natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 21 lays down the conditions under which dividends or income from entities not resident in Spanish territory are tax exempt when received by a company which is tax domiciled in Spain,
Člen 21 določa pogoje, pod katerimi so dividende ali prihodki subjektov, ki nimajo sedeža na španskem ozemlju, oproščeni davka, če jih prejme družba z davčnim domicilom v Španiji,
transfer of assets shall mean an operation whereby a company transfers, without being dissolved, all or one or more branches of its activity to another company,
prenos sredstev pomeni operacijo, s katero družba brez prenehanja prenese vse ali eno ali več panog svoje dejavnosti na drugo družbo,
business combination shall mean an operation whereby one or more companies, on being dissolved without going into liquidation, transfer all their assets and liabilities to another existing company or to a company that they form in exchange for the issue to their shareholders of securities representing the capital of that other company,
poslovna združitev pomeni operacijo, s katero ena ali več družb ob prenehanju brez likvidacije prenese vsa svoja sredstva in obveznosti na drugo obstoječo družbo ali družbo, ki jo oblikujejo v zameno za izdajo vrednostnih papirjev, ki predstavljajo kapital te druge družbe, svojim delničarjem,
share acquisition shall mean an operation whereby one company acquires a shareholding in the capital of another company without obtaining a majority or the control of the voting rights of the target company,
prevzem deleža pomeni operacijo, s katero ena družba prevzame delež v kapitalu druge družbe brez privolitve večine ali nadzora nad glasovalnimi pravicami ciljne družbe,
target company shall mean a company not resident in Spain, whose income fulfils the conditions described in paragraph 30(c) and in which a shareholding is acquired by a company resident in Spain,
ciljna družba pomeni družbo, ki nima sedeža v Španiji in katere prihodek izpolnjuje pogoje iz odstavka (30)(c) ter v kateri je delež prevzela družba s sedežem v Španiji,
intra-EU acquisitions shall mean shareholding acquisitions, which meet all the relevant conditions of Article 12(5) TRLIS, in a target company which is formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and has its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union,
prevzemi znotraj EU pomenijo prevzeme deležev, ki izpolnjujejo vse zadevne pogoje iz člena 12(5) TRLIS, v ciljni družbi, ki je oblikovana v skladu z zakonodajo države članice in ima registrirani sedež, glavno upravo ali glavno poslovalnico v Uniji,
extra-EU acquisitions shall mean shareholding acquisitions, which meet all the relevant conditions of Article 12(5) TRLIS, in a target company which has not been formed in accordance with the law of a Member State or does not have its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union.
prevzemi zunaj EU pomenijo prevzeme deležev, ki izpolnjujejo vse zadevne pogoje iz člena 12(5) TRLIS, v ciljni družbi, ki ni bila oblikovana v skladu z zakonodajo države članice ali nima registriranega sedeža, glavne uprave ali glavne poslovalnice v Uniji.
In the opening Decision, the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU (former Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty) in respect of the contested measure, because it appeared to fulfil all the conditions for being considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Komisija je z odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka začela formalni postopek preiskave, kot ga določa člen 108(2) PDEU (prej člen 88(2) Pogodbe ES), v zvezi s spornim ukrepom, ker se je zdelo, da izpolnjuje vse pogoje, da šteje za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Commission also had doubts as to whether the contested measure could be considered compatible with the internal market, as none of the exceptions provided for in Article 107(2) and (3) seemed applicable.
Komisija je prav tako dvomila, ali je mogoče sporni ukrep obravnavati kot združljiv z notranjim trgom, ker se je zdelo, da se ne more uporabiti nobena od izjem iz člena 107(2) in (3).
In particular, the Commission considered that the contested measure departed from the ordinary scope of the Spanish corporate tax system, which is the tax system of reference.
Komisija je zlasti menila, da se je sporni ukrep razlikoval od običajnega področja uporabe španskega sistema o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki je referenčni davčni sistem.
The Commission also held that the tax amortisation of the financial goodwill arising from the acquisition of a 5 % shareholding in a foreign target company seemed to constitute an exceptional incentive.
Prav tako je menila, da davčna amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena, ki izhaja iz prevzema 5-odstotnega deleža v tuji ciljni družbi, pomeni izjemno spodbudo.
The Commission observed that the tax amortisation applied only to a specific category of undertakings, namely undertakings which acquire certain shareholdings, amounting to at least 5 % of the share capital of a target company, and only in respect of foreign target companies provided that the criteria in Article 21(1) TRLIS are fulfilled.
Komisija je ugotovila, da se je davčna amortizacija uporabila le za posebno kategorijo družb, in sicer družbe, ki prevzamejo nekatere deleže, ki znašajo vsaj 5 % kapitalskega deleža ciljne družbe, in le v zvezi s tujimi ciljnimi družbami, če so izpolnjena merila iz člena 21(1) TRLIS.
The Commission also underlined that, pursuant to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a tax reduction favouring only exports of national products constitutes State aid [16].
Komisija je prav tako poudarila, da znižanje davka, ki daje prednost le izvozu nacionalnih proizvodov, v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije pomeni državno pomoč [16].
The contested measure therefore seemed selective.
Sporni ukrep se je torej zdel selektiven.
In particular, it considered that the differentiation created by the contested measure, which departed from the general rules of the Spanish accounting and tax systems, could not be justified by reasons linked to technicalities of the tax system.
Zlasti je menila, da razlikovanja zaradi spornega ukrepa, ki odstopa od splošnih predpisov španskega računovodskega in davčnega sistema, ni mogoče utemeljiti z razlogi, ki so povezani s tehničnimi podrobnostmi davčnega sistema.
Indeed, goodwill can only be deducted in the case of a business combination or transfer of assets, except under the provisions of the contested measure.
Dobro ime je dejansko mogoče odšteti le v primeru poslovne združitve ali prenosa sredstev, razen pod pogoji spornega ukrepa.
The Commission also considered that it was disproportionate for the contested measure to claim to attain the neutrality objectives pursued by the Spanish system because it is limited solely to the acquisition of significant shareholdings in foreign companies.
Po mnenju Komisije je prav tako nesorazmerno trditi, da je sporni ukrep dosegal cilje nevtralnosti, za katere si prizadeva španski sistem, ker je omejen zgolj na prevzem znatnih deležev v tujih družbah.
In addition, the Commission considered that the contested measure implied the use of state resources, as it involved the Spanish Treasury foregoing tax revenue.
Poleg tega je Komisija menila, da je sporni ukrep povzročil uporabo državnih sredstev, ker je vključeval navedene davčne prihodke španske državne blagajne.
Finally, the contested measure could distort competition in the European business acquisition market by providing a selective economic advantage to Spanish companies engaged in the acquisition of a significant shareholding in foreign companies.
Nazadnje, sporni ukrep bi lahko z zagotavljanjem selektivne gospodarske prednosti španskim družbam, ki so vključene v prevzemanje znatnih deležev v tujih družbah, izkrivljal konkurenco na evropskem trgu poslovnih združitev.
Nor did the Commission find any grounds for considering the contested measure compatible with the internal market.
Komisija prav tako ni ugotovila nobenih razlogov za obravnavo spornega ukrepa kot združljivega z notranjim trgom.
The Commission therefore concluded that the contested measure could constitute incompatible State aid.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da bi lahko sporni ukrep pomenil nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
If this were the case, recovery should take place according to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the Treaty.
V takem primeru bi bilo treba pomoč vrniti v skladu s členom 14 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe.
The Commission accordingly invited the Spanish authorities and interested parties to submit their observations as to the possible presence of legitimate expectations or any other general principle of Union law which would permit the Commission to exceptionally waive recovery pursuant to the second sentence of Article 14(1) of the above-mentioned Council Regulation.
V skladu s tem je Komisija pozvala španske organe in zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo pripombe glede mogočih upravičenih pričakovanj ali katerega koli drugega splošnega načela prava Unije, ki bi Komisiji izjemoma omogočal oprostitev vračila pomoči v skladu z drugim stavkom člena 14(1) navedene uredbe Sveta.
THE FIRST PARTIAL NEGATIVE DECISION
PRVA DELNA NEGATIVNA ODLOČBA
In the previous Decision, the Commission concluded that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU when it applies to intra-EU acquisitions.
Komisija je v prejšnji odločbi ugotovila, da člen 12(5) TRLIS pomeni shemo pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, kadar se uporablja za prevzeme znotraj EU.
The Commission also found that, since the contested measure had been implemented in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, it constituted an unlawful aid scheme to the extent that it applied to intra-EU acquisitions.
Komisija je še ugotovila, da sporni ukrep pomeni nezakonito shemo pomoči, v kolikor se je uporabljal za prevzeme znotraj EU, ker se je izvajal v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU.
The Commission maintained the procedure, as initiated by the opening Decision of 10 October 2007, open for extra-EU acquisitions in the light of the new elements which the Spanish authorities undertook to provide as regards the obstacles to cross-border mergers outside the EU.
Komisija je ohranila postopek, kakor je bil sprožen z odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka z dne 10. oktobra 2007, odprt za prevzeme zunaj EU ob upoštevanju novih dokazov v zvezi z ovirami za čezmejne združitve zunaj EU, za katere so se španski organi zavezali, da jih bodo predložili.
V. COMMENTS FROM THE SPANISH AUTHORITIES AND INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES
V. PRIPOMBE ŠPANSKIH ORGANOV IN ZAINTERESIRANIH TRETJIH STRANI
The Commission received comments from the Spanish authorities [17] and from 32 interested third parties [18], eight of which were associations.
Komisija je prejela pripombe španskih organov [17] in 32 zainteresiranih tretjih strani [18], med katerimi je bilo osem združenj.
To summarise, the Spanish authorities consider that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes a general measure and not an exception to the Spanish tax system since this provision allows the amortisation of an intangible asset, which applies to any taxpayer who acquires a significant shareholding in a foreign company.
Povedano na kratko, španski organi menijo, da je člen 12(5) TRLIS splošni ukrep, in ne izjema v španskem davčnem sistemu, saj ta določba omogoča amortizacijo neopredmetenega sredstva, ki velja za vsakega davčnega zavezanca, ki prevzame znatni delež v tuji družbi.
In the light of Commission practice and the relevant case law, the Spanish authorities conclude that the contested measures cannot be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.
Glede na prakso Komisije in zadevno sodno prakso španski organi sklepajo, da spornih ukrepov ni mogoče šteti za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107 PDEU.
In general, 30 interested third parties (hereinafter ‘the 30 interested parties’) support the views of the Spanish authorities, whereas another two third parties (hereinafter ‘the two parties’) consider that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes an unlawful State aid measure incompatible with the internal market.
Na splošno, 30 zainteresiranih tretjih strani (v nadaljnjem besedilu: 30 zainteresiranih strani) podpira stališča španskih organov, medtem ko dve tretji strani (v nadaljnjem besedilu: dve strani) menita, da člen 12(5) TRLIS pomeni nezakonit ukrep državne pomoči, ki ni združljiv z notranjim trgom.
Hence, the arguments of the 30 interested parties will be presented together with the position of the Spanish authorities, whereas the arguments of the two parties will be described separately.
Zato bodo argumenti 30 zainteresiranih strani predstavljeni skupaj s stališčem španskih organov, argumenti dveh strani pa bodo opisani ločeno.
Comments from the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties
Pripombe Španskih organov in 30 zainteresiranih strani
As a preliminary remark, the Spanish authorities stress that direct taxation lies within the competence of Member States.
Španski organi v uvodni pripombi poudarjajo, da so za neposredno obdavčitev pristojne države članice.
Therefore, the Commission’s action in this field should be in line with the subsidiarity principle stated in Article 5 EC Treaty (now replaced in substance by Article 5 TFEU).
Zato mora biti ukrep Komisije na tem področju v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti iz člena 5 Pogodbe ES (ki ga zdaj vsebinsko nadomešča člen 5 PDEU).
Moreover, the Spanish authorities recall that Article 3 EC Treaty (now replaced in substance by Articles 3 to 6 TFEU) and 58(1)(a) EC Treaty (now replaced by Article 65 TFEU) allow Member States to establish different tax systems, according to the location of the investment or the tax residence of the taxpayer, without this being considered a restriction to the free movement of capital.
Poleg tega španski organi opozarjajo, da člen 3 Pogodbe ES (ki ga zdaj vsebinsko nadomeščajo členi od 3 do 6 PDEU) in člen 58(1)(a) Pogodbe ES (ki ga zdaj nadomešča člen 65 PDEU) omogočata državam članicam, da glede na kraj naložbe ali davčni domicil davčnega zavezanca oblikujejo različne davčne sisteme, pri čemer se to ne obravnava kot omejitev prostega pretoka kapitala.
The 30 interested parties also maintain that a negative Commission decision would breach the principle of national fiscal autonomy laid down in the TFEU, as well as Article 56 EC Treaty (now replaced by Article 63 TFEU) prohibiting restrictions on the free movement of capital.
Trideset zainteresiranih strani prav tako trdi, da bi negativna odločitev Komisije kršila načelo nacionalne davčne avtonomije, določeno v PDEU, in tudi člen 56 Pogodbe ES (ki ga zdaj nadomešča člen 63 PDEU), s katerim se prepovedujejo omejitve prostega pretoka kapitala.
The contested measure does not constitute State aid
Sporni ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči
The Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties consider that the contested measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU since: (i) it does not confer an economic advantage; (ii) it does not favour certain undertakings; and (iii) it does not distort or threaten to distort competition between Member States.
Španski organi in 30 zainteresiranih strani menijo, da sporni ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, ker: (i) ne dodeljuje gospodarske prednosti; (ii) ne daje prednosti nekaterim družbam; niti (iii) ne izkrivlja ali ne bi mogel izkrivljati konkurence med državami članicami.
In line with the logic of the Spanish tax system, they consider that the contested measure should be considered a general measure applying indiscriminately to any type of company and to any activity.
V skladu z logiko španskega davčnega sistema menijo, da je treba sporni ukrep obravnavati kot splošen ukrep, ki se brez razlikovanja uporablja za vse vrste družb in dejavnosti.
The contested measure does not confer an economic advantage
Sporni ukrep ne daje gospodarske prednosti
Contrary to the Commission’s position as expressed in the opening Decision, Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute an exception to the Spanish corporate tax system since (i) the Spanish accounting system is not an appropriate point of reference on which to base the existence of an exception to the tax system; and (ii) even if it were, the characterisation of financial goodwill as a depreciable asset over time has historically been a general feature of the Spanish accounting and corporate tax system.
V nasprotju s stališčem Komisije iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka člen 12(5) TRLIS ne pomeni izjeme v španskem sistemu o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ker: (i) španski računovodski sistem ni primerna referenca, s katero bi lahko utemeljili obstoj izjeme v davčnem sistemu; in (ii) čeprav bi veljalo nasprotno, je postala označitev finančnega dobrega imena kot amortizacijskega sredstva sčasoma splošna značilnost španskega računovodskega sistema in sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
Firstly, because of the lack of harmonisation of accounting rules, the accounting result cannot serve as a reference point for establishing the exceptional nature of the contested measure.
Prvič, računovodski rezultat zaradi neusklajenosti računovodskih pravil ne more biti referenca za ugotavljanje izjemnosti spornega ukrepa.
Secondly, it is incorrect to consider goodwill amortisation not to be within the logic of the Spanish accounting system since both goodwill [19] and financial goodwill [20] can be amortised over periods up to 20 years.
Drugič, napačno je mnenje, da amortizacija dobrega imena ni v skladu z logiko španskega računovodskega sistema, saj je mogoče dobro ime [19] in finančno dobro ime [20] amortizirati v obdobjih, ki trajajo do največ 20 let.
These empirical rules reflect the loss of value of the underlying assets, whether tangible or not.
V teh empiričnih predpisih se izraža izguba vrednosti osnovnih sredstev ne glede na to, ali so opredmetena ali ne.
Therefore, Article 12(5) TRLIS would not constitute an exception as it does not depart from the rules on amortisation of goodwill established in the Spanish accounting and tax systems.
Zato člen 12(5) TRLIS ne pomeni izjeme, ker ne izhaja iz predpisov o amortizaciji dobrega imena, vzpostavljenih v španskem računovodskem in davčnem sistemu.
Thirdly, the Spanish authorities point out that the contested measure does not constitute a true economic advantage since, in case of sale of the acquired shareholding, the amount deducted is recovered by taxation of the capital gain, thus placing the taxpayer in the same situation as if Article 12(5) TRLIS had not been applied.
Tretjič, španski organi poudarjajo, da sporni ukrep ne pomeni resnične gospodarske prednosti, ker se v primeru prodaje prevzetega deleža odšteti znesek vrne z obdavčenjem kapitalskega dobička, zaradi česar je davčni zavezanec v enakem položaju, kot če se člen 12(5) TRLIS ne bi uporabil.
In the opening Decision, the Commission states that neither a business combination nor takeover of the target company is necessary to benefit from Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka navedla, da za korist iz člena 12(5) TRLIS nista potrebna niti poslovna združitev niti prevzem ciljne družbe.
This statement reflects a misunderstanding of the Spanish tax system since these two articles do not prevent a group of companies that jointly acquires control of a target company from deducting a corresponding fraction of the goodwill resulting from the operation.
Ta trditev kaže na nerazumevanje španskega davčnega sistema, saj navedena člena skupini družb, ki skupaj prevzamejo nadzor nad ciljno družbo, ne preprečujeta odbitka ustreznega dela od dobrega imena, ki izhaja iz operacije.
Hence, application of these two articles does not require individual control of the target company in order to benefit from the contested measure.
Zato za uporabo navedenih členov ni potreben posamezni nadzor nad ciljno družbo, da bi imeli koristi od spornega ukrepa.
In this context, it would be inappropriate to consider that Article 12(5) TRLIS offers more favourable treatment than Articles 11(4) or 89(3) TRLIS as regards the controlling position of the beneficiaries.
V zvezi s tem bi bilo neustrezno mnenje, da člen 12(5) TRLIS zagotavlja ugodnejšo obravnavo kot člen 11(4) ali člen 89(3) TRLIS, kar zadeva nadzorni položaj upravičencev.
Finally, it should be noted that the 5 % shareholding criterion is consistent with the conditions laid down in Article 89(3) TRLIS and also with Commission guidelines and practice [21].
Nazadnje je treba opozoriti, da je merilo 5-odstotnega deleža v skladu s pogoji iz člena 89(3) TRLIS ter s smernicami in prakso Komisije [21].
The Spanish authorities point out that the Commission also incorrectly refers to Article 12(3) TRLIS to establish an alleged advantage under Article 12(5) TRLIS: Article 12(3) applies to situations of depreciation in case of an objective loss recorded by the target company, whereas Article 12(5) TRLIS complements this provision and reflects the loss of value attributable to depreciation of the financial goodwill.
Španski organi poudarjajo, da se Komisija prav tako nepravilno sklicuje na člen 12(3) TRLIS, da bi opredelila domnevno prednost v skladu s členom 12(5) TRLIS: člen 12(3) se uporablja za primere amortizacije, če je v ciljni družbi evidentirana objektivna izguba, medtem ko se s členom 12(5) TRLIS dopolnjuje ta določba, poleg tega pa se v njem izraža izguba vrednosti, ki se pripiše amortizaciji finančnega dobrega imena.
Fifthly, the Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation [22] (hereinafter ‘the Commission Notice’) explicitly states that amortisation rules do not imply State aid.
Petič, v Obvestilu Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka [22] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Obvestilo Komisije), je izrecno navedeno, da pravila o amortizaciji ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
Finally, the 30 interested parties also consider that if the contested measure constituted an advantage, the ultimate beneficiaries would be the target company’s shareholders since they would receive the price paid by the acquiring company benefiting from the contested measure.
Nazadnje, trideset zainteresiranih strani prav tako meni, da če bi sporni ukrep pomenil prednost, bi bili končni upravičenci delničarji ciljne družbe, ker bi prejeli ceno, ki jo je plačala prevzemna družba, ki je imela korist od spornega ukrepa.
The contested measure does not favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods
Sporni ukrep ne daje prednosti nekaterim družbam ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga
Firstly, Spain maintains that Article 12(5) TRLIS is a general measure since it is open to any Spanish company whatever its activity, sector, size, form or other characteristics.
Prvič, Španija trdi, da je člen 12(5) TRLIS splošni ukrep, ker je dostopen vsem španskim družbam ne glede na njihovo dejavnost, sektor, velikost, obliko ali druge značilnosti.
The only condition for the taxpayer to be able to benefit from the contested measure is to be tax resident in Spain.
Edini pogoj, da ima lahko davčni zavezanec korist od spornega ukrepa, je davčni domicil v Španiji.
Therefore, Article 12(5) TRLIS is neither de facto nor de jure selective within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zato člen 12(5) TRLIS ni niti dejansko niti pravno selektiven v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Accordingly, by letter dated 14 July 2008 [23], the Spanish authorities provided data extracted from the 2006 Spanish tax returns which show that all types of companies (SMEs and large undertakings), as well as companies active in different economic sectors, had benefited from the contested measure.
V skladu s tem so španski organi v dopisu z dne 14. julija 2008 [23] predložili podatke iz španskih davčnih napovedi iz leta 2006, ki dokazujejo, da so vse vrste družb (mala in srednje velika podjetja ter velike družbe) in tudi družbe, dejavne v različnih sektorjih gospodarstva, imele korist od spornega ukrepa.