natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the contested tax ruling fulfils all the conditions of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, it must be considered to constitute State aid within the meaning of that provision.
Licenčnú zmluvu predložila spoločnosť Amazon 5. marca 2015, príloha 4 (zároveň s poslednou zmenou licenčnej zmluvy o DV s účinnosťou od 1. januára 2009).
That aid results in a reduction of charges that should normally be borne by LuxOpCo in the course of its business operations and should therefore be considered as granting operating aid to LuxOpCo.
Výročná správa spoločnosti Amazon.com, Inc. za rok 2016, s. 18.
BENEFICIARY OF THE AID
Výročná správa spoločnosti Amazon.com, Inc. za rok 2016, s. 3.
The Commission considers the contested tax ruling to grant a selective advantage to LuxOpCo within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, since it leads to a lowering of that entity's taxable profit and thus its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
Výročná správa spoločnosti Amazon.com, Inc. za rok 2003, s. 5.
However, the Commission notes that LuxOpCo forms part of a multinational corporate group, i.e. the Amazon group.
Spracovanie objednávok predstavuje proces, ktorý sa odštartuje v spoločnosti po prijatí objednávky na produkt.
Separate legal entities may be considered to form one economic unit for the purpose of the application of State aid rules.
Zahŕňa uskladnenie, lokalizáciu objednanej položky, zabalenie a odoslanie (priamo alebo prostredníctvom tretej osoby).
That economic unit is then considered to be the relevant undertaking benefitting from the aid measure.
https://services.amazon.com/fulfillment-by-amazon/[D]s.htm/ref=asus_fba_hnav.
As the Court of Justice has previously held, ‘[i]n competition law, the term ‘undertaking’ must be understood as designating an economic unit […] even if in law that economic unit consists of several persons, natural or legal’.
Výročná správa spoločnosti Amazon.com, Inc. za rok 2002, s. 2.
To determine whether several entities form an economic unit, the Court of Justice looks at the existence of a controlling share or functional, economic or organic links.
Pozri aj správu o TC, s. 6 a 7.
In the present case, LuxOpCo was fully controlled by LuxSCS during the relevant period, which in turn was controlled by US-based companies of the Amazon group.
Vyjadrenie spoločnosti Amazon po procese, s. 81, bod 253.
Moreover, as it is clear from the ruling request, it was the Amazon group, as controlled by Amazon.com, Inc., which took the decision to establish LuxOpCo in Luxembourg.
Výraz „európske stránky“, ktorý sa používa v celom tomto rozhodnutí, sa nevzťahuje na www.amazon.nl, keďže táto webová stránka bola spustená po období posudzovanom v tomto rozhodnutí.
In addition, transfer pricing, by its very nature, affects more than one group company, because a profit decrease in one company normally increases the profit of its counterparty.
Výročná správa spoločnosti Amazon.com, Inc. za rok 2016, s. 3.
In the present case, the determination of LuxOpCo's taxable profit in Luxembourg influences the royalty payments to LuxSCS, since the level of the royalty corresponds to any profit recorded by LuxOpCo above [4-6] % of its operating expenses or 0,55 % of revenue, as agreed by the contested tax ruling.
Výročná správa spoločnosti Amazon.com, Inc. za rok 2016, s. 4 a 67.
The reduction of LuxOpCo's tax liability in Luxembourg therefore not only benefits LuxOpCo, but also LuxSCS.
Výraz „lokálne prepojené európske spoločnosti“ používaný v celom tomto rozhodnutí sa vzťahuje na Amazon.co.uk Ltd., Amazon.fr SARL, Amazon.fr Logistique SAS, Amazon.de GmbH a Amazon Logistik GmbH, ktoré boli k 1. máju 2006 všetky lokálnymi prepojenými európskymi spoločnosťami.
Moreover, since profit attributed to LuxSCS was not subject to taxation in Luxembourg, but, at best, subject to deferred taxation if and when it is distributed to its US-based partners, the contested tax ruling confers aid on the Amazon group as whole.
Správa o TC, s. 12.
Consequently, any favourable tax treatment afforded to LuxOpCo by the Luxembourg tax administration benefits not only LuxOpCo, but the Amazon group as a whole by providing additional financial resources to the entire group.
Oznámenie spoločnosti Amazon z 5. marca 2015: príloha 6.
Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that that group is organised in different legal personalities and the contested tax ruling concerns the tax treatment of LuxOpCo and LuxSCS, that group must be considered as a single economic unit benefitting from the contested aid measure.
Správa o TC, s. 13: „As of the Restructuring Date, LuxSCS‘ principal activities will be limited to those of an intangible holding company and a participant in the ongoing development of the Intangibles through the CSA.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID
Additionally, LuxSCS will license the Intangibles to LuxOpCo, subject to the Intangibles License, and will receive royalty payments pursuant to this license.“
State aid shall be deemed compatible with the internal market if it falls within any of the categories listed in Article 107(2) of the Treaty and it may be deemed compatible with the internal market if it is found by the Commission to fall within any of the categories listed in Article 107(3) of the Treaty.
List od spoločnosti Amazon z 20. apríla 2006 adresovaný luxemburskej daňovej správe (vypracovaný daňovým poradcom spoločnosti Amazon, [Advisor 1]), s. 2: „EHT [LuxSCS], a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc was created for the purpose of holding and developing intellectual property (by way of financial contribution only). […] EHT [LuxSCS] has an activity limited to the mere holding of Amazon's EU intellectual property, the shares in AEU and has concluded a limited number of legal agreements necessary for the Luxembourg structure to operate (as described under point 1.2 below).
However, it is the Member State granting the aid which bears the burden of proving that State aid granted by it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Articles 107(2) or 107(3) of the Treaty.
EHT [LuxSCS] will only receive passive income from its subsidiaries (interest and royalties).“ V bode 1.2 tohto listu sa uvádzajú zmluvy spomínané v odôvodnení 105.
Luxembourg has not invoked any of the grounds for a finding of compatibility under either of those provisions for the State aid it has granted through the contested tax ruling.
Ďalšou spoločnosťou skupiny, ktorá využívala obmedzené financovanie zo strany spoločnosti LuxSCS, bola Amazon Eurasia Holding Sarl ([20 – 30] miliónov EUR v roku 2013).
Moreover, as explained in Recital 606, the aid granted by the contested tax ruling constitutes operating aid.
License Agreement For Pre-existing Intellectual Property a Assignment Agreement For Pre-existing Intellectual Property (licenčná zmluva na už existujúce práva duševného vlastníctva a predajná zmluva na existujúce práva duševného vlastníctva) boli obe uzatvorené spoločnosťami LuxSCS a ATI k 1. januáru 2005.
As a general rule, such aid can normally not be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) of the Treaty in that it does not facilitate the development of certain activities or of certain economic areas, nor are the tax advantages in question limited in time, declining or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy to a specific market failure in the areas concerned.
Intellectual Property Assignment and License Agreement (licenčná a predajná zmluva na práva duševného vlastníctva) uzatvorená medzi spoločnosťami LuxSCS, Amazon.fr SARL, Amazon.de GmbH a Amazon.co.uk Ltd k 30. aprílu 2006.
Consequently, the State aid granted to LuxOpCo and the Amazon group by Luxembourg is incompatible with the internal market.
V súlade s DRN bod 1.8 sa pod pojmom „odvodené diela“ ( „Derivative works“) rozumejú všetky nové diela, ktoré boli sčasti vytvorené jednou stranou DRN alebo pre ňu na základe materiálu už existujúceho v duševnom vlastníctve druhej strany alebo vďaka prístupu k tomuto duševnému vlastníctvu alebo jeho používaniu ( „any and all new works created by or for one Party [to the CSA] from preexisting material contained within, or as a result of access to or use of another Party's intellectual property, […].“).
UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID
DRN oddiel 6, „License and Ownership“.
According to Article 108(3) of the Treaty, Member States are obliged to inform the Commission of any plan to grant aid (notification obligation) and they may not put into effect any proposed aid measures until the Commission has taken a final position decision on the aid in question (standstill obligation).
Ako sa uvádza v DRN bod 6.4, okrem licencií na nehmotný majetok, ktoré jej spoločnosti A9 a ATI poskytli podľa DRN, si spoločnosť LuxSCS ponechala nárok a právo na vlastníctvo všetkého nehmotného majetku, ku ktorému prispela.
The Commission notes that Luxembourg did not notify the Commission of any plan to grant the contested aid measure, nor did it respect the standstill obligation laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
DRN bod 1.13 súvisiaci s „predmetom licencie“ ( „Licensed Purpose“).
Therefore, in accordance with Article 1(f) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, the contested tax ruling constitutes unlawful aid, put into effect in contravention of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
DRN oddiel 4, „Development Cost Allocation“ (Rozdelenie nákladov na rozvoj) a oddiel 5, „Payments“ (Platby).
RECOVERY
DRN bod 9.12.
THE RECOVERY OBLIGATION
DRN s účinnosťou od 5. januára 2009 bod 2.3.
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 establishes an obligation on the Commission to order recovery of unlawful and incompatible aid.
Ako sa uvádza v DRN oddiel 1.1, práva DV spoločnosti A9, ktoré sa týkajú DRN, sa obmedzujú na práva duševného vlastníctva v oblasti technológií vyhľadávania a surfovania v elektronickom obchode, ktoré spoločnosť A9 vlastní alebo má inak v držbe.
That provision also provides that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover unlawful aid that is found to be incompatible.
Ide najmä o technológiu pre softvérovú platformu spoločnosti Amazon, vzhľad európskych webových stránok, katalógy, funkcie vyhľadávania a surfovania, logistický proces, spracovanie objednávok, zákaznícke služby a funkcie individuálnych úprav.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 elaborates the methods to be used for the calculation of recovery interest.
Ide o zozbierané údaje o výrobkoch a zákazníkoch, najmä hodnotenia zákazníkov, hodnotenia editorov, informácie o výrobkoch, mená zákazníkov, históriu nákupov a iné údaje.
Finally, Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 states that ‘recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures under the national law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow for the immediate an effective execution of the Commission decision’.
Ako sa uvádza v oznámení spoločnosti Amazon z 21. augusta 2015, spoločnosť LuxSCS získala právne vlastníctvo údajov o európskych zákazníkoch, ktoré zhromaždila spoločnosť Amazon Int'l Sales, Inc. a Amazon Int'l Marketplace, Inc. v rámci reštrukturalizácie európskych činností.
NEW AID
Následne na to databázu údajov o zákazníkoch rozšírila a spravovala spoločnosť LuxOpCo.
In accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, the power of the Commission to recover aid is subject to a limitation period of 10 years.
Konkrétne registrovaná ochranná známka, obchodný názov, štýl, logá, prezentácia spoločnosti Amazon a súvisiaci nehmotný majetok.
The limitation period begins on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as aid under an aid scheme.
V DRN, body 1.1, 1.4 a 1.11 sa uvádza toto: „Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties expressly agree that the […][Intangibles] does not include any World Wide Web domain names.“
Any action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid interrupts the limitation period.
Ako sa uvádza v oznámení spoločnosti Amazon z 12. júna 2015, spoločnosť LuxSCS preniesla dňa 16. decembra 2013 svoj podiel v spoločnosti LuxOpCo na spoločnosť Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l.
Each interruption starts time running afresh.
Správa o TC, s. 30.
The limitation period is suspended for as long as the decision of the Commission is the subject of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice.
Oznámenie spoločnosti Amazon z 5. marca 2015 bod 6 a interný dokument spoločnosti Amazon: list spoločnosti Amazon adresovaný luxemburskej daňovej správe zo 14. apríla 2006, s. 2.
Finally, any aid with regard to which the limitation period has expired is deemed to be existing aid.
Správa o TC, s. 13.
Amazon argues that any aid granted under the contested tax ruling is existing aid, because the contested tax ruling is an individual measure granted to it more than 10 years before the Commission started its State aid investigation into that ruling.
Oficiálny predajca je subjekt, ktorý vlastní tovar a ponúka ho na predaj a ktorý zodpovedá za výber platieb a platby dane z pridanej hodnoty.
The contested tax ruling was indeed issued more than 10 years before the Commission started its investigation, namely on 6 November 2003.
Dolná snemovňa (House of Commons) parlamentu Spojeného kráľovstva, správa Report on HMRC's 2011-2012 Accounts (správa o účtoch za roky 2011 – 2012 daňovej a colnej správy Spojeného kráľovstva, HMRC) – Písomné doklady spoločnosti Amazon EU SARL od Andrewa Cecila (riaditeľ pre verejné politiky Únie, LuxOpCo, Luxembursko), 13. novembra 2012: „Amazon EU Sarl owns the inventory, earns the profits associated with the selling these products to end customers and bears the risk of any loss. From Luxembourg, Amazon EU Sarl processes and settles payments from its European customers.“ Dostupné na adrese https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/writev/716/m03.htm.
However, contrary to what Amazon claims, that does not mean that all and any aid granted under it constitutes existing aid that cannot be recovered.
Oznámenie spoločnosti Amazon z 22. marca 2016, s. 1 a 2 a príloha E.
In the present case, the aid granted as a result of the contested tax ruling was granted on an annual basis, at the moment when LuxOpCo had to pay its corporate income tax in Luxembourg.
Spoločnosť LuxOpCo zodpovedala za centralizované riadenie pokladne a riadenie hotovostných tokov pre európske činnosti spoločnosti Amazon; pozri interný dokument spoločnosti Amazon: Luxembourg Headquarters – Overview, s. 11 až 17 a interný dokument spoločnosti Amazon: Pre & Post Goldcrest Balance Sheet Analysis, s. 1. a interný dokument spoločnosti Amazon: Advance Tax Agreement (záväzné stanovisko), list od spoločnosti Amazon adresovaný p. […], 2. apríla 2014, bod 11 a interný dokument spoločnosti Amazon: „EU Policies and Procedures Manual“, z 1. mája 2006, s. 3.
That is because the purpose of the contested tax ruling was to enable LuxOpCo to determine, over a certain period of time, its annual corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
List spoločnosti Amazon zo 14. apríla 2006 adresovaný luxemburskej daňovej správe, s. 2.
That ruling endorses a transfer pricing arrangement that allows LuxOpCo to determine its transfer prices, which in turn determine its annual taxable profit.
V režime daňovej konsolidácie materská spoločnosť môže podliehať dani ako skupina s jednou alebo viacerými dcérskymi spoločnosťami.
That amount of profit is then declared in its annual corporate income tax declaration, which Luxembourg has accepted each and every year during the relevant period.
Na účely zdanenia príjmov právnických osôb to znamená, že dcérske spoločnosti sa považujú za daňovo integrované do materskej spoločnosti.
The aid is thus granted under the contested tax ruling every year that that declaration is accepted by the Luxembourg tax administration.
Aby bolo možné využiť režim daňovej konsolidácie, materská spoločnosť musí, priamo alebo nepriamo, vlastniť aspoň 95 % základného kapitálu dcérskej spoločnosti a konsolidujúca materská spoločnosť ako aj jej dcérskej spoločnosti musia byť kapitálovými spoločnosťami so sídlom v Luxembursku, ktoré úplne podliehajú dani z príjmov právnických osôb.
What this means for the present case is that only aid granted before 24 June 2004 constitutes existing aid, since the limitation period laid down by Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 was interrupted on 24 June 2014, the date on which the Commission sent a letter to Luxembourg requesting information on any rulings granted to Amazon.
Konsolidácia sa musí týkať aspoň 5 účtovných rokov (pozri článok 164 a LIR).
As explained by Amazon, even though the contested tax ruling was obtained in 2003, LuxOpCo did not start to use the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed therein for the purposes of determining its annual corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg until 2006.
Oznámenie spoločnosti Amazon zo 6. marca 2017, príloha 28a.
Consequently, there are no fiscal years before 24 June 2004 in which the ruling was used to assess LuxOpCo's annual taxable profit and the Luxembourg tax administration accepted a tax declaration based on that assessment.
Pozri oddiel 2.3.3.3.
In any event, the Commission recalls that by letter of 23 December 2004 the Luxembourg tax administration confirmed the continued validity of the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling following a delay in the implementation of the restructuring of Amazon's European operations, for which that ruling was initially requested.
Interné dokumenty spoločnosti Amazon: Amended and Restated Service Agreement medzi LuxOpCo a Amazon.fr SARL, Amended and Restated Service Agreement medzi LuxOpCo a Amazon.fr Logistique SAS, Amended and Restated Service Agreement medzi LuxOpCo a Amazon.co.uk Ltd., Amended and Restated Service Agreement medzi LuxOpCo a Amazon Logistik GmbH a Amended and Restated Service Agreement medzi LuxOpCo a Amazon.de GmbH, všetky k 1. máju 2006.
All aid granted to LuxOpCo and the Amazon group by way of the contested tax ruling therefore constitutes new aid.
Pozri odôvodnenie 109.
NO GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW PREVENTS RECOVERY
Dohody o poskytovaní služieb bod 4.1 (Fees): „In consideration of [EU Local Affiliate]'s performance of the Services, [LuxOpCo] shall pay [EU Local Affiliate] fees (the „Service Fees“) equal to the Applicable Costs (as defined in Exhibit 1) incurred by [EU Local Affiliate] in providing the corresponding Services, plus the Applicable Markup set forth in Exhibit 1. […] .
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 provides that the Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Union law.
“ V súlade s ustanoveniami prílohy 1 (Exhibit 1) „uplatniteľné náklady“ zodpovedajú sume všetkých prevádzkových nákladov, tak ako sú stanovené v súlade so všeobecne uznávanými účtovnými zásadami v Spojených štátoch, priamo alebo nepriamo súvisiacich so službami, s výnimkou nákladov na úroky, dividend vyplatených miestnymi prepojenými európskymi spoločnosťami, poplatkov za výmenu alebo akýchkoľvek iných poplatkov mimo spoločnej dohody, ak sa to považuje za potrebné.
Luxembourg argues that the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations stand in the way of recovery in the present case, first, because the Commission is retroactively applying an allegedly new approach to transfer pricing and, second, because the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) and the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices had assured Luxembourg that its tax ruling practice based on Article 164(3) LIR and the Circular is consistent with the OECD Code of Conduct and the OECD TP Guidelines.
„Uplatniteľná marža“ je percento uplatniteľných nákladov, ktoré sa pohybuje od 3 do 8 % v závislosti od povahy poskytovanej služby a prepojenej európskej spoločnosti.
The principle of legal certainty is a general principle of EU law that predicates the predictability of rules and their legal effects.
Ako sa uvádza v odôvodneniach dohôd o poskytovaní služieb, marža z nákladov sa stanovuje na základe „globálnej ekonomickej analýzy“ nezávislej trhovej sadzby odmeny za služby poskytované spoločnosti LuxOpCo lokálnymi prepojenými európskymi spoločnosťami.
According to the case law, the principle of legal certainty prevents the Commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its powers.
Licenčná zmluva, bod 2.1 písm. a) a bod 1.5 týkajúce sa predmetu licencie (Licensed Purpose).
The Court of Justice has also stated that the only grounds on which, in exceptional cases, that principle may be invoked, is when the Commission has manifestly failed to act and has clearly breached its duty of diligence in the exercise of its supervisory powers.
V bode 2.1 písm. a) sa stanovuje: „a) Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] irrevocably grants AEU [LuxOpCo], under all Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] intellectual property rights in or comprising the Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property, whether existing now or in the future, the following sole and exclusive right and license to the Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property during the Term, solely for the Licensed Purpose, to: i) make, use, reproduce, copy, modify, translate, integrate into or extract from a database and create derivative works of Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property; ii) publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute and communicate to the public by any means whatsoever, including but not limited to wire or wireless transmission process, using broadcasting, satellite, cable or network, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend originals and copies of, and otherwise commercially or non-commercially exploit any Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property (and derivative works thereof); and iii) sublicense to Affiliates or third parties the foregoing rights, including the right to sublicense to further third parties.“
However, when a measure has been granted without having been notified, the mere fact that there has been a delay by the Commission in ordering recovery does not suffice in itself to render that recovery decision unlawful under the legal certainty principle.
Licenčná zmluva, bod 1.4: „„European Country“ means „a) the economic, scientific, and political organization known as the European Union consisting, as of the Effective Time [30 April 2006], of Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, and including any and all other countries that may become members of such organization during the Term, and b) any countries listed as „Applicant countries“ or „Other European countries“ on the Web page located at http://europa.eu.int/abc/governments/index_en.htm#, or any successors thereto or replacements thereof. “
In the present case, since the contested tax ruling was never notified to the Commission by Luxembourg, nor otherwise publicly available, the Commission could only have learnt of ts existence when Luxembourg responded to its request for information on 4 August 2014.
Interný dokument spoločnosti Amazon: licenčná zmluva, bod 2.5 (License Fee) a príloha A.
The principle of legitimate expectations can be invoked by any person in a situation where an EU authority ‘has caused him to entertain expectations which are justified’.
Tento nehmotný majetok je v licenčnej zmluve označený názvom „Derivative Works“ ( „odvodené diela“); podľa bodu 1.3 tejto zmluvy sa pod týmto pojmom rozumejú všetky nové diela vytvorené spoločnosťou AEU [LuxOpCo] alebo pre [ňu] z už existujúceho materiálu, ktorý je súčasťou duševného vlastníctva Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] [vrátane nehmotného majetku] alebo vďaka prístupu k tomuto duševnému vlastníctvu alebo jeho používaniu ( „any and all new works created by or for AEU [LuxOpCo] from pre-existing material contained within, or as a result of access to or use of the Amazon EHT [Lux SCS] Intellectual Property [including the Intangibles][…].“).