natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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. 
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. 
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.
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). 
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.).
23 As regards the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings, it must be pointed out that a provision which allows losses incurred by a permanent establishment to be taken into account in calculating the profits and taxable income of the principal company constitutes a tax advantage. 
23 U pogledu poreznog sustava iz glavnog postupka, valja primijetiti da odredba koja prilikom utvrđivanja financijskih rezultata i izračuna oporezivog prihoda dopušta priznavanje gubitaka stalne poslovne jedinice glavnog društva predstavlja poreznu pogodnost.
24 However, the provisions of that tax regime do not grant such a tax advantage where the losses are incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State other than that in which the principal company is established. 
24 Međutim, na temelju odredaba navedenog poreznog sustava takva se porezna pogodnost ne odobrava ako su gubici ostvareni u stalnoj poslovnoj jedinici smještenoj u državi članici koja nije ista kao i država članica u kojoj glavno društvo ima poslovni nastan.
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. 
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.
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. 
Ta razlika u poreznom tretmanu mogla bi odvratiti neko njemačko društvo od obavljanja djelatnosti posredstvom stalne poslovne jedinice u drugoj državi članici.
26 It must be held that the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings involves a restriction on the freedom of establishment. 
26 Valja zaključiti da porezni sustav iz glavnog postupka sadržava ograničenje slobode poslovnog nastana.
Whether a justification exists 
Postojanje opravdanja
27 It is clear from the Court's case-law that a restriction on the freedom of establishment is permissible only if it is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. 
27 Iz prakse Suda proizlazi da ograničenje slobodnog kretanja kapitala nije dopušteno osim ako to opravdavaju važni razlozi u općem interesu.
It is further necessary, in such a case, that its application be appropriate to ensuring the attainment of the objective in question and not go beyond what is necessary to attain it (see Case-C446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, paragraph 35; Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 47; and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 64). 
Pritom ono mora biti primjereno ostvarenju predmetnog cilja i ne smije prekoračivati ono što je nužno za ostvarenje toga cilja (vidjeti presude od 13 prosinca 2005., Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, Zb., str. I-10837., t. 35.; prethodno navedenu Cadbury Schweppes i Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, t. 47., kao i prethodno navedenu Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, t. 64.).
28 In that connection, the national court points out in particular that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the income generated by the permanent establishment in Luxembourg is not taxed in the Member State of residence of the company to which it belongs. 
28 U tom pogledu, sud koji je uputio zahtjev naglašava, između ostalog, činjenicu da, u skladu s odredbama konvencije, prihod stalne poslovne jedinice smještene u Luksemburgu nije oporezovan u državi članici u kojoj je društvo kojoj ta jedinica pripada rezidentno.
29 In their observations to the Court, the German, Greek, French, Netherlands, Finnish, Swedish and United Kingdom Governments essentially submit that tax rules which, for the purposes of determining the tax base of a resident company, restrict the possibility for that company to deduct losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it which is situated in another Member State can, as a rule, be justified. 
29 U očitovanjima koje su podnijele Sudu, njemačka, grčka, francuska, nizozemska, finska i švedska vlada te vlada Ujedinjene Kraljevine u biti tvrde da porezni propis kojim se ograničava mogućnost rezidentnog društva da prilikom određivanja porezne osnovice uzme u obzir gubitke pripadajuće stalne poslovne jedinice smještene u drugoj državi članici u načelu može biti opravdan.
30 Those Governments take the view that the justification for such rules in the light of Community law may be based, first, on the need to preserve the allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States concerned and, secondly, on the need to prevent the danger that losses may be taken into account twice. 
30 Te vlade smatraju da se opravdanje takvog propisa prema pravu Zajednice može temeljiti, ponajprije, na potrebi za očuvanjem raspodjele ovlasti oporezivanja između odnosnih država članica, a zatim i na potrebi sprječavanja rizika dvostrukog priznavanja gubitaka.
31 As regards the first of these justifications, it should be noted that the preservation of the allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States may make it necessary to apply to the economic activities of companies established in one of those States only the tax rules of that State in respect of both profits and losses (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 45, and Case C-231/05 Oy AA [2007] ECR I-6373, paragraph 54). 
31 U pogledu prvog navedenog opravdanja, valja podsjetiti da radi očuvanja raspodjele ovlasti oporezivanja između država članica može biti potrebno na gospodarske djelatnosti društava smještenih u jednoj od tih država primjenjivati samo porezna pravila te države, kako u pogledu prihoda, tako i gubitaka (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Marks & Spencer, t. 45., kao i presudu od 18. srpnja 2007., Oy AA, C-231/05, Zb., str. I-6373., t. 54.).
32 To give companies the right to elect to have their losses taken into account in the Member State in which they are established or in another Member State would seriously undermine a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States, since the tax base would be increased in the first State, and reduced in the second, by the amount of the losses surrendered (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 46, and Oy AA, paragraph 55). 
32 Naime, dodjela slobode izbora društvima da svoje gubitke uzmu u obzir u državi članici u kojoj je smještena njihova poslovna jedinica ili u drugoj državi članici znatno bi ugrozila uravnoteženu raspodjelu ovlasti oporezivanja između država članica budući da bi za iznos prenesenih gubitaka porezna osnovica bila povećana u prvoj državi članici, a smanjena u drugoj (vidjeti prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer, t. 46. i Oy AA, t.
33 With respect to the relevance of the first of these justifications in the light of the facts in the main proceedings, it should be pointed out that the Member State in which the registered office of the company to which the permanent establishment belongs is situated would, in the absence of a double taxation convention, have the right to tax the profits generated by such an entity. 
55.). 33 U pogledu relevantnosti prvog opravdanja s obzirom na činjenične okolnosti glavnog postupka, valja istaknuti da bi, u odsustvu konvencije kojom se sprječava dvostruko oporezivanje, država u kojoj je smješteno sjedište društva kojem pripada stalna poslovna jedinica imala pravo oporezivati prihod takve jedinice.
Consequently, the objective of preserving the allocation of the power to impose taxes between the two Member States concerned, which is reflected in the provisions of the Convention, is capable of justifying the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings, since it safeguards symmetry between the right to tax profits and the right to deduct losses. 
Slijedom toga, porezni sustav iz glavnog postupka može se opravdati ciljem očuvanja raspodjele ovlasti oporezivanja između dotične dvije države članice, koji se odražava u odredbama konvencije, s obzirom na to da on održava simetriju između prava na oporezivanje prihoda i omogućavanja odbijanja gubitaka.
34 In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, to accept that the losses of a non-resident permanent establishment might be deducted from the taxable income of the principal company would result in allowing that company to choose freely the Member State in which those losses could be deducted (see, to that effect, Oy AA, paragraph 56). 
34 U okolnostima kao što su one u glavnom postupku, priznati da bi se gubici nerezidentne stalne poslovne jedinice mogli odbiti od prihoda glavnog društva značilo bi dozvoliti tom društvu da slobodno izabere državu članicu u kojoj želi uzeti u obzir te gubitke (vidjeti u tom smislu prethodno navedenu presudu Oy AA, t. 56.).
35 As regards the second justification put forward in the observations submitted to the Court, which is based on the danger that losses might be taken into account twice, the Court has accepted that the Member States must be able to prevent such a danger (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 47, and Case C-347/04 Rewe Zentralfinanz [2007] ECR I-2647, paragraph 47). 
35 Što se tiče drugog opravdanja iznesenog u očitovanjima podnesenima Sudu, koje se temelji na riziku dvostrukog priznavanja gubitaka, Sud je priznao da države članice moraju biti u mogućnosti spriječiti taj rizik (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Marks & Spencer, t. 47., kao i presudu od 29. ožujka 2007., Rewe Zentralfinanz, C-347/04, Zb., str. I-2647., t. 47.).
36 In this connection, it must be pointed out that, in circumstances such as those which underlie the main proceedings, there is clearly a danger that the same losses will be used twice (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 48). 
36 U tom pogledu, valja naglasiti da u okolnostima kao što su one u glavnom postupku očito postoji rizik dvostrukog priznavanja istog gubitka (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Marks & Spencer, t. 48.).
It is possible that a company might deduct, in the Member State in which its seat is situated, losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State and that, despite such offsetting, the same losses might be taken into account subsequently in the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated, when that establishment generates profits, thereby preventing the Member State in which the principal company has its seat from taxing that profit. 
Naime, ne treba isključiti mogućnost da bi neko društvo uzelo u obzir gubitke svoje stalne poslovne jedinice smještene u drugoj državi članici u državi članici u kojoj je smješteno njegovo sjedište i da kasnije bez obzira na to isti gubici budu uzeti u obzir u državi članici u kojoj je smještena stalna poslovna jedinica kada ona ostvari prihod, čime bi država članica u kojoj glavno društvo ima sjedište bila spriječena da taj prihod oporezuje.
37 Consequently, the two justifications put forward must each be considered as being capable of justifying a restriction on the freedom of establishment arising from the tax treatment by the Member State in which the seat of a company is located of losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to that company and situated in another Member State. 
37 Slijedom toga, oba istaknuta opravdanja moraju se smatrati valjanima za opravdanje ograničenja slobode poslovnog nastana koje proizlazi iz poreznog tretmana negativnih rezultata stalne poslovne jedinice nekog društva od strane druge države članice u kojoj je smješteno sjedište društva kojemu ta poslovna jedinica pripada.
38 The national court asks, however, whether the justifications set out in paragraphs 44 to 50 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, which also include the need to prevent the risk of tax avoidance, must be understood as being cumulative or whether the existence of only one of those factors is sufficient for the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings to be treated, in principle, as being justified. 
38 Međutim, sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita trebaju li se opravdanja istaknuta u točkama 44. do 50. prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer, koja uključuju i potrebu za sprječavanjem rizika utaje poreza, tumačiti kumulativno ili je dovoljno da postoji samo jedno od tih opravdanja da bi se porezni sustav iz glavnog postupka u načelu mogao smatrati opravdanim.
39 It must be pointed out in that regard that, in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, the Court held that the three justifications taken together, which underlay the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, pursued legitimate objectives compatible with the Treaty and thus constituted overriding reasons in the public interest 
39 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da je u točki 51. prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer Sud odlučio da tri opravdanja koja uzeta zajedno daju potporu propisu iz glavnog postupka teže legitimnim ciljevima spojivima s Ugovorom, i tako čine važne razloge u općem interesu.
40 However, bearing in mind the wide variety of situations in which a Member State may put forward such reasons, it cannot be necessary for all the justifications referred to in paragraph 51 of the Marks & Spencer judgment to be present in order for national tax rules which restrict the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 EC to be capable, in principle, of being justified. 
40 Međutim, uzevši u obzir različite situacije u kojima bi se država članica mogla pozvati na te razloge, ne može se zahtijevati da sva opravdanja iz točke 51. prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer budu zajedno prisutna da bi nacionalni porezni propis kojim se ograničava sloboda poslovnog nastana predviđena člankom 43. UEZ-a u načelu mogao biti opravdan.
41 Thus, in the judgment in Oy AA, the Court acknowledged in particular that the national tax legislation at issue could, in principle, be justified on the basis of two of the three justifications referred to in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, namely the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and the need to prevent tax avoidance, taken together (see Oy AA, paragraph 60). 
41 Tako je u predmetu na temelju kojeg je donesena gore navedena presuda Oy AA, Sud između ostalog priznao da bi predmetni nacionalni porezni propis u načelu mogao biti opravdan na temelju dva od tri opravdanja iz točke 51. prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer, i to potrebe za očuvanjem raspodjele ovlasti oporezivanja između država članica i potrebe za sprječavanjem porezne evazije, uzete u obzir zajedno (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu Oy AA, t.
42 Likewise, the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings can, in principle, be justified in the light of two of the factors referred to in paragraph 51 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, namely the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and the need to prevent the danger that the same losses will be taken into account twice. 
60.). 42 Jednako tako, porezni sustav iz glavnog postupka mogao bi u načelu biti opravdan na temelju dva opravdanja iz navedene točke prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer, i to potrebe za očuvanjem raspodjele ovlasti oporezivanja između država članica i potrebe za sprječavanjem opasnosti od dvostrukog uzimanja u obzir gubitaka.
43 It is also not in dispute that that regime is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued by it. 
43 Isto je tako jasno da je navedeni sustav prikladan za jamčenje ostvarenja predviđenih ciljeva.
44 That being so, it remains necessary to examine whether the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 53, and Oy AA, paragraph 61). 
44 U tim uvjetima preostaje utvrditi prekoračuje li porezni sustav iz glavnog postupka ono što je nužno za ostvarivanje postavljenih ciljeva (vidjeti prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer, t. 53. i Oy AA, t. 61.).
45 Lidl Belgium and the Commission of the European Communities have referred in particular to the possibility that the right of a principal company to deduct the losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it could be made subject to the condition that the company incorporate in its future profits the subsequent profits of the permanent establishment, to the extent of the losses previously offset. 
45 Lidl Belgium i Komisija Europskih zajednica osobito su istaknuli da glavno društvo ima mogućnost odbiti gubitke stalne poslovne jedinice koja mu pripada, pod uvjetom da u buduće rezultate uključi kasniji prihod navedene poslovne jedinice do iznosa prethodno odbijenih gubitaka.
In that context, they refer to the system which operated in the Federal Republic of Germany prior to 1999. 
U tom kontekstu upućuju na sustav koji se primjenjivao u Saveznoj Republici Njemačkoj prije 1999.
46 It should be pointed out that reference was made in paragraph 54 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer to the possibility of making the benefit of the tax advantage at issue subject to such a condition, together with the possibility of making the benefit of that advantage conditional upon the subsidiary established in a Member State other than that in which the principal company has its seat having taken full advantage of the possibilities available in its Member State of residence of having the losses taken into account. 
46 Valja navesti da je u točki 54. prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer mogućnost da se dodjela predmetne porezne povlastice time uvjetuje spomenuta zajedno s mogućnošću da se dodjela te povlastice uvjetuje time da je društvo kćer, osnovano u državi članici koja nije ona u kojoj je smješteno glavno sjedište, u potpunosti iskoristilo mogućnosti uzimanja u obzir gubitaka u svojoj državi članici.
47 In that regard, the Court held in paragraph 55 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer that a measure which restricts the freedom of establishment goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued where a non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities for having the losses incurred in the Member State where it is situated taken into account for the accounting period concerned and also for previous accounting periods and where there is no possibility for that subsidiary's losses to be taken into account in that State for future periods. 
47 U tom pogledu Sud je u točki 55. prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer presudio da mjera koja ograničava slobodu poslovnog nastana prekoračuje ono što je nužno za ostvarivanje postavljenih ciljeva u situaciji u kojoj je društvo kćer nerezident iscrpilo mogućnosti uzimanja u obzir gubitaka ostvarenih u državi članici u kojoj je smješteno za predmetno porezno razdoblje kao i za ranija porezna razdoblja, i u kojoj ne postoji mogućnost da [se] gubitke navedenog društva kćeri uzme u obzir u navedenoj državi članici za buduća razdoblja.
48 In paragraph 56 of that judgment, the Court also stated that where, in one Member State, the resident parent company demonstrates to the national tax authorities that those conditions are fulfilled, it is contrary to Article 43 EC to preclude the possibility for the parent company to deduct from its taxable profits in that Member State the losses incurred by its non-resident subsidiary. 
48 Sud je u točki 56. navedene presude nadalje naveo da kada u nekoj državi članici društvo majka rezident nacionalnim poreznim tijelima dokaže da su ti uvjeti ispunjeni, protivno je članku 43. UEZ-a isključiti mogućnost tom društvu majci da odbije od svoje dobiti koja se oporezuje u toj državi članici gubitke svojeg društva kćeri nerezidenta.
49 As regards the main proceedings, it must be pointed out that Luxembourg tax legislation provides for the possibility of deducting a taxpayer's losses in future tax years for the purposes of calculating the tax base. 
49 Što se tiče glavnog predmeta, valja utvrditi da luksemburški porezni propis predviđa mogućnost da kod izračuna porezne osnovice porezni obveznik uzme u obzir gubitke za buduća razdoblja.
50 As was confirmed at the hearing before the Court, Lidl Belgium has in fact benefited from such an offsetting of the losses incurred by its permanent establishment in 1999 in a subsequent tax year, namely 2003, in which that entity generated profits. 
50 Kako je potvrđeno tijekom rasprave pred Sudom, Lidl Belgium je stvarno iskoristio priznavanje gubitaka svoje stalne poslovne jedinice iz 1999. tijekom jednog kasnijeg poreznog razdoblja, i to onog 2003., tijekom kojeg je taj subjekt ostvario prihod.
51 Accordingly, Lidl Belgium has not shown that the conditions laid down in paragraph 55 of the judgment in Marks & Spencer, for establishing the situation in which a measure constituting a restriction on the freedom of establishment for the purposes of Article 43 EC goes beyond what is necessary to attain legitimate objectives recognised by Community law, were satisfied. 
51 Lidl Belgium tako nije dokazao da su ispunjeni uvjeti iz točke 55. prethodno navedene presude Marks & Spencer kojima se nastoji utvrditi u kakvoj situaciji mjera koja predstavlja ograničenje slobode poslovnog nastana u smislu članka 43. UEZ-a prekoračuje ono što je nužno kako bi se postigli opravdani ciljevi priznati pravom Zajednice.
52 It must be added that the Court has recognised the legitimate interest which the Member States have in preventing conduct which is liable to undermine the right to exercise the powers of taxation which are vested in them. 
52 Važno je dodati da je Sud priznao opravdani interes država članica u sprječavanju ponašanja koja bi mogla dovesti u pitanje pravo izvršavanja poreznih ovlasti koje im pripadaju.