natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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. 
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.
96 It is clear from the foregoing that, since Article 8 of the Law of 20 December 2002 is incompatible with Article 49 EC, the action must be upheld in its entirety. 
96 Iz navedenoga proizlazi da budući da članak 8. Zakona od 20. prosinca 2002. nije u skladu s člankom 49. UEZ-a, cijelu tužbu valja prihvatiti.
97 Accordingly, it must be held that: 
97 Stoga valja utvrditi da:
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,
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC. 
Veliko Vojvodstvo Luksemburg nije ispunilo obveze iz članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive 96/71 u vezi sa stavkom 10. tog članka te članaka 49. i 50. UEZ-a.
Costs 
Troškovi 98
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. 
U skladu s člankom 69. stavkom 2. Poslovnika, na zahtjev protivne stranke, svakoj stranci koja izgubi spor nalaže se snošenje troškova.
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. 
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.
On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby: 
Slijedom navedenog, Sud (prvo vijeće) proglašava i presuđuje:
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;
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC. 
nije ispunilo obveze iz članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive 96/71 u vezi sa stavkom 10. tog članka te članaka 49. i 50. UEZ-a.
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. 
2. Velikom Vojvodstvu Luksemburg nalaže se snošenje troškova.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 
PRESUDA SUDA (četvrto vijeće)
(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"
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 (Savezni financijski sud, Njemačka), odlukom od 28. lipnja 2006., koju je Sud zaprimio 11. listopada 2006., u postupku
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. 
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co.
KG 
KG
v Finanzamt Heilbronn, 
protiv Finanzamt Heilbronn,
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, G. Arestis, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and T. von Danwitz, Judges, 
u sastavu: K. Lenaerts, predsjednik vijeća, G. Arestis, R. Silva de Lapuerta (izvjestiteljica), A. Rosas, E. Juhász i T. von Danwitz, suci,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 29 November 2007, 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 29. studenoga 2007.,
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. 
za Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co.
KG, by W. Schön and M. Schaden, Rechtsanwälte, 
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,
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC. 
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se na tumačenje članaka 43. UEZ-a i 56. UEZ-a.
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 (Porezna uprava u Heilbronnu, 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".
4 The second subparagraph, point (a), of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Convention lists a number of types of premises which are to be treated as being a permanent establishment for the purposes of the Convention. 
4 U članku 2. stavku 1. točki (a) konvencije nabrojen je određen broj mjesta poslovanja koja se smatraju stalnim poslovnim jedinicama u smislu konvencije.
5 Article 5 of the Convention provides: 
5 Članak 5. konvencije predviđa:
`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.
2. In this connection, the income which is to be attributed to the permanent establishment is that income which it would have received had it constituted a separate undertaking carrying out the same or similar activities in the same or similar conditions and carrying on business in the same way as an independent undertaking. 
(2) U tom pogledu, prihod koji se može pripisati stalnoj poslovnoj jedinici je onaj prihod koji bi mogla ostvariti kad bi bila zasebno društvo koje se bavi istim ili sličnim poslovanjem pod istim ili sličnim uvjetima te da je poslovala kao samostalno društvo.
6 Article 6(1) of the Convention states: 
6 Tekst članka 6. stavka 1. konvencije glasi:
`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."
7 Article 20 of the Convention states: 
7 Članak 7. konvencije određuje:
`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. 
(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.
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. 
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. 
8 Lidl Belgium dio je grupacije Lidl i Schwarz i obavlja svoju trgovačku djelatnost u području distribucije robe.
Lidl Belgium, which had initially developed its business on the Belgian market, was given the further task of establishing itself in Luxembourg from 1999. 
Lidl Belgium, koji je u početku poslovao na belgijskom tržištu, dobio je zadatak etablirati se i u Luksemburgu počevši od 1999.
To that end, Lidl Belgium created a permanent establishment there. 
U tu je svrhu Lidl Belgium ondje osnovao stalnu poslovnu jedinicu.
9 Lidl Belgium is a limited partnership with its registered office in Germany, the partners of which include Lidl Belgium Beteiligungs-GmbH, as a limited partner, and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, as a general partner. 
9 Lidl Belgium je komanditno društvo sa sjedištem u Njemačkoj čiji su partneri Lidl Belgium Beteiligungs-GmbH kao komplementar i Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG kao komanditor.
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. 
11 Tijekom postupka utvrđivanja poreza društvo Lidl Belgium taj je gubitak željelo odbiti od svoje porezne osnovice.
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. 
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.
13 An appeal having been brought before it by Lidl Belgium, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
13 Nakon što je društvo Lidl Belgium pred njim pokrenulo žalbu, Bundesfinanzhof (savezni financijski sud) odlučio je prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeće prethodno pitanje:
`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 [...]?"
The question referred for a preliminary ruling 
O prethodnom pitanju
14 By its question, the national court essentially asks whether Articles 43 EC and 56 EC preclude a national tax regime which does not allow a resident company, for the purposes of determining its profits and calculating its taxable income, to deduct losses incurred in another Member State by a permanent establishment belonging to it, when that tax regime does allow losses incurred by a resident permanent establishment to deduct those losses. 
14 U svojem pitanju sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita je li člancima 43. UEZ-a i 56. UEZ-a protivan nacionalni porezni sustav koji isključuje mogućnost da rezidentno društvo tijekom utvrđivanja financijskih rezultata i izračuna oporezivog prihoda uzme u obzir gubitke svoje stalne poslovne jedinice u drugoj državi članici, dok navedeni porezni sustav takvu mogućnost dopušta za gubitke rezidentne stalne poslovne jedinice.
The scope of application of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC 
Područje primjene članaka 43. UEZ-a i 56. UEZ-a
15 As the national court has referred to each of the provisions mentioned above in the question referred, it should be noted that the creation and the outright ownership by a natural or legal person established in a Member State of a permanent establishment not having a separate legal personality situated in another Member State falls within the scope of application ratione materiae of Article 43 EC. 
15 Budući da je sud koji je uputio zahtjev u svojem pitanju iznio spomenute odredbe, valja podsjetiti da osnivanje, od strane fizičke ili pravne osobe smještene u nekoj državi članici, stalne poslovne jedinice koja nema zasebnu pravnu osobnost i njezino ukupno vlasništvo ulaze u područje primjene članka 43. UEZ-a ratione materiae.
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.).
17 Accordingly, the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings must be assessed in the light of Article 43 EC. 
17 Slijedom toga, porezni sustav iz glavnog postupka treba ocijeniti s obzirom na članak 43. UEZ-a.
Whether a restriction on the freedom of establishment exists 
Postojanje ograničenja slobode poslovnog nastana
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.).
19 Even though, according to their wording, the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning freedom of establishment are directed to ensuring that foreign nationals and companies are treated in the host Member State in the same way as nationals of that State, they also prohibit the Member State of origin from hindering the establishment in another Member State of one of its nationals or of a company incorporated under its legislation (see, inter alia, Case C-264/96 ICI [1998] ECR I-4695, paragraph 21, and Case C-298/05 Columbus Container Services [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 33). 
19 Iako prema svojem izričaju odredbe Ugovora o osnivanju Europske zajednice o slobodi poslovnog nastana imaju za cilj osigurati pogodnost nacionalnog tretmana u državi članici primateljici, one također zabranjuju da država članica podrijetla jednom od svojih državljana ili trgovačkih društava koja su osnovana u skladu s njezinim pravom spriječi zasnivanje poslovnog nastana u drugoj državi članici (vidjeti osobito presude od 16. srpnja 1998., ICI, C-264/96, Zb., str. I-4695., t. 21., kao i od 6. prosinca 2007., Columbus Container Services, C-298/05, Zb., str. 10451., t. 33.).
20 Those considerations also apply where a company established in a Member State carries on business in another Member State through a permanent establishment. 
20 Ta se stajališta isto tako primjenjuju i ako društvo osnovano u jednoj državi članici posluje u drugoj državi članici posredstvom stalne poslovne jedinice.
21 Indeed, and as is shown by the provisions of the Convention, a permanent establishment constitutes, under tax convention law, an autonomous entity. 
21 Kako je pokazano odredbama konvencije, stalna poslovna jedinica prema poreznom pravu konvencije predstavlja samostalan subjekt.