natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
according to the French authorities, the arrangements for taxing the company under the headings of business tax and corporation tax are inseparable; consequently, it is necessary to study together the various elements of taxation of FT throughout the period 1991 to 2003.
po mnenju francoskih organov so načini obdavčitve podjetja pri davku od dohodka iz dejavnosti ter davku na družbe med seboj neločljivi; zato je treba pregledati celoto različnih elementov obdavčitve FT za celotno obdobje 1991–2003.
As business tax enters into the calculation of the taxable result, the correction of any undertaxation under the heading of business tax should be accompanied by a downward correction of the amount of corporation tax.
Ker davek od dohodka iz dejavnosti nastopa v izračunu skupne obdavčitve, bi moralo popravi morebitne premajhne odmere davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti slediti zmanjšanje zneska davka na družbe.
Secondly, the French authorities maintain that the measure in question should be considered existing.
Na drugem mestu francoski organi menijo, da bi se moralo navedeni ukrep imeti za veljavnega.
Lastly, at the meetings with the Commission on 16 and 23 June 2004, the French authorities questioned the validity of the calculations which they themselves had previously submitted to the Commission concerning the difference between the business tax paid by FT and that which it would have had to pay had it been subject to the rules of ordinary law.
Nazadnje pa so med srečanji s Komisijo, ki sta potekali 16. in 23. junija 2004, francoski organi oporekali utemeljenost izračunov, ki so jih pred tem sami predložili Komisiji v zvezi z razliko med davkom od dohodka iz dejavnosti, ki ga je plačal FT in tistim, ki bi ga bil moral, če bi bil le-ta odmerjen po splošnem pravu.
According to the French authorities, it was impossible to calculate for certain the undertaxation of FT under the heading of business tax from 1994 onwards.
Francoski organi menijo, da bi bilo nemogoče z gotovostjo izračunati, za koliko je bil od leta 1994 FT premalo odmerjen davek od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
Consequently, in the French authorities' opinion, the Commission should not rule on this issue.
Zaradi tega, kot menijo francoski organi, Komisija ne bi smela odločati o tem vprašanju.
By letter dated 5 July 2004, the French authorities submitted to the Commission new calculations (prepared by FT itself), which they by no means claimed to be more accurate or more precise than those submitted previously but which were intended simply to illustrate the impossibility of estimating with any degree of accuracy the advantage enjoyed by FT under the special business tax scheme from 1994 onwards.
Z dopisom z dne 5. julija 2004 so francoski organi Komisiji predložili nove izračune (ki jih je opravil FT sam), za katere ne menijo, da bi bili natančnejši od poprej predloženih, ampak zgolj skušajo ponazoriti, da ni mogoče natanko oceniti koristi, ki jo je od leta 1994 pridobil FT iz naslova posebnega režima davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty provides that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
Člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES določa, da pomoči, ki jih podeljujejo države članice ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, niso združljive s skupnim trgom, saj vplivajo na trgovino med državami članicami.
In the opening decision, the Commission noted that all the constituent elements of State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty were prima facie present.
V sklepu o začetku postopka je Komisija ugotovila, da so bili združeni vsi elementi državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Only the main findings of that analysis are reproduced in this Decision [13]:
Ta analiza se v tej odločbi ponavlja samo v svojih bistvenih zaključkih [13]:
FT received special treatment in relation to business tax (introduced by Articles 18-21 of Law No 90-568);
FT je bila deležen posebnega obravnavanja pri davku od dohodka iz dejavnosti (ki so ga vzpostavili členi 18–21 zakona št. 90-568),
this special treatment conferred on it an advantage (according to the estimates of the French authorities themselves);
to posebno obravnavanje mu je lahko prineslo določeno prednost (po ocenah francoskih organov samih),
the special provisions on business tax applicable to FT were introduced by Parliament by means of a law promulgated by the President of the French Republic, which leaves no doubt as to the imputability of this measure to the State;
posebne določbe, ki zadevajo FT na področju davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti je vzpostavil parlament z zakonom, ki ga je razglasil predsednik Francoske republike, kar ne dopušča dvomov glede pripisanja teh ukrepov državi,
in so far as FT paid fewer taxes than companies subject to the rules of ordinary law, there is a use of public resources;
v kolikor je FT plačal manj davkov kot podjetja, ki jih zavezuje splošno pravo, so bila prizadeta javna sredstva,
since FT operates in a very competitive sector, that of telecommunications, the advantages from which FT benefits distort or threaten to distort competition;
glede na to, da FT deluje na področju telekomunikacij, kjer je visoka konkurenca, prednosti, ki jih je pridobil FT, izkrivljajo ali bi lahko izkrivljale konkurenco,
since FT operates in markets which were gradually opened to competition from the end of the 1980s, any advantage granted to FT by the State is likely to affect trade between Member States.
glede na to, da FT deluje na trgu, ki se je od konca osemdesetih let postopoma odpiral konkurenci, vsakršna prednost, ki jo je FT dala država, lahko vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
The years 1991 to 1993
Leta 1991–1993
To analyse the business tax scheme for the period 1991 to 1993, it is necessary to examine the first argument advanced by the French authorities, according to which the levy for the benefit of the general budget paid by FT from 1991 to 1993 was in the nature of a tax and can be considered equivalent to payment of business tax according to specific procedures.
Za analizo režima davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti v obdobju 1991–1993 je treba preučiti prvi argument francoskih organov, po katerem je bila dajatev v korist splošnega proračuna, ki jo je plačeval FT v letih 1991–1993, davčne narave in se lahko upošteva kot vključujoča plačilo davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti na specifičen način.
On this point, the Commission would observe that, according to case law, the existence of aid cannot be denied by reason of the fact that a company benefiting from an advantageous tax arrangement is subject under a different head to heavier taxation [14].
Kar se tega tiče, Komisija ugotavlja, da v skladu s pravno prakso obstoja pomoči ni mogoče zanikati z dejstvom, da mora podjetje, ki ima korist od ugodnega davčnega režima, iz drugega naslova plačevati višje dajatve [14].
Each tax follows a different logic and is based on different presuppositions.
Vsak davek namreč sledi svoji logiki in predpostavkam.
As for the levy being in the nature of a tax, the Commission would first of all observe that the levy is not expressly linked by law to the business tax.
Glede davčne narave nakazila Komisija na prvem mestu poudarja, da dajatev ni izrecno z zakonom vezana na davek od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
There is nothing in law that says that the levy was payable in lieu of business tax.
Zakon nikjer ne navaja, da bi bilo to dajatev treba plačevati namesto davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
Nor was the amount of the levy defined according to the parameters which determine the amount of the business tax.
Višina te dajatve tudi ni bila določena po parametrih, ki določajo višino davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
Moreover, in the opening decision, the Commission pointed out that the amount of the lump sum paid by FT to the State by way of contribution to the general budget was equivalent to the profit which the PTT paid to the State in 1989 and 1990.
V sklepu o začetku postopka je Komisija med drugim navedla, da je bila višina skupnega zneska, ki ga je FT plačal državi v okviru prispevka v splošni proračun, enaka dobičku, ki so ga P.T.T. podjetja nakazala državi v letih 1989 in 1990.
It considered, therefore, that the payment of this sum was akin more to a levy on FT's operating results than to individual taxation by way of business tax.
Menila je torej, da je plačilo te vsote bolj vezano na dajatev na rezultate upravljanja FT kot pa na posebno obdavčitev v okviru davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
Before 1990, when FT's business activities were still being conducted by a Directorate in the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, the budget of that Directorate was in surplus.
Pred letom 1990, ko je dejavnosti FT izvajala še direkcija ministrstva, zadolženega za pošte in telekomunikacije, je bil dodatni proračun te direkcije izdaten.
To make up the deficits in the general budget of the State, this annexed budget was subject to a levy for the benefit of the general budget under the heading of ‘operating surpluses’, to which were subsequently added other levies intended to finance specific activities.
Za kritje primanjkljaja splošnega državnega proračuna je bilo s tega dodatnega proračuna v korist splošnega proračuna izvršena dajatev v okviru „poslovnih presežkov“, ki so ji sledile druge dajatve, namenjene financiranju specifičnih dejavnosti.
In 1988, the Government committed itself to stabilising until 1992 the contribution from the budget annexed to the general budget at FRF 13,7 billion for 1989 and FRF 14 billion for 1990.
Leta 1988 se je vlada odločila, da bo do leta 1992 zamrznila prispevke z dodatnega proračuna v splošni proračun pri 13,7 milijardah FF za leto 1989 in 14 milijardah FF za leto 1990.
It is this amount that was taken as a basis by Law No 90-568 when it fixed the levy imposed on FT for the benefit of the general budget for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 [15].
Na to vsoto se je skliceval zakon št. 90-568, ko je določil dajatev, ki je bila naložena FT v korist splošnega proračuna za leta 1991, 1992 in 1993 [15].
More generally, the characteristics of the levy (lump-sum payment, amount fixed in the light of the company's past operating surpluses) are not those of traditional taxation.
Širše gledano značilnosti te dajatve (plačilo v paketu, znesek, določen glede na poslovne presežke podjetja v preteklosti) niso iz običajnega davčnega sistema.
In view of its origins and how it is defined, the levy therefore resembles more a participation in the operating results.
Če torej upoštevamo zgodovino in podrobnosti določitve te dajatve, se bolj približuje udeležbi pri rezultatih poslovodenja.
However, even if the levy is not expressly linked by law to the business tax, it is linked to the specific tax scheme applicable to FT.
Vseeno pa, čeprav ta dajatev ni izrecno z zakonom vezana na davek od dohodka iz dejavnosti, je vezana na posebni davčni režim, ki se ga predpiše FT.
Law No 90-568 provided, in the same chapter entitled ‘Taxation’ and in the same article, that FT did not have to pay any taxes (other than those paid by the State) and that it had to pay a levy for the benefit of the general budget, these two provisions being applicable during the same period (from 1 January 1991 to 1 January 1994).
Zakon št. 90-568 je namreč v okviru istega poglavja, ki je naslovljeno „davčni sistem“, in z istim členom določil, da FT ni treba plačevati davkov (razen tistih, ki jih plačuje država) ter da mora plačati to dajatev v korist splošnega proračuna, pri čemer se obe določbi izvajata za isto obdobje (od 1. januarja 1991 do 1. januarja 1994).
Additionally, the levy possesses features which are typically those of a tax, namely a pecuniary payment collected definitively, without any counterpart and through authority by the State or another public entity.
Poleg tega dajatev predstavlja tipične elemente obdavčitve, kot so denarna obveznost, ki je dokončna, brez povračila, ter jo zahteva organ, država ali druga javna entiteta.
Lastly, it procures resources for the State.
Nenazadnje ta dajatev zagotavlja sredstva državi.
It would seem, therefore, that the objective of Article 19 of the Law was to establish a three-year transitional period during which FT would continue to pay to the State the same amounts as in the past by way of participation in the operating results and at the same time would be exempted from payment of all taxes (other than those paid by the State).
Kaže torej, da je bil namen člena 19 tega zakona vzpostavitev prehodnega triletnega obdobja, v katerem bi FT še naprej državi nakazoval iste zneske, kot jih je v preteklosti v okviru udeležbe pri rezultatih poslovanja, hkrati pa bi bil opravičen plačevanja vseh davkov (tistih, ki jih ne plačuje država).
The immediate subjection of FT to the ordinary rules of taxation would have involved, inter alia, the payment of local taxes (benefiting local authorities and not the general budget of the State, such as, for example, business tax) — which might have led to a reduction in FT's contribution to the national budget (in so far as a new form of participation in the operating results was not immediately introduced).
Takojšnja podreditev FT davčnemu sistemu splošnega prava bi med drugim vodila k plačevanju lokalnih davkov (od katerih bi imele korist lokalne skupnosti in ne splošni državni proračun, kot je primer pri davku od dohodka iz dejavnosti), kar bi lahko vodilo k zmanjšanju prispevkov FT v korist državnega proračuna (s tem, da nova oblika udeležbe pri rezultatih poslovodenja ni bila vzpostavljena takoj).
In conclusion, it would appear that the levy for the benefit of the general budget to which FT was subject from 1991 to 1993 inclusive was of a mixed nature, being partly in the nature of a tax and partly in the form of participation in the operating results, in so far as it was intended to ensure that, during a three-year transitional period, the company paid to the State an amount equivalent to that which it would have paid had it paid tax under the conditions of ordinary law, plus an additional amount corresponding to a levy on the operating results.
Če zaključimo, kaže, da je bila dajatev v korist splošnega proračuna, h kateri je bil zavezan FT v letih 1991–1993, mešane narave, deloma davčne in deloma udeležba pri rezultatih poslovodenja, saj je skušala zagotoviti, da bi v triletnem prehodnem obdobju podjetje državi nakazovalo znesek, ki bi bil enakovreden vsoti zneska, ki bi ga nakazovalo, če bi plačevalo davke po pogojih splošnega prava, in dodatnega zneska, ki ustreza dajatvi na rezultate poslovanja.
In other words, the special levy which FT paid to the State between 1991 and 1993 inclusive performed a dual function: it was tantamount in part to the payment of various taxes and — for the remainder — to participation by the State as owner of the company in the latter's results.
Z drugimi besedami, posebna dajatev, ki jo je FT nakazoval državi v letih 1991–1993, je imela dvojno funkcijo: deloma je predstavljala plačilo raznih davkov, hkrati pa je – dodatno k temu – predstavljala državno lastniško udeležbo pri rezultatih podjetja.
In the light of the above (and in particular of the partly tax-like nature of the levy and of the link between the levy and the specific tax scheme applicable to the company), even in the absence of explicit textual indications to the effect that the levy has to be considered a specific method of payment of business tax, the Commission concludes that during the years 1991 to 1993 inclusive the levy in question was tantamount in part to the payment of taxes, including the payment of business tax, and – for the remainder — to participation by the State as owner of the company in the latter's operating results.
Glede na ravnokar povedano (predvsem na deloma davčni značaj dajatve ter povezavo med njo in posebnim davčnim režimom podjetja), čeprav ni prisotnih izrecnih besedilnih kazalcev, po katerih bi morali to dajatev imeti za posebni način plačevanja davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti, Komisija zaključuje, da je obravnavana dajatev v letih 1991–1993 bila deloma plačilo davkov, vključno s plačilom davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti, ter, kot dodatno k temu, lastniška udeležba države pri rezultatih poslovodenja podjetja.
In this connection it should be added that, according to the information submitted by the French authorities for the years 1991 to 1993 inclusive, the levy in question was larger than the taxes FT would have had to pay had it been subject to the ordinary business tax and corporation tax arrangements.
V zvezi s tem je treba dodati, da je bila po podatkih, ki so jih dostavili francoski organi v letih 1991–1993, obravnavana dajatev višja od davkov, ki bi jih moral FT plačati, če bi jih bil plačeval po režimu davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti in davka na družbe po splošnem pravu.
It follows from this that, during that period, FT gained no advantage from the business tax exemption.
Iz tega sledi, da naj bi v tem obdobju FT ne pridobil nobene prednosti, povezane z oprostitvijo davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
However, the Commission would point out that, during the years 1991 to 1993 inclusive, FT was subject only to the duties and taxes actually borne by the State (in particular it did not pay any property tax).
Vendar pa Komisija opozarja na to, da je bil v letih 1991–1993 FT zavezan samo za davke in takse, ki jih je nosila država (ki ni plačevala na primer zemljiškega davka).
Consequently, to make sure that the exemption from business tax and its replacement by the levy in question had not conferred any tax advantage on FT, the Commission asked the French authorities whether the levy was higher than all the other taxes FT would have paid had it been taxed under conditions of ordinary law (and not just higher than the sum of business tax and corporation tax) [16].
Zaradi tega je Komisija, da bi se prepričala, ali oprostitev davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti in njegova nadomestitev z obravnavano dajatvijo FT ni prinesla kakšne davčne prednosti, povprašala francoske organe, če je bila ta dajatev višja od vseh ostalih davkov, ki bi jih FT plačeval v primeru, če bi mu bili naloženi po pogojih splošnega prava (in ne samo višji od vsote davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti in davka na družbe) [16].
At the meetings with the Commission on 16 and 23 June 2004, the French authorities confirmed that the levy was indeed higher than the sum of all the other taxes.
Med srečanjema s Komisijo 16. in 23. junija 2004 so francoski organi potrdili, da je bila ta dajatev dejansko višja od vsote vseh ostalih davkov.
Consequently, the Commission considers that FT did not benefit from any advantage during the period between 1991 and 1993 inclusive in so far as it was subject to a special levy of a mixed nature, being tantamount in part to the payment of various taxes and - for the remainder – to a levy on the operating results, which special levy was higher than the sum of the duties and taxes from which FT was exempted.
Posledično Komisija meni, da FT za obdobje 1991–1993 s tem, da je bil zavezan za posebno dajatev mešane narave, kjer je deloma veljal za plačilo različnih davkov in – dodatno k temu – dajatev na rezultate poslovanja, posebno dajatev, ki je bila višja od vsote davkov in taks, ki jih je bil FT oproščen, ni pridobil kakšne koristi.
The years 1994 to 2003
Leta 1994–2003
In order to analyse the business tax scheme for the period 1994 to 2003, it is necessary to examine the second and third arguments advanced by the French authorities.
Za analizo režima davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti v obdobju 1994–2003 je potrebno preučiti drugi in tretji argument francoskih organov.
The French authorities stress that Law No 90-568 established ‘once and for all’ a single tax scheme applicable to FT from 1991 to 2002 inclusive.
Francoski organi vztrajajo pri dejstvu, da je zakon št. 90-568 vzpostavil enkrat „za vselej“ enkratni davčni režim, po katerem se obdavčuje FT od 1991 do 2002.
In their view, an overall calculation should be made of any advantage the scheme may have conferred on FT throughout the period 1991 to 2002.
Menijo, da je treba izračunati skupno korist, ki jo je ta režim lahko prinesel FT, za celotno obdobje 1991–2002.
In their opinion, an overtaxation of FT one year might ‘offset’ an undertaxation of FT another year.
To pomeni, da po njihovem mnenju prevelika odmera davka FT v enem letu lahko „uravnoteži“ premajhno odmero davka FT v kakšnem drugem letu.
More precisely, the French authorities maintain that the undertaxation of FT for the ‘definitive’ period (1 January 1994 to 1 January 2003) is offset by an overtaxation (due to the payment of the levy) during the ‘transitional’ period (1 January 1991 to 31 December 1993).
Natančneje povedano, francoski organi menijo, da je premajhna odmera za FT v okviru „dokončnega“ obdobja (1. januar 1994–1. januar 2003) uravnotežena s preveliko odmero (nastalo zaradi plačila dajatve) v času „prehodnega“ obdobja (1. januar 1991–31. december 1993).
This is claimed to be because the amount paid by FT to the State by way of the levy for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 was so much higher than under the ordinary rules of taxation that it exceeded any advantage derived by FT from the specific arrangements for fixing the business tax during the ‘definitive’ period.
Znesek, ki ga je FT plačal državi v okviru te dajatve za leta 1991, 1992 in 1993, naj bi bil namreč toliko višji od tistega, ki bi bil zaračunan v okviru obdavčitve po splošnem pravu, da je presegal prednost, ki naj bi jo FT pridobil s specifičnimi podrobnostmi definicije davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti v času „dokončnega“ obdobja.
This argument cannot be accepted.
Te argumentacije ni mogoče podpreti.
Law No 90-568 established two clearly distinct taxation schemes:
Zakon št. 90-568 je vzpostavil dva jasno ločena režima obdavčitve:
a ‘transitional’ scheme lasting from 1991 to 1994, during which time FT was exempted from all taxes other than those paid by the State and had to pay to the State a lump sum by way of a ‘levy for the benefit of the general budget’;
„prehodni“ režim od 1991 do 1994, med katerim je bil FT opravičen vseh davkov, razen tistih, ki jih plačuje država, ter je moral državi plačevati skupni znesek v okviru „nakazila v korist splošnega proračuna“,
as from 1994, a scheme intended to be definitive (the Law did not lay down any end date for this scheme and in 2003 a new law was needed to abolish it); under this scheme, FT was subject under ordinary-law conditions to all taxes except property taxes and business tax, for which special conditions were laid down.
režim po l. 1994, ki naj bi bil dokončni (zakon ni predvidel končnega datuma uporabe tega režima in je bil l. 2003 potreben nov zakon za njegovo razveljavitev); v okviru tega režima je bil FT v pogojih splošnega zakona zavezan za vse davke, razen zemljiških davkov in davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti, za katere so bili predvideni posebni pogoji.
According to case law, aid given to a company cannot be offset by a specific charge imposed on the same company on another score.
Glede na pravno prakso pomoč nekemu podjetju ne more biti „uravnotežena“ z neko posebno obremenitvijo istega podjetja iz kakšnega drugega naslova.
The Court of Justice has thus held that a reduction in social security contributions pertaining to family allowances which benefits certain companies cannot be ‘made good’ through an additional charge imposed on those same companies under the heading of unemployment insurance [17].
Sodišče je tako izključilo, da bi olajšava pri socialnih prispevkih za družinske dajatve, „uravnotežila“ dodatno obremenitev taistih podjetij v okviru zavarovanja za primer brezposelnosti [17].