natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of this case law, the Commission cannot agree that the ‘undertaxation’ of FT under the heading of business tax from 1994 onwards could be offset by the special levy paid by the company between 1991 and 1994, a levy which was not specifically connected with business tax.
Ob upoštevanju te prakse Komisija ne more priznati, da bi bila „premajhna obdavčitev“ FT od leta 1994 naprej v okviru davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti lahko uravnotežena s posebno dajatvijo, ki jo je FT plačeval med l. 1991 in 1994 in ni bil posebej vezan na davek od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
As the Commission has already observed, Law No 90-568 does not provide that the special levy was due instead of business tax.
Kot je Komisija že navedla, zakon št. 90-568 namreč nikjer ne navaja, da bi se posebna dajatev plačevala namesto davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
Moreover, the amount of this levy was defined, not according to the parameters which determine the amount of business tax, but by reference to the profit which the PTT paid to the State in 1989 and 1990.
Višina te dajatve tudi ni bila določena po kriterijih, ki določajo višino davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti, temveč glede na dobiček, ki so ga pošte nakazovale državi l. 1989 in 1990.
In view of its origins and the way it is defined, the levy is akin more to a levy on operating results than to individual taxation under the heading of business tax.
Če torej upoštevamo zgodovino in podrobnosti določitve te dajatve, se bolj približuje dajatvi na rezultate poslovodenja kot pa posebni obdavčitvi v okviru davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
This ought normally to have led the Commission to rule out any set-off and to consider that the non-payment of business tax during the ‘transitional’ period also constituted a specific advantage conferred on the company.
To bi moralo normalno voditi Komisijo k izključitvi vsakršne kompenzacije in k mnenju, da vsakršno neplačevanje davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti med „prehodnim“ obdobjem predstavlja tudi specifično prednost, ki se daje podjetju.
It is by way of exception that the Commission has accepted that the levy paid by the company between 1991 and 1993 inclusive was also tantamount to payment of business tax.
Le izjemoma je Komisija priznala, da je dajatev, ki jo je podjetje plačevalo med l. 1991 in 1993, veljala tudi za plačilo davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti.
In view of the ambiguous nature of the levy, which seems to be connected with the specific tax scheme applicable to FT [18], the fact that the levy exceeded the amount which would have resulted from the application of the ordinary-law tax system and the transitional character of the scheme in question, the Commission has decided to give the company the benefit of the doubt and has agreed to recognise the partly tax-like nature of the levy and the fact that it was tantamount also to payment of taxes.
Upoštevajoč dvoumno naravo te dajatve, ki izgleda, da je vezana na posebni davčni režim za FT [18], zaradi tega, ker je dajatev presegala znesek, ki bi izhajal iz uporabe davčnih režimov splošnega prava ter zaradi prehodnega značaja obravnavanega režima se je namreč Komisija odločila, da podjetju prizna okoliščino dvoma, ter sprejela, da prizna deloma davčno naravo dajatve in dejstvo, da je predstavljal tudi plačilo davkov.
Nevertheless, any part of the levy which exceeded the normally applicable tax burden under the ordinary law could be understood only as a remuneration on capital, which rules out any legal basis for an offsetting mechanism.
Vendar pa je vsak del dajatve, ki bi presegal davčno obremenitev, ki se jo ponavadi plačuje na osnovi splošnega prava, lahko razumljen le kot poplačilo sredstev, kar izključuje vsakršno pravno podlago za uveljavljanje kompenzacije.
Any offsetting between the amounts paid by FT by way of levies on operating surpluses and the undertaxation of FT under the heading of business tax would involve a confusing of levies of different types (tax credits with pecuniary gains), which is not admissible.
Kompenzacija med vsotami, ki jih je FT plačal v okviru dajatev na presežke poslovodenja in premajhna obdavčitev FT v okviru davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti, bi namreč vodila k mešanju dajatev različne narave (davčnih subvencij s pridobljeno premoženjsko koristjo), kar pa je nesprejemljivo.
Lastly, the Commission notes that Law No 90-568 did not provide for any offsetting of the undertaxation of FT from 1994 onwards by an overtaxation for the years 1991 to 1994.
Komisija skratka pripominja, da zakon št. 90-568 nikakor ni predvidel kakšne kompenzacije premajhne obdavčitve FT od leta 1994 z večjo obdavčitvijo v letih 1991–1994.
An overall calculation, such as that proposed by the French authorities, would involve, however, reclassifying ex post the surplus tax allegedly paid by FT during the ‘transitional’ period as a tax advance payment (tax credit) to be deducted from future years, which was not at all the aim of Law No 90-568 when it established the two schemes.
Skupni izračun, kakršnega predlagajo francoski organi, pa bi zahteval naknadno prekvalifikacijo presežka obdavčitve, ki naj bi ga bil v „prehodnem“ obdobju plačal FT kot avans davka (davčni kredit), izračunan iz prihodnjih let, kar nikakor ni bil predmet zakona št. 90-568, takrat ko je vzpostavil svoja režima.
If the French authorities now propose to offset different types of levy (the special levy of a mixed type – being in the nature both of a tax and of a dividend – and the undertaxation of FT on the score of business tax) applicable to two separate periods, this is not at all due to the application of the normal taxation rules of French law, but involves an a posteriori rationalisation aimed at avoiding the recovery of the aid from which FT benefited.
Če francoski organi sedaj predlagajo, da se kompenzirajo dajatve različne narave (posebna dajatev mešane narave – davčne in takšen, ki izhaja iz dividend – in premajhna obdavčitev FT v okviru davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti), ki se uporabljajo za dve različni obdobji, to nikakor ni rezultat izvajanja običajnih davčnih predpisov francoskega prava, ampak gre za naknadno racionalizacijo, s katero bi se ognili vračanju pomoči, ki je bila podeljena FT.
In conclusion, the Commission cannot accept the French authorities' second argument according to which an overall calculation should be made of the advantage conferred by the scheme on FT throughout the period 1991 to 2002.
Zaključujemo, da Komisija ne bi mogla sprejeti drugega argumenta francoskih organov, po katerem bi se moral za celotno obdobje 1991–2002 opraviti skupni izračun prednosti, ki jo je s tem režimom pridobil FT.
This means that the difference between the business tax actually paid by FT and that which should have been due under the ordinary law from 1 January 1994 to 1 January 2003 constitutes State aid inasmuch as it represents an advantage for FT granted through resources which would otherwise have been incorporated in the budget of the State.
To pomeni, da razlika med davkom od dohodka iz dejavnosti, ki je bil dejansko plačan s strani FT, in tistim, ki bi moral biti plačan po splošnem pravu v obdobju 1. januarja 1994 do 1. januarja 2003, pomeni državno pomoč, saj za FT predstavlja korist, ki jo je pridobil s sredstvi, ki bi šli sicer v državni proračun.
Nor can the Commission accept the argument according to which business tax enters into the calculation of the taxable result and that the correction of any undertaxation under the heading of business tax should be accompanied by a downward correction of the amount of corporation tax since the arrangements for taxing the company under the headings of business tax and corporation tax are inseparable.
Komisija prav tako ne more sprejeti argumenta, po katerem davek od dohodka iz dejavnosti vstopa v izračun obdavčljivega izida in da bi moral popravku morebitne premajhne obdavčitve v okviru davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti slediti popravek pri znižanju zneska davka na družbe, ker naj bi bila načina obdavčitve podjetja v okviru davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti in davka na družbe neločljivo povezana.
This argument has been rejected by the Court of First Instance, which has stated clearly that ‘… the Commission is not obliged, in its decisions ordering the recovery of State aid, to determine the incidence of tax on the amount of aid to be recovered, since that calculation falls within the scope of national law; it is merely required to indicate the gross sum to be recovered.
Takšen argument je namreč zavrnilo Sodišče, ki je jasno povedalo da „ … Komisija v svojih odločitvah, ki zapovedujejo povrnitev državnih pomoči, ne sme računati učinkov davka na višino pomoči, ki jih je treba vrniti, saj ta izračun posega na področje uporabe državnega prava, temveč se mora omejiti na navedbo bruto zneska, ki ga je treba povrniti.
That does not prevent the national authorities, when recovering the amount in question, from deducting certain sums, where appropriate, from the amount to be recovered pursuant to their internal rules, provided that the application of those rules does not make such recovery impossible in practice or discriminate in relation to comparable cases governed by national law’ [19].
To ne preprečuje, da ne bi državni organi ob morebitnem povračilu iz njegove višine izračunale določenih vsot, ki jih uporabljajo njihovi notranji predpisi, če le uporaba teh njihovih notranjih predpisov ne napravi navedenega povračila praktično nemogočega ali če ni diskriminatorna do podobnih primerov, ki jih ureja notranje pravo“ [19].
NEW AID
NOVA POMOČ
Regarding the nature of the aid, the Commission confirms its preliminary conclusion set out in the opening decision that the aid in question has to be considered new.
Glede narave pomoči Komisija potrjuje svoj predhoden zaključek, ki je bil naveden v sklepu o začetku postopka, po katerem je obravnavano pomoč treba razumeti kot novo.
The exceptional business tax scheme was introduced by a law of 1990 (i.e. after the entry into force of the Treaty) precisely to prevent the creation of FT as a public operator from implying its subjection to the ordinary rules of taxation.
Nezdružljivi režim davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti je bil namreč sprejet z zakonom iz leta 1990 (torej po tem, ko je Pogodba stopila v veljavo) prav z namenom, da bi ustanovitev FT kot javnega podjetja ne privedla k temu, da bi bil le-ta podvržen davčnemu sistemu splošnega prava.
Moreover, since 1988 the telecommunications sector has been gradually liberalised.
Med drugim se je od leta 1988 področje telekomunikacij postopoma liberaliziralo.
Because FT benefited as from 1994 from aid connected with the specific business tax scheme and because at that time the markets in which FT operated were, at least partially, competitive [20], the Commission has to conclude that the measure in question is new aid.
Glede na to, da je imel FT od leta 1994 koristi od pomoči, vezanih na posebni režim davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti in da so bili na ta datum trgi, na katerih je deloval FT vsaj deloma podvrženi konkurenci [20], mora Komisija zaključiti, da je obravnavani ukrep nova pomoč.
PRESCRIPTION
ZASTARANJE
The French authorities consider that in any event the alleged aid scheme for FT introduced by Law No 90-568 constitutes an existing scheme of aid which cannot be recovered.
Francoski organi menijo, da v vsakem primeru tako imenovane sheme pomoči v korist FT, ki jo je vzpostavil zakon št. 90-568, predstavlja shemo veljavnih pomoči, ki jih ni mogoče vzeti nazaj.
They note that the scheme was introduced by Law No 90-568 of 2 July 1990 and consider that it was on 2 July 1990 (i.e. the day on which the law was adopted) that the aid was granted to the recipient.
Pravijo, da je shemo vzpostavil zakon št. 90-568 z dne 2. julija 1990 in menijo, da je bila 2. julija 1990 pomoč podeljena upravičencu (na dan sprejetja zakona torej).
The opening of the procedure having been decided on 30 January 2003, i.e. more than 10 years after the aid was granted, the French authorities maintain that, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, the alleged aid for FT was ‘covered’ by the Community rules on the time-barring of State aid.
Ker je bil začetek postopka sklenjen 30. januarja 2003, se pravi po zaključku 10. let od podelitve pomoči, francoski organi zastopajo stališče, da naj bi bila v skladu s členom 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 tako imenovana pomoč v korist FT „krita“ s predpisi Skupnosti o zastaranju državnih pomoči.
It will be recalled in this connection that Article 15 provides as follows:
S tem v zvezi je treba spomniti na to, da člen 15 predvideva naslednje:
The powers of the Commission to recover aid shall be subject to a limitation period of 10 years.
Pooblastila Komisije zahtevati vračilo pomoči imajo desetletni zastaralni rok.
The limitation period shall begin on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as aid under an aid scheme.
Zastaralni rok začne teči na dan, ko je dodeljena nezakonita pomoč upravičencu kot individualna pomoč ali kot pomoč v okviru sheme pomoči.
Any action taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting at the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period.
Kakršen koli ukrep glede nezakonite pomoči, ki ga sprejme Komisija ali država članica na zahtevo Komisije, prekine zastaralni rok.
Each interruption shall start time running afresh.
Po vsaki prekinitvi začne rok teči znova.
The limitation period shall be suspended for as long as the decision of the Commission is the subject of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Zastaranje se zadrži tako dolgo, dokler je odločba Komisije v postopku pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti.
Any aid with regard to which the limitation period has expired, shall be deemed to be existing aid’.
Kakršna koli pomoč, pri kateri je zastaralni rok iztekel, se šteje kot veljavna pomoč“.
It should be pointed out that the 10-year limitation period provided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 ‘does not in any way express a general principle whereby new aid is transformed into existing aid but merely precludes recovery of aid established more then 10 years before the Commission first intervened’ [21].
Treba je vedeti, da je desetletni zastaralni rok, ki ga predvideva člen 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999, „daleč od tega, da bi bil izraz splošnega načela, ki bi novo pomoč spreminjal v veljavno pomoč, temveč samo izključuje vračanje pomoči, ki so bile dodeljene več kot deset let pred prvim posegom Komisije“ [21].
It follows from this that, pursuant to Article 15 of the Regulation, the aid which benefited FT under the specific business tax scheme would not lose its character as new aid by reason of the fact that the scheme was set up more than 10 years ago.
Iz tega sledi, da ob upoštevanju člena 15 te uredbe, pomoč, ki jo je pridobil FT v okviru posebnega režima davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti, ne bi izgubila svojega značaja nove pomoči s tem, da je bil ta režim vzpostavljen pred več kot desetimi leti.
Quite simply, under the terms of the provision, the Commission would be able to order recovery only in respect of aid which had benefited the company during the 10 years preceding its action.
Na osnovi te določbe Komisija enostavno ne bi mogla ukazati vračanja pomoči, razen tistih, ki si jih je pridobilo podjetje v teku desetih let pred njenim ukrepanjem.
In so far as the aid benefited FT as from the 1994 financial year and the opening decision dates from 30 January 2003, the Commission must order the recovery of the aid in question in its entirety.
A v kolikor je pomoč koristila FT od začetka izvajanja l. 1994 in ker ima sklep o začetku postopka datum 30. januar 2003, mora Komisija odrediti vračanje navedene pomoči v celoti.
It should also be pointed out that, according to Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, ‘The powers of the Commission to recover aid shall be subject to a limitation period of 10 years’ and that this period starts to run ‘on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary … under an aid scheme’.
Prav tako je treba navesti, da imajo po členu 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 „pooblastila Komisije zahtevati vračilo pomoči desetletni zastaralni rok“ in da ta rok začne teči „na dan, ko je dodeljena nezakonita pomoč upravičencu... v okviru sheme pomoči“.
What matters, therefore, under the terms of the Regulation, is the date on which the individual aid was granted to the recipient under an aid scheme and not the date on which the scheme itself was introduced.
Po Uredbi torej šteje datum, na kateri je bila podeljena individualna pomoč upravičencu v okviru sheme pomoči in ne datum, na kateri je bila vzpostavljena sama shema.
In other words, what Article 15 of the Regulation time-bars is the possibility for the Commission to order the recovery of aid granted illegally to the recipient more than 10 years previously and in no way, contrary to what the French authorities claim, the aid schemes themselves.
Z drugimi besedami, člen 15 navedene uredbe predpisuje možnost Komisiji, da odredi vračilo pomoči, ki jih je upravičenec nezakonito pridobil pred več kot 10. leti, nikakor pa ne, nasprotno temu, kar menijo francoski organi, samih shem pomoči.
It follows from this that, in the case of aid schemes, the limitation period for recovery starts to run, not on the day on which the scheme was introduced, but on the day on which the aid was actually granted to the recipient.
Iz tega sledi, da v primeru shem pomoči zastaralni rok za vračanje ne začne teči na dan vzpostavitve sheme, temveč na dan, ko je bila pomoč dejansko podeljena upravičencu.
Law No 90-568 introduced an aid scheme for FT [22].
Zakon št. 90-568 je vzpostavil shemo pomoči v korist FT [22].
Consequently, the limitation period in respect of the aid granted to FT under this specific tax scheme starts to run, not on the day on which Law No 90-568 was adopted, but on the day on which the aid was actually granted to FT, that is to say annually at the time when the business tax was due.
Zato zastaralni rok pomoči, podeljenih FT v okviru tega posebnega davčnega režima, ne začenja teči na dan sprejetja zakona št. 90-568, ampak na dan, ko je bila pomoč dejansko podeljena FT, se pravi vsako leto v trenutku, ko je davek od dohodka iz dejavnosti zapadel v plačilo.
Regarding the interruption of the limitation period, contrary to what the French authorities maintain there does not have to be a formal Commission decision for the period to be interrupted.
Kar se tiče prekinitve zastaralnega roka, pa v nasprotju z mnenjem francoskih organov ni potrebna formalna odločba Komisije, da bi bil prekinjen.
According to Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, ‘Any action taken by the Commission … with regard to the unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period’.
Po členu 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 „kakršen koli ukrep glede nezakonite pomoči, ki ga sprejme Komisija..., prekine zastaralni rok“.
The Court of First Instance has already held that a simple request for information can interrupt the limitation period provided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [23].
Sodišče je že presodilo, da že prošnja za dodatne informacije lahko prekine zastaralni rok, ki ga predvideva člen 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 [23].
In the present case, the first information request sent by the Commission to the French authorities concerning the special business tax scheme applicable to FT was dated 28 June 2001.
Prva tovrstna zahteva po informacijah, ki jo je Komisija naslovila na francoske organe v zvezi s posebnim režimom davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti, odmerjenega FT, sega do dne 28. junija 2001.
It is therefore on that date that the limitation period within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 was interrupted [24].
Na ta datum je bil torej prekinjen zastaralni rok v smislu člena 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 [24].
Consequently, only aid granted to FT more than 10 years before the first information request (i.e. before 28 June 1991) is no longer recoverable.
Zaradi tega bi zgolj pomoči, ki jih je FT pridobil več kot 10 let pred prvo zahtevo po informacijah (torej pred 28. junijem 1991), lahko bile ne več vračljive.
However, in so far as aid was granted to FT as from the 1994 financial year under the business tax scheme applicable for the period 1994 to 2003, the Commission must order the recovery of the aid in question in its entirety.
A ker je bila pomoč od začetka izvajanja l. 1994 podeljena FT v okviru režima davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti, predpisanega za obdobje 1994–2003, mora Komisija odrediti vračanje navedene pomoči v celoti.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID
ZDRUŽLJIVOST POMOČI
The French authorities have put forward no specific argument in support of the compatibility of the aid.
Francoski organi niso uveljavili nobenega natanko določenega argumenta, ki bi podpiral združljivost pomoči.
The Commission would stress that, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 122 and 123 of the opening decision, it considers that the aid is not compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(2) or (3)(a), (c) (with reference to the economic development of certain areas), (d) and (e).
Komisija poudarja, da zaradi razlogov, navedenih v točkah 122 in 123 sklepa o začetku postopka, meni, da pomoč ni združljiva s skupnim trgom v smislu člena 87(2) ali (3)(a), (c) (s sklicem na gospodarski razvoj določenih regij), (d) in (e).
In addition, the aid in question is connected with no restructuring project of the company but constitutes rather operating aid.
Obravnavana pomoč med drugim ni vezana na kakšen projekt prestrukturiranja podjetja, temveč predstavlja bolj pomoč pri delovanju.
Consequently, the aid cannot be considered compatible on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) (with reference to the development of certain economic activities).
Zaradi tega pomoči ni mogoče imeti za združljivo na osnovi člena 87(3)(c) (s sklicem na gospodarski razvoj določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti).
In the light of the above, the Commission finds that:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da:
The business tax scheme applicable during the period 1991 to 1993 does not constitute State aid.
Režim davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti, ki se ga odmeri v obdobju 1991–1993 ne predstavlja državne pomoči.
The difference between the business tax actually paid by FT and that which would have been payable under the ordinary law from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 2002 constitutes State aid.
Razlika med davkom od dohodka iz dejavnosti, ki ga je FT dejansko plačal in tistim, ki bi moral biti plačan glede na splošno pravo od 1. januarja 1994 do 31. decembra 2002 predstavlja državno pomoč.
This aid is new aid which was implemented illegally by France in infringement of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
Ta pomoč je nova pomoč, ki jo je nezakonito izvajala Francija in kršila člen 88(3) Pogodbe ES.
This aid is incompatible with the common market and, consequently, must be recovered.
Ta pomoč ni združljiva s skupnim trgom in jo je zato treba vrniti.
According to the estimates in the report submitted to Parliament by the Directorate-General for Taxes in November 2001, ‘the immediate normalisation of the conditions of taxation of FT in relation to business tax would involve, at an unchanged rate (i.e. independently of decisions taken by local authorities), an overtaxation of almost 198 million euros for the company’.
Po ocenah poročila, ki ga je Parlamentu predstavila Splošna direkcija za davke novembra 2001, bi „takojšnja normalizacija pogojev obdavčitve FT v zvezi z davkom od dohodka iz dejavnosti ob nespremenjeni stopnji (se pravi ne glede na odločitve, sprejete s strani lokalnih skupnosti) vodila k previsoki obdavčitvi podjetja za okoli 198 milijonov EUR“.
However, by letter dated 15 May 2003 the French authorities submitted to the Commission more precise information concerning the undertaxation of FT under the specific business tax scheme (see the table below):
Vendar so z dopisom z dne 15. maja 2003 francoski organi Komisiji predložili natančnejše informacije v zvezi s prenizko obdavčitvijo FT v okviru posebnega režima davka od dohodka iz dejavnosti (glej tabelo spodaj):
Source: French authorities’ answer of 15 May 2003.
vir: odgovor francoskih organov z dne 15. maja 2003.
in EUR million
V milijonih EUR
Financial year
Obdobje
Cumulation
skupno