natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As confirmed by the Court of Justice [17], undertakings are free to take advantage of differences in taxation levels in Member States.
Kot je potrdilo Sodišče [17], podjetja lahko svobodno izkoriščajo razlike v ravneh obdavčitve v državah članicah.
The Commission agrees that any advantage resulting from an international context owing to a low taxation rate in the Netherlands which is not mirrored by a low rate of deduction in the Netherlands but instead corresponds to a normal deduction rate abroad, is not imputable to the Netherlands [18].
Komisija soglaša, da morebitne prednosti, ki je rezultat mednarodnega konteksta zaradi nizke davčne stopnje na Nizozemskem, ki se ne odraža v nizki odbitni stopnji na Nizozemskem, temveč ustreza normalni odbitni stopnji v tujini, ni mogoče pripisati Nizozemski [18].
It should also be underlined that the advantage resulting from deduction at the normal rate abroad will not be financed through Dutch resources, and, in the country concerned, the deduction at the normal rate will stem only from the application of the normal tax system (and not from a specific measure departing from it).
Poudariti je treba tudi, da prednost, ki je posledica odbitka po normalni stopnji v tujini, ne bo financirana z nizozemskimi sredstvi in da bo odbitek po normalni stopnji v zadevni državi izviral zgolj iz uporabe normalnega davčnega sistema (in ne iz posebnega ukrepa, ki od njega odstopa).
As a consequence, the Commission considers that any advantages at the level of a multinational group that would result from a cross-border situation, as described in the opening decision, are the result of tax disparities between different tax jurisdictions and should therefore be excluded from the scope of the State aid assessment.
Posledično Komisija meni, da so morebitne prednosti na ravni multinacionalne skupine, ki bi bile posledica čezmejne situacije, kot je opisana v uvodni odločbi, rezultat davčnih razlik med različnimi davčnimi jurisdikcijami in bi jih zato bilo treba izločiti iz dometa ocene državne pomoči.
The financial sector
Finančni sektor
In general, and as for any tax measure, it cannot be ruled out that companies belonging to a group that are operating in specific sectors may benefit more from the measure because of the higher intensity of financial transactions in their sector.
V splošnem, in kar velja za vse davčne ukrepe, ni mogoče izključiti, da utegnejo imeti družbe, ki so del skupine in delujejo v posebnih sektorjih, večjo korist od ukrepa zaradi večje intenzivnosti finančnih transakcij v svojem sektorju.
This is particularly true for companies in the financial sector, whose main activity is lending, and which might well increase lending to related companies as a result of the measure.
To velja zlasti za družbe v finančnem sektorju, katerih glavna dejavnost je posojanje in ki utegnejo zaradi ukrepa okrepiti posojanje povezanim družbam.
However, it must be noted first that in order to avoid any abuse of the measure the Dutch measure includes a provision limiting the amount that can be taxed or deducted at a reduced rate (see section II.3).
Vendar pa je treba najprej opozoriti, da v izogib morebitni zlorabi ukrepa nizozemski ukrep vključuje določbo, ki omejuje znesek, ki se lahko obdavči ali odbije po znižani stopnji (glej razdelek II.3).
This limitation will apply in particular to companies in the financial sector, thus limiting any risk of abuse.
Ta omejitev bo veljala zlasti za družbe v finančnem sektorju in s tem omejila vsako tveganje zlorabe.
Furthermore, the Commission’s taxation notice indicates that ‘the fact that some firms or some sectors benefit more than others from some of these tax measures does not necessarily mean that they are caught by the competition rules governing State aid’ [19].
Ob tem obvestilo Komisije o obdavčitvi navaja, da „dejstvo, da imajo nekatera podjetja ali nekateri sektorji večje ugodnosti kot druga zaradi teh davčnih ukrepov, ne pomeni nujno, da so zajeti v pravila o konkurenci, ki urejajo državno pomoč“ [19].
Comparison with the scope of the former international financing activities scheme
Primerjava s področjem uporabe nekdanje mednarodne sheme financiranja
In the opening decision, the Commission considered that it could not be ruled out that the main beneficiaries of the scheme might be the former beneficiaries of the international financing activities scheme, which had been held to constitute incompatible State aid.
V uvodni odločbi je Komisija menila, da ni mogoče izključiti, da utegnejo glavni koristniki te sheme biti nekdanji koristniki mednarodne sheme financiranja, za katero se je štelo, da predstavlja nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
It must be noted that in order to qualify for the international financing activities scheme, companies had to meet the following conditions, among others:
Treba je opozoriti, da so morale družbe za uvrstitev v mednarodno shemo financiranja izpolnjevati naslednje pogoje, med drugim:
the company benefiting had to carry out financing activities for parts of the group in at least four countries or on at least two continents,
družba, ki ima korist, je morala opravljati financiranje za dele skupine v najmanj štirih državah oziroma na najmanj dveh celinah,
only financing operations that could be conducted independently of the Netherlands were eligible,
pogoje so izpolnjevale le tiste dejavnosti financiranja, ki so se lahko izvajale neodvisno od Nizozemske,
no more than 10 % of the total capital (debt and equity) used by the company for its financial activities could be applied, directly or indirectly, in group companies based in the Netherlands.
največ 10 % celotnega kapitala (dolga in lastniškega kapitala), ki ga družba uporablja za svoje finančne dejavnosti, je bilo mogoče uporabiti, neposredno ali posredno, v družbah skupine s sedežem na Nizozemskem.
In view of these requirements, and the limited number of beneficiaries (87), the Commission considered the international financing activities scheme to be a selective measure.
Glede na te zahteve in omejeno število upravičencev (87) je Komisija menila, da je mednarodna shema financiranja selektivni ukrep.
As pointed out by the Dutch authorities, there are no such requirements in the interest box measure.
Kot so poudarili nizozemski organi, v ukrepu paketa obresti ni nobenih takih zahtev.
In addition, the body of undertakings that will benefit from the group interest box will be much broader than the 87 undertakings that utilised the international financing activities scheme.
Poleg tega bo telo podjetij, ki bodo imela korist od skupinskega paketa obresti, veliko obsežnejše od 87 podjetij, ki so uporabljala mednarodno shemo financiranja.
In this respect, it cannot be argued that large (multinational) companies will have easier access to the scheme than small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and will thus benefit disproportionally from it.
V tem pogledu ni mogoče trditi, da bodo imela velike (multinacionalne) družbe lažji dostop do sheme kot mala in srednja podjetja (MSP) in bodo tako od nje imela nesorazmerno korist.
According to the statistics provided by the Dutch authorities, which draw an unambiguous distinction between SMEs and large enterprises, 200000 enterprises (out of 335000) have one or more group affiliates, and thus can receive or pay intra-group interest.
Sodeč po statističnih podatkih, ki so jih posredovali nizozemski organi in ki nedvoumno razlikujejo med malimi in srednjimi ter velikimi podjetji, ima 200000 podjetij (od 335000) eno ali več podružnic skupine in lahko tako prejemajo ali plačujejo obresti znotraj skupine.
50000 of these enterprises have one or more companies belonging to the group abroad, of which 47000 (95 %) are SMEs.
50000 izmed teh podjetij ima eno ali več družb, ki so del skupine, v tujini, od katerih je 47000 (95 %) malih in srednjih podjetij.
This clearly indicates that SMEs will not be discriminated against by the measure.
To jasno kaže, da ukrep ne bo diskriminiral malih in srednjih podjetij.
Conclusion on the State aid character of the measure
Sklep o naravi državne pomoči ukrepa
It has been demonstrated in paragraphs 83 to 123 that the measure does not confer an advantage in a discriminatory manner on undertakings in similar situations, and should in fact enhance tax neutrality.
V odstavkih 83 do 123 je bilo dokazano, da ukrep podjetjem v podobnih razmerah ne podeljuje prednosti na diskriminatoren način in bi moral pravzaprav povečati davčno nevtralnost.
It has also been found that the de facto advantage for multinational companies that may result from the existence of disparities between tax systems in a cross-border situation falls outside the scope of the State aid rules, because such disparities are not imputable to the Netherlands.
Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi, da dejanska prednost za multinacionalne družbe, ki je lahko posledica obstoja neskladij med davčnimi sistemi v čezmejni situaciji, ne sodi v področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči, ker za taka neskladja ni odgovorna Nizozemska.
In any event, the Commission considers that the measure is genuinely open to any undertaking in the Netherlands, since there are no legal or economic obstacles to the establishment of a group.
V vsakem primeru Komisija meni, da je ukrep resnično na voljo vsem podjetjem na Nizozemskem, saj ni nobenih pravnih ali ekonomskih ovir za ustanovitev skupine.
The last amendment introduced by the Dutch authorities will make it easier to create a company in the Netherlands, by abolishing the statutory capital requirement of EUR 18000 for a limited liability company. This will allow any company easily to create a (second) company in the Netherlands, and hence a group.
Zadnja sprememba, ki so jo vnesli nizozemski organi, bo olajšala ustanovitev družbe na Nizozemskem, saj za družbo z omejeno odgovornostjo odpravlja zakonsko zahtevo za kapital v višini 18000 EUR. To bo vsaki družbi omogočilo, da zlahka ustanovi (drugo) družbo na Nizozemskem in takó skupino.
As a consequence, the interest box measure will be accessible to any individual company without requiring a certain economic strength or significant capital resources.
Posledično bo ukrep paketa obresti dostopen vsaki posamezni družbi, ne da bi zahteval določeno ekonomsko moč ali večja kapitalska sredstva.
As the creation of a group will become a mere matter of organisation, without disproportionate costs, the requirement that it must be part of a corporate group will no longer constitute an obstacle for any undertaking wishing to benefit from the group interest box.
Ko bo ustanovitev skupine postala izključno stvar organizacije, brez nesorazmernih stroškov, zahteva, da mora biti del skupine podjetij, ne bo več predstavljala ovire za nobeno podjetje, ki bi želelo imeti korist od skupinskega paketa obresti.
The Commission finds that the group interest box measure that the Netherlands is planning to implement does not confer a selective advantage that may be imputable to the Netherlands on companies established in the Netherlands that are part of a group or on foreign companies belonging to a group with a permanent establishment in the Netherlands, and accordingly does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty,
Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep skupinskega paketa obresti, ki ga namerava uvesti Nizozemska, ne podeljuje selektivne prednosti, ki bi jo bilo mogoče pripisati Nizozemski, družbam s sedežem na Nizozemskem, ki so del skupine, ali tujim družbam, ki so del skupine s stalno poslovno enoto na Nizozemskem, in zato ne predstavlja državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe –
The ‘group interest box’ which the Netherlands is planning to implement with respect to the taxation of intra-group flows of interest does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
„Skupinski paket obresti“, ki jo namerava uvesti Nizozemska v zvezi z obdavčitvijo tokov plačil obresti znotraj skupine, ne predstavlja pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Implementation of the scheme is accordingly authorised.
Uvedba sheme je zato odobrena.
OJ C 66, 22.3.2007, p. 30.
UL C 66, 22.3.2007, str. 30.
A rate of 20 % applies to taxable income up to EUR 40000 and 23,5 % to taxable income between EUR 40000 and EUR 200000.
Stopnja 20 % se uporablja za obdavčljiv dohodek do 40000 EUR, 23,5 % pa za obdavčljiv dohodek med 40000 EUR in 200000 EUR.
There is a back-to-back construction if, from a legal point of view, a loan is issued by a bank, but the actual risk in respect of the debtors and the exchange rate is borne by a group company, for example via a guarantee issued to the bank in question.
Za vzajemno kompozicijo gre, če s pravnega vidika posojilo izda banka, dejansko tveganje v zvezi z dolžniki in deviznim tečajem pa nosi družba skupine, na primer preko jamstva, izdanega zadevni banki.
Effective control is in any case present if one entity holds the majority of voting rights in another entity or if a third individual or entity holds the majority of voting rights in both entities involved in the loan arrangement.
Dejanski nadzor je v vsakem primeru prisoten, če ima en subjekt večino glasovalnih pravic pri drugem subjektu ali če ima tretji posameznik ali subjekt večino glasovalnih pravic pri obeh subjektih, vključenih v dogovor o posojilu.
Commission Decision 2003/515/EC (OJ L 180, 18.7.2003, p. 52).
Odločba Komisije 2003/515/ES (UL L 180, 18.7.2003, str. 52).
Commission Decision 2003/883/EC (OJ L 330, 18.12.2003, p. 23).
Odločba Komisije 2003/883/ES (UL L 330, 18.12.2003, str. 23).
See, inter alia, Case C-487/06 P British Aggregates v Commission, 2008, not yet reported, paragraph 82; Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-1487, paragraph 47; Case C-88/03 Portugal v Commission [2006] ECR I-7115, paragraph 54; and Joined Cases C-428/06 to C-434/06 UGT-Rioja and Others, 2008, not yet reported, paragraph 46.
Glej med drugim Zadevo C-487/06 P British Aggregates proti Komisiji, 2008, še ni objavljena, točka 82; Zadevo C-409/00 Španija proti Komisiji [2003] ECR I-1487, točka 47; Zadevo C-88/03 Portugalska proti Komisiji, [2006] ECR I-7115, točka 54; ter Združene zadeve C-428/06 do C-434/06 UGT-Rioja in drugi, 2008, še niso objavljene, točka 46.
See, for instance, Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723, paragraph 79; Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraph 20; Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 25; and Case C-409/00 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-10901, paragraph 46.
Glej na primer Zadevo C-56/93 Belgija proti Komisiji [1996] ECR I-723, točka 79; Zadevo C-241/94 Francija proti Komisiji, [1996] ECR I-4551, točka 20; Zadevo C-75/97 Belgija proti Komisiji [1999] ECR I-3671, točka 25; in Zadevo C-409/00 Španija proti Komisiji [2003] ECR I-10901, točka 46.
See, for instance, Case C-66/02 Italy v Commission [2005] ECR I-10901, paragraph 101.
Glej na primer Zadevo C-66/02 Italija proti Komisiji [2005] ECR I-10901, točka 101.
OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3, paragraph 24.
UL C 384, 10.12.1998, str. 3, odstavek 24.
Paragraph 22 of the opening decision.
Odstavek 22 uvodne odločbe.
The expressions ‘related companies’ and ‘group’ are used throughout this Decision to refer, for convenience, to companies related through joint control, whether directly or indirectly — see recital 98.
Izraza „povezane družbe“ in „skupina“ se v celotni Odločbi, zaradi poenostavitve, uporabljata za družbe, ki so povezane, bodisi neposredno ali posredno, prek skupnega nadzora – glej uvodno izjavo 98.
In this regard, it must be observed that, in its assessment of the tax regime for coordination centres established in Belgium (see joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraphs 86 to 118), the Court of Justice considered that the flat-rate assessment of income under the cost-plus method constituted an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and that ‘that analysis cannot be called into question either by the fact that the inclusion of the financial charges could, in some cases, lead to a tax base that was unduly high or by the scale of the tax burden that might be imposed on the group, nor can it be called into question by the fact that a centre may be taxed when it has not made any profits’.
V tej zvezi je treba upoštevati, da je v svoji oceni davčnega režima za koordinacijske centre s sedežem v Belgiji (glej združeni zadevi C-182/03 in C-217/03 Belgija proti Komisiji [2006] ECR I-5479, točke 86 do 118) Sodišče menilo, da pavšalno obračunavanje davka od dohodka po metodi dodatka na stroške predstavlja ekonomsko prednost za namene člena 87 Pogodbe ES in da „v to analizo ni mogoče dvomiti niti zaradi dejstva, da bi lahko vključitev finančnih dajatev v nekaterih primerih povzročila neupravičeno visoko davčno osnovo, niti zaradi obsega davčne obremenitve, ki bi utegnila biti naložena skupini, prav tako pa v to analizo ni mogoče dvomiti zaradi dejstva, da bi lahko bil center obdavčen, če ne ustvari dobička“.
The Court also considered that exempting the coordination centres from property tax gave them an economic advantage.
Sodišče je poleg tega menilo, da oprostitev koordinacijskih centrov od plačila davka na nepremičnine tem centrom daje ekonomsko prednost.
‘The fact that only 5 % of the coordination centres benefit from it in practice, as all the others hold their buildings under lease, does not affect that assessment, since the choice between owning a building and leasing it is a matter entirely at the discretion of the centres.’
„Dejstvo, da ima vsega 5 % koordinacijskih centrov od tega korist v praksi, medtem ko imajo vsi ostali svoje objekte v zakupu, ne vpliva na to oceno, saj je izbira med tem, da imaš objekt v lasti, in tem, da ga daš v zakup, stvar, o kateri odločajo centri sami.“
For example, the payment of dividends, while not being deductible at the level of the paying company, is subject to taxation at the level of individual shareholders.
Na primer, izplačilo dividend, čeprav ni odbitno na ravni družbe plačnice, je predmet obdavčitve na ravni posameznih delničarjev.
Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2006] ECR I-7995, see in particular paragraphs 36 and 37.
Zadeva C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes proti komisarjem za javne prihodke [2006] ECR I-7995, glej zlasti točki 36 in 37.
See, also, the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-308/00 Salzgitter v Commission [2004] ECR II-1933, where the Court held that comparison of the tax rules applicable in all of the Member States, or even some of them, would inevitably distort the aim and functioning of the provisions on the monitoring of State aid.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v Zadevi T-308/00 Salzgitter proti Komisiji [2004] ECR II-1933, v kateri je Sodišče odločilo, da bi primerjava davčnih predpisov, ki veljajo v vseh državah članicah, ali celo samo nekaterih od njih, neizbežno izkrivila cilj in delovanje določb o spremljanju državne pomoči.
Footnote 8, paragraph 14.
Opomba pod črto 8, točka 14.
drawing up the standard reporting form referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council
o oblikovanju standardnega obrazca za poročanje iz člena 17 Uredbe (ES) št. 561/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 [1], and in particular Article 25(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 561/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 15. marca 2006 o usklajevanju določene socialne zakonodaje v zvezi s cestnim prometom in spremembi uredb Sveta (EGS) št. 3821/85 in (ES) št. 2135/98 ter razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 3820/85 [1] in zlasti člena 25(2) Uredbe,
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport [2],
ob upoštevanju mnenja odbora, ustanovljenega s členom 18(1) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 3821/85 z dne 20. decembra 1985 o tahografu (nadzorni napravi) v cestnem prometu [2],
The standard form referred to in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 should be used as the medium through which the Member States communicate to the Commission, every 2 years, the necessary information for the preparation of a report on the implementation of that Regulation, of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and on developments in the fields in question.
Standardni obrazec iz člena 17(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 561/2006 se mora uporabljati kot sredstvo, s katerim države članice vsaki dve leti Komisiji sporočajo potrebne podatke za pripravo poročila o izvajanju navedene uredbe in Uredbe (EGS) št. 3821/85 ter o razvoju na zadevnih področjih.
The standard form previously established by Commission Decision 93/173/EEC [3] should now be updated in order to take account, inter alia, of developments in the Community rules on driving times and rest periods.
Prejšnji standardni obrazec, določen z Odločbo Komisije 93/173/EGS [3], je treba posodobiti, da bi se med drugim upoštevale spremembe pravil Skupnosti o časih vožnje in časih počitka.
The new reporting requirements established by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [4] which lays down minimum conditions for its implementation cover in particular information on national exceptions granted by Member States under Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and more precise details of checks undertaken on vehicles.
Nove zahteve glede poročanja, vzpostavljene z Uredbo (ES) št. 561/2006 in Direktivo 2006/22/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [4], ki določa minimalne pogoje za njeno izvajanje, vsebujejo predvsem informacije o nacionalnih odstopanjih, ki so jih odobrile države članice v skladu s členom 13(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 561/2006, in natančnejše podatke o preverjanjih vozil.
Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities [5] complements the provisions on driving time, breaks and rest periods laid down in Regulation (EC) No 561/2006.
Direktiva 2002/15/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. marca 2002 o urejanju delovnega časa oseb, ki opravljajo spremljevalne dejavnosti v cestnem prometu [5] dopolnjuje določbe o času vožnje, odmorih in časih počitka iz Uredbe (ES) št. 561/2006.
In accordance with Article 13(1) of Directive 2002/15/EC, a report on the implementation of that Directive should be made by the Member States every 2 years.
V skladu s členom 13(1) Direktive 2002/15/ES morajo države članice poročilo o izvajanju navedene direktive sestaviti vsaki dve leti.
This 2-year period coincides with that laid down in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006.
To dvoletno obdobje sovpada z obdobjem iz člena 17(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 561/2006.
It is accordingly appropriate for reasons of administrative convenience and effective monitoring of the impact of the Community rules in this field to make provision for the inclusion of this information on the standard form,
V skladu s tem je primerno, da se zaradi poenostavitve upravnih postopkov in učinkovitega spremljanja učinka pravil Skupnosti na tem področju oblikujejo določbe za vključitev tega podatka v standardni obrazec –
The standard form referred to in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 shall be drawn up in accordance with the specimen in the Annex to this Decision.
Standardni obrazec iz člena 17(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 561/2006 se sestavi v skladu z vzorcem iz priloge k tej odločbi.
Decision 93/173/EEC is hereby repealed.
Odločba 93/173/EGS se razveljavi.
References to the repealed Decision shall be construed as references to this Decision.
Sklicevanja na razveljavljeno odločbo se razlagajo kot sklicevanja na to odločbo.
OJ L 80, 23.2.2002, p. 35.
UL L 80, 23.2.2002, str. 35.