojih društava kćeri, tada je ta država dužna osigurati, kako potonja društva ne bi bila suočena s ograničenjem slobode poslovnog nastana, koje je u načelu zabranjeno člankom 43. UEZ-a, da se u skladu s mehanizmima utvrđenima njezinim nacionalnim pravom za sprečavanje ili smanjenje lančanog oporezivanja na nerezidentna društva primatelje raspodjele dobiti primjenjuje jednak tretman kao i na rezidentna društva primatelje raspodjele dobiti (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedene presude Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, t. 70., i Denkavit Internationaal i Denkavit France, t. 37.).
91 Furthermore, as was noted in paragraph 49 of this judgment, in the absence of any unifying or harmonising Community measures, Member States retain the power to define, by treaty or unilaterally, the criteria for allocating their powers of taxation, particularly with a view to eliminating double taxation. 
91 Nadalje valja naglasiti da, kao što je već navedeno u točki 49. ove presude, u nedostatku mjera Zajednice za ujednačavanje ili usklađivanje, države članice ostaju nadležne odrediti, sporazumno ili jednostrano, kriterije podjele svoje nadležnosti za oporezivanje, među ostalim, kako bi uklonile dvostruko oporezivanje.
92 The answer to Questions 1 and 3 must therefore be that Article 43 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which restricts the ability of a resident company to deduct, for tax purposes, interest on loan finance granted by a direct or indirect parent company which is resident in another Member State or by a company which is resident in another Member State and is controlled by such a parent company, without imposing that restriction on a resident company which has been granted loan finance by a company which is also resident, unless, first, that legislation provides for a consideration of objective and verifiable elements which make it possible to identify the existence of a purely artificial arrangement, entered into for tax reasons alone, and allows taxpayers to produce, if appropriate and without being subject to undue administrative constraints, evidence as to the commercial justification for the transaction in question and, secondly, where it is established that such an arrangement exists, such legislation treats that interest as a distribution only in so far as it exceeds what would have been agreed upon at arm's length. 
92 Stoga na prvo i treće pitanje valja odgovoriti da je članku 43. UEZ-a protivno zakonodavstvo države članice kojim se ograničava mogućnost rezidentnog društva da u porezne svrhe odbije kamate plaćene prilikom vraćanja sredstava koja je posudilo od izravnog ili neizravnog društva majke rezidenta druge države članice ili društva koje je rezident druge države članice i pod nadzorom takvog društva majke, pri čemu se to ograničenje ne nameće rezidentnom društvu koje je dalo zajam društvu koje je jednako tako rezidentno, osim ako je, s jedne strane, tim zakonodavstvom predviđeno ispitivanje objektivnih i provjerljivih dokaza na temelju kojih se može utvrditi postojanje potpuno umjetne konstrukcije iz isključivo poreznih razloga i poreznim obveznicima omogućeno da prema potrebi i bez nepotrebnih administrativnih ograničenja predoče dokaze o poslovnim razlozima na kojima se temelji predmetna transakcija i ako se, s druge strane, u slučaju da je utvrđeno postojanje takve konstrukcije, takvim zakonodavstvom te kamate kvalificiraju kao raspodjela dobiti samo u mjeri u kojoj premašuju ono što bi bilo dogovoreno u uvjetima nepristrane transakcije.
93 By Question 2, the national court essentially asks whether the answer to Question 1 would be different if the loan finance was provided to a resident company, not by a parent company which is resident in another Member State, but: 
93 Svojim drugim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita bi li odgovor na prvo pitanje bio drukčiji da zajam rezidentnom društvu nije dalo društvo majka rezident druge države članice, već:
by another company belonging to the same group of companies, where that company and the parent company of that group are resident in another Member State; 
drugo društvo iz iste grupe društava, pri čemu su to društvo i društvo majka te grupe rezidenti druge države članice,
by another company belonging to the same group of companies which is resident in another Member State, where the common parent companies of the borrowing company and the lending company are resident in a non-member country; or 
drugo društvo iz iste grupe društava koje je rezident druge države članice, pri čemu su zajednička društva majke društva korisnika zajma i društva davatelja zajma rezidenti treće zemlje ili
by another company belonging to the same group of companies which is resident in another Member State but provides the loan through a branch situated in a non-member country, where the common parent companies of the borrowing company and the lending company are resident in a non-member country; or 
drugo društvo iz iste grupe društava koje je rezident druge države članice, ali zajam daje preko podružnice koja se nalazi u trećoj zemlji, pri čemu su zajednička društva majke društva korisnika zajma i društva davatelja zajma rezidenti treće zemlje ili
by another company belonging to the same group of companies which is, together with the common parent companies of the borrowing company and the lending company, resident in a non-member country. 
drugo društvo iz iste grupe društava koje je zajedno sa zajedničkim društvima majkama društva korisnika zajma i društva davatelja zajma rezident treće države.
94 In that regard, it must be noted, first of all, that, as was stated in paragraph 61 of this judgment, national legislation such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings which, in treating interest paid by a resident subsidiary to a parent company as a distribution, applies a difference in treatment between resident subsidiaries which is based on the place where their parent company has its seat, constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment, since it makes it less attractive for companies established in other Member States to exercise freedom of establishment and they may, in consequence, refrain from acquiring, creating or maintaining a subsidiary in the Member State which adopts such a measure. 
94 S tim u vezi najprije valja podsjetiti da, kao što je bilo navedeno u točki 61. ove presude, nacionalno zakonodavstvo kao što je ono o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku, kojim se, time što se kamate koje rezidentno društvo kći plaća društvu majci kvalificiraju kao raspodjela dobiti, primjenjuje različit tretman rezidentnih društava kćeri koji se temelji na mjestu sjedišta njihova društva majke, ograničava slobodu poslovnog nastana jer je zbog njega ostvarivanje slobode poslovnog nastana manje privlačno društvima sa sjedištem u drugim državama članicama te stoga ta društva mogu odustati od stjecanja, uspostavljanja ili zadržavanja društva kćeri u državi članici koja donese tu mjeru.
95 It follows that legislation of this kind constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment which is prohibited, in principle, by Article 43 EC, both where a resident borrowing company is granted a loan by a company which is established in another Member State and has a direct or indirect holding in the capital of the borrowing company, conferring on it definite influence on the decisions of that company and allowing it to determine its activities, and where a borrowing company is granted a loan by another non-resident company which, irrespective of where it is resident, is itself controlled by a company which is resident in another Member State and which has, directly or indirectly, such a holding in the capital of the borrowing company. 
95 Iz toga proizlazi da takvo zakonodavstvo čini ograničenje slobode poslovnog nastana, koje je u načelu zabranjeno člankom 43. UEZ-a, ako rezidentno društvo korisnik kredita dobije zajam od društva koje ima sjedište u drugoj državi članici i koje izravno ili neizravno ima udjel u kapitalu društva korisnika zajma, na temelju kojeg mu je omogućen stanovit utjecaj na odluke tog društva i na određivanje njegovih aktivnosti, i ako društvo korisnik zajma dobije zajam od drugog nerezidentnog društva koje je, bez obzira na to gdje ima sjedište, pod nadzorom društva koje je rezident druge države članice i izravno ili neizravno ima takav udjel u kapitalu društva korisnika zajma.
96 The answer given to Question 1 therefore also applies to the situation referred to in the first indent to Question 2. 
96 Stoga se odgovor na prvo prethodno pitanje primjenjuje i na situaciju iz prve alineje drugog prethodnog pitanja.
97 As regards the situations referred to in the second, third and fourth indents to Question 2, it must be noted, as was stated in paragraph 36 of this judgment, that Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, 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 Community, the right to exercise their activity in the Member State concerned through a subsidiary, branch or agency. 
97 U pogledu situacija iz druge, treće i četvrte alineje drugog prethodnog pitanja, valja podsjetiti da, kao što je navedeno u točki 36. ove presude, članak 43. UEZ-a u vezi s člankom 48. UEZ-a sadržava za trgovačka društva osnovana sukladno pravu neke države članice, čije se registrirano sjedište, središnja uprava ili glavno mjesto poslovanja nalazi unutar Zajednice, pravo da svoju djelatnost u državi članici obavljaju putem društava kćeri, zastupništava ili podružnica.
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.