natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If not, the Commission would create new inequalities and new distortions of competition between coordination centres, with some of them continuing to qualify for the scheme and others ceasing to do so before 2010.
V nasprotnem primeru bi Komisija povzročila nove neenakosti in izkrivljanje konkurence med centri za usklajevanje, ker bi bili nekateri še naprej upravičeni do sheme, upravičenost drugih pa bi se iztekla pred letom 2010. Enako obravnavanje prav tako pomeni, da so belgijski centri za usklajevanje upravičeni do enakega prehodnega obdobja, kot ga je odobrila Komisija v svojih odločbah v zvezi z drugimi davčnimi shemami.
the equality of treatment also implies that Belgian coordination centres should be granted the same transitional period as that granted by the Commission in its decisions relating to other tax schemes, and in particular the 1929 holding companies in Luxembourg [18], exempt companies in Gibraltar [19] and the free zone of Madeira [20].the Commission is unable to accept the date of notification of Decision 2003/757/EC as the starting date of the ‘new’ transitional period that it proposes to set.
Navedene so zlasti sheme tako imenovanih holdinških družb 1929 v Luksemburgu [18], izvzetih podjetij v Gibraltarju [19] in proste cone na Madeiri [20].Komisija dneva vročitve Odločbe 2003/757/ES ne more obravnavati kot začetni datum novega prehodnega obdobja, ki ga namerava določiti.
According to certain interested parties, the new transitional period should begin either on 30 October 2003, the date on which the above Decision was published in the Official Journal, or at the earliest on 22 June 2006, the date of the Court's judgment.
Zainteresirane strani menijo, da bi se moralo novo prehodno obdobje začeti 30. oktobra 2003, tj. na dan objave Odločbe 2003/757/ES v Uradnem listu, ali najpozneje 22. junija 2006, tj. na dan izdaje sodbe Sodišča.
Belgium takes the view that transitional measures are traditionally fixed for the future and not for the past.
Belgija meni, da se prehodni ukrepi običajno določijo za naprej in ne za nazaj.
The starting date of the new transitional period should, therefore, be the date of notification of the new final decision, i.e. the present Decision.
Novo prehodno obdobje se mora torej začeti na dan vročitve nove končne odločbe (tj. te odločbe).
It is from this date that all coordination centres should be allowed an appropriate period (of at least two years) in which to adapt to the new scheme.
Po tem datumu je treba določiti ustrezno obdobje (najmanj dve leti), da se bodo lahko vsi centri za usklajevanje prilagodili novi shemi.
following the partial suspension and annulment of Decision 2003/757/EC and following the annulment of Decision 2003/531/EC, the undertakings again had a legitimate expectation that the scheme would be extended until the end of 2010.
Po prekinitvi izvajanja in delni razveljavitvi Odločbe 2003/757/ES in po razveljavitvi Odločbe 2003/531/ES podjetja ponovno upravičeno pričakujejo, da se bo ta shema podaljšala do konca leta 2010.
Belgium also referred to the cost of dismissing coordination centre employees, which would justify deferring the starting date of the transitional period until the date of the present Decision.
Belgija je prav tako izpostavila stroške, povezane z odpuščanjem zaposlenih pri centrih za usklajevanje, ki bi upravičili preložitev začetka prehodnega obdobja na datum te odločbe.
the particulars set out by the Commission in its decision to extend the procedure in defence of its proposal for a transitional period running to the end of 2005 or even the end of 2006 are not relevant.
Elementi, ki jih je izpostavila Komisija v svoji odločitvi o podaljšanju postopka v podporo predloga o prehodnem obdobju do konca leta 2005 ali celo konca leta 2006, niso primerni.
In particular, the renewals granted by Belgium to coordination centres whose authorisations expired between 17 February 2003 and 31 December 2005 do not go beyond 31 December 2005, a temporary and cautious measure pending the judgment of the Court.
Zlasti obnovitve, ki jih je Belgija odobrila centrom za usklajevanje, katerih potrditev se je iztekla med 17. februarjem 2003 in 31. decembrom 2005, so bile začasne in iz previdnosti ob pričakovanju izdaje sodbe Sodišča omejene do 31. decembra 2005.
the Court having delivered its judgment on 22 June 2006, the Commission has not acted promptly to secure adoption of new transitional measures.
Komisija se glede sodbe, ki jo je Sodišče izdalo 22. junija 2006, ni takoj odzvala, da bi sprejela nove prehodne ukrepe.
This is also justification for granting a transitional period to all the coordination centres with effect from the date of notification of the present Decision laying down these transitional measures.
S tem se utemelji tudi, da se prehodno obdobje odobri vsem centrom za usklajevanje od datuma vročitve te odločbe, ki določa te prehodne ukrepe.
Belgium considers that the Law of 27 December 2006 simply implements the Court's judgment and does not constitute a new aid scheme but an extension of the existing one.
Belgija meni, da je zakon z dne 27. decembra 2006 le izvršitev sodbe Sodišča in ne pomeni nove sheme pomoči, ampak podaljšanje obstoječe sheme.
One of the coordination centres also takes the view that its request for an extension, made after the Court's judgment but prior to adoption of the Law, is based on a right of renewal recognised by the judgment but not by the Law.
Eden od centrov za usklajevanje prav tako meni, da njegova prošnja za podaljšanje, vložena po izdaji sodbe Sodišča in pred sprejetjem zakona, temelji na pravici do podaljšanja, ki jo priznava sodba in ne zakon.
V. ASSESSMENT BY THE COMMISSION
V. PRESOJA KOMISIJE
The arguments presented by Belgium and the coordination centres are designed to demonstrate that the Commission must authorise all the coordination centres to benefit from the scheme until 31 December 2010, either in accordance with the principle of equality invoked by the Court, which would grant to all the centres the longest transitional period granted, i.e. until 31 December 2010, or under the principle of legitimate expectations, which would require the Commission to fix a date other than 18 February 2003, i.e. the date of the judgment or that of the present Decision, as the starting date of the appropriate transitional period demanded by the Court.
Namen argumentov, ki so jih predložili Belgija in centri za usklajevanje, je dokazati, da mora Komisija vsem centrom za usklajevanje priznati pravico do sheme do 31. decembra 2010, in sicer v skladu z izvajanjem načela enakosti, ki ga je izpostavilo Sodišče in ki zahteva, da se vsem centrom odobri najdaljše odobreno prehodno obdobje (tj. do 31. decembra 2010), ali v skladu z izvajanjem načela upravičenega pričakovanja, na podlagi katerega mora Komisija za začetek ustreznega prehodnega obdobja, ki ga zahteva Sodišče, namesto 18. februarja 2003, tj. datuma izdaje sodbe, določiti drug datum ali datum te odločbe.
Neither Belgium nor the undertakings concerned have put forward any arguments to show that the appropriate transitional period, defined by the Court as the period necessary for the coordination centres to adapt to the change of scheme, should run from 18 February 2003 to 31 December 2010, i.e. for more than seven years and ten months.
Belgija in zadevna podjetja niso predložili argumentov, s katerimi bi dokazali, da bi moralo ustrezno prehodno obdobje, ki ga je določilo Sodišče kot obdobje, ki ga centri za usklajevanje potrebujejo za prilagoditev spremembam sheme, trajati od 18. februarja 2003 do 31. decembra 2010, torej več kot 7 let in 10 mesecev.
For the reasons set out in this section, the Commission takes the view that the starting date of the transitional period must be 18 February 2003 and that the transitional period must be of reasonable duration.
Zaradi razlogov, pojasnjenih v tem delu, Komisija meni, da se mora prehodno obdobje začeti 18. februarja 2003 in da mora trajati primerno dolgo.
On the basis of the information in its possession, the Commission also considers that this appropriate transitional period came to an end on 31 December 2005.
Komisija na podlagi elementov, ki jih ima na voljo, prav tako ocenjuje, da se je to ustrezno prehodno obdobje končalo 31. decembra 2005.
Limits to the annulment ordered by the Court
Omejitve razveljavitve, ki jo je odobrilo Sodišče
First, it is important to note that the Court confirms the merits of Decision 2003/757/EC in that it deems the State aid scheme for coordination centres to be incompatible with the common market.
Najprej je pomembno omeniti, da Sodišče potrjuje ustreznost Odločbe 2003/757/ES, ker ugotavlja, da je shema centrov za usklajevanje shema pomoči, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom.
This view has been challenged before the Court by Forum 187 but not by Belgium.
Tej ugotovitvi je pred Sodiščem nasprotoval Forum 187, ne pa tudi Belgija.
It is not concerned by the partial suspension and annulment of that Decision.
V navedeni odločbi se ugotovitev ne opušča ali razveljavlja.
The coordination centre scheme is, therefore, compatible as from the date of notification of the Decision.
Shema centrov za usklajevanje je torej nezdružljiva od dneva vročitve navedene odločbe.
Second, the Commission takes the Court's judgment to mean that the annulment is prompted by the finding that Decision 2003/757/EC deprived certain undertakings of the benefit of the appropriate transitional measures that should have been granted to them to enable them to adapt to the change of tax scheme.
Komisija si sodbo Sodišča razlaga v tem smislu, da izrečena razveljavitev temelji na ugotovitvi, da je Odločba 2003/757/ES nekatera podjetja prikrajšala za ustrezne prehodne ukrepe, ki bi jim morali biti omogočeni, da bi se lahko prilagodila spremembi davčne sheme.
The Court's judgment thus requires the Commission to authorise renewal of the authorisations in so far as these — temporary — renewals are needed to respect the right of the coordination centres to an appropriate transitional period.
Sodba Sodišča Komisiji torej nalaga odobritev obnovitve potrditev, če so te začasne obnovitve potrebne zaradi spoštovanja pravice centrov za usklajevanje do ustreznega prehodnega obdobja.
The Commission notes, therefore, that the Court does not annul all the effects of the prohibition of renewal — even temporarily — of the authorisations, as requested by Belgium and Forum 187 in their appeals and as proposed in the conclusions of the Advocate-General.
Komisija torej ugotavlja, da Sodišče ne razveljavlja vseh učinkov prepovedi obnovitve potrditev, čeprav le začasne, kot sta zahtevala Belgija in Forum 187 v svojih pritožbah ter kot je bilo predlagano v sklepih generalnega pravobranilca.
This prohibition thus produces its effects except in so far as the renewal of the authorisations is necessary to comply with the judgment as to substance.
Ta prepoved povzroča učinke, razen če je obnovitev potrditev potrebna za spoštovanje sodbe o vsebini zadeve.
As pointed out in the comments received, the Court also criticises the fact that differing transitional periods have been granted to the undertakings — ranging from a few months to several years — on the ground that this is at variance with the general principle of equality of treatment.
Kot je bilo navedeno v prejetih pripombah, Sodišče kritizira tudi dejstvo, da so bila podjetjem odobrena različno dolga prehodna obdobja – od nekaj mesecev do več let – ker se s tem krši splošno načelo enakega obravnavanja.
It suggests, therefore, that the Commission should have fixed for all the undertakings concerned a single appropriate transitional period, i.e. one enabling them to adapt to the change of scheme.
Sodišče torej meni, da bi morala Komisija za vsa zadevna podjetja določiti enotno in ustrezno prehodno obdobje, kar bi jim omogočilo prilagoditev spremembi sheme.
The Commission therefore committed an error by recognising for the coordination centres a legitimate expectation based on the duration (10 years) of the authorisations and it granted too short a transitional period (i.e. shorter than the appropriate transitional period) to some centres and too long a transitional period (i.e. longer than the appropriate transitional period) to others.
Komisija je storila napako, ker je centrom za usklajevanje priznala upravičeno pričakovanje na podlagi veljavnosti potrditev (10 let) ter nekaterim centrom odobrila prekratko prehodno obdobje (torej krajše od ustreznega prehodnega obdobja), drugim pa predolgo prehodno obdobje (torej daljše od ustreznega prehodnega obdobja).
However, the wording used by the Court is such as to limit the annulment to the absence of any appropriate transitional period for certain undertakings ‘with an application for renewal of their authorisation pending on the date on which the contested decision was notified or with an authorisation which expired at the same time as or shortly after the notification of the decision’. It goes on to explain, in paragraph 163 of its judgment, what it understands by ‘shortly after’.
Sodišče besedilo sodbe vseeno oblikuje tako, da razveljavitev omeji na odsotnost ustreznih prehodnih obdobij za nekatera podjetja, „katerih prošnja za obnovitev potrditve je bila na dan vročitve izpodbijane odločbe nerešena ali katerih potrditev se je iztekla sočasno z vročitvijo navedene odločbe ali kmalu po njej.“ Sodišče v točki 163 sodbe tudi nadalje določa, kako je treba razumeti izraz „kmalu po“.
Accordingly, the Court's judgment does not require the Commission to restore perfect equality of treatment as between all the coordination centres but to offset the effects of the inequality of treatment for certain undertakings that would have suffered from the lack of an appropriate transitional period.
Sodba Sodišča od Komisije ne zahteva ponovne vzpostavitve popolnega enakega obravnavanja za vse centre za usklajevanje, ampak izravnavo učinkov tega neenakega obravnavanja nekaterih podjetij zaradi odsotnosti ustreznega prehodnega obdobja.
In the present case, the equality of treatment calls for action to ensure that all the undertakings have a transitional period in which to adapt to the scheme.
Enako obravnavanje v tem primeru pomeni takšno delovanje, da imajo vsa podjetja pravico do prehodnega obdobja, ki jim omogoča prilagoditev shemi.
The judgment does not annul the definition of the transitional period for the undertakings granted a transitional period longer than the appropriate transitional period for adapting to the change of scheme and so the Commission may not shorten it in order to restore equality of treatment.
Sodba ne razveljavlja opredelitve prehodnega obdobja za podjetja, ki so za prilagoditev spremembi sheme imela na voljo prehodno obdobje, daljše od ustreznega prehodnega obdobja, Komisija pa ga torej ne more skrajšati zaradi vzpostavitve enakega obravnavanja.
The Commission notes, however, that the Court refrains from specifying the duration of the appropriate transitional measures and that it does not specify either the number of undertakings deprived of such appropriate measures and thus concerned by the annulment.
Komisija vseeno ugotavlja, da Sodišče ne želi natančno določiti trajanja ustreznih prehodnih ukrepov ali števila podjetij, ki so za take ustrezne ukrepe prikrajšana in jih torej zadeva razveljavitev.
In particular, the judgment does not state that the appropriate transitional period invoked is that ending on 31 December 2010 and does not require the Commission, as Belgium claims, solely by virtue of the principle of equality of treatment, to align the transitional period for all the undertakings on the longest of the transitional periods granted by Decision 2003/757/EC, namely until 31 December 2010.
Sodba zlasti ne navaja, da se zadevno ustrezno prehodno obdobje konča 31. decembra 2010, in Komisije le na podlagi načela enakega obravnavanja ne zavezuje, kot to trdi Belgija, k podaljšanju prehodnega obdobja za vsa podjetja glede na prehodna obdobja na podlagi Odločbe 2003/757/ES, in sicer do 31. decembra 2010.
On the contrary, the Court seems to suggest that an identical period for all the coordination centres that was designed solely to allow them to adapt to the change of scheme would have been appropriate and that only those whose authorisation ended shortly after have been deprived of the appropriate period.
V nasprotju s tem se zdi, da Sodišče meni, da bi bilo ustrezno določiti enako obdobje za vse centre za usklajevanje, namenjeno le za omogočanje prilagoditve spremembi sheme, ter da bi bili za to prikrajšani le tisti centri, katerih potrditev bi se kmalu iztekla.
Consequently, the Commission takes the view that the transitional period provided for in Decision 2003/757/EC must be adjusted only to the extent of the annulment ordered by the Court.
Komisija torej ocenjuje, da je treba prehodno obdobje, predvideno v Odločbi 2003/757/ES, ponovno določiti le na podlagi razveljavitve, ki jo izreče Sodišče.
Similarly, it considers that the appropriate transitional period invoked by the Court must be determined on the basis of particulars demonstrating that it is appropriate, i.e. not only sufficient but also necessary.
Prav tako ocenjuje, da je treba ustrezno prehodno obdobje, ki ga zahteva Sodišče, določiti na podlagi dejstev, ki dokazujejo njegovo ustreznost, torej ne le njegove primernosti, ampak tudi nujnosti.
The decision to extend the procedure was designed to give Belgium and interested third parties the opportunity:
Odločitev o podaljšanju postopka je Belgiji in zainteresiranim strankam omogočila,
to state their views on the relevance of the particulars already in the Commission's possession that seem to indicate 31 December 2005 as the end of the appropriate transitional period;
da izrazijo svoje stališče glede primernosti dejstev, ki jih že ima na voljo Komisija in na podlagi katerih je mogoče sklepati, da je 31. december 2005 ustrezen konec prehodnega obdobja;
to put forward other particulars liable to demonstrate that the appropriate transitional period should be extended beyond 31 December 2005, and where appropriate until 31 December 2010 or any other date.
da zahtevajo ostala dejstva, ki bi lahko dokazala, da bi se ustrezno prehodno obdobje moralo nadaljevati po 31. decembru 2005, po potrebi do 31. decembra 2010 ali katerega koli drugega datuma.
The Commission takes pains below to demonstrate that the appropriate transitional period invoked by the Court should have begun on 18 February 2003 and should have ended on 31 December 2005 for all the coordination centres, and not on 31 December 2010.
V nadaljevanju te odločbe si Komisija prizadeva dokazati, da bi se moralo ustrezno prehodno obdobje, ki ga zahteva Sodišče, za vse centre za usklajevanje začeti 18. februarja 2003, končati pa 31. decembra 2005 in ne 31. decembra 2010.
It then examines situations in which, in its view, a legitimate expectation raised by it obliges it to allow certain coordination centres to benefit from the scheme beyond 31 December 2005.
Komisija nato obravnava okoliščine, za katere ocenjuje, da jo upravičeno pričakovanje, ki ga ustvarja sama, zavezuje k temu, da nekaterim centrom za usklajevanje omogoči uporabo sheme po 31. decembru 2005.
Starting date of the appropriate transitional period
Začetni datum za ustrezno prehodno obdobje
The comments from Belgium and interested third parties suggest that the starting date of the transitional period to be determined by the Commission following the Court's judgment cannot be the date on which Decision 2003/757/EC was notified.
Pripombe Belgije in zainteresiranih strank navajajo, da začetni datum za prehodno obdobje, ki ga določi Komisija na podlagi sodbe Sodišča, ne more biti dan vročitve Odločbe 2003/757/ES.
Various dates are proposed, including the date of publication of that Decision in the Official Journal and the date of notification of the present Decision.
Predlagani so različni datumi, zlasti datum objave navedene odločbe v Uradnem listu in datum vročitve te odločbe.
However, the Commission takes the view that the appropriate transitional period invoked by the Court must be calculated as from the date of notification of Decision 2003/757/EC, i.e. as from 18 February 2003.
Komisija nasprotno ocenjuje, da je treba ustrezno prehodno obdobje, ki ga za zahteva Sodišče, šteti od datuma vročitve Odločbe 2003/757/ES, torej od 18. februarja 2003.
First, on 22 June 2006 the effects of the order of 26 June 2003 were replaced by those of the Court's judgment as to substance, and this with retroactive effect from the notification of Decision 2003/757/EC.
Najprej so se 22. junija 2006 učinki sklepa z dne 26. junija 2003 nadomestili z učinki sodbe Sodišča o vsebini zadeve z učinkom za nazaj od dneva vročitve Odločbe 2003/757/ES.
The Court's judgment takes account of the situation of the coordination centres at the date on which that Decision was notified.
Sodba Sodišča upošteva položaj centrov za usklajevanje na dan vročitve navedene odločbe.
There is, therefore, no reason to believe that the Court is demanding a transitional period the starting date of which would differ from the date on which the contested Decision was notified.
Torej ni razloga za sklepanje, da zahteva Sodišče prehodno obdobje, katerega začetni datum ne bi bil datum vročitve izpodbijane odločbe.
Second, the wording of the Court ruling refers explicitly to that date since the Decision is annulled ‘insofar as it does not lay down transitional measures for those coordination centres with an application for renewal of their authorisation pending on the date on which the contested decision was notified or with an authorisation which expired at the same time or shortly after the notification of the decision.’ (underlining added).
Poleg tega se besedilo sodbe Sodišča izrecno sklicuje na ta datum, saj se odločba razveljavi, „ker ne predvideva začasnih ukrepov za centre za usklajevanje, katerih prošnja za obnovitev potrditve je bila na dan vročitve izpodbijane odločbe nerešena ali katerih potrditev se je iztekla sočasno z vročitvijo navedene odločbe ali kmalu po njej“ (podčrtano je dodano).
Third, the Commission takes the view that the legitimate expectation that existed for the coordination centres on the basis of the Commission's previous decisions and positions on this matter was infringed at the latest on the date on which Decision 2003/757/EC was notified.
Komisija med drugim ocenjuje, da se je upravičeno pričakovanje centrov za usklajevanje na podlagi predhodnih odločb in stališč Komisije v tej zadevi končalo najpozneje na datum vročitve Odločbe 2003/757/ES.
In that Decision the Commission described the aid scheme for the coordination centres as being incompatible with the common market and requested that it be amended or terminated.
V tej odločbi Komisija dejansko ugotavlja, da je shema centrov za usklajevanje shema pomoči, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, in v zvezi s tem zahteva spremembo ali ukinitev.
This description was not suspended and was confirmed by the Court in its judgment of 22 June 2006.
Ta ugotovitev ni bila preklicana in jo je Sodišče potrdilo v svoji sodbi z dne 22. junija 2006.
Accordingly, it produces its effects as from the date on which Decision 2003/757/EC was notified to Belgium.
Njeni učinki torej trajajo od dneva vročitve Odločbe 2003/757/ES v Belgiji.
That Decision was also accompanied by a Commission press release and received wide press coverage.
Navedeni odločbi je bilo med drugim priloženo sporočilo Komisije za javnost in je bila široko predstavljena v medijih.
The Commission considers, therefore, that it can regard the date on which Decision 2003/757/EC was notified as the final date of infringement of the legitimate expectation placed by the coordination centres in the compatibility of the scheme with the common market and thus as the starting date of the transitional measures justified by this previous legitimate expectation.
Komisija torej ocenjuje, da bi lahko datum vročitve Odločbe 2003/757/ES upoštevali kot končni datum prekinitve upravičenega pričakovanja centrov za usklajevanje v zvezi z združljivostjo sheme s skupnim trgom in torej kot datum začetka prehodnih ukrepov, ki jih utemeljuje preteklo upravičeno pričakovanje.