natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With regard to the exemption from capital gains tax on the transfer of title in an asset, the French authorities stated that the advantage which the members of an EIG derived from such exemption also had to be passed on to the tune of at least two thirds to the user of the asset.
Razen tega francoski organi v zvezi z oprostitvijo davka na kapitalske dobičke iz prenosa sredstev navajajo, da je treba vsaj dve tretjini ugodnosti, ki jo ta oprostitev zagotavlja članom gospodarskih interesnih združenj, vrniti končnemu uporabniku sredstva.
They maintained that this exemption, which was conditional, was justified by the nature and overall structure of the French tax system.
Poudarjajo, da je ta oprostitev, ki je odvisna od nekaterih pogojev, upravičena zaradi značilnosti in gospodarnosti francoskega davčnega sistema.
It was necessary, in the event of an early transfer of title, in order to ensure the maintenance of the tax advantage resulting from the deduction of the depreciation under conditions of ordinary law.
V primeru načrtovanega prenosa bi ta oprostitev postala nujna, da bi zagotovila ohranjanje davčne ugodnosti, ki jo povzroča odbitek amortizacije pod pogoji skupnega prava.
The French authorities pointed out, moreover, that the exemption would be included in the ordinary law as from 1 January 2007.
Razen tega francoski organi trdijo, da bo ta oprostitev po 1. januarju 2007 v skladu s skupnim pravom.
From that date onwards, any capital gains on the transfer of equity interests held for more than two years would be exempted, apart from a share of the costs and charges equal to 5 % of the net total of the transfer capital gains taken into account in determining the taxable amount.
Po tem datumu bodo kapitalski dobički iz prenosa lastniškega kapitala, zadržanega več kot dve leti, dejansko oproščeni davka, ob upoštevanju deleža stroškov neto zneska kapitalskih dobičkov iz prenosa v višini 5 %, upoštevanih za določitev obdavčljivega zneska.
In view of the date of conclusion of the contracts for the making available of assets between EIGs and users, the date on which the early transfer of title in those assets would be possible would be after 1 January 2007 inasmuch as such transfer could not take place until after the contracts had been two-thirds implemented.
Torej bi ob upoštevanju datuma konca veljavnosti pogodb o uporabi sredstev, ki so jih sklenili gospodarska interesna združenja in uporabniki, predviden prenos teh sredstev postal možen po 1. januarju 2007, vendar bi se lahko uresničil le po preteku dveh tretjin obdobja izvajanja navedenih pogodb.
EIG members would benefit, therefore, from the exemption under the ordinary law.
Zato bi člani gospodarskih interesnih združenj imeli koristi od te oprostitve na podlagi skupnega prava.
The French authorities pointed out that the exemption from transfer capital gains tax was not automatic.
Francoski organi tudi poudarjajo, da oprostitev davkov na kapitalske dobičke iz prenosa sredstev ni samodejna.
One of the conditions for such exemption was that the actual user of the asset had to show that, in view of the asset’s cost, he was unable to purchase it directly without endangering his financial equilibrium.
Eden od pogojev za to oprostitev bi bil, da dejanski uporabnik sredstva dokaže, da tega sredstva ob upoštevanju njegove cene ni sposoben kupiti, ne da bi ogrozil svoje finančno ravnovesje.
According to the report of 25 March 1998 by the rapporteur of the National Assembly’s Finance Committee, that condition was to be viewed in the context of the implementation of alternatives to the tax deduction for subscription of co-ownership shares in ships (quirats) (hereinafter called ‘the co-ownership shares scheme’), which was abolished by the 1998 Finance Act.
Glede na poročilo poročevalca odbora za finance Narodne skupščine z dne 25. marca 1998 se ta pogoj vključuje zlasti v vidik izvajanja nadomestnih mehanizmov za davčno olajšavo za vpisovanje solastniških deležev plovil, ki jo je odpravil finančni zakon v letu 1998 (v nadaljevanju „ureditev skupnega vlaganja po pomorskem pravu“).
With regard to the compatibility of the tax scheme at issue with the common market, the French authorities maintained that, even if the scheme were to constitute state aid, it was in keeping with Article 87(3) of the Treaty as it facilitated the development of certain activities without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Kar zadeva združljivost take davčne sheme s skupnim trgom, francoski organi ob predpostavki, da ta shema pomeni državno pomoč, poudarjajo, da je skladna s členom 87(3) Pogodbe, ker omogoča razvoj nekaterih dejavnosti, ne da bi spreminjala trgovinske pogoje v takšnem obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code did not place domestic economic operators at an advantage over operators from other Member States and was no more advantageous than schemes in force in other Member States.
Mehanizem iz člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih dejansko ne bi dajal prednosti nacionalnim gospodarskim subjektom v škodo subjektov iz drugih držav članic in ne bi bil bolj ugoden kot sheme v drugih državah članicah.
The French authorities drew attention to the specific situation of maritime transport services, the operators of which were the main users of the scheme at issue.
V tem smislu francoske oblasti navajajo poseben položaj pomorskega prometa, katerega nosilci so glavni uporabniki zadevne sheme.
They pointed out that the scheme was a measure having an effect equivalent to the co-ownership shares scheme — a scheme for financing vessels registered in France — which had previously been notified to and approved by the Commission under Article 87(3) of the Treaty.
V zvezi s tem ugotavljajo, da je ta shema ukrep, ki ima enak učinek kot ureditev skupnega vlaganja po pomorskem pravu, tj. ureditev v zvezi s financiranjem plovil, registriranih v Franciji, ki jo je pred tem objavila in potrdila Komisija na podlagi člena 87(3) Pogodbe.
The co-ownership shares scheme had, they said, been abolished in 1998 owing to its excessive budgetary cost.
Ureditev skupnega vlaganja po pomorskem pravu je bila ukinjena leta 1998 zaradi prevelikih proračunskih stroškov.
They pointed out that it was against a background both of stagnating numbers of commercial vessels registered in France and of the desire to reduce tax expenditure that the legislature had decided to adapt the tax-oriented leasing arrangements.
Navajajo tudi, da se je zakonodajalec za uveljavitev davčno učinkovitega kreditnega financiranja najema odločil zaradi stagnacije števila trgovskih ladij, registriranih v Franciji, in pripravljenosti, da zmanjša davčne izdatke.
The entry into force of Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code had led, not to an expansion of the French shipping sector, but to a consolidation and rejuvenation of the fleet under the French flag.
Začetek veljavnosti člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih ni povzročil rasti v francoskem pomorskem sektorju, kljub temu pa so se okrepile in obnovile flote pod francosko zastavo.
During the same period, other Member States’ fleets had grown in terms both of numbers of units and of tonnage.
Hkrati so se v istem obdobju flote drugih držav članic povečale v smislu števila ladij in kapacitet.
The scheme’s entry into force had therefore not affected the development of other Member States’ shipping sectors.
Začetek veljavnosti navedene sheme torej ne bi ogrozil razvoja pomorskega sektorja drugih držav članic.
In addition, the scheme provided for in Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code fitted in perfectly with the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (hereinafter called ‘the 1997 Community guidelines’) and with Commission communication C(2004) 43 — Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (hereinafter called ‘the 2004 Community guidelines’).
Razen tega se shema iz člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih odlično vključuje v smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za pomorski promet (v nadaljevanju „smernice Skupnosti iz leta 1997“) in sporočilo Komisije C(2004) 43 z naslovom Smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za pomorski promet (v nadaljevanju „smernice Skupnosti iz leta 2004“).
In particular, it helped to enhance the competitiveness of the Community fleets in the world market for maritime transport, to safeguard Community employment both on board and on shore, to maintain maritime know-how in the Community and to develop maritime skills (point 2.2. of the above-mentioned Community guidelines).
Zlasti bi prispevala k spodbujanju konkurenčnosti flot Skupnosti na svetovnem trgu za pomorski promet, zaščitila delovna mesta v Skupnosti na morju in na kopnem, ohranila pomorsko znanje in izkušnje v Skupnosti ter razvila pomorske sposobnosti (točka 2.2 navedenih smernic Skupnosti).
Furthermore, it made an effective contribution to improving safety and protecting the environment by enabling the renewal of the fleet.
Poleg tega bi učinkovito prispevala k izboljšanju varstva in varovanja okolja z omogočanjem obnove flote.
As regards, more particularly, the safeguarding of the employment of seafarers and of high-quality jobs on shore, the French authorities pointed out that the quid pro quos required for purposes of the grant of approval included the need to possess, in the territory of the Union, a strategic decision-making centre for managing maritime activities and ships.
Na bolj specifičnem področju ohranjanja delovnih mest v posadki in visoko kvalificiranih delovnih mest na kopnem francoski organi poudarjajo, da se med pogoje za dodelitev soglasja vključuje potreba po vzpostavitvi središča za strateško odločanje na ozemlju Unije, namenjenega upravljanju pomorskih dejavnosti in plovil.
Not only jobs related to the direct management of maritime transport, but also those related to ancillary activities such as insurance, brokerage and finance thus benefited indirectly from the tax scheme at issue.
Posredne koristi od zadevne davčne sheme bi imela tudi delovna mesta v zvezi z neposrednim upravljanjem pomorskega prometa ter z njimi povezana delovna mesta na področjih, kot so zavarovanje, posredništvo in financiranje.
The French authorities pointed out, however, that neither the 1997 Community guidelines nor those of 2004 established a strict relationship between the aid needed to maintain and develop maritime transport and the level of employment created.
Kljub temu opozarjajo, da niti smernice Skupnosti iz leta 1997 niti tiste iz leta 2004 ne ugotavljajo močne povezave med pomočjo, potrebno za vzdrževanje in razvoj pomorskega prometa, in številom ustvarjenih delovnih mest.
It was stated, moreover, in the 2004 Community guidelines (point 3.1) that ‘at this stage, there is no evidence of schemes distorting competition in trade between Member States to an extent contrary to the common interest’ and that ‘such measures have been shown to safeguard high quality employment …’.
Iz smernic Skupnosti iz leta 2004 prav tako izhaja, da „sedanje stanje ne izkazuje, da je med državami članicami prišlo do izkrivljanja konkurence, ki je v nasprotju z interesom Skupnosti“ in da so se „sprejeti ukrepi izkazali kot pozitivni za zaščito visoko kvalificiranih delovnih mest …“ (točka 3.1).
Lastly, as regards the application in the present case of the principle of legitimate expectation, the French authorities referred to Commission Decision 2002/15/EC of 8 May 2001 concerning State aid implemented by France in favour of the Bretagne Angleterre Irlande company (hereinafter called ‘BAI’ or ‘Brittany Ferries’), in which the scheme at issue was examined.
V zvezi s tem primerom uporabe načela legitimnega pričakovanja se francoski organi sklicujejo na Odločbo Komisije 2002/15/ES z dne 8. maja 2001 o državni pomoči, ki jo je izvajala Francija v korist družbe „Bretagne Angleterre Irlande“ („BAI“ ali „Brittany Ferries“), v kateri je bila zadevna shema pregledana.
The French authorities also referred to their letter to the Commission dated 17 March 1998 (A/32232) mentioning the introduction of the second paragraph of Article 39 C and Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code.
Francoski organi se sklicujejo tudi na svoj dopis Komisiji z dne 17. marca 1998 (A/32232), v katerem je naveden uvod drugega pododstavka člena 39 C in člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih.
They considered that, notwithstanding that letter and the various cases examined by the Commission in which mention was made of Article 39 of the General Tax Code, no proceedings had been initiated in respect of that scheme in the six years following its entry into force.
Ti organi upoštevajo, da se kljub temu dopisu in različnim vprašanjem, ki jih je preučila Komisija in v okviru katerih je bil omenjen člen 39 Splošnega zakonika o davkih, v šestih letih po začetku veljavnosti sheme ni začel izvajati noben postopek v zvezi s to shemo.
In these circumstances, the Commission’s silence had — so the French authorities maintained — created a legitimate expectation in the compatibility of Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code with the common market, and this precluded any request for recovery from the undertakings concerned.
V teh okoliščinah ker Komisija ni odgovorila, se je ustvarilo legitimno pričakovanje glede združljivosti člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih s skupnim trgom, kar bi nasprotovalo vsakemu možnemu zahtevku za vračilo zadevnim družbam.
V. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES
V. PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH TRETJIH STRANK
Sixteen interested parties sent their comments to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(2) of the Treaty within the time limit allowed.
Šestnajst zainteresiranih strank je svoje pripombe predložilo Komisiji v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe v za to določenem roku.
A list of these interested parties is attached to this Decision.
Seznam zainteresiranih strank je priložen k tej odločbi.
As regards, firstly, the question whether the scheme at issue could be classified as aid, most of the interested parties were opposed to the Commission’s position on this score.
Kar zadeva vprašanje, ali zadevna shema pomeni pomoč, večina zainteresiranih strank nasprotuje stališču Komisije v zvezi s tem.
Thus, according to, among others, Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Epargne et de Prévoyance (hereinafter called ‘CNCE’), Calyon Corporate and Investment Bank (hereinafter called ‘Calyon’) and BNP Paribas (hereinafter called ‘BNP’), the arrangements provided for in Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code did not constitute state aid but created a means of monitoring the application of the ordinary law as it related to the depreciation of certain assets.
Tako zlasti glede na bančno skupino Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Epargne et de Prévoyance (CNCE), banko Calyon Corporate and Investement Bank (v nadaljevanju „Calyon“) in banko BNP Paribas (v nadaljevanju „BNP“) ukrep iz člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih ne pomeni državne pomoči, ampak vzpostavlja sistem za nadzor uporabe skupnega prava glede amortizacije nekaterih aktiv.
The combination of the second paragraph of Article 39 C and Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code was aimed at combating excessive tax revenue losses, as witnessed the parliamentary work prior to the adoption of Law No 98-546 (report by the Finance Committee to the National Assembly of 25 March 1998).
Cilj hkratne uporabe drugega pododstavka člena 39 C in člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih je preprečevanje prevelikih izgub davčnih prihodkov, kar je potrjeno s parlamentarnimi deli pred sprejetjem zakona št. 98-546 (poročilo odbora za finance za Narodno skupščino z dne 25. marca 1998).
Société Générale (hereinafter called ‘SG’), BNP and Brittany Ferries argued, for their part, that Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code did not provide for any ring-fencing derogating from the ordinary law, but instead represented a return to the ordinary law on depreciation.
Banki Société Générale (SG) in BNP ter družba Brittany Ferries trdijo, da po njihovem mnenju člen 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih ne ustvarja davčnega območja, ki bi odstopalo od skupnega prava, ampak pomeni vračanje k skupni zakonodaji na področju amortizacije.
The scheme was thus a general one.
Tako bi šlo za shemo splošne narave.
According to SG, the economic advantage resulting from the tax deferment under Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code had to be compared to the ordinary law on depreciation and not to the derogatory restrictive regime provided for in the second paragraph of Article 39 C of the General Tax Code.
V skladu s SG je treba gospodarsko ugodnost, ki izhaja iz odloga davkov na podlagi člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih, primerjati s skupnim pravom o amortizacijah in ne z omejevalno shemo, ki odstopa od drugega pododstavka člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih.
Moreover, the scheme at issue was open to all economic operators in France, and Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code referred to no asset or economic sector in particular.
Razen tega bi bila zadevna shema na voljo vsem gospodarskim udeležencem, ki delujejo na francoskem ozemlju, člen 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih pa se ne bi skliceval na nobeno določeno sredstvo ali gospodarski sektor.
The granting of the advantages resulting from the application of that article was thus reserved neither for the French commercial sea fleet nor for French financial institutions.
Dodelitev ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz uporabe tega člena, tako ne bi bila namenjena niti francoski pomorski trgovski floti niti francoskim bančnim ustanovam.
The identity of the members of an EIG was not, it was contended, a criterion for the grant of approval and the scheme at issue contained no restriction as to an EIG’s members, who were a source of revenue raising.
Tako identiteta članov gospodarskega interesnega združenja ne bi sestavljala merila za dodelitev soglasja in zadevna shema ne bi vključevala nobene omejitve glede članov gospodarskega interesnega združenja, ki so nosilci davčne zmogljivosti.
According to these interested parties it could not therefore reasonably be supposed that the combined provisions of Articles 39 C and 39 CA of the General Tax Code conferred a selective tax advantage on the members of EIGs.
V skladu z mnenjem zainteresiranih strank torej ni mogoče razumno meniti, da hkratna uporaba določb iz členov 39 C in 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih podeljuje selektivno davčno ugodnost članom gospodarskih interesnih združenj.
The approval provided for in Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code was not, it was further contended, granted in a discretionary manner.
Razen tega soglasje, predvideno v členu 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih, ne bo dodeljeno diskrecijsko.
On the contrary, argued Gaz de France and BNP, the grant of ministerial approval was subject to objective, non-discriminatory conditions.
Nasprotno, v skladu z mnenjem družbe Gaz de France in banke BNP je soglasje ministrstva odvisno od objektivnih in nediskriminatornih pogojev.
BNP pointed out in this connection that, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, it was for the Commission to demonstrate the discretionary character of the treatment of economic operators in the case of individual measures, inasmuch as the existence of a margin of discretion granted to the authorities could lead to a finding of the selectiveness of a measure only where what was involved was an individual measure and not the general scheme on which that measure was based.
BNP v zvezi s tem opozarja, da mora v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Komisija dokazati diskrecijsko obravnavo gospodarskih udeležencev v okviru individualnih ukrepov. Obstoj diskrecijske pravice, podeljene upravi, bi lahko dejansko povzročil ugotovitev selektivne narave ukrepa le, kadar gre za posamezen ukrep in ne za splošno shemo, na kateri ta ukrep temelji.
It pointed out further that the tax authorities could not impose conditions which were not provided for by law.
V tem smislu bi bilo treba opozoriti, da davčna uprava ne more določati pogojev, ki jih zakonodaja ne predvideva.
In the present case, the law stated explicitly what were the applicable criteria for assessing the existence of a ‘significant economic and social interest’.
Vendar bi v tem primeru zakonodaja izrecno predvidela, katera merila se uporabljajo za ocenjevanje obstoja „znatnih gospodarskih in socialnih koristi“.
BNP, CNCE and Calyon referred in this context to the Constitutional Council decision mentioned by the French authorities.
BNP, CNCE in Calyon v zvezi s tem upoštevajo sklep ustavnega sveta, na katerega se sklicujejo francoski organi.
At all events, any decision not to grant approval could be appealed against on grounds of ultra vires before the administrative courts, which would give judgment in the light of the grounds for such refusal.
Vseeno bi lahko bila vsaka odločitev o zavrnitvi soglasja predmet pritožbe zaradi prekoračitve pooblastil pred upravnim sodiščem, ki bi razsodilo glede na utemeljitev te zavrnitve.
In the opinion of, among others, Calyon and BNP, the selectivity of the scheme at issue was due to market practices and the specificities of transport assets (certain guarantees of long-term value added and liquidity) and not to the wording of Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code.
V skladu z mnenjem družbe Caylon in banke BNP selektivnost zadevne sheme izhaja iz prakse trga in posebnosti prevoznih aktiv (določena jamstva za valorizacijo in dolgoročno likvidnost) in ne iz vsebine člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih.
Transport assets, so they maintained, had special features which made them suitable for long-term financing.
Prometna sredstva bi dejansko pomenila posebnosti, ki bi omogočale vzpostavitev dolgoročnega financiranja.
Moreover, even had it been the case that Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code did not require prior approval by the Minister for the Budget, the beneficiaries under the scheme would have been the same as they were then.
Četudi torej predpostavimo, da člen 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih ne predvideva predhodnega soglasja ministra za proračun, bi bili upravičenci tega mehanizma isti kot zdaj.
Furthermore, in BNP’s opinion, the criteria governing the application of Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code were justified by the nature and overall structure of the French tax system, certain business sectors being in need of considerable investment.
Razen tega so v skladu z mnenjem BNP pogoji uporabe mehanizma iz člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih upravičeni zaradi značilnosti in gospodarnosti francoskega davčnega sistema, ker določeni sektorji dejavnosti potrebujejo znatne naložbe.
CNCE maintained, further, that financial advantages similar to those resulting from the application of Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code could be obtained by applying the provisions of the ordinary law.
CNCE podpira tudi to, da se finančne ugodnosti, podobne tistim, ki izhajajo iz uporabe člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih, lahko pridobijo z izvajanjem določb skupnega prava.
The specificities of Article 39 CA of the General Tax Code did not give rise to any real differentiation as compared with the ordinary law on depreciation from the point of view of the quantum of the tax consequences.
Posebnosti člena 39 CA Splošnega zakonika o davkih dejansko ne bi zagotovile pravega razlikovanja s skupnim pravom o amortizacijah z vidika obsega davčnih posledic.
In CNCE’s view, those specificities were, firstly, the benefit of the one-point increase in the declining depreciation coefficient and, secondly, the possibility of benefiting from exemption from transfer capital gains tax.
V skladu z mnenjem CNCE so te posebnosti na eni strani koristi od povečanja koeficienta degresivne amortizacije za eno točko in na drugi strani možnost, da se izkoristijo oprostitve na kapitalske dobičke iz prenosa sredstev.
BNP acknowledged, however, that the State calculated the budgetary cost of applying Article 39 CA by taking as point of reference the second paragraph of Article 39 C of the General Tax Code.
BNP kljub temu priznava, da država izračuna proračunski strošek uporabe člena 39 CA na podlagi sklicevanja na drugi pododstavek člena 39 C Splošnega zakonika o davkih.