natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Spanish authorities also stress that in a recent judgment [24], the General Court indicated that a limited number of beneficiaries is not sufficient in itself to establish the selectivity of the measure since that group can actually represent all of the undertakings in a particular legal and factual situation.
Španski organi prav tako poudarjajo, da je Splošno sodišče v nedavni sodbi [24] navedlo, da omejeno število upravičencev samo po sebi ne zadostuje za dokaz selektivnosti ukrepa, ker lahko zadevna skupina dejansko predstavlja vse družbe v danem pravnem in dejanskem položaju.
In particular, the Spanish authorities stress that the contested measure bears similarities with a recent case [25] that the Commission considered to be a general measure and they therefore request the same treatment.
Španski organi zlasti poudarjajo, da je sporni ukrep podoben nedavni zadevi [25], ki jo je Komisija obravnavala kot splošen ukrep, in zato zahtevajo enako obravnavo.
Secondly, according to the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties, in its opening Decision the Commission mixed up the concept of selectivity and the objective conditions of the contested measure which refer only to certain transactions (i.e. shareholding in a foreign target company).
Drugič, po mnenju španskih organov in 30 zainteresiranih strani je Komisija v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka zamenjala pojem selektivnosti in objektivne pogoje spornega ukrepa, ki se nanašajo le na nekatere transakcije (tj. delež v tuji ciljni družbi).
Indeed, the Commission alleges that Article 12(5) TRLIS is selective since the same treatment is not granted to comparable investments in Spanish companies.
Komisija namreč domneva, da je člen 12(5) TRLIS selektiven, ker ni zagotovljena enaka obravnava primerljivih naložb v španskih družbah.
However, the Commission fails to recognise that the selectivity criterion is not determined by the fact that the beneficiary of the contested measure is a group of companies or a multinational company that has a share in a target company.
Vendar ni ugotovila, da merila selektivnosti ne določa dejstvo, da je upravičenec do spornega ukrepa skupina družb ali večnacionalna družba z deležem v ciljni družbi.
The fact that a measure benefits only companies that comply with the objective criterion laid down in the contested measure does not in itself make it selective.
Zaradi samega dejstva, da ukrep koristi le družbam, ki izpolnjujejo objektivno merilo iz spornega ukrepa, ukrep ni selektiven.
The selectivity criterion implies that subjective restrictions should be imposed on the beneficiary of the contested measure.
Merilo selektivnosti pomeni, da morajo subjektivne omejitve veljati za upravičenca do spornega ukrepa.
Taking this concept further would lead to the erroneous conclusion that most tax-deductible expenses fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Nadaljnja uporaba tega pojma bi povzročila napačno sklepanje, da večina odhodkov za davek, ki se odbijejo, spada na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Spanish authorities add that the fact of limiting the amortisation of financial goodwill to that resulting from the acquisition of a significant shareholding in a target company is not sufficient to remove the general character of the contested measure, since it applies indiscriminately to any company that is tax resident in Spain with no further requirements.
Španski organi dodajajo, da dejstvo omejevanja amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena na to, ki izhaja iz prevzema znatnega deleža v ciljni družbi, ne zadostuje za odpravo splošnega značaja spornega ukrepa, saj se brez razlikovanja uporablja za vse družbe, ki imajo davčni domicil v Španiji, brez dodatnih zahtev.
In line with the case law of the Court of Justice [26], a measure which benefits all undertakings in national territory, without distinction, cannot therefore constitute State aid.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [26] ukrep, ki brez razlikovanja koristi vsem družbam na nacionalnem ozemlju, torej ne more pomeniti državne pomoči.
Thirdly, as regards the 5 % threshold, this level does not set a minimum amount to be invested and therefore the contested measure does not benefit only large undertakings.
Tretjič, s 5-odstotno mejno vrednostjo ni določen najmanjši znesek, ki ga je treba vložiti, zato sporni ukrep ne koristi le velikim družbam.
As for the fact that there is no requirement for the seller to pay for capital gains in order for the contested measure to apply, the Spanish authorities consider this to be irrelevant since control of income received abroad by a seller who is not liable for tax in Spain lies outside their field of competence.
V zvezi z dejstvom, da se od prodajalca ne zahteva plačilo kapitalskih dobičkov za uporabo spornega ukrepa, to po mnenju španskih organov ni pomembno, saj nadzor nad dohodki, ki jih v tujini prejme prodajalec, ki ni davčni zavezanec v Španiji, ni v njihovi pristojnosti.
Fourthly, the introduction of the contested measure is in any case justified by the principle of neutrality, which underlies all Spanish tax legislation.
Četrtič, uvedbo spornega ukrepa vsekakor utemeljuje načelo nevtralnosti, ki je osnova celotne španske davčne zakonodaje.
The final aim of the contested measure, in this broader perspective, is to ensure the free movement of capital by avoiding discriminatory tax treatment between transactions with target companies and purely domestic transactions.
V tem širšem smislu je končni cilj spornega ukrepa zagotoviti prost pretok kapitala z izognitvijo diskriminacijskemu davčnemu obravnavanju med transakcijami s ciljnimi družbami in izključno domačimi transakcijami.
Given that acquisitions of significant shareholdings in resident companies could lead to a business combination of the acquiring and the acquired companies with no legal or fiscal barriers, the goodwill that would ensue for tax purposes as a result of the combination could be amortised [27].
Ob upoštevanju, da lahko prevzemi obsežnih deležev v družbah rezidentkah vodijo v poslovno združitev prevzete in prevzemne družbe brez pravnih ali finančnih ovir, je mogoče dobro ime, ki bi sledilo za davčne namene kot posledica združitve, amortizirati [27].
However, goodwill of cross-border operations cannot arise because harmonisation at Community level is not complete or — even worse — because there is no harmonisation outside the European Union.
Vendar dobro ime čezmejnih operacij ne more nastati, ker usklajenost na ravni Skupnosti ni dokončna ali, še slabše, ker zunaj Evropske unije usklajenosti ni.
Moreover, in the course of the investigation, the Spanish authorities and some of the 30 interested parties provided a very detailed description of the legal obstacles that existed in the legislation of 15 third countries.
Poleg tega so španski organi in nekatere od 30 zainteresiranih strani med preiskavo zelo podrobno opisali pravne ovire v zakonodaji 15 tretjih držav.
The technical information contained in the submissions presented by the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties are summarised in Annexes II and III to this Decision (hereinafter ‘the reports’).
Tehnične informacije iz stališč, ki so jih predložili španski organi in 30 zainteresiranih strani, so povzete v prilogah II in III k temu sklepu (v nadaljnjem besedilu: poročila).
Therefore, the aim of the contested measure is to remove the negative impact of these barriers, for whose existence Spain is not answerable.
Zato je namen spornega ukrepa odpraviti negativen vpliv teh ovir, za katere Španija ni odgovorna.
Consequently, limiting the scope of the contested measure to cross-border acquisitions is necessary to enforce the neutrality principle.
Posledično je omejevanje področja uporabe spornega ukrepa na čezmejne prevzeme nujno za izvajanje načela nevtralnosti.
In this way, still according to the Spanish authorities, the Spanish tax system treats differently taxpayers who are in different situations [29], thereby ensuring that the Spanish tax system is neutral as required by the Spanish tax system itself and by the TFEU.
Tako – še vedno po mnenju španskih organov – španski davčni sistem različno obravnava davčne zavezance v različnih položajih [29], s čimer se zagotavlja njegova nevtralnost, kot se zahteva s samim sistemom in PDEU.
To conclude, the contested measure is designed to remove the tax barriers that the Spanish tax system generates in investment decisions by penalising share acquisitions in foreign companies as opposed to acquisitions in domestic companies.
Za zaključek, namen spornega ukrepa je odpraviti davčne ovire, ki jih španski davčni sistem ustvarja pri odločitvah o naložbah, tako da v nasprotju s prevzemi v domačih družbah kaznuje prevzeme deležev v tujih družbah.
The contested measure guarantees the same tax treatment for both types of acquisition (direct acquisitions of assets and indirect acquisitions by purchasing shareholdings): goodwill arising from both of them (direct goodwill and financial goodwill) can thus be identified in order to promote the integration of the different markets, until factual and legal barriers to cross-border business combinations have been removed.
Sporni ukrep zagotavlja enako davčno obravnavo za obe vrsti prevzemov (neposredni prevzemi sredstev in posredni prevzemi z nakupom deležev): dobro ime, ki izhaja iz obeh vrst prevzemov (neposredno dobro ime in finančno dobro ime), je tako mogoče opredeliti za pospeševanje vključevanja različnih trgov, dokler se dejanske in pravne ovire za čezmejne poslovne združitve ne odpravijo.
The contested measure neither distorts competition nor affects Union trade
Sporni ukrep ne izkrivlja konkurence niti ne vpliva na trgovino Unije
The Spanish authorities state that the Commission has not established, to the requisite legal standard, that Article 12(5) TRLIS restricts competition, as (i) the alleged ‘market for the acquisition of shares in companies’ does not constitute a relevant market for the purposes of competition law; and (ii) even if this were the case, the amortisation of financial goodwill does not in itself affect the competitive position of Spanish undertakings.
Španski organi navajajo, da Komisija ni opredelila zahtevanega zakonskega standarda, da se s členom 12(5) TRLIS omejuje konkurenca, ker (i) domnevni „trg za prevzeme deležev v družbah“ ni ustrezni trg za namene konkurenčnega prava; in (ii) čeprav bi bilo tako, amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena sama po sebi ne vpliva na konkurenčni položaj španskih družb.
First, the Commission qualified the contested measure as an anti-competitive advantage on the grounds that Article 12(5) allows Spanish taxpayers to obtain a premium for the acquisition of significant shareholdings in a target company.
Prvič, Komisija je sporni ukrep opredelila kot protikonkurenčno prednost, ker se s členom 12(5) španskim davčnim zavezancem omogoča pridobitev premije za prevzem obsežnega deleža v ciljni družbi.
Second, since the contested measure is open to any Spanish company with no restrictions, it cannot distort competition.
Drugič, sporni ukrep ne more izkrivljati konkurence, ker je brez omejitev na voljo vsem španskim družbam.
Indeed, any company in the same situation as a beneficiary of the contested measure can benefit from the measure, thus reducing its tax burden, which cancels any competitive edge that might derive from it.
Dejansko ima lahko vsaka družba v enakem položaju kot upravičenec do spornega ukrepa korist od ukrepa in tako zmanjša svojo davčno obremenitev, kar izniči morebitno konkurenčno prednost, ki bi lahko izhajala iz tega ukrepa.
In addition, a lower rate of taxation in a Member State that can increase the competitive edge of local companies should not come under the State aid rules as long as it is of a general nature.
Poleg tega za nižjo stopnjo obdavčitve v državi članici, ki lahko poveča konkurenčno prednost lokalnih družb, ne smejo veljati pravila o državni pomoči, če je splošne narave.
Finally, the Commission has already examined, in the light of the Merger Regulation [30], many Spanish cross-border operations that could have benefited from the contested measure.
Nazadnje, Komisija je ob upoštevanju Uredbe o združitvah [30] že preučila veliko španskih čezmejnih operacij, ki bi lahko imele koristi od spornega ukrepa.
The Commission’s allegations are not only far removed from reality but also out of touch with the investment situation of Spanish companies.
Navedbe Komisije niso le daleč od resničnosti, ampak tudi niso realne glede na položaj v zvezi z naložbami v španskih družbah.
The contested measure neither distorts competition nor adversely affects intra-EU trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Sporni ukrep ne izkrivlja konkurence niti nima škodljivih učinkov na trgovinske pogoje znotraj EU v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
If the Commission’s reasoning were followed through, it would have to open formal investigations into hundreds of national measures, which would create a situation of legal uncertainty that is highly detrimental to foreign investment.
Če bi se sklepanje Komisije nadaljevalo, bi bilo treba sprožiti formalne preiskave o več sto nacionalnih ukrepih, kar bi povzročilo pravno negotovost, ki bi bila izjemno škodljiva za tuje naložbe.
Even if the Commission considers that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, this provision is compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU since it contributes to the Union interest of promoting the integration of international companies.
Čeprav Komisija meni, da člen 12(5) TRLIS pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, je ta določba združljiva s členom 107(3) PDEU, ker prispeva k interesu Unije za pospeševanje povezovanja mednarodnih družb.
As stated in the State Aid Action Plan [31], a measure can be considered compatible if it addresses a market failure, if it fulfils clearly defined objectives of common interest and if it does not distort intra-EU competition and trade to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Ukrep je mogoče obravnavati kot združljiv, če odpravlja tržno nepopolnost, izpolnjuje jasno opredeljene cilje skupnega interesa ter znotraj EU ne izkrivlja konkurence in trgovine v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom, kot je navedeno v Akcijskem načrtu državnih pomoči [31].
The effect of Article 12(5) TRLIS is to promote the creation of pan-European undertakings, by putting domestic and cross-border acquisitions on the same footing.
Učinek člena 12(5) TRLIS je pospeševanje ustanavljanja vseevropskih družb z vzpostavljanjem enakopravnosti pri domačih in čezmejnih prevzemih.
Therefore, for the Spanish authorities, Article 12(5) TRLIS is compatible with the internal market since, in the absence of European tax harmonisation, it achieves the objective of breaking down barriers to cross-border investment in a proportionate manner.
Torej je po mnenju španskih organov člen 12(5) TRLIS združljiv z notranjim trgom, ker ob neobstoječem evropskem davčnem usklajevanju sorazmerno dosega cilj odpravljanja ovir za čezmejne naložbe.
The contested measure is effectively aimed at removing the adverse impact of obstacles to cross-border business combinations and aligning the tax treatment of cross-border and local business combinations in order to ensure that the decisions taken as regards such operations are based not on tax considerations but exclusively on economic considerations.
Učinkovita namena spornega ukrepa sta odpravljanje škodljivega učinka ovir za čezmejne poslovne združitve ter usklajevanje davčne obravnave čezmejnih in lokalnih poslovnih združitev z namenom zagotoviti, da sprejete odločitve v zvezi s takšnimi operacijami temeljijo izključno na ekonomskih razmislekih, in ne na davčnih razmislekih.
Legitimate expectation and legal certainty
Upravičeno pričakovanje in pravna varnost
Finally, and in the event that the Commission declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market, the Commission must acknowledge the existence of certain circumstances that justify the non-recovery of the alleged State aid received pursuant to Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Nazadnje, če Komisija izjavi, da člen 12(5) TRLIS pomeni državno pomoč, ki je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, mora priznati obstoj nekaterih okoliščin, ki utemeljujejo nevračilo domnevne državne pomoči, prejete v skladu s členom 12(5) TRLIS.
Firstly, the Commission seems to recognise, in the opening Decision, the probable existence of legitimate expectations.
Prvič, Komisija v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka očitno priznava verjeten obstoj upravičenih pričakovanj.
Therefore, in line with the case law of the General Court [32], this statement constitutes a clear indication of the existence of legitimate expectations.
Zato ta izjava v skladu s sodno prakso Splošnega sodišča [32] pomeni jasen znak obstoja upravičenih pričakovanj.
Since the opening Decision does not prejudge the outcome of the formal investigation, legitimate expectations should be recognised for all the operations that took place before the date of publication of the final decision.
Ker v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka niso prejudicirani rezultati formalne preiskave, je treba upravičena pričakovanja priznati za vse operacije, ki so bile opravljene pred datumom objave končne odločbe.
Secondly, in its answers to written questions from MEPs [33], the Commission stated that Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute State aid.
Drugič, Komisija je v odgovorih na pisna vprašanja poslancev Evropskega parlamenta [33] navedla, da člen 12(5) TRLIS ne pomeni državne pomoči.
This statement constitutes a clear position from the Commission which offers obvious legitimate expectations to the Spanish authorities and the beneficiaries of the contested measure.
Ta izjava pomeni jasno stališče Komisije, ki španskim organom in upravičencem do spornega ukrepa omogoča očitna upravičena pričakovanja.
Thirdly, in line with the conclusion reached by the Commission in similar cases [34], the Commission has provided a series of indirect evidence that Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute State aid.
Tretjič, Komisija je v skladu s sklepom, ki ga je sprejela v podobnih primerih [34], zagotovila sklop posrednih dokazov, da člen 12(5) TRLIS ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Taking into account these decisions, a prudent undertaking would not have been able to predict that the Commission could take an opposite position.
Ob upoštevanju teh odločb preudarna družba ne bi mogla predvidevati, da bi lahko Komisija sprejela nasprotno stališče.
Finally, the contested measure should continue to apply to all operations prior to the publication date of a negative decision until amortisation of the financial goodwill is completed.
Nazadnje, sporni ukrep je treba še naprej uporabljati za vse operacije pred datumom objave negativne odločbe, dokler amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena ni končana.
The contested measure corresponds to a right to deduct a given amount, determined at the time of the acquisition, whose deduction is spread over the following 20 years.
Sporni ukrep ustreza pravici do odbitka danega zneska, ki se določi ob prevzemu in katerega odbitek se razporedi prek naslednjih 20 let.
Moreover, because of the position taken by the Commission in similar cases [35], it is justified to assume that the legitimate expectations should remain until the date of publication of the final decision.
Poleg tega je zaradi stališča Komisije v podobnih primerih [35] upravičeno predvidevati, da je treba upravičena pričakovanja ohraniti do datuma objave končne odločbe.
Their arguments are summarised below.
Njune trditve so povzete v nadaljevanju.
The contested measure constitutes State aid
Sporni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč
The contested measure confers an economic advantage
Sporni ukrep daje gospodarsko prednost
According to the two parties, Article 12(5) TRLIS is exceptional in nature because the Spanish tax system, with the exception of this provision, does not allow any amortisation of financial goodwill but only a deduction in the event of an impairment test.
Po mnenju dveh strani je člen 12(5) TRLIS glede na svojo naravo izjema, ker španski davčni sistem, razen te določbe, ne omogoča amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena, ampak le odbitek v primeru preskusa oslabitve.
They stress that Article 12(5) TRLIS is probably unique in the European context, as no other Member State has a similar system for cross-border transactions not involving the acquisition of controlling shares.
Strani poudarjata, da je člen 12(5) TRLIS verjetno edinstven v evropskem okviru, saj nobena druga država članica nima podobnega sistema za čezmejne transakcije, ki ne vključuje prevzema nadzornih deležev.
Under the Spanish tax system, goodwill can be amortised only if there is a business combination — the sole exception is the contested measure, which allows amortisation in an exceptional case: if a minority shareholding is acquired in a target company.
V skladu s španskim davčnim sistemom je mogoče dobro ime amortizirati le pri poslovni združitvi; edina izjema, ki omogoča amortizacijo v izjemnih primerih, je sporni ukrep: pri prevzemu manjšinskega deleža v ciljni družbi.
Article 12(5) TRLIS thus confers a benefit on certain Spanish companies vis-à-vis (i) other Spanish companies that operate only at national level and (ii) other EU operators that compete internationally with the Spanish beneficiaries of the contested measure.
Tako se s členom 12(5) TRLIS dodeljuje ugodnost nekaterim španskim družbam v primerjavi z (a) drugimi španskimi družbami, ki delujejo le na nacionalni ravni, in (b) drugimi subjekti iz EU, ki na mednarodnem trgu konkurirajo španskim upravičencem do spornega ukrepa.
One of the two parties estimates that, as a result of the contested measure, Spanish acquirers, for instance in the banking sector, are able to pay some 7 % more than they would otherwise be able to.
Ena od obeh strani ocenjuje, da lahko španski prevzemniki zaradi spornega ukrepa na primer v bančnem sektorju plačajo približno 7 % več, kot bi bili sicer sposobni.
However, it also recognises that as the offer price is a combination of various additional elements, the contested measure is not the only factor, although probably one of the most decisive factors behind the aggressiveness of potential Spanish bidders benefiting from the contested measure.
Vendar prav tako priznava, da je ponudbena cena sestavljena iz različnih dodatnih elementov, zato sporni ukrep ni edini dejavnik, čeprav je verjetno eden od najbolj odločilnih dejavnikov za napadalnost morebitnih španskih ponudnikov, ki imajo korist od spornega ukrepa.
The contested measure favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods
Sporni ukrep daje prednost nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga
The selectivity of Article 12(5) TRLIS is therefore due to the fact that only companies acquiring shareholdings in foreign companies are eligible for this provision.
Vzrok za selektivnost člena 12(5) TRLIS je torej dejstvo, da so le družbe, ki prevzemajo deleže v tujih družbah, upravičene do te določbe.
Moreover, only a Spanish operator with existing business in Spain has a Spanish tax base and can benefit from the depreciation.
Poleg tega ima le španski subjekt z obstoječo dejavnostjo v Španiji špansko davčno osnovo in ima lahko korist od amortizacije.
As a result, the contested measure in fact gives a different tax treatment even to Spanish operators in the same position of making acquisitions abroad.
Zato se s spornim ukrepom dejansko nalaga različna davčna obravnava celo za španske subjekte, ki so v enakem položaju pri izvajanju prevzemov v tujini.
The two parties consider that they have not been able to identify any objective or horizontal criterion or condition that justifies the contested measure.
Obe strani menita, da nista mogli opredeliti nobenega cilja, horizontalnega merila ali pogoja, s katerim bi utemeljili sporni ukrep.