natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hence, the advantage is granted directly to the activity of the beneficiary which is carried out in Spain, and not in the permanent establishment outside the EU.
Zato se prednost zagotovi neposredno za dejavnost upravičenca, ki se izvaja v Španiji, in ne v stalni poslovni enoti zunaj EU.
Therefore, in the light of this fact, the Commission considers that it cannot be argued, in the case at hand, that the advantage cannot distort competition or trade between Member States because the contested measure applies to non-EU countries.
Zato Komisija ob upoštevanju tega dejstva meni, da v obravnavanem primeru ni mogoče trditi, da prednost ne more izkrivljati konkurence ali trgovine med državami članicami, ker sporni ukrep velja za države zunaj EU.
Even though the advantage is granted in line with objective conditions relating to transactions with non-EU countries, this does not alter the fact that the effect of the measure results in an erosion of the tax base deriving from an economic activity carried out in the internal market.
Tudi če se prednost zagotovi v skladu z objektivnimi pogoji v zvezi s transakcijami z državami zunaj EU, to ne spreminja dejstva, da je učinek ukrepa zmanjšanje davčne osnove, ki izhaja iz gospodarske dejavnosti, opravljene na notranjem trgu.
Therefore the Commission concludes that the contested measure is liable to affect trade between Member States and distort competition, mainly in the internal market, by potentially improving the operating conditions of the beneficiaries directly engaged in economic activities which are taxable in Spain.
Zato Komisija sklepa, da bi sporni 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.
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 paragraphs concerning the assessment of the scheme (paragraphs 96 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 odstavkih v zvezi s presojo sheme (odstavki 96 in naslednji).
As regards the data extracted by the Spanish authorities from the 2006 tax returns in order to demonstrate that the contested measure is not selective [113], 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 spornega ukrepa [113], Komisija poudarja splošno nenatančnost predloženih informacij.
First, the data present 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 razvrščeni 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 contested measure applies to all companies in Spain, it must be underlined that the contested measure is related to acquisitions of shareholdings.
Drugič, čeprav bi bili lahko statistični podatki na podlagi obsega prometa upravičencev zanimiv kazalnik, s katerim bi se dokazalo, da se sporni ukrep uporablja za vse družbe v Španiji, je treba poudariti, da je sporni 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 concerned.
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.
Da bi se podatki šteli za pomembne, bi bilo treba upoštevati dodatne kazalnike, kot so podatki iz skupne bilance stanja, in tudi to, 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 (control or only minority shareholdings) by the beneficiaries.
Tretjič, podatki se prav tako zdijo nereprezentativni, ker nimajo označene stopnje deležev (nadzor 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 SME Recommendation of the Commission [114] are fulfilled.
Nazadnje, prejeti podatki ne vključujejo navedb, ki bi omogočile opredelitev, ali so pogoji iz Priporočila Komisije o malih in srednje velikih podjetjih iz leta 2003 [114] izpolnjeni.
Therefore the Commission considers that its demonstration that the contested aid measure is selective due to the very characteristics of the legislation in question is not undermined by the partial and unrepresentative data provided by the Spanish authorities.
Zato Komisija meni, da njenega dokazovanja, da je sporni ukrep pomoči selektiven zaradi značilnosti zadevne zakonodaje, delni in nereprezentativni podatki, ki so jih zagotovili španski organi, ne izpodbijajo.
Nonetheless, even if the arguments presented by the Spanish authorities had been complemented by additional evidence, this would not remove the selective nature of the contested measure as only certain undertakings benefit from the measure, also in line with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-501/00 Spain v Commission [115].
Čeprav so španski organi predložene argumente dopolnili z dodatnimi dokazi, to ne bo odpravilo selektivne narave spornega ukrepa, saj imajo le nekatere družbe korist od ukrepa, kar je tudi v skladu s sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji (C-501/00) [115].
Indeed, as regards the Spanish authorities’ classification of the measure as a general measure [116] because it is open to any undertakings resident in Spain, it is worth recalling this judgment of the Court.
V zvezi z opredelitvijo španskih organov, da je ukrep splošni ukrep [116], 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, in sicer natančneje ukrep z naslovom „Odbitki za izvozne dejavnosti“.
The Spanish authorities contended before the Court that the scheme was open to any undertaking resident in Spain for tax purposes.
Španski organi so pred Sodiščem trdili, da je bila shema odprta za vse družbe, ki imajo v Španiji sedež za davčne namene.
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 contested measures’ [117].
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“ [117].
The Commission considers that also in the present case, the contested measure is intended to promote 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 tem primeru namen spornega ukrepa spodbujanje izvoza 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 ali organizacijo davčnega sistema, v katerega se umeščajo, ne zadošča navedba, da so namenjeni spodbujanju mednarodne trgovine.
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.’ [118].
[…] Poleg tega okoliščina, da sporni ukrepi zasledujejo cilj trgovinske ali industrijske politike, kot je spodbujanje mednarodne trgovine s podpiranjem naložb v tujini, ne zadošča, da bi se ti ukrepi izognili opredelitvi ‚pomoči‘ v smislu člena 4(c) PJ“ [118].
In the present case, the Spanish authorities have simply declared that the contested measure is intended to promote international trade and the consolidation of companies, without proving that such a measure is justified by the logic of the system.
V tem primeru so španski organi preprosto izjavili, da sta namena spornega ukrepa spodbujanje mednarodne trgovine in konsolidacija družb, ne da bi dokazali, da je tak ukrep utemeljen z logiko sistema.
In the light of the above, the Commission confirms its analysis that the contested measure is selective.
Glede na navedeno Komisija potrjuje svojo analizo, da je sporni ukrep selektiven.
As regards the reference made to the 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 paragraph 109.
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 odstavku 109.
Nor does the approach in this particular case depart from Commission Decision N 480/07 [119] to which the Spanish authorities refer.
Prav tako pristop v tem primeru ne odstopa od odločbe Komisije N 480/07 [119], na katerega se sklicujejo španski organi.
In fact, this Decision took into account the specific nature of the objective pursued by referring [120] 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 [121].
V navedeni odločbi se je namreč upoštevala posebna narava zastavljenega cilja s sklicevanjem [120] na Sporočilo Komisije Svetu, Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru – Boljša uporaba davčnih olajšav za raziskave in razvoj [121].
In the case at hand, the objective pursued by the contested measure does not have a similar objective.
V zadevnem primeru sporni ukrep nima podobnega cilja.
Moreover, unlike the present case, the Spanish measure covered by Commission Decision N 480/07 did not make any distinction between national and international transactions.
Poleg tega španski ukrep, zajet z odločbo Komisije N 480/2007, v nasprotju s tem primerom ni razlikoval med nacionalnimi in mednarodnimi transakcijami.
Finally, as regards the derogation from the corporate tax system resulting from the implementation of Directives [122] such as the Parent-Subsidiary Directive or the Cross-border Interest and Royalty Payments Directive, the Commission considers that the situation resulting from implementation of these Directives is fully consistent with the reasoning developed in this Decision.
Nazadnje, kar zadeva odstopanje od sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki izhaja iz izvajanja direktiv [122], 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, v celoti v skladu z razlago, navedeno v tem sklepu.
Following harmonisation within the European Union, cross-border operations within the European Union and within each Member State should be considered to be in a comparable legal and factual situation.
Po usklajevanju znotraj Evropske unije je treba za čezmejne operacije znotraj Evropske unije in znotraj vsake države članice šteti, da so v pravno in dejansko primerljivem položaju.
In addition, the Commission would like to underline the fact that the Court of Justice stated that [123]: ‘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 navedlo, da [123]„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 65(1)(a) TFEU
Odziv na pripombe o členu 65(1)(a) PDEU
As already pointed out before, it must be borne in mind that, although direct taxation falls within the competence of Member States, they must nonetheless exercise that competence consistently with EU law [124], including the provisions of the TFEU on State aid.
Kot je bilo že poudarjeno, je treba upoštevati, da morajo države članice, čeprav neposredna obdavčitev spada v njihovo pristojnost, to pristojnost vseeno izvajati v skladu z zakonodajo EU [124], vključno z določbami o državni pomoči iz PDEU.
Article 65(1)(a) TFEU simply limits the scope of Article 63 TFEU and does not affect in any way the application of the Treaty rules on State aid, including those granting control powers to the Commission in that area.
Člen 65(1)(a) PDEU le omejuje področje uporabe člena 63 PDEU in nikakor ne vpliva na izvajanje pravil o državni pomoči iz Pogodbe, vključno s pravili o dodeljevanju pristojnosti Komisiji za nadzor na tem področju.
Moreover, Article 65 TFEU, as invoked by the Spanish authorities, must be read in conjunction with Article 63 TFEU, which prohibits restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States.
Poleg tega je treba člen 65 PDEU, na katerega se sklicujejo španski organi, razlagati skupaj s členom 63 PDEU, s katerim se prepoveduje omejevanje pretoka kapitala med državami članicami.
In fact, Article 65(1) TFEU provides that ‘the provisions of Article 63 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’.
Člen 65(1) PDEU namreč določa, da „določbe člena 63 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 Member States by Article 65(1)(a) TFEU 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 65(1)(a) PDEU, da uporabljajo ustrezne predpise svoje davčne zakonodaje, v katerih so davčni zavezanci različno obravnavani glede na prebivališče ali kraj, v katerem je naložen njihov kapital, je Sodišče že podprlo.
According to that case law, before the entry into force of Article 65(1)(a) TFEU, national tax provisions which established certain distinctions based, in particular, on the residence of taxpayers, could be compatible with EU law provided that they applied to situations which were not objectively comparable [125] or could be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest, in particular in relation to the cohesion of the tax system [126].
Glede na to sodno prakso so pred začetkom veljavnosti člena 65(1)(a) PDEU lahko bile nacionalne davčne določbe, s katerimi se je vzpostavilo neko razlikovanje, zlasti na podlagi prebivališča davčnih zavezancev, usklajene z zakonodajo EU, če so veljale za položaje, ki niso bili objektivno primerljivi [125], ali bi lahko bile utemeljene s prevladujočimi razlogi v splošnem interesu, zlasti v zvezi s kohezijo davčnega sistema [126].
In any case, objectives of a purely economic nature cannot constitute an overriding reason in the general interest justifying a restriction of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty [127].
Izključno ekonomski cilji nikakor ne morejo pomeniti prevladujočega razloga splošnega interesa, s katerim se utemeljuje omejitev temeljne svobode, zagotovljene s Pogodbo [127].
Also, as regards the period after the entry into force of Article 65(1)(a) TFEU, the Court has inquired into the possible presence of objectively comparable situations which could justify legislation restricting the free movement of capital.
Prav tako je Sodišče v zvezi z obdobjem po začetku veljavnosti člena 65(1)(a) PDEU 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 laws 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 constituted an obstacle to their raising capital in the Member State concerned, the Court constantly held that such laws 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 65(1)(a) TFEU [128].
S sklicevanjem na nekatere davčne zakone, ki so davčne zavezance, ki živijo v eni državi članici, odvračali od vlaganja kapitala v družbe s sedežem v drugi državi članici in so prav tako povzročili omejevalni učinek v zvezi z družbami s sedežem v drugi državi članici, tako da so pomenili oviro za črpanje kapitala v zadevni državi članici, je Sodišče dosledno menilo, da teh zakonov ni mogoče utemeljiti z objektivno razliko med takimi položaji, da se utemelji razlika v davčni obravnavi, v skladu s členom 65(1)(a) PDEU [128].
In any case, it must be borne in mind that Article 65(3) TFEU states specifically that the national provisions referred to by Article 65(1)(a) TFEU are not to constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments [129].
Vsekakor je treba upoštevati, da je v členu 65(3) PDEU izrecno navedeno, da nacionalne določbe iz člena 65(1)(a) PDEU ne smejo biti sredstvo samovoljne diskriminacije ali prikritega omejevanja prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil [129].
In the light of the above, and in particular in view of the fact that there are no explicit legal obstacles in some of the non-EU countries to which the contested scheme applies, the Commission considers that, in the present case, domestic share acquisitions and share acquisitions of companies established in all other Member States, and in some of the non-EU countries where no explicit legal obstacles have been identified, are, for the reasons highlighted above, in an objective comparable situation, and that there are no overriding reasons of general interest which could justify different treatment of taxpayers with regard to the place where their capital is invested.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno in zlasti ob upoštevanju dejstva, da v nekaterih državah zunaj EU, za katere se uporablja sporna shema, ni izrecnih pravnih ovir, Komisija meni, da so v tem primeru domači prevzemi deležev in prevzemi deležev družb, ustanovljenih v vseh drugih državah članicah in v nekaterih državah zunaj EU, v katerih niso bile ugotovljene izrecne pravne ovire, iz zgoraj 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
Sklepna ugotovitev o opredelitvi spornega ukrepa
Due to the fact that the scheme applies both within the EU (see the previous Decision) and to a number of situations outside the EU where no explicit legal obstacles have been identified, the Commission considers that the contested measure in its entirety, also to the extent that it applies to non-EU acquisitions, fulfils all the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU and should thus be regarded as State aid.
Zaradi dejstva, da se shema uporablja v EU (glej prejšnjo odločbo) in v več primerih zunaj EU, pri čemer niso bile ugotovljene izrecne pravne ovire, Komisija meni, da sporni ukrep v celoti, tudi ko velja za prevzeme zunaj EU, izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz člena 107(1) PDEU in ga je zato treba obravnavati kot državno pomoč.
In line with the case law of the Court of Justice [130], the Commission would like to reiterate that the purpose of this Decision is not to establish the conditions which would make it possible for the Member State concerned to avoid the classification of the contested measure as State aid.
Komisija želi v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [130] poudariti, da namen tega sklepa ni določiti pogoje, ki bi zadevni državi članici omogočili izogibanje opredelitvi spornega ukrepa za državno pomoč.
This question should have been discussed by the Spanish authorities and the Commission, as part of the notification of the scheme at issue, before the scheme was put into effect.
O tem vprašanju bi morali španski organi in Komisija razpravljati v okviru priglasitve zadevne sheme pred začetkom njene veljavnosti.
As stated in the opening Decision, the Commission considers that the aid scheme in question does not qualify for any of the derogations laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU.
Komisija meni, kot je navedeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, da zadevna shema pomoči ne spada v nobeno od odstopanj iz člena 107(2) in (3) PDEU.
In the course of the procedure, the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties presented their arguments to demonstrate that the derogations provided for in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU would apply in the present case [131].
Španski organi in 30 zainteresiranih strani so med postopkom predstavili svoje argumente kot dokaz, da odstopanja iz člena 107(3)(c) PDEU v tem primeru veljajo [131].
The two parties considered that none of the provisions of Article 107(2) or Article 107(3) TFEU applied in the present case.
Dve strani sta menili, da nobena od določb člena 107(2) ali člena 107(3) PDEU v tem primeru ni veljala.