natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular, when aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid… In addition, it not necessary that the beneficiary undertaking itself be involved in intra-Community trade.
Zlasti kadar pomoč države članice okrepi položaj enega podjetja v razmerju do drugih konkurenčnih podjetij v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, se šteje, da pomoč na ta podjetja vpliva.
Aid granted by a Member State to an undertaking may help to maintain or increase domestic activity, with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of penetrating the market of the Member State concerned’.
Poleg tega ni potrebno, da upravičeno podjetje sodeluje v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti.
Moreover, under settled case-law of the Court [88], for a measure to distort competition it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.
Kadar namreč država članica odobri pomoč podjetju, lahko s tem ohrani ali poveča njegovo notranjo dejavnost, tako da zmanjša možnosti podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, da vstopijo na trg te države članice.“ Poleg tega na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse Sodišča [88] za ukrep za izkrivljanje konkurence zadostuje, da prejemnik pomoči konkurira drugim podjetjem na trgih, ki so odprti za konkurenco.
The Commission considers that the conditions set out in the case-law are fulfilled for the following reasons:
Komisija meni, da so pogoji iz sodne prakse izpolnjeni iz naslednjih razlogov:
First, the measure at issue provides an advantage in terms of financing and, therefore, it strengthens the position of the economic unit that can be formed by the beneficiary and the target company.
Prvič, zadevni ukrep zagotavlja prednost v smislu financiranja, zato krepi položaj gospodarske enote, ki jo lahko ustanovita upravičenec in ciljna družba.
In that regard, and in line with the case-law of the Court [89], the mere fact of owning controlling shareholdings in a target company and exercising that control by involving itself directly or indirectly in the management of it, must be regarded as taking part in the economic activity carried on by the controlled undertaking.
V tem smislu in v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [89] je treba samo dejstvo lastništva nadzornih deležev v ciljni družbi in izvajanje tega nadzora z neposrednim in posrednim vključevanjem v njeno upravljanje obravnavati kot sodelovanje pri gospodarski dejavnosti, ki jo izvaja nadzorovana družba.
Second, the measure at issue is liable to distort competition, most clearly among European competitors, by providing a tax reduction to Spanish companies that acquire a significant shareholding in target companies.
Drugič, za zadevni ukrep velja izkrivljanje konkurence, najočitneje med evropskimi konkurenti, z zagotavljanjem znižanja davka za španske družbe, ki prevzamejo znatni delež v ciljnih družbah.
This analysis is confirmed by the fact that several companies complained or intervened after the initiating Decision to state that the measure at issue provided a significant advantage fuelling the merger appetite of Spanish companies, in particular in the context of auctions.
To analizo potrjuje dejstvo, da se je več družb pritožilo državi ali ukrepalo po odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, da zadevni ukrep zagotavlja bistveno prednost, ki spodbuja apetite španskih družb po združevanju, zlasti na dražbah.
These interventions confirm at least that a series of non-Spanish companies consider that their position on the market is affected by the measure at issue, irrespective of the correctness of their detailed submissions as regards the existence of aid.
Ti posegi potrjujejo vsaj to, da vrsta nešpanskih družb meni, da je na njihov položaj na trgu vplival zadevni ukrep, ne glede na pravilnost njihovih podrobnih predložitev v zvezi z obstojem pomoči.
Therefore the Commission concludes that the measure at issue is liable to affect trade between Member States and distort competition, chiefly in the internal market, by potentially improving the operating conditions of the beneficiaries that are directly engaged in economic activities liable to tax in Spain.
Zato Komisija sklepa, da bi zadevni ukrep lahko vplival na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivljal konkurenco, predvsem na notranjem trgu, z mogočim izboljšanjem operativnih pogojev upravičencev, ki so neposredno povezani z gospodarskimi dejavnostmi, ki so v Španiji obdavčene.
The Commission’s reaction to the comments received
Odziv Komisije na prejete pripombe
Before concluding on the classification of the measure, the Commission considers it appropriate to analyse in more detail certain arguments raised by the Spanish authorities and by third parties which have not yet been explicitly or implicitly addressed in the sections concerning the assessment of the scheme (recitals 83 et seq).
Preden bo Komisija ugotavljala opredelitev ukrepa, meni, da je primerno natančneje analizirati nekatere argumente, ki so jih predložili španski organi in tretje strani ter še niso bili eksplicitno ali implicitno obravnavani v oddelkih v zvezi s presojo sheme (uvodna izjava 83 in naslednje).
Reaction to the data extracted from the 2006 tax returns and to the comments about the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-501/00
Odziv na podatke iz davčnih napovedi iz leta 2006 in pripombe o sodbi Sodišča v zadevi C-501/00
As regards the data extracted by the Spanish authorities from the 2006 tax returns in order to demonstrate that the measure at issue is not selective [90], the Commission underlines the general lack of precision of the information submitted.
V zvezi s podatki, ki so jih španski organi povzeli iz davčnih napovedi iz leta 2006, da bi dokazali neselektivnost zadevnega ukrepa [90], Komisija poudarja splošno nenatančnost predloženih informacij.
First, the data give the distribution of beneficiaries by category (activity, turnover), but do not indicate whether the beneficiaries concerned represent a small or large part of each of the categories concerned.
Prvič, v podatkih so upravičenci navedeni po kategorijah (dejavnost, promet), vendar ni navedeno, ali zadevni upravičenci pomenijo majhen ali velik del vsake zadevne kategorije.
Secondly, although statistics based on the size of the turnover of the beneficiaries could be an interesting indicator in order to demonstrate that the measure at issue applies to all companies in Spain, it must be underlined that the measure at issue is related to the acquisitions of shareholdings.
Drugič, čeprav bi bili lahko statistični podatki na podlagi obsega prometa upravičencev zanimiv kazalnik, s katerim bi se dokazalo, da se zadevni ukrep uporablja za vse družbe v Španiji, je treba poudariti, da je zadevni ukrep povezan s prevzemi deležev.
This type of investment does not necessarily generate significant turnover, which implies, for example, that holding companies may be included as SMEs in the data in question.
Ta vrsta naložbe ne ustvari nujno znatnega prometa, kar na primer pomeni, da so lahko holdinške družbe v zadevne podatke vključene kot mala in srednje velika podjetja.
Therefore, for the data to be considered relevant, it would be necessary to take into account additional indicators, such as the total balance sheet figures, as well as whether the beneficiaries can consolidate their tax base with other Spanish taxpayers.
Zato da bi se podatki šteli za pomembne, bi bilo nujno upoštevati dodatne kazalnike, kot so podatki iz skupne bilance stanja, in tudi, ali lahko upravičenci konsolidirajo svojo davčno osnovo z drugimi španskimi davčnimi zavezanci.
Thirdly, the data also appear unrepresentative because they contain no indication of the level of shareholdings acquired (majority or only minority shareholdings) by the beneficiaries.
Tretjič, podatki se prav tako zdijo nereprezentativni, ker nimajo označene stopnje deležev (večinski ali le manjšinski deleži), ki so jih prevzeli upravičenci.
Finally, the data received do not provide any indication making it possible to determine whether the conditions of the 2003 Commission Recommendation on SMEs are fulfilled [91].
Nazadnje, prejeti podatki ne zagotavljajo znakov, ki bi omogočili opredelitev, ali so pogoji iz Priporočila Komisije o malih in srednje velikih podjetjih iz leta 2003 izpolnjeni [91].
Therefore the Commission considers that its conclusion that the contested aid measure is selective due to the very characteristics of the legislation in question has not been challenged by the partial and unrepresentative data provided by the Spanish authorities.
Zato Komisija meni, da njenega sklepa, da je izpodbijani ukrep pomoči selektiven zaradi značilnosti zadevne zakonodaje, delni in nereprezentativni podatki, ki so jih zagotovili španski organi, ne izpodbijajo.
None the less, even if the arguments presented by the Spanish authorities had been complemented by additional evidence, this would not remove the selective nature of the measure at issue as only certain undertakings do benefit from the measure, also in line with the Court of Justice’s judgment in case C-501/00 Spain v Commission [92].
Čeprav so španski organi dopolnili predložene argumente z dodatnimi dokazi, to ne bo odpravilo selektivne narave zadevnega ukrepa, saj imajo le nekatere družbe korist od ukrepa, kar je tudi v skladu s sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-501/00, Španija proti Komisiji [92].
Indeed, as regards the Spanish authorities’ classification of the measure as a general measure [93] because it is open to any undertaking resident in Spain, it is worth recalling this judgment of the Court.
V zvezi z opredelitvijo ukrepa španskih organov kot splošnega ukrepa [93], ker je odprt za vse družbe s sedežem v Španiji, se je pomembno sklicevati na to sodbo Sodišča.
That case also concerned an exception to Spanish corporate tax, more specifically a measure entitled ‘deduction for export activities’.
V tej zadevi se je prav tako obravnavala izjema v španskem davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb, podrobneje ukrep z naslovom „Odbitki za izvozne dejavnosti“.
The Spanish authorities contended before the Court that the scheme was open to any undertaking with its tax domicile in Spain.
Španski organi so pred Sodiščem trdili, da je bila shema odprta za vse družbe z davčnim sedežem v Španiji.
However, the Court considered that the tax deduction could ‘benefit only one category of undertaking, namely undertakings which have export activities and make certain investments referred to by the measure at issue’ [94].
Vendar je Sodišče menilo, da lahko odbitek davka „koristi samo eni kategoriji podjetij, namreč tistim, ki imajo izvozne dejavnosti in opravijo določene naložbe, ki jih navajajo sporni ukrepi“ [94].
The Commission considers that also in the case at hand, the contested measure aims at favouring the export of capital out of Spain, in order to strengthen the position of Spanish companies abroad, thereby improving the competitiveness of the beneficiaries of the scheme.
Komisija meni, da je tudi v zadevnem primeru namen spornega ukrepa dajanje prednosti izvozu kapitala iz Španije, da bi okrepili položaj španskih družb v tujini in s tem izboljšali konkurenčnost upravičencev do sheme.
In this respect it is noteworthy that, according to the Court of Justice, ‘in order to justify the contested measures with respect to the nature or the structure of the tax system of which those measures form part, it is not sufficient to state that they are intended to promote international trade.
V zvezi s tem je treba upoštevati, da po mnenju Sodišča „za utemeljevanje spornih ukrepov glede na naravo in organizacijo davčnega sistema, v katerega se umeščajo, ne zadošča navedba, da so namenjeni spodbujanju mednarodne trgovine.
It is true that such a purpose is an economic objective but it has not been shown that that purpose corresponds to the overall logic of the tax system.
Tak namen sicer je ekonomski cilj, vendar ni bilo ugotovljeno, da ustreza splošni logiki davčnega sistema.
The fact that the contested measures pursue a commercial or industry policy objective, such as the promotion of international trade by supporting foreign investment, is thus not sufficient to take them outside the classification of “aid” within the meaning of Article 4(c) CS’ [95].
Poleg tega okoliščina, da sporni ukrepi zasledujejo cilj trgovinske ali industrijske politike, kot je spodbujanje mednarodne trgovine s podpiranjem naložb v tujino, ne zadošča, da bi se ti ukrepi izognili opredelitvi ‘pomoči‚ v smislu člena 4(c) PJ.
In the present case, the Spanish authorities have simply declared that the measure at issue intends to promote international trade and the consolidation of companies, without proving that such a measure is justified by the logic of the systemIn the light of the above, the Commission confirms its analysis that the measure at issue is selective.
[95]“ V tem primeru so španski organi preprosto izjavili, da sta namena zadevnega ukrepa spodbujanje mednarodne trgovine in konsolidacije družb, ne da bi dokazali, da je tak ukrep utemeljen z logiko sistema. Glede na navedeno Komisija potrjuje svojo analizo, da je zadevni ukrep selektiven.
Reaction to the comments on Commission practice
Odziv na pripombe o praksi Komisije
As regards the reference made to alleged innovative interpretation of the concept of selectivity in the present case, it should first be underlined that this approach is fully in line with the Commission’s decision-making practice and the case-law of the Court as described in recital 92.
V zvezi s sklicevanjem na domnevno inovativno razlago pojma selektivnosti v zadevnem primeru je treba najprej poudariti, da je ta pristop popolnoma v skladu s prakso sprejemanja odločitev Komisije in sodno prakso Sodišča, kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 92.
Nor does the approach in this particular case depart from Commission Decision N 480/2007 [96] to which the Spanish authorities refer.
Niti pristop v tem primeru ne odstopa od Sklepa Komisije št. 480/2007 [96], na katerega se sklicujejo španski organi.
Indeed, this Decision took into account the specific nature of the objective pursued by referring [97] to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee — Towards a more effective use of tax incentives in favour of R & D [98].
V tem sklepu se upošteva posebna narava zastavljenega cilja s sklicevanjem [97] na Sporočilo Komisije Svetu, Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru – Boljša uporaba davčnih olajšav za raziskave in razvoj [98].
In the case at hand, the contested measure does not pursue a similar objective.
V zadevnem primeru sporni ukrep nima podobnega cilja.
Moreover, unlike the present case, the Spanish measure at stake in this previous Decision did not make any distinction between national and international transactions.
Poleg tega španski zadevni ukrep v nasprotju s primerom iz prejšnjega sklepa ni razlikoval med nacionalnimi in mednarodnimi transakcijami.
Finally, as regards the derogation from the corporate tax system resulting from the implementation of Directives [99] such as the Parents-Subsidiary Directive or the Cross-border Interest and Royalty Payments Directive, the Commission considers that the situation resulting from the implementation of these Directives is entirely consistent with the reasoning developed in this Decision.
Nazadnje, kar zadeva odstopanje od sistema o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki izhaja iz izvajanja direktiv [99], kot sta Direktiva o matičnih in odvisnih družbah ali Direktiva o čezmejnih plačilih obresti in licenčnin, Komisija meni, da je položaj, ki je posledica izvajanja teh direktiv, popolnoma v skladu z razlago, navedeno v tej odločbi.
Following harmonisation within the Community, cross-border operations within the Community and within each Member State should be considered to be in a comparable legal and factual situation.
Po usklajevanju znotraj Skupnosti je treba za čezmejne operacije znotraj Skupnosti in znotraj vsake države članice šteti, da so v pravno in dejansko primerljivem položaju.
In addition, the Commission would like to underline that the Court of First Instance stated that [100]: ‘as Community law stands at present, direct taxation falls within the competence of the Member States, although it is settled case-law that they must exercise that competence consistently with Community law (see, in particular, Case C-391/97 Gschwind [1999] ECR I-5451, paragraph 20) and therefore avoid taking, in that context, any measures capable of constituting State aid incompatible with the common market’.
Poleg tega želi Komisija poudariti, da je Sodišče prve stopnje izjavilo, da [100]„v sedanjem pravu Skupnosti neposredno obdavčenje spada v pristojnost držav članic, čeprav morajo države članice v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso to pristojnost izvrševati ob spoštovanju prava Skupnosti (glej zlasti sodbo v zadevi Gschwind, C-391/97, ZOdl., str. I-5451, točka 20) in se posledično vzdržati, da bi v tem kontekstu sprejele kakršen koli ukrep, ki bi lahko pomenil državno pomoč, ki bi bila nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom“.
Reaction to the comments on Article 58(1)(a) of the Treaty
Odziv na pripombe o členu 58(1)(a) Pogodbe
Firstly, as already pointed out before, it must be borne in mind that, although direct taxation falls within competence of Member States, they must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community law [101], including the provisions of the Treaty on State aid.
Prvič, kot je bilo že poudarjeno, je treba upoštevati, da morajo države članice, čeprav neposredna obdavčitev spada v njihovo pristojnost, kljub temu to pristojnost izvajati v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti [101], vključno z določbami o državni pomoči iz Pogodbe.
In other words, Article 58(1)(a) of the Treaty should be interpreted in a manner compatible with the Treaty rules on State aid including those granting control competencies to the Commission in that area.
To pomeni, da je treba člen 58(1)(a) Pogodbe razlagati v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči iz Pogodbe, vključno s pravili o dodeljevanju pristojnosti Komisiji za nadzor na tem področju.
Moreover, Article 58 of the Treaty, as invoked by the Spanish authorities, must be read together with Article 56 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States.
Poleg tega je treba člen 58 Pogodbe, kot se sklicujejo španski organi, razlagati skupaj s členom 56 Pogodbe ES, s katerim se prepoveduje omejevanje pretoka kapitala med državami članicami.
In fact, Article 58(1) of the Treaty provides that ‘the provisions of Article 56 shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States: (a) to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested’.
Dejansko se s členom 58(1) Pogodbe zagotavlja, da „določbe člena 56 ne posegajo v pravice držav članic, da: (a) uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svojega davčnega prava, v katerih so različno obravnavani davčni zavezanci, ki niso v enakem položaju glede na prebivališče ali kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital“.
The possibility granted to the Member States by Article 58(1)(a) of the Treaty, of applying the relevant provisions of their tax legislation which distinguish between taxpayers according to their place of residence or the place where their capital is invested, has already been upheld by the Court.
Možnost, ki je dodeljena državam članicam v členu 58(1)(a) Pogodbe, da uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svoje davčne zakonodaje, v katerih so različno obravnavani davčni zavezanci glede na prebivališče ali kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital, je Sodišče že podprlo.
According to case-law prior to the entry into force of Article 58(1)(a) of the Treaty, national tax provisions which establish certain distinctions based, in particular, on the residence of taxpayers, could be compatible with Community law provided that they applied to situations which were not objectively comparable [102] or could be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest, in particular in relation to the cohesion of the tax system [103].
Glede na sodno prakso pred začetkom veljavnosti člena 58(1)(a) Pogodbe so lahko nacionalne davčne določbe, s katerimi se vzpostavlja neko razlikovanje, zlasti na podlagi prebivališča davčnih zavezancev, usklajene z zakonodajo Skupnosti, če so veljale za položaje, ki niso bili objektivno primerljivi [102], ali bi lahko bile utemeljene s prevladujočimi razlogi v splošnem interesu, zlasti v zvezi s kohezijo davčnega sistema [103].
Also as regards the period after the entry into force of Article 58(1)(a) of the Treaty, the Court has examined the possible presence of objectively comparable situations which could justify a legislation restricting the free movement of capital.
Prav tako je Sodišče v zvezi z obdobjem po začetku veljavnosti člena 58(1)(a) Pogodbe preučilo mogočo prisotnost objektivno primerljivih položajev, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče utemeljiti zakonodajo, s katero se omejuje prosti pretok kapitala.
With reference to certain tax legislations, which had the effect of deterring taxpayers living in a Member State from investing their capital in companies established in another Member State and which also produced a restrictive effect in relation to companies established in other Member States, in that they constitute an obstacle to their raising capital in the Member State concerned, the Court consistently held that such legislations could not be justified by an objective difference in situation of such a kind as to justify a difference in tax treatment, in accordance with Article 58(1)(a) of the Treaty [105].
S sklicevanjem na nekatere davčne zakonodaje, ki so davčne zavezance, ki živijo v eni državi članici, odvračale od vlaganja kapitala v družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici, in so prav tako povzročile omejevalni učinek v zvezi z družbami s sedežem v drugi državi članici, tako da pomenijo oviro za črpanje kapitala v zadevni državi članici, je Sodišče dosledno menilo, da teh zakonodaj ni mogoče utemeljiti z objektivno razliko med takimi položaji, da se utemelji razlika v davčni obravnavi, v skladu s členom 58(1)(a) Pogodbe [105].
In any case, it must be borne in mind that Article 58(3) of the Treaty states specifically that the national provisions referred to by Article 58(1)(a) are not to constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments [106].
Vsekakor je treba upoštevati, da je v členu 58(3) Pogodbe izrecno navedeno, da nacionalne določbe iz člena 58(1)(a) ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil [106].
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that, in the present case, domestic share acquisitions and share acquisitions of companies established in another Member State are, for the reasons highlighted above, in an objectively comparable situation and that there are no overriding reasons of general interest which could justify a different treatment of taxpayers with regard to the place where their capital is invested.
Glede na navedeno Komisija meni, da so v tem primeru domači prevzemi deležev in prevzemi deležev družb, ustanovljenih v drugi državi članici, iz navedenih razlogov v objektivno primerljivem položaju in da ni nobenega prevladujočega razloga splošnega interesa, s katerim bi utemeljili različno obravnavo davčnih zavezancev glede na kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital.
Conclusion on the classification of the contested measure
Sklep o opredelitvi spornega ukrepa
In view of all the above considerations, the Commission considers that the measure at issue, to the extent that it applies to intra-Community acquisitions, fulfils all the conditions laid down in Article 87(1) of the Treaty and should thus be regarded as State aid.
Glede na vse navedene razmisleke Komisija meni, da zadevni ukrep, kolikor velja za prevzeme znotraj Skupnosti, izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe in ga je zato treba obravnavati kot državno pomoč.