natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By enabling public companies undergoing privatisation or regulated restructuring to enjoy reductions in the tax on their capital gains, Article 25 EBF grants them an operating advantage and strengthens their position compared with other companies.
Z omogočanjem podjetjem v javni lasti v procesu privatizacije ali predpisanega prestrukturiranja, da so deležna znižanj davka na kapitalski dobiček, jim člen 25 EBF dodeljuje prednost pri poslovanju in utrjuje njihov položaj v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji.
In its assessment the Commission is not required to establish that the aid has a real effect on trade between Member States or that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect trade and distort competition.
Komisiji v svoji oceni ni treba ugotoviti, da ima pomoč resničen učinek na trgovino med državami članicami ali da je konkurenca v resnici izkrivljena, ampak mora samo raziskati, ali lahko ta pomoč vpliva na trgovino in izkrivljanje konkurence.
Where aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of a company in relation to other companies competing in intra-Community trade, these other companies must be regarded as affected by that aid.
Ko dodeljena pomoč države članice utrdi položaj podjetja glede na druga podjetja, ki si pri trgovanju v Skupnosti med seboj konkurirajo, je treba ta druga podjetja upoštevati kot prizadeta zaradi te pomoči.
What is more, all the identified beneficiaries of the scheme operate in the banking and insurance sectors, sectors that have been open to competition for many years.
Še pomembneje je, da vsi opredeljeni upravičenci sheme delujejo v bančnih ali zavarovalniških sektorjih, sektorjih, ki so za konkurenco odprti že več let.
Progressive liberalisation has enhanced the competition that may already have resulted from the free movement of capital provided for in the EC Treaty.
Postopna liberalizacija je pospešila konkurenco, ki je lahko bila že rezultat prostega pretoka kapitala, ki ga predvideva Pogodba ES.
The effect on trade between Member States and the impact of the aid in terms of distortion of competition is particularly sensitive in these sectors.
Učinek na trgovino med državami članicami in vpliv pomoči na izkrivljanje konkurence sta v teh sektorjih še posebej občutljiva.
The aid scheme is therefore liable to affect this trade and distort competition.
Shema pomoči zato lahko vpliva na to trgovino in izkrivlja konkurenco.
It follows from the above that the exceptional scheme provided for in Article 25 EBF, which exempts from corporation tax public undertakings’ capital gains from privatisation operations and from restructuring processes, constitutes a scheme granting state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Iz zgoraj zapisanega izhaja, da izjemna shema, ki jo določa člen 25 EBF, ki kapitalski dobiček podjetij v javni lasti iz dejavnosti privatizacije in procesov prestrukturiranja oprošča davka od dobička pravnih oseb, pomeni shemo državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Does the scheme constitute illegal aid?
Ali shema pomeni nezakonito pomoč?
Portugal has implemented the aid scheme without notification.
Portugalska je shemo pomoči izvajala brez obvestila.
Therefore, by unlawfully implementing Article 25 EBF, Portugal is in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
Portugalska zato z nezakonitim izvajanjem člena 25 EBF krši člen 88(3) Pogodbe.
Compatibility of the illegal aid scheme
Združljivost sheme nezakonite pomoči
The aid is not compatible with Article 87(2).
Pomoč ni združljiva s členom 87(2).
It is not aid of a social nature, granted to individual consumers, nor aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences; nor is it aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany.
To ni pomoč družbene narave, dodeljena posameznim potrošnikom, niti pomoč za odpravo škode, ki jo povzročijo naravne nesreče ali izjemni dogodki, niti ni pomoč, dodeljena gospodarstvu določenih področij Zvezne republike Nemčije, ki jo je prizadela delitev Nemčije.
The aid is applicable uniformly across the whole territory of Portugal, and therefore cannot be considered compatible with Article 87(3)(a) and (c), which covers the development of certain regions.
Pomoč se enotno uporablja po vsej Portugalski in je zato ni mogoče obravnavati kot združljivo s členom 87(3)(a) in (c), ki zajema razvoj določenih regij.
The Commission considers that the operating aid concerned cannot be regarded as favouring the development of certain economic activities within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c), notably because this provision requires that the aid ‘not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’, a condition which the Commission deems not satisfied in this case.
Komisija meni, da zadevne pomoči za tekoče poslovanje ni mogoče upoštevati kot podporo razvoju določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti v smislu člena 87(3)(c) ker ta odločba zahteva, da pomoč „ne vpliva toliko negativno na pogoje poslovanja, da je to v nasprotju s skupnim interesom“; to je pogoj, za katerega Komisija meni, da v tem primeru ni izpolnjen.
This aid does not meet any of the conditions of the rescue and restructuring guidelines in force when the aid was granted.
Ta pomoč ne ustreza nobenemu izmed pogojev smernic o reševanju in prestrukturiranju, ki so veljale v času odobritve pomoči.
It does not target any other horizontal objective of common interest.
Pomoč ni usmerjena v noben drug horizontalni cilj skupnega interesa.
Finally, the fact that application is restricted to the financial sector does not change the conclusion of the assessment, especially since this sector is particularly sensitive to the effect on trade between Member States and the impact of this aid in terms of distortion of competition.
Dejstvo, da je uporaba omejena na finančni sektor, ne spremeni sklepne ugotovitve ocene, še zlasti, ker je ta sektor še posebej občutljiv na učinek na trgovino med državami članicami in na vpliv te pomoči v smislu izkrivljanja konkurence.
Nor is the aid compatible with Article 87(3)(d) (aid to promote culture and heritage conservation) or (e) (such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council).
Pomoč tudi ni združljiva s členom 87(3)(d) (pomoč za pospeševanje kulture in ohranjanja kulturne dediščine) ali (e) (druge kategorije pomoči, ki jih z odločbo določi Svet).
Portugal has never invoked any of these derogations.
Portugalska se do sedaj še ni sklicevala na nobeno izmed teh odstopanj Pogodbe.
Furthermore, the aid is not compatible with Article 87(3)(b).
Poleg tega pomoč ni združljiva s členom 87(3)(b).
The aid cannot be considered a ‘project of common European interest’ since it will benefit the public undertakings of one Member State and not the Community as a whole and it will not promote a specific and well-defined project; nor does it ‘remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State’ since there is no evidence that, without the aid, the Portuguese economy would have suffered from a serious disturbance.
Pomoči ni mogoče smatrati kot „projekt skupnega evropskega interesa“, saj bo koristila podjetjem v javni lasti ene države članice in ne Skupnosti kot celoti in ne bo pospeševala določenega in dobro zasnovanega projekta, niti ne „izboljšuje resnih gospodarskih motenj države članice“, saj ni dokazov, da bi portugalsko gospodarstvo brez pomoči utrpelo resne motnje.
In any case, apart from very general statements, Portugal has not specifically invoked any of the derogations of the Treaty.
V vsakem primeru se Portugalska, razen zelo splošnih izjav, ni posebej sklicevala na nobeno od odstopanj Pogodbe.
RECOVERY
VRAČILO
According to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, where negative decisions are taken in respect to unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.
V skladu s členom 14 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999, v katerem se negativne odločitve upoštevajo glede na nezakonito pomoč, se Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da od upravičenca dobi vrnjeno pomoč.
However, the Commission may not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.
Komisija ne bo zahtevala vračila pomoči, če bi to bilo v nasprotju s splošnim načelom zakonodaje Skupnosti.
The Commission considers that, in the present case, there is no general principle of Community law which would impede recovery.
Komisija v tem primeru meni, da ne obstaja splošno načele zakonodaje Skupnosti, ki bi oviralo vračilo.
The Portuguese authorities argue that the four transactions that benefited from the scheme would have been exempted from tax anyway under the Portuguese tax arrangements for holding companies.
Portugalski organi trdijo, da bi bile te štiri transakcije, ki so imele korist od sheme, v okviru portugalske davčne ureditve za holdinge v vsakem primeru izvzete iz plačila davka.
Moreover, three of the four transactions were already decided under the previous arrangements as Article 25 EBF had not yet been approved at the time.
Nadalje, tri od štirih transakcij so bile določene že v okviru prejšnjih ureditev, saj člen 25 EBF takrat še ni bil sprejet.
The Portuguese authorities therefore argue that no recovery should take place.
Portugalski organi zato trdijo, da do vračila ne sme priti.
According to ECJ case-law and the Commission notice on business taxation, it is at the stage of recovery that re-establishing the status quo ante has to be considered in order to assess if an alternative tax treatment existed which, in the absence of unlawful aid and in accordance with domestic rules which are compatible with Community law, would have granted a similar advantage to the undertakings in question.
V skladu s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča in Obvestilom Komisije o obdavčitvi podjetij je treba pri vračilu upoštevati ponovno vzpostavitev prejšnjega stanja, da se lahko oceni, ali je obstajala kakršna koli druga davčna obravnava, ki bi v odsotnosti nezakonite pomoči in v skladu z notranjimi pravili, ki so skladni z zakonodajo Skupnosti, dodelila podobno prednost zadevnim podjetjem.
The amount to be recovered in order to restore the previous situation is the difference between: (i) the total discounted advantage granted to the public undertakings or undertakings controlled by them resulting from the application of Article 25 EBF; and (ii) the ‘normal’ tax treatment which would have applied if the operations in question had been carried out without the aid measure.
Znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, da se vzpostavi prejšnje stanje, je razlika med: (i) celotno ugodnostjo, dodeljeno podjetjem v javni lasti ali podjetjem, ki jih ta nadzorujejo, ki izhaja iz uporabe člena 25 EBF, in (ii) „običajno“ davčno obravnavo, ki bi bila uporabljena, če bi bili zadevni postopki izvršeni brez ukrepa pomoči.
In the Unicredito case the ECJ states that it would not be right to determine the amounts to be repaid in the light of various operations which could have been implemented by the undertakings if they had not opted for the type of operation covered by the aid.
V primeru Unicredito Evropsko sodišče navaja, da ne bi bilo pravično določiti zneske za vračilo glede različnih dejavnosti, ki bi jih podjetja lahko izvajala, če ne bi izbrala oblike dejavnosti, ki jo pokriva pomoč.
In this context, the Commission must not to take into account the hypothetical choices which could have been made by the operators concerned, such as operations structured in other ways.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ne sme upoštevati hipotetičnih možnosti, za katere bi se zadevna podjetja lahko odločila, kot so dejavnosti, strukturirane na drugačne načine.
Consequently, in order to assess the situation that would have prevailed if the operations in question had been carried out without the tax reduction, an analysis must be made of each of the transactions that benefited from Article 25 EBF.
Da bi ocenili situacijo, ki bi nastala, če bi bile zadevne dejavnosti izvršene brez zmanjšanja davka, je treba narediti analizo vseh transakcij, ki so imele koristi od člena 25 EBF.
In this case, such an analysis can be made on the basis of the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, without prejudice to a further assessment of each transaction on the basis of any further information available.
Takšno analizo je mogoče narediti na podlagi podatkov, ki jih posredujejo portugalski organi, ne glede na nadaljnjo oceno transakcij na podlagi kakršnih koli nadaljnjih podatkov.
First two transactions
Prvi dve transakciji
The first transaction was MC's sale of its holding in CPP to BSCH on 5 April 2000.
Prva transakcija: podjetje MC je dne 5. aprila 2000 banki BSCH prodalo svoj holding v banki CPP.
The second transaction was the sale by CDG-controlled BPSM of its holding in BTA plus its holding in CPP to BSCH on 7 April 2000.
Druga transakcija: banka BPSM, ki jo nadzoruje finančna institucija CGD, je dne 7. aprila 2000 banki BSCH prodala svoj holding v banki BTA in holding v banki CPP.
Since Article 25 EBF was not published at the time the sales were proposed, both transactions were planned and approved by the CGD management under the tax legislation applicable to holding companies (SGPS).
Ker člen 25 EBF še ni bil objavljen, ko sta bili prodaji predlagani, je obe transakciji načrtovala in odobrila uprava finančne institucije CGD v okviru davčne zakonodaje za holdinge (SGPS).
The setting-up of the holding companies and the successive sales or swaps of shares would have resulted in a tax exemption for both transactions under the normal Portuguese tax arrangements.
V okviru običajne portugalske davčne ureditve bi bile ustanovitev holdingov in nadaljnje prodaje ter zamenjave delnic pri obeh transakcijah oproščene davka.
The Portuguese authorities have transmitted all the relevant documents to the Commission.
Portugalski organi so Komisiji poslali vse ustrezne dokumente.
Indeed, the choice of operators for the transactions in question was not at all accidental but the decisions had been already planned and approved by the managements of the groups concerned.
Izbira akterjev zadevnih transakcij sploh ni bila naključna, ampak so uprave zadevnih skupin odločitve že načrtovale in jih odobrile.
The conditions for carrying out the transactions under the general tax legislation applicable to holding companies were also already met.
Izpolnjeni so bili tudi pogoji za izvedbo transakcij v okviru splošne davčne zakonodaje za holdinge.
The Portuguese authorities confirmed there was no need to obtain the prior approval of the tax authorities for such transactions.
Portugalski organi so potrdili, da za takšne transakcije ni potrebno pridobiti predhodnega dovoljenja davčnih organov.
To conclude, the Commission considers that no recovery is necessary in these two cases.
Komisija meni, da v teh dveh primerih vračilo ni potrebno.
For these transactions there was no advantage in applying Article 25 EBF since, in view of the nature of the operation, MC and BPSM would have been exempted, even without this article, under the exemption arrangements for holding companies, which is the normal tax treatment under Portuguese legislation.
Uporaba člena 25 EBF pri teh transakcijah ni predstavljala prednosti, ker bi bila podjetje MC in banka BPSM upoštevajoč naravo transakcij tudi brez tega člena oproščena davka v okviru oprostitvenih ureditev za holdinge, kar je običajno davčno obravnavanje po portugalski zakonodaji.
Third transaction
Tretja transakcija
The third transaction was the exchange of shares between MC and BCP described above.
Tretja transakcija je bila zgoraj opisana izmenjava delnic med podjetjem MC in banko BCP.
Thus the capital gains realised by MC from the swap of a majority shareholding in BPSM for shares accounting for about 10 % of the authorised capital of BCP, would be subject to the ‘special system applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and share swaps’ of Articles 67 to 72 CIRC.
Kapitalski dobiček podjetja MC od zamenjave večine njegovih delnic v banki BPSM za delnice v obsegu 10 % odobrenega kapitala banke BCP bi bil s tem predmet „posebnega sistema, ki velja za združitve, delitve, prenose sredstev in zamenjave delnic“ iz členov 67 do 72 CIRC.
These articles implement Directive 90/434/EEC, which leaves the Member States no other possibility than to exempt the operation from taxation.
Ti členi dopolnjujejo Direktivo 90/434/EGS, kar državam članicam ne dopušča druge možnosti, kot da za transakcijo uveljavljajo davčno oprostitev.
What is certain is that by order of 14 November 2000 the Finance Minister decided to apply Article 25 EBF to this transaction.
Zagotovo je, da se je finančni minister z uredbo z dne 14. novembra 2000 pri tej transakciji odločil za uporabo člena 25 EBF.
However, in this case there was no advantage in applying Article 25 EBF since the exemption imposed by the Community Directive and transposed by CIRC Article 71(1) is the normal tax treatment which, in the absence of unlawful aid and in accordance with domestic rules compatible with Community law, would have been granted for the operation actually carried out.
Vendar v tem primeru uporaba člena 25 EBF ni pomenila ugodnosti za to transakcijo, ker je oprostitev, ki jo narekuje Direktiva Skupnosti in prenese člen 71(1) CIRC, običajna davčna obravnava, ki bi bila v odsotnosti nezakonite pomoči in v skladu z notranjimi pravili, skladnimi z zakonodajo Skupnosti, odobrena za izvedeno transakcijo.
Therefore, no recovery is necessary in this case either.
Zato vračilo tudi v tem primeru ni potrebno.
Fourth transaction
Četrta transakcija
The fourth and last transaction is the capital gain from the sale of CGD's stake in the Brazilian bank ITAÚ SA, which took place between 2000 and 2003.
Četrta in zadnja transakcija je kapitalski dobiček od prodaje deleža finančne institucije CGD v brazilski banki ITAÚ S.A., ki je bila izvršena med letoma 2000 in 2003.
Unlike the other three transactions, this one is not related to agreements between the Champalimaud Group and BSCH.
Ta transakcija, za razliko od ostalih treh, ni povezana s sporazumi med skupino Champalimaud in banko BSCH.
The complete sale took several transactions between 2000 and 2003.
Celotna prodaja je obsegala več transakcij med letoma 2000 in 2003.
Although the Portuguese authorities argue that this transaction could have been done via a holding company, the fact is that doing it in this way in order to obtain a more favourable tax treatment than that offered by the ordinary system was not effectively planned.
Kljub temu, da portugalski organi trdijo, da bi ta transakcija lahko bila izvršena preko holdinga, je dejstvo, da izpeljava transakcije na ta način, zato da bi dosegli ugodnejšo davčno obravnavo kot jo nudi običajni sistem, ni bila učinkovito načrtovana.
Therefore, in light of the Unicredito case, the Commission believes that applying the tax exemption for holding companies in this case would entail reconstructing past events on the basis of hypothetical elements.
Glede primera Unicredito Komisija meni, da bi uporaba davčne oprostitve za holdinge v tem primeru povzročila rekonstrukcijo preteklih dogodkov na podlagi hipotetičnih elementov.
The Portuguese authorities did not provide enough detailed evidence on the different steps of the operation in question that would have led to tax neutrality, even if Article 25 EBF had not been applied.
Portugalski organi niso zagotovili dovolj natančnih dokazov za posamezne korake zadevne transakcije, ki bi povzročili davčno nevtralnost, tudi če člen 25 EBF ne bi bil uporabljen.
Therefore, the Portuguese authorities have not shown, at this stage, that the amount to be calculated by applying the effective tax rate to the capital gains actually realised (EUR 357,4 million) plus interest, should not be recovered.
Portugalski organi zato na tej stopnji niso utemeljili, da zneska, ki se izračuna z uporabo efektivne davčne stopnje na kapitalski dobiček (EUR 357,4 milijonov), in obresti ni treba vrniti.
The Commission finds that Portugal was in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty in implementing Article 25 of the Portuguese EBF.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Portugalska z uporabo člena 25 portugalskega EBF kršila člen 88(3) Pogodbe.
The aid scheme is incompatible with the common market and has to be repealed, as pledged by the Portuguese authorities.
Shema pomoči je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom in jo je treba razveljaviti, kot so se zavezali portugalski organi.
This Decision concerns the scheme as such and must be implemented immediately, including the recovery of aid granted under the scheme.
Odločba zadeva to shemo in jo je treba nemudoma izvršiti, vključno z vračilom pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena v okviru sheme.
However, it is without prejudice to the possibility that all or part of the aid granted in individual cases may be deemed compatible with the common market.
Vendar ne vpliva na možnost, da bi se celotna pomoč ali del le-te, dodeljena v posameznih primerih, upoštevala kot združljiva s skupnim trgom.
The Portuguese authorities have shown that no recovery needs to be undertaken in the first three transactions.
Portugalski organi so pokazali, da pri prvih treh transakcijah vračilo ni potrebno.
Therefore, on the basis of the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, and without prejudice to a further assessment of that transaction on the basis of any further information available, only the aid granted for the transaction relating to the capital gains from the sale of CGD's stake in the Brazilian bank ITAÚ S.A. has to be recovered,
Na podlagi podatkov, ki so jih zagotovili portugalski organi, in brez vpliva na nadaljnjo oceno te transakcije na podlagi kakršnih koli nadaljnjih podatkov, je treba vrniti samo pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena za transakcijo, povezano s kapitalskim dobičkom iz prodaje deleža finančne institucije CGD v brazilski banki ITAÚ SA –
The state aid scheme implemented by Portugal under Article 25 EBF is incompatible with the common market.
Državna shema pomoči, ki jo je izvajala Portugalska v okviru člena 25 EBF, je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom.
Portugal shall repeal the scheme referred to in Article 1.
Portugalska razveljavi shemo iz člena 1.
Portugal shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid referred to in Article 1 that was granted to them unlawfully.
Portugalska sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe, da od upravičencev pridobi vračilo pomoči iz člena 1, ki jim je bila dodeljena na nezakonit način.
Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of this Decision.
Vračilo se izvede nemudoma in v skladu s postopki državne zakonodaje, če ti dopuščajo takojšnje in učinkovito izvajanje odločbe.
The aid to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which it was paid to the beneficiary until the date of its recovery.
Pomoč, ki jo je treba vrniti, vključuje obresti od dneva, ko je bila dodeljena upravičencu, do dneva vračila.
Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant-equivalent of regional aid.
Obresti se izračunajo na podlagi referenčne mere, ki se uporablja za izračun protivrednosti regionalne pomoči.
Portugal shall inform the Commission within two months of notification of this Decision of the measures taken to comply with it.
Portugalska Komisijo v roku dveh mesecev od obvestila o odločbi obvesti o sprejetih ukrepih v skladu z odločbo.
It will provide this information using the questionnaire in Annex I to this Decision.
Podatke zagotovi z uporabo vprašalnika v Prilogi I k odločbi.
Done at Brussels, 4 July 2006.
V Bruslju, 4 juli 2006.
OJ C 256, 15.10.2005, p. 26.
UL C 256, 15.10.2005, str. 26.
Decree-Law 215/89 of 1 July 1989.
Zakonski odlok 215/89 z dne 1. julija 1989.
Article 7(2) of Decree-Law 495/88 of 30 December 1988 and EBF Article 31(2) implemented Article 44 (now 45) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Colectivas (CIRC).
Člen 7(2) Zakonskega odloka 495/88 z dne 30. decembra 1988 in člen 31(2) EBF uveljavljata člen 44 (zdaj 45) kodeksa Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Colectivas (CIRC).