natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See other examples of previous Commission practice, such as Decision 2004/76/EC of 13 May 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for headquarters and logistics centres, OJ L 23, 28.1.2004, p. 1, recital 73; see also, for similar reasoning, Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities, OJ L 180, 18.7.2003, p. 52, recital 105; Commission Decision 2004/77/EC of 24 June 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium — Tax ruling system for United States foreign sales corporations, OJ L 23, 28.1.2004, p. 14, recital 70.
Glej druge primere predhodne prakse Komisije, kot je Odločba 2004/76/ES z dne 13. maja 2003, o shemi državne pomoči, ki jo izvaja Francija v korist glavnih štabov in logističnih centrov, UL L 23, 28.1.2004, str. 1, uvodna izjava 73; za podobne razlage glej tudi Odločbo Komisije 2003/515/ES z dne 17. februarja 2003, o državni pomoči, ki jo izvaja Nizozemska za mednarodne finančne dejavnosti, UL L 180, 18.7.2003, str. 52, uvodna izjava 105; Odločbo Komisije 2004/77/ES z dne 24. junija 2003, o shemi pomoči, ki jo Belgija izvaja v obliki davčnega sistema odločanja, ki se uporablja za US Foreign Sales Corporations, UL L 23, 28.1.2004, str. 14. uvodna izjava 70.
See the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-211/05 Italy v Commission, not yet reported, paragraph 173; see also the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-459/93 Siemens v Commission [1995] ECR II-1675, paragraph 48.
Glej sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 4. septembra 2009 v zadevi T-211/05, Italija proti Komisiji, poročilo še ni na voljo, točka 173; glej tudi sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 8. junija 1995 v zadevi T-459/93, Siemens proti Komisiji, ZOdl., str. II- 1675, točka 48.
See the Decisions referred to in footnote 108.
Glej odločbe iz opombe 108.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Forum 187 ASBL [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraph 147; See judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-506/03 Germany v Commission, not yet reported, paragraph 58; and judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-265/85 Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV v Commission [1987] ECR 1155, paragraph 44.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 22. junija 2006 v zadevah C-182/03 in C-217/03, Forum 187 ASBL, ZOdl., str. I- 5479, točka 147; glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 24. novembra 2005 v zadevi C-506/03, Nemčija proti Komisiji, še neobjavljena, točka 58, in sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-265/85, Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV proti Komisiji, ZOdl., str. 1155, točka 44.
Commission Decision SG(84) D/6421 of 16 May 1984.
Odločitev Komisije SG(84) D/6421 z dne 16. maja 1984.
Written Question E-4431/05.
Pisno vprašanje E-4431/05.
Written Question E-4772/05.
Pisno vprašanje E-4772/05.
On the principle of legitimate expectation, see the judgment of the Court of Justice in Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV v Commission, already cited, paragraph 44; judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Forum 187 ASBL v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, paragraph 147; and judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-290/97 Mehibas Dordtselaan v Commission [2000] ECR II-15, paragraph 59.
V zvezi z načelom upravičenih pričakovanj glej že navedeno sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Van den Bergh en Jurgens BV proti Komisiji, točka 44; sodbo Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-182/03 in C-217/03, Forum 187 ASBL proti Komisiji, Zodl., str. I- 5479, točka 147, in sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 18. januarja 2000 v zadevi T-290/97, Mehibas Dordtselaan proti Komisiji, ZOdl., str. II-15, točka 59.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-487/06 P British Aggregates v Commission, paragraphs 111-114 and 185 and 186; judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-98/00 Linde v Commission, paragraph 33.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 22. decembra 2008 v zadevi C-487/06, P British Aggregates proti Komisiji, točke 111–114, 185 in 186; sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 17. oktobra 2002 v zadevi T-98/00, Linde proti Komisiji, točka 33.
i.e. it is not necessary to demonstrate that the individual or undertaking engaged in activities which it might not otherwise have done, in reliance on the assurance in question.
Tj. ni nujno dokazati, da je posameznik ali družba, vključena v dejavnosti, ki jih sicer ob zanašanju na zadevna jamstva morda ne bi izvedla.
See, by analogy, the Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on Belgian coordination centres (2003/757/EC) and the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006, GIE Fiscaux (C 46/2004).
Glej smiselno Odločbo Komisije z dne 17. februarja 2003 o belgijskih centrih za koordinacijo (2003/757/ES) in Odločbo Komisije z dne 20. decembra 2006, GIE Fiscaux (C46/2004).
See, inter alia, Commission Decision 2007/375/EC of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ L 147, 8.6.2007, p. 29) and the Commission Decision of 24 June 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium, already cited, recital 79.
Med drugim glej Odločbo Komisije 2007/375/ES z dne 7. februarja 2007 o oprostitvi plačila trošarine za mineralna olja, ki se uporabljajo kot gorivo pri proizvodnji aluminijevega oksida v regiji Gardanne, v regiji Shannon in na Sardiniji, ki se izvaja v Franciji, na Irskem in v Italiji (UL L 147, 8.6.2007, str. 29), in že navedeno odločbo Komisije z dne 24. junija 2003 o shemi pomoči, ki jo izvaja Belgija, uvodna izjava 79.
See Commission Decision 2003/755/EC of 17 February 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ L 282, 30.10.2003, p. 25), and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Forum 187 ASBL, paragraphs 162 and 163.
Glej Odločbo Komisije 2003/755/ES z dne 17. februarja 2003 o shemi pomoči, ki jo izvaja Belgija za centre za koordinacijo, ustanovljene v Belgiji (UL L 282, 30.10.2003, str. 25), in sodbo Sodišča z dne 26. junija 2003 v združenih zadevah C-182/03 in C-217/03, Forum 187 ASBL, točki 162 in 163.
See the judgment in the Forum 187 case, already cited, paragraph 149; see also the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 74/74 CNTA v Commission [1975] ECR 533, paragraph 44.
Glej že navedeno sodbo v zadevi Forum 187, točka 149; glej tudi sodbo Sodišča v zadevi 74/74, CNTA proti Komisiji, ZOdl., str. 533, točka 44.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-148/04 Unicredito Italiano Spa v Agenzia delle Entrate [ECR] 2005 I-11137, paragraphs 117 to 119.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 15. decembra 2005 v zadevi C-148/04, Unicredito Italiano Spa proti Agenzia delle Entrate, ZOdl., str. I- 11137, točke 117–119.
List of the interested parties that submitted comments on the initiating Decision and have not asked to remain anonymous
Seznam zainteresiranih strani, ki so predložile pripombe k odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka in niso zaprosile za zaupno obravnavo svoje identitete
Article 12(5) TRLIS, which is part of Article 12 ‘Value adjustments: loss of value of assets’, entered into force on 1 January 2002.
Člen 12(5) TRLIS, ki je del člena 12 „Popravki vrednosti: izguba vrednosti sredstev“, je začel veljati 1. januarja 2002.
It essentially provides that a company which is taxable in Spain may deduct from its taxable income the financial goodwill deriving from the acquisition of a shareholding of at least 5 % of a foreign company, in equal yearly instalments, for up to 20 years following the acquisition.
Člen v bistvu določa, da lahko družba, ki je v Španiji obdavčljiva, od svojega obdavčljivega dohodka odšteje finančno dobro ime, ki izhaja iz prevzema vsaj 5-odstotnega deleža tuje družbe, in sicer v enakih letnih obrokih do največ 20 let po prevzemu.
The measure at issue can be applied in conjunction with this Article of the TRLIS [14].
Zadevni ukrep je mogoče uporabljati v povezavi s tem členom TRLIS [14];
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 [20].
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 [20].
There is a clear parallel between the case at hand and the circumstances which led to the Court judgment of 15 July 2004 [42].
Med zadevnim primerom in okoliščinami, ki so vodile k sodbi Sodišča z dne 15. julija 2004 [42], obstajajo jasne podobnosti.
Despite the arguments put forward by the Spanish authorities that the measure at issue in the latter case is not selective because Article 37 TRLIS applies to all Spanish undertakings that invest internationally, the Court concluded that the measure constituted State aid since it was limited to one category of undertakings, namely undertakings making certain international investments.
Kljub argumentom španskih organov, da zadevni ukrep v zadnjem primeru ni selektiven, ker se člen 37 TRLIS uporablja za vse španske družbe z mednarodnimi naložbami, je Sodišče sklenilo, da je ukrep pomenil državno pomoč, ker je bil omejen le na eno kategorijo družb, in sicer na družbe z določenimi mednarodnimi naložbami.
It is incorrect to present Article 12(3) TRLIS as the general rule for amortisation of financial goodwill since this Article refers to the deduction of shareholdings in non-listed entities.
Predstavitev člena 12(3) TRLIS kot splošnega pravila za amortizacijo finančnega dobrega imena ni pravilna, ker ta člen zadeva odbitek deležev v družbah, ki ne kotirajo na borzi.
This provision is related to the depreciation of the theoretical accounting value and not to financial goodwill.
Ta določba je povezana z amortizacijo teoretične računovodske vrednosti, in ne z amortizacijo finančnega dobrega imena.
Article 12(3) and 12(5) TRLIS are two complementary general rules: the first refers to the depreciation attributed to the losses generated by the target company, whereas the second refers to the deduction only of the part of the depreciation attributable to the depreciation of financial goodwill.
Člen 12(3) in 12(5) TRLIS pomeni dve dopolnilni splošni pravili: prvo zadeva amortizacijo, pripisano izgubam, ki jih ustvarijo ciljne družbe, medtem ko drugo zadeva odbitek le enega dela amortizacije, ki se pripiše amortizaciji finančnega dobrega imena.
Finally, the fact that no other Member State has a measure similar to the measure at issue is irrelevant since tax systems are not harmonised within the European Union.
Nazadnje, torej dejstvo, da nobena druga država članica nima podobnega ukrepa, kot je zadevni ukrep, ni pomembno, saj davčni sistemi v Evropski uniji niso usklajeni.
Hence the Commission considers that the measure at issue consists of tax relief for specific types of costs and covers a broad category of transactions in a discriminatory manner, which cannot be justified by objective differences between taxpayers and it therefore results in a distortion of competition [53].
Zato Komisija meni, da zadevni ukrep sestavlja davčna olajšava za posebne vrste stroškov in diskriminacijsko zajema obsežno kategorijo transakcij, česar ni mogoče utemeljiti z objektivnimi razlikami med davčnimi zavezanci, zato povzroča izkrivljanje konkurence [53].
Therefore the company law treatment of business combinations is, at least as from 15 December 2007, the same for domestic and cross-border operations.
Zato je najpozneje od 15. decembra 2007 obravnava poslovnih združitev v pravu družb enaka za domače in čezmejne operacije.
The preamble to Spanish Act No 3/2009 of 3 April 2009 on structural modifications of companies [59], which transposes the Company Law Directive, confirms this analysis when stating that ‘… the Spanish practice was already familiar with cross-border mergers between companies subject to the laws of different Member States …’.
V preambuli španskega zakona št. 3/2009 z dne 3. aprila 2009 o strukturnih spremembah družb [59], s katerim se prenaša Direktiva o pravu družb, je ta analiza potrjena z navedbo, da je „[…] španska praksa že seznanjena s čezmejnimi združitvami med družbami, za katere veljajo zakoni različnih držav članic […]“.
More precisely, ‘such a difference in treatment constitutes a restriction within the meaning of Articles 43 and 48 of the Treaty, which is contrary to the right of establishment and can be permitted only if it pursues a legitimate objective compatible with the Treaty and is justified by imperative reasons in the public interest’ [62]. Moreover, it should be recalled that the discretion conferred on the Commission in the application of Article 87(3) of the Treaty does not permit it to authorise Member States to derogate from provisions of Community law other than those relating to the application of Article 87(1) of the Treaty [63].
Natančneje, „[t]ako različno obravnavanje pomeni omejitev v smislu členov 43 ES in 48 ES, ki je v nasprotju s pravico do ustanavljanja in se lahko dovoli samo, če zasleduje zakoniti cilj, ki je združljiv s Pogodbo in če jo upravičujejo višji razlogi v splošnem interesu.“ [62] Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da diskrecijska pravica, dodeljena Komisiji pri uporabi člena 87(3) Pogodbe, Komisiji ne dovoljuje, da državam članicam odobri odstopanje od določb zakonodaje Skupnosti, razen od tistih, ki zadevajo uporabo člena 87(1) Pogodbe [63].
On the contrary, Article 12(3) TRLIS permits partial deductions for depreciation of equity shareholdings in domestic and foreign entities which are not listed on a secondary market for impairments occurring between the beginning and the end of the tax year.
Ravno nasprotno, člen 12(3) TRLIS dovoljuje delne odbitke za amortizacijo kapitalske udeležbe v domačih in tujih družbah, ki ne kotirajo na sekundarnem trgu, za oslabitve med začetkom in koncem davčnega leta.
The measure at issue which, for the beneficiaries, is compatible with Article 12(3) TRLIS [76], provides for further deductions over and above the decrease in the theoretical accounting value linked to impairment.
Zadevni ukrep, ki je za upravičence skladen s členom 12(3) TRLIS [76], določa nadaljnje odbitke, ki presegajo znižanje teoretične računovodske vrednosti, povezane z oslabitvijo.
In any case, objectives of a purely economic nature cannot constitute an overriding reason of general interest justifying a restriction of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty [104].
Vsekakor izključno ekonomski cilji ne morejo pomeniti prevladujočega razloga splošnega interesa, s katerim se utemeljuje omejitev temeljne svobode, zagotovljene s Pogodbo [104].
The case-law of the Court of Justice and Commission practice have established that an order to recover aid infringes a general principle of Community law where, as a result of the Commission’s actions, the beneficiary of a measure has legitimate expectations that the aid has been granted in accordance with Community law [112].
Sodna praksa Sodišča in praksa Komisije sta določili, da odločba o vračilu pomoči krši splošno načelo zakonodaje Skupnosti, kadar upravičenec do ukrepa zaradi ukrepov Komisije upravičeno pričakuje, da je bila pomoč dodeljena v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti [112].
Therefore, they do not appear to fall within the scope of application of the State aid rules’ [116].
Zato domnevno ne spadajo na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči [116].“
On the other hand, in cases where the Spanish acquiring company did not hold the rights directly or indirectly until after 21 December 2007, any incompatible aid will be recovered from this beneficiary unless, firstly, before 21 December 2007 an irrevocable obligation was entered into by a Spanish acquiring company to hold such rights; secondly, the contract contained a suspensive condition linked to the fact that the operation at issue is subject to the mandatory approval of a regulatory authority and, thirdly, the operation had been notified before 21 December 2007.
Po drugi strani upravičenec v primerih, ko je španska prevzemna družba imela neposredne ali posredne pravice šele po 21. decembru 2007, vsako nezdružljivo pomoč vrne, razen, prvič, če pred 21. decembrom 2007 začne veljati nepreklicna obveznost španske prevzemne družbe za lastništvo teh pravic, drugič, če je pogodba vsebovala odložilni pogoj, da za zadevno operacijo velja obvezna odobritev regulativnega organa, in, tretjič, če je bila operacija priglašena pred 21. decembrom 2007.
In fact, after the publication of the initiating Decision in the Official Journal, it cannot be argued that a prudent trader could not have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure that could affect his interests like the present Decision.
Po objavi odločitve o sprožitvi postopka v Uradnem listu dejansko ni mogoče trditi, da preudaren trgovec ne bi mogel predvideti sprejetja ukrepa Skupnosti, ki bi lahko vplival na njegove interese kot ta odločba.
The Commission can confirm, however, that such national legislations do not fall within the scope of application of State aid rules, because they rather constitute general depreciation rules applicable to all undertakings in Spain’ [115]. On 17 February 2006, in reply to the parliamentary question by Ms Sharon Bowles MEP, a Commissioner answered, on behalf of the Commission, as follows: ‘According to the information currently in its possession, it would however appear to the Commission that the Spanish (tax) rules related to the write off of “goodwill” are applicable to all undertakings in Spain independently from their sizes, sectors, legal forms or if they are privately or publicly owned because they constitute general depreciation rules.
Vendar Komisija lahko potrdi, da taka nacionalna zakonodaja ne spada na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči, ker ta pravila pomenijo splošna pravila o amortizaciji, ki veljajo za vse družbe v Španiji [115].“ Komisar je v odgovoru na parlamentarno vprašanje poslanke Evropskega parlamenta Sharon Bowles 17. februarja 2006 v imenu Komisije odgovoril naslednje: „V skladu z razpoložljivimi informacijami Komisija domneva, da španska (davčna) pravila, ki zadevajo odpis ‘dobrega imena‚, veljajo za vse družbe v Španiji ne glede na velikost, sektor, pravno obliko ali zasebno ali javno lastništvo, ker pomenijo splošna pravila o amortizaciji.
of 20 April 2011
z dne 20. aprila 2011
on the selection of TARGET2-Securities network service providers
o izboru izvajalcev omrežnih storitev v TARGET2-Securities
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the ‘Statute of the ESCB’) and in particular Articles 3.1 and 12.1 and Articles 17, 18 and 22 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Statuta Evropskega sistema centralnih bank in Evropske centralne banke (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Statut ESCB), in zlasti členov 3.1, 12.1, 17, 18 in 22 Statuta ESCB,
TARGET2-Securities (hereinafter ‘T2S’) aims to facilitate post-trading integration by offering core, neutral and borderless pan-European cash and securities settlement in central bank money so that central securities depositories (CSDs) can provide their customers with harmonised and commoditised delivery-versus-payment settlement services in an integrated technical environment with cross-border capabilities.
Cilj TARGET2-Securities (v nadaljnjem besedilu: T2S) je olajšati integracijo potrgovalnih dejavnosti s ponudbo temeljne, nevtralne in brezmejne vseevropske poravnave denarja in vrednostnih papirjev v centralnobančnem denarju, tako da lahko centralne depotne družbe svojim strankam zagotovijo harmonizirane in standardizirane storitve poravnave po načelu dostava proti plačilu v integriranem tehničnem okolju s čezmejnimi zmožnostmi.
In the context of the Third Interim T2S Progress Report, in February 2010, the T2S Programme Board decided that the Deutsche Bundesbank, the Banco de España, the Banque de France and the Banca d’Italia (hereinafter the ‘4CB’) would make necessary preparations to have up to three T2S network service providers to provide connectivity services to the T2S platform and that the Banca d’Italia would lead the selection procedure.
Glede na tretje vmesno poročilo o razvoju T2S je Odbor za program T2S februarja 2010 sklenil, da bodo centralne banke Deutsche Bundesbank, Banco de España, Banque de France in Banca d’Italia (v nadaljnjem besedilu: 4CB) izvedle potrebne priprave za pridobitev največ treh izvajalcev omrežnih storitev v T2S, ki bodo zagotavljali storitve povezovanja s platformo T2S, in da bo centralna banka Banca d’Italia vodila izbirni postopek.
In the context of the Fourth T2S Progress Report, at its meeting of 21 April 2010, the Governing Council decided that the network provision in T2S would be subject to a competition and that a maximum of three licences would be granted.
Glede na četrto poročilo o razvoju T2S je Svet ECB na svoji seji 21. aprila 2010 sklenil, da bo zagotavljanje omrežja v T2S predmet razpisa in da bodo podeljene največ tri licence.
In the context of the Fifth T2S Progress Report, in July 2010, the T2S Programme Board decided that the Banca d’Italia would act as the operating arm of the Eurosystem for the selection procedure.
Glede na peto poročilo o razvoju T2S je Odbor za program T2S julija 2010 sklenil, da bo centralna banka Banca d’Italia v izbirnem postopku delovala kot operativna roka Eurosistema.
It also decided that the T2S Programme Board would be responsible for designating the selection panel members since the Eurosystem central banks would be responsible and liable for the selection criteria and for the outcome of the selection panel’s decision based on the selection criteria.
Prav tako je sklenil, da bo Odbor za program T2S odgovoren za določitev članov izbirne komisije, saj bodo centralne banke Eurosistema pristojne in odgovorne za merila izbora in za izid odločanja izbirne komisije na podlagi teh meril.
The Banca d’Italia would be responsible for correctly conducting the selection procedure and its specific liability related to the selection procedure would be separate from the liability assumed by the 4CB under the Level 2-Level 3 agreement.
Centralna banka Banca d’Italia bo odgovorna za pravilno vodenje izbirnega postopka, njena posebna odgovornost v zvezi z izbirnim postopkom pa bo ločena od odgovornosti, ki jo imajo 4CB po sporazumu med ravnema 2 in 3.
On 13 August 2010, the T2S Programme Board decided that the Banca d’Italia’s liability should be specified more precisely in a mandate from the Eurosystem central banks to the Banca d’Italia to carry out the selection procedure.
Odbor za program T2S je 13. avgusta 2010 sklenil, da bi bilo treba odgovornost centralne banke Banca d’Italia bolj natančno določiti v okviru pooblastila za izvedbo izbirnega postopka, ki so ji ga podelile centralne banke Eurosistema.
The purpose of the selection procedure is to entrust network service providers to provide a set of predefined connectivity services, on the basis of which the T2S network service providers design, implement, deliver and operate connectivity solutions intended to securely exchange business information between the directly connected T2S actors and the T2S platform.
Namen izbirnega postopka je dodeliti izvajalcu omrežnih storitev zagotavljanje nabora vnaprej določenih storitev povezovanja, na podlagi katerih izvajalci omrežnih storitev v T2S oblikujejo, izvedejo, dobavijo in upravljajo rešitve povezovanja, ki so namenjene varni izmenjavi poslovnih informacij med neposredno priključenimi akterji v T2S in platformo T2S.