natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, according to the Hungarian authorities, the fact that the measure is not applicable to interest received from independent third parties in practice excludes only financial institutions from its scope of application owing to the stringent regulatory provisions for financial services, which, however, is justified by tax and economic policy considerations.
Zato po mnenju madžarskih organov dejstvo, da se ukrep ne uporablja za obresti, prejete od neodvisnih tretjih strank, v praksi iz svojega področja uporabe dejansko izključuje le finančne institucije zaradi strogih uredbenih določb za finančne storitve, kar kljub temu upravičujejo vidiki davčne in gospodarske politike.
The application of the Hungarian measure does not require that an undertaking should have activities in more than one Member State.
Za uporabo madžarskega ukrepa ni potrebno, da podjetje izvaja dejavnosti v več kot eni državi članici.
According to Hungary, only companies belonging to the same corporate group are in a comparable legal and factual situation from the perspective of the application of the measure.
Po mnenju Madžarske so z vidika uporabe ukrepa v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju le družbe, ki pripadajo isti skupini podjetij.
Since all companies that are members of the group can apply the measure, it cannot be deemed selective.
Ker lahko vse družbe, ki so članice skupine, uporabljajo ukrep, ga ni mogoče šteti za selektivnega.
Hungary also notes that in practice, any company can be transformed into a corporate group.
Madžarska ugotavlja tudi, da se lahko v praksi vsaka družba preoblikuje v skupino podjetij.
According to previous Commission practice, making a benefit subject to a certain shareholding is not a sufficient reason to consider a measure selective [17].
V skladu s preteklo prakso Komisije zagotavljanje ugodnosti na podlagi nekega poslovnega deleža ni zadosten razlog, da bi se ukrep obravnaval kot selektiven [17].
Special benefits provided to group companies cannot be considered to be selective because a group is not a sector or a function but merely a legal structure.
Posebnih ugodnosti, zagotovljenih skupinam družb, ni mogoče šteti za selektivne, ker skupina ni sektor ali dejavnost, ampak le pravna struktura.
Where a tax advantage is clearly applicable within a corporate group operating in any economic sector, it is a general measure and not a special advantage targeted at one specific sector.
Kadar je jasno, da davčna ugodnost velja znotraj skupine podjetij, ki opravljajo dejavnost v katerem koli gospodarskem sektorju, je ta ugodnost splošni ukrep in ne posebna ugodnost, usmerjena v posamezni sektor.
Advantage from different foreign regulations
Prednost na podlagi različnih tujih ureditev
The Commission takes the view that the measure selectively favours groups having at least one member outside Hungary.
Komisija meni, da daje ukrep selektivno prednost skupinam, ki imajo vsaj eno članico zunaj Madžarske.
Hungary considers that such a situation does not constitute an advantage but merely an effect arising from the non-harmonised tax rules of different Member States, which is out of the control of the Hungarian state.
Madžarska meni, da takšno stanje ne pomeni prednosti, ampak le učinek, ki izvira iz neusklajenih davčnih pravil različnih držav članic, na kar Republika Madžarska ne more vplivati.
As stated above, such an advantage is neither provided by Hungarian state resources nor imputable to Hungary.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, se takšna prednost ne zagotavlja iz madžarskih državnih sredstev niti ni zanjo odgovorna Madžarska.
With respect to direct taxation, settled case law of the Court shows that residents and non-residents are not generally in a comparable situation.
V zvezi z neposredno obdavčitvijo ustaljena sodna praksa Sodišča kaže, da družbe rezidentke in družbe nerezidentke na splošno niso v primerljivem položaju.
Opt-out possibility on a yearly basis
Vsakoletna možnost odločitve o neuporabi sheme
As regards the opt-out possibility, the Hungarian authorities note that such a feature would necessarily derive from the annual cycle of corporate taxation, together with other provisions of tax law.
V zvezi z možnostjo neuporabe sheme madžarski organi ugotavljajo, da bi taka značilnost nujno izhajala iz letnega cikla obdavčitve dohodkov pravnih oseb skupaj z drugimi določbami davčne zakonodaje.
The actual choice as regards application of the measure is made neither by the Hungarian authorities nor by the beneficiary, but by an affiliated company where a tax disadvantage may arise.
O uporabi ukrepa dejansko ne odločajo madžarski organi ali upravičenec, ampak povezana družba, ki bi lahko bila v manj ugodnem davčnem položaju.
The unlawful character of the measure, existing vs. new aid
Nezakonitost ukrepa, primerjava obstoječe in nove pomoči
In the Opening Decision, the Commission concluded that the measure cannot be considered existing aid since it did not fulfil any of the three criteria set out in Annex IV.3 to the Act of Accession.
Komisija je v uvodni odločbi ugotovila, da ukrepa ni mogoče šteti za obstoječo pomoč, ker ne izpolnjuje nobenega od treh meril iz Priloge IV.3 k Aktu o pristopu.
However, the Hungarian authorities consider that this Annex does not cover all types of existing aid as set out in Article 1(b) in the procedural regulation.
Vendar madžarski organi menijo, da ta priloga ne zajema vseh vrst obstoječe pomoči iz člena 1(b) postopkovne uredbe.
Annex IV.3 to the Act of Accession contains only provisions on aid put into effect and reviewed prior to the date of accession referred to in Article 1(b), (i) of the procedural regulation [18].
Priloga IV.3 k Aktu o pristopu vsebuje le določbe o pomoči, ki so začele veljati in so bile pregledane pred pristopom iz člena 1(b)(i) Postopkovne uredbe [18].
However, the rules set forth in Article 1(b)(ii)-(v) of the Regulation should also be taken into account for the purpose of identifying existing aid which is not provided for by the Act of Accession.
Vendar je treba za opredelitev obstoječe pomoči, ki ni določena v Aktu o pristopu, upoštevati tudi pravila iz člena 1(b)(ii)–(v) Uredbe.
This interpretation is confirmed by Annex II to the Act of Accession which amends only Article 1(b)(i) of the Regulation.
Ta razlaga je potrjena v Prilogi II k Aktu o pristopu, ki spreminja le člen 1(b)(i) Uredbe.
A different interpretation would question legal certainty and legitimate expectations and would lead to unequal treatment of Member States.
Drugačna razlaga bi sprožila dvome o pravni varnosti in upravičenih pričakovanjih ter bi povzročila neenako obravnavanje držav članic.
In so far as the Commission maintains its position that the measure does not constitute existing aid on the basis of Article IV of the Act of Accession, the Hungarian authorities consider that it should be assessed pursuant to Article 1(b) of the Regulation and be qualified as existing aid, for two reasons.
Če Komisija vztraja pri svojem stališču, da ukrep ne pomeni obstoječe pomoči na podlagi člena IV Akta o pristopu, madžarski organi menijo, da mora biti ta ocenjen v skladu s členom 1(b) Uredbe in opredeljen kot obstoječa pomoč iz dveh razlogov.
First, pursuant to Article 1(b)(v) of the procedural regulation, a measure which at the time of implementation did not constitute aid and subsequently became aid owing to the evolution of the common market and without having been altered by the Member State, is deemed to be existing aid.
Prvič, v skladu s členom 1(b)(v) Postopkovne uredbe se ukrep, ki ni bil pomoč, ko se je začel izvajati, pozneje pa je postal pomoč zaradi razvoja skupnega trga in ga država članica ni spremenila, šteje za obstoječo pomoč.
Hungary further refers to the Belgian Coordination Centres (BCC) case [19], which is to some extent similar to the measure, and in which the Commission considered in 1984 and 1987 that the BCC regime could not be regarded as State aid.
Madžarska se nadalje sklicuje na zadevo belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje [19], ki je do neke mere podobna ukrepu in v kateri je Komisija menila, da sheme belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje ni mogoče šteti za državno pomoč.
Also according to the opinion given to a question by an MEP, the Commission considered that the BCC measure was not State aid and that similar measures of Member States also did not qualify as State aid [20].
Komisija je tudi v mnenju v zvezi z vprašanjem poslanca Evropskega parlamenta menila, da ukrep belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje ni državna pomoč in da podobni ukrepi držav članic prav tako niso državna pomoč [20].
The Commission changed its opinion with regard to the BCC scheme only by its decision dated 17 February 2003, after the entry into force of the Hungarian measure.
Komisija je svoje mnenje o shemi belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje spremenila šele v svoji odločitvi z dne 17. februarja 2003 po začetku veljavnosti madžarskega ukrepa.
Hungary also confirmed, after verification with the competent department of the Hungarian Ministry of Finance, that the Hungarian State aid Monitoring Office (SAMO) had examined the measure in the summer of 2002, prior to its adoption.
Madžarska je po preverjanju na pristojnem oddelku madžarskega ministrstva za finance tudi potrdila, da je madžarski urad za nadzor državne pomoči poleti 2002 proučil ukrep, preden je bil sprejet.
In the light of the applicable jurisprudence and the former Commission decision concerning the BCC scheme, the SAMO came to the conclusion that the measure at issue was not State aid and therefore did not submit the scheme to the Commission.
Ob upoštevanju veljavne sodne prakse in prejšnje odločbe Komisije v zvezi s shemo belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje je madžarski urad za nadzor državne pomoči sklenil, da ukrep ni državna pomoč, zato sheme ni predložil Komisiji.
Second, Hungary argues that the measure is deemed to have been authorised based on Article 1(b)(iii) of the procedural regulation.
Drugič, Madžarska trdi, da se šteje, da je bil ukrep odobren na podlagi člena 1(b)(iii) postopkovne uredbe.
It considers that if the measure had qualified as unlawful aid after the accession, the Commission’s request for information of 2004 would qualify as the start of the investigation procedure.
Meni, da bi zahteva Komisije za informacije iz leta 2004 predstavljala začetek postopka preiskave, če bi bil ukrep opredeljen kot nezakonita pomoč po pristopu.
Hungary notes that under Article 4(5) of the Regulation the Commission’s decisions must be taken within two months.
Madžarska ugotavlja, da mora Komisija v skladu s členom 4(5) Uredbe odločbe sprejeti v dveh mesecih.
Furthermore, according to Article 4(6) of the Regulation, where the Commission has not taken a decision within the above period, the aid is deemed to have been authorised by the Commission.
Poleg tega se v skladu s členom 4(6) Uredbe šteje, da je Komisija odobrila pomoč, če v navedenem obdobju ni sprejela odločbe.
According to Article 1(b)(iii) of the Regulation, aid which is deemed to have been authorised pursuant to Article 4(6) of the Regulation should be regarded as existing aid.
V skladu s členom 1(b)(iii) Uredbe je treba pomoč, ki se šteje za odobreno v skladu s členom 4(6) Uredbe, obravnavati kot obstoječo pomoč.
Although the two months’ deadline is not applicable in this procedure, the other obligation still prevails, i.e. the Commission is obliged to complete the examination.
Čeprav v tem postopku dvomesečni rok ne velja, je druga obveznost odločilna, tj. Komisija mora dokončati proučitev.
Based on settled case law of the Court, Hungary concludes that the Commission should have taken action to examine the State aid within a reasonable time.
Na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse Sodišča Madžarska ugotavlja, da bi morala Komisija sprejeti ukrepe za proučitev državne pomoči v razumnem roku.
Hungary refers to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-190/00 [21], where the Court ruled that a 28-month period may be too long for a preliminary investigation procedure if the Commission requested information only once from the Member State concerned.
Madžarska se sklicuje na sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-190/00 [21], v kateri je Sodišče odločilo, da je lahko 28-mesečno obdobje predolgo za postopek predhodne preiskave, če je Komisija od zadevne države članice informacije zahtevala le enkrat.
According to the Hungarian authorities, these principles should be applied a fortiori also in the preliminary investigation procedure, where the Commission examines only whether it has doubts as to the compatibility of the measure with Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
Po mnenju madžarskih organov je treba ta načela uporabljati tudi v postopku predhodne preiskave, v katerem Komisija prouči le, ali obstajajo dvomi v zvezi z združljivostjo ukrepa s členom 87 Pogodbe ES.
Consequently, as the Commission failed to adopt a decision within a reasonable time — and having regard to the principles of legal certainty and good administration — even if the measure was deemed to be aid, it should be considered as existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(iii) of the Regulation.
Tudi če se ukrep šteje za pomoč, ga je posledično treba obravnavati kot obstoječo pomoč v skladu s členom 1(b)(iii) Uredbe, ker Komisija ni sprejela odločbe v razumnem roku ter ob upoštevanju načel pravne varnosti in dobrega upravljanja.
The issue of recovery and potential transitional period for phasing out
Vprašanje vračila in možno prehodno obdobje za odločitev o neuporabi sheme
It also quotes the judgment of the Court in the Van den Bergh & Jürgens case [23], where the following test was applied to determine whether an expectation is justified: ‘…if a prudent and discriminating trader could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted.’ With reference to the Belgian Coordination Centres case, the Hungarian authorities argue that the Commission considered that system to be compatible in 1984 and 1987, and changed its decision only on 17 February 2003, after the Hungarian measure’s entry into force.
Madžarska se sklicuje na ustaljeno sodno prakso, da „[p]ravica sklicevanja na načelo varstva upravičenih pričakovanj velja za vsako zadevno osebo, pri kateri je institucija Skupnosti ustvarila upravičena pričakovanja.“ [22] Navaja tudi sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Van den Bergh & Jürgens [23], v kateri je bil za ugotovitev, ali je pričakovanje upravičeno, uporabljen naslednji preskus: „… če premišljen in dobro poučen gospodarski subjekt lahko predvidi sprejetje ukrepa Skupnosti, ki bo vplival na njegove interese, se na to načelo ne more sklicevati, če je bil ta ukrep sprejet.“ S sklicevanjem na zadevo belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje so madžarski organi utemeljevali, da je Komisija v letih 1984 in 1987 naveden sistem obravnavala kot združljiv ter je svojo odločitev spremenila šele 17. februarja 2003 po začetku veljavnosti madžarskega ukrepa.
In addition, the Belgian Coordination Centres system was exclusively applicable to multinational companies, in contrast to the Hungarian measure which has a wider scope.
Poleg tega se je sistem belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje uporabljal izključno za večnacionalne družbe v nasprotju z madžarskim ukrepom, ki ima širše področje uporabe.
The Hungarian authorities refer to the decision on the opening of the formal investigation procedure concerning Spain’s corporation tax laws, where the Commission stated that it was based only on a preliminary assumption.
Madžarski organi se sklicujejo na odločitev o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi s španskimi zakoni o davku na dohodke pravnih oseb, v kateri Komisija navaja, da temelji le na predhodni domnevi.
In its final decision, the Commission stated that even the most cautious and well-informed parties could not have foreseen the measure being classed as State aid, and the parties could rightly claim legitimate expectations [24].
V svoji končni odločitvi je Komisija navedla, da celo najbolj previdne in dobro obveščene stranke niso mogle predvideti, ali bo ukrep opredeljen kot državna pomoč, in da se stranke lahko sklicujejo na upravičena pričakovanja [24].
In that case, the decision was taken more than four years after the request for information.
V tej zadevi je bila odločitev sprejeta več kot štiri leta po zahtevi za informacije.
In view of the fact that information was requested from Hungary on 19 November 2004, to which they gave a full reply on 8 December 2004, the Hungarian authorities consider that they could legitimately expect that the measure in question did not constitute State aid, in accordance with the Commission’s position in Decision 2001/168/ECSC.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da so se informacije od Madžarske zahtevale 19. novembra 2004, na kar je v celoti odgovorila 8. decembra 2004, madžarski organi menijo, da so lahko v skladu s stališčem Komisije iz Odločbe 2001/168/ESPJ upravičeno pričakovali, da zadevni ukrep ni državna pomoč.
Hungary points out that during that period the Council’s Code of Conduct Group examined the measure and did not conclude that it constituted a harmful tax measure.
Madžarska poudarja, da je v tem obdobju Skupina Sveta za kodeks ravnanja proučila ukrep in ni ugotovila, da je škodljiv davčni ukrep.
In the light of the debates, the Commission as a member of this group could have requested further information from Hungary if it presumed that the measure qualified as.
Glede na razprave bi lahko Komisija kot članica te skupine od Madžarske zahtevala dodatne informacije, če je domnevala, da ukrep pomeni državno pomoč.
Hungary further argues that, according to the procedural regulation, before the opening of a formal investigation procedure, the Commission must discuss the compatibility of a provision with the Member State through a preliminary proceeding.
Madžarska nadalje trdi, da mora Komisija v skladu s Postopkovno uredbo v predhodnem postopku z državo članico obravnavati združljivost določbe, preden sproži formalni postopek preiskave.
It constitutes a violation of the procedural rules if the Commission commences a formal investigation pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty without conducting a preliminary assessment under the Regulation and breaches the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down in Article 10 of the EC Treaty.
Če Komisija začne formalno preiskavo v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES, ne da bi izvedla predhodno oceno iz Uredbe, krši postopkovna pravila in načelo sodelovanja v dobri veri iz člena 10 Pogodbe ES.
The Hungarian authorities also argue that it follows from the established practice of the Commission that the protection of legitimate expectations also extends to Member States [25].
Madžarski organi tudi trdijo, da je v skladu z ustaljeno prakso Komisije zaščita upravičenih pričakovanj razširjena tudi na države članice [25].
Hungary also underlines that in certain decisions [26], in relation to legitimate expectation, the Commission referred to the similarities of the measures in question with the Belgian Coordination Centres (BCC) case which was originally considered compatible, and it therefore refrained from recovery.
Madžarska poudarja tudi, da se je Komisija v nekaterih odločitvah [26] v zvezi z upravičenimi pričakovanji sklicevala na podobnosti zadevnih ukrepov z zadevo belgijskih centrov za usklajevanje, ki se je prvotno štela za združljivo, zaradi česar je bilo vračilo opuščeno.
The Hungarian authorities conclude that ‘neither Hungary nor Hungarian companies applying the measure could foresee — even if they exercised reasonable caution — that 4 years after the introduction of the Measure and 3 years after Hungary’s accession to the EU the Commission would commence a procedure with respect to the Measure because it had doubts about its compatibility with Community law.’
Madžarski organi ugotavljajo, da „niti Madžarska niti madžarske družbe, ki uporabljajo ukrep, ne bi mogle predvideti, da bo štiri leta po uvedbi ukrepa in tri leta po vstopu Madžarske v EU Komisija začela postopek v zvezi z ukrepom zaradi dvomov o njegovi združljivosti z zakonodajo Skupnosti, tudi če bi bile razumno previdne.“
Hungary underlines that an unfavourable decision of the Commission could lead to an immense number of lawsuits by taxpayers who have applied the measure for damages against Hungary and could reduce investors’ confidence in the reliability of the economic transformation achieved so far by the country.
Madžarska poudarja, da bi lahko v primeru negativne odločitve Komisije veliko davčnih zavezancev, ki uporabljajo ukrep, tožilo Madžarsko zaradi škode, zaupanje vlagateljev v zanesljivost gospodarskega prestrukturiranja, ki ga je država do zdaj dosegla, pa bi se zmanjšalo.
Finally, Hungary argues that if the Commission decides that the measure is incompatible with Community law, it is necessary to set a transitional period during which the measure remains applicable at least for those companies that have been applying the measure so far.
Madžarska tudi trdi, da je treba določiti prehodno obdobje, v katerem lahko ukrep še naprej uporabljajo vsaj tiste družbe, ki so ga uporabljale do zdaj, če Komisija odloči, da je ukrep nezdružljiv z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
In the case Kingdom of Belgium and Forum 187 ASBL v Commission the Court held that in the absence of an overriding public interest, the Commission infringes a superior rule of law if it fails to establish transitional measures when repealing rules about which companies might have had legitimate expectations deriving from Community law [27].
V zadevi Kraljevina Belgija in Forum 187 ASBL proti Komisiji je Sodišče odločilo, da Komisija krši hierarhično višjo pravno normo, s tem da hkrati z razveljavitvijo ureditve, v zvezi s katero imajo družbe upravičena pričakovanja, ki izvirajo iz zakonodaje Skupnosti, ne predvidi začasnih ukrepov, če ni prevladujočega javnega interesa [27].
The Hungarian authorities therefore request that even in the event of a potential negative decision, on the basis of the principle of protection of legitimate expectation the Commission allow the application of the measure until the end of the fifth tax year following the year of the decision.
Madžarski organi zato zahtevajo, da tudi v primeru morebitne negativne odločitve Komisija na podlagi načela varstva zaupanja v pravo omogoči uporabo ukrepa do konca petega davčnega leta po letu odločitve.
This transitional period would be necessary for the taxpayers to prepare for the new circumstances resulting from the repeal of the measure.
To prehodno obdobje bi bilo potrebno, da se davčni zavezanci pripravijo na nove okoliščine zaradi razveljavitve ukrepa.
In this respect, Hungary notes that the Commission set a transitional period of almost 8 years in its decision relating to Dutch international financing activities for entities already applying the underlying Dutch rules [28].
V zvezi s tem Madžarska ugotavlja, da je Komisija v svoji odločbi v zvezi z nizozemskimi dejavnostmi mednarodnega financiranja za subjekte, ki so že uporabljali zadevna nizozemska pravila, določila skoraj osemletno prehodno obdobje [28].
Additional information provided by the Hungarian authorities
Dodatne informacije, ki so jih predložili madžarski organi
Justification by the nature or general scheme of the system
Utemeljitev glede na naravo ali splošno shemo sistema
In this regard, Hungary indicated that the measure departs from the so-called ‘classic’ method of individual (i.e. non-consolidated) tax assessment to a much lesser degree than do frequently used group taxation schemes in other Member States.
V zvezi s tem je Madžarska navedla, da ukrep izvira iz „klasične“ metode posamezne (tj. nekonsolidirane) davčne ocene v precej manjšem obsegu kot pogosto uporabljene sheme obdavčenja v skupini v drugih državah članicah.
As a consequence, the Hungarian authorities argue that the measure aims to implement (in a special way) an established and frequently used modern income tax system.
Zato madžarski organi trdijo, da je cilj ukrepa izvajati (na poseben način) uveljavljen in pogosto uporabljen sodoben sistem davka od dohodkov.