natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
76 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg takes the view that the text of Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 is sufficiently clear and that, in any event, it does not impose any prior notification requirement. In that connection, it takes the view that the need to make available the information necessary for monitoring purposes ‘prior to the commencement of the work’ means that that information may be communicated on the day on which the work commences. 
"76 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg smatra da je tekst članka 7. stavka 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. dovoljno jasan i da u svakom slučaju ne nameće nikakvu obvezu dostavljanja prethodne prijave. S tim u vezi smatra da stavljanje na raspolaganje informacija potrebnih za nadzor „prije početka obavljanja rada”"" znači da se te informacije mogu prenijeti na dan početka obavljanja rada."
77 First it must be noted that, since the Law of 20 December 2002 does not provide for any other communication of information between an undertaking which posts workers and the Labour and Mines Inspectorate, it is difficult to understand how the latter can request information from that undertaking before the commencement of the work, in so far as it cannot be aware of the presence of that undertaking in Luxembourg unless the latter has previously announced its arrival in some way. Therefore, as the Advocate General notes in point 76 of her Opinion, the question arises as to the role accorded to an undertaking wishing to post workers, necessarily prior to any request for information from the Labour and Mines Inspectorate, and which, in any event, is not defined by the Law of 20 December 2002. 
77 Prvo valja utvrditi da budući da Zakon od 20. prosinca 2002. ne predviđa nikakvo drugo priopćavanje informacija između poduzeća koje upućuje radnike i tijela Inspection du travail et des mines, teško je shvatiti kako bi spomenuto tijelo moglo zahtijevati informacije od tog poduzeća prije početka obavljanja rada ako ne bi znalo da je to poduzeće prisutno na državnom području Luksemburga osim ako ga o svojem dolasku poduzeće na bilo koji način prethodno ne obavijesti. Stoga se, kako je nezavisna odvjetnica navela u točki 76. svojega mišljenja, postavlja pitanje koju ulogu tu ima poduzeće koje želi uputiti radnike, a ta uloga, koja nužno prethodi svakom zahtjevu za informacije od strane tijela Inspection du travail et des mines, u svakom slučaju nije definirana Zakonom od 20. prosinca 2002.
78 On that basis, the interpretation of the expression ‘prior to the commencement of the work’ in Article 7(1) of that law, adopted by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, cannot be relevant. It is clear that such an expression means not only that the information must be provided on the actual day on which the work commences, but that it would also cover a somewhat longer period preceding that date. 
78 U tom pogledu tumačenje izraza „prije početka obavljanja rada” iz članka 7. stavka 1. navedenog zakona, koje zastupa Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg, ne može biti relevantno. Očito je da takav izraz ne znači samo da informacije treba pružiti na dan početka obavljanja rada, već da također dozvoljava i duže ili kraće razdoblje prije tog dana.
79 Second, as the Advocate General noted, in point 74 of her Opinion, it follows from the provisions of the Law of 4 April 1974 on the Reorganisation of the Labour and Mines Inspectorate (Mémorial A 1974, p. 486), to which reference is made in Article 9(2) of the Law of 20 December 2002 in respect of the definition of the monitoring powers of that authority, and, in particular from Articles 13 to 17 of the Law of 4 April 1974, that the Labour and Mines Inspectorate may order the immediate cessation of the posted worker’s activities if his employer does not comply with an order addressed to the employer to provide information. Furthermore, Article 28 of that law provides that failure to comply with that obligation may give rise to criminal proceedings against the undertaking concerned. 
79 Drugo, kako je napomenula nezavisna odvjetnica u točki 74. svojega mišljenja, iz odredaba Zakona od 4. travnja 1974. o reorganizaciji tijela Inspection du travail et des mines (Mémorial A 1974., str. 486.), na koji se upućuje u članku 9. stavku 2. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. za utvrđivanje ovlasti nadzora tog tijela, a posebno iz članaka 13. do 17. tog Zakona od 4. travnja 1974. proizlazi da tijelo Inspection du travail et des mines može naložiti trenutačni prestanak rada upućenog radnika ako njegov poslodavac ne postupi prema nalogu za dostavu informacija koji mu je upućen. Osim toga, članak 28. navedenog zakona predviđa da nepoštovanje ove obveze može dovesti do kaznenog progona dotičnog poduzeća.
81 The ambiguities which characterise Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 are likely to dissuade undertakings wishing to post workers to Luxembourg from exercising their freedom to provide services. On the one hand, the extent of the rights and obligations of those undertakings is not clearly apparent from that provision. On the other hand, undertakings which have failed to comply with the obligations laid down in that provision incur not inconsiderable penalties. 
81 Te dvosmislenosti koje su značajne za članak 7. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. mogu odvratiti poduzeća koja žele uputiti radnike u Luksemburg od izvršavanja njihove slobode pružanja usluga. S druge strane, iz te odredbe jasno ne proizlazi doseg prava i obveza tih poduzeća. S druge strane, poduzeća koja nisu ispunila obveze predviđene navedenom odredbom očekuju nezanemarive sankcije.
82 Accordingly, since Article 7(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 is incompatible with Article 49 EC on account of its lack of clarity and the ambiguities that it contains, the Commission’s third complaint is well founded. 
82 Budući da članak 7. stavak 1. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. nije sukladan s člankom 49. UEZ-a zbog nejasnoća i dvosmislenosti koje sadržava, slijedom toga je treći prigovor Komisije utemeljen.
83 By its fourth complaint, the Commission takes the view that, by requiring undertakings whose registered office is outside Luxembourg territory and which post workers there to deposit, before the start of the posting, with an ad hoc agent residing in Luxembourg, the documents necessary for monitoring compliance with their obligations under the Law of 20 December 2002 and to leave them there for an indeterminate period after the provision of services has ceased, Article 8 of that Law constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services. The system of cooperation and exchange of information provided for in Article 4 of Directive 96/71 makes such an obligation superfluous. 
83 Svojim četvrtim prigovorom Komisija smatra da, obvezujući poduzeća sa sjedištem izvan luksemburškog područja koja upućuju radnike na to područje da prije početka upućivanja kod ad hoc zastupnika koji ima boravište u Luksemburgu pohrane dokumente potrebne za nadzor njihovih obveza koje proizlaze iz primjene Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. i da ih tamo drže na neodređeno vrijeme nakon završetka pružanja usluga, članak 8. tog zakona predstavlja ograničenje slobode pružanja usluga. Zbog sustava suradnje i razmjene informacija predviđenog člankom 4. Direktive 96/71 takva je obveza suvišna.
84 The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg states, first of all, that the cooperation mechanism to which the Commission refers does not enable the competent administrative authorities to carry out ordinary checks with the necessary effectiveness. Next, it contends that the contested national provision does not require any specific legal form with respect to the role of agent. Lastly, apart from the deposit of the documents necessary for monitoring with the agent for a period following the posting, the documents do not have to be lodged until the day on when the provision of services concerned begins. 
84 Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg tvrdi da, prije svega, mehanizam suradnje na koji se poziva Komisija ne omogućava upravnim tijelima da uobičajeni nadzor izvrše uz zahtijevanu učinkovitost. Zatim pojašnjava da, što se tiče funkcije zastupnika, sporna nacionalna odredba ne zahtijeva nikakav poseban pravni oblik. Konačno, osim polaganja dokumenata potrebnih za nadzor kod zastupnika tijekom razdoblja nakon upućivanja, traži se da dokumenti budu položeni baš na dan početka pružanja dotične usluge.
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.