natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, if the contested measure is inherent in the Spanish tax system, foreign shareholdings acquired prior to that date should also qualify for the measure, which is not the case since the tax relief is granted only for shareholdings acquired after 1 January 2002.
Poleg tega, če je sporni ukrep del španskega davčnega sistema, bi morali tuji deleži, prevzeti pred zadevnim datumom, prav tako izpolnjevati merila za ukrep, vendar ni tako, saj se davčna olajšava dodeli le za deleže, prevzete po 1. januarju 2002.
Accordingly, and in the light of Commission policy [37], the contested measure must be considered selective.
V skladu s tem in ob upoštevanju politike Komisije [37] je treba sporni ukrep obravnavati kot selektiven.
The contested measure distorts competition and affects EU trade
Sporni ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino EU
The contested measure is clearly discriminatory as it gives Spanish operators a clear fiscal and monetary benefit that foreign operators are not able to enjoy.
Sporni ukrep je očitno diskriminacijski, saj španskim subjektom omogoča jasno davčno in denarno korist, ki je tuji subjekti ne morejo uživati.
For one of those acquisitions by an investment bank, the tax benefit resulting from Article 12(5) TRLIS was estimated to be EUR 1,7 billion, or 6,5 % of the offer price.
V primeru enega od teh prevzemov, ki ga je izvedla investicijska banka, je bila davčna ugodnost na podlagi člena 12(5) TRLIS ocenjena na 1,7 milijarde EUR ali 6,5 % ponudbene cene.
The contested measure also seems to favour certain export activities (export aid for foreign share acquisitions) of Spanish companies, which is at odds with established Commission policy [38] in this area.
Prav tako se zdi, da sporni ukrep daje prednost nekaterim izvoznim dejavnostim (izvozna pomoč za prevzeme tujih deležev) španskih družb, kar je v nasprotju z uveljavljeno politiko Komisije [38] na tem področju.
The contested measure impacts state resources
Sporni ukrep vpliva na državna sredstva
The contested measure is of benefit to undertakings that meet certain requirements and enables them to reduce their tax base and thereby the amount of tax that would normally be due in a given year if this provision did not exist.
Sporni ukrep koristi družbam, ki izpolnjujejo nekatere zahteve, in jim omogoča zmanjšanje njihove davčne osnove ter s tem zneska davka, ki bi ga sicer v danem letu morale plačati, če ne bi bilo te določbe.
REACTION FROM SPAIN TO THE COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
ODZIV ŠPANIJE NA PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANI
Only two parties consider that the contested measure constitutes State aid, whereas all the others conclude that Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Le dve strani menita, da sporni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč, medtem ko preostale sklepajo, da člen 12(5) TRLIS ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In addition, the wide range of activities and size of the interested third parties demonstrates the general nature of the contested measure.
Poleg tega veliko različnih dejavnosti in velikost zainteresiranih tretjih strani kažejo na splošno naravo spornega ukrepa.
Regarding the exceptional nature of the contested measure, the Spanish authorities reject this qualification by recalling the common feature of goodwill and financial goodwill amortisation according to Spanish accounting rules [39].
V zvezi z izjemnostjo spornega ukrepa španski organi zavračajo to opredelitev z opozarjanjem na splošno značilnost amortizacije dobrega imena in finančnega dobrega imena v skladu s španskimi računovodskimi pravili [39].
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 (5) TRLIS pomeni dve dopolnilni splošni pravili: prvo zadeva amortizacijo, pripisano izgubam, ki jih ustvari ciljna družba, medtem ko drugo zadeva odbitek le dela amortizacije, ki se pripiše amortizaciji finančnega dobrega imena.
Finally, the fact that no other Member State has a measure similar to the contested measure is irrelevant since tax systems are not harmonised within the European Union.
Nazadnje, dejstvo, da nobena druga država članica nima podobnega ukrepa, kot je sporni ukrep, ni pomembno, saj davčni sistemi v Evropski uniji niso usklajeni.
Regarding the selective nature of the contested measure, the parallels drawn with the Court of Justice judgment of 15 July 2004 [40] are incorrect since in that case the Commission had clearly defined the profile of the beneficiary, whereas in the present case this could not be done.
V zvezi s selektivnostjo spornega ukrepa so podobnosti s sodbo Sodišča z dne 15. julija 2004 [40] netočne, saj je Komisija v navedenem primeru jasno opredelila profil upravičenca, medtem ko v tem primeru to ni mogoče.
Therefore the contested measure does not have the effect of increasing exports of Spanish goods or services.
Zato sporni ukrep ne vpliva na povečanje izvoza španskega blaga ali storitev.
The fact that this non-selective measure is not available for domestic operations does not affect its general nature.
Dejstvo, da ta neselektivni ukrep ni na voljo za domače operacije, ne vpliva na njegovo splošno naravo.
In fact, the final objective of the contested measure is the same as that of the Cross-border Tax Directive, which is to ensure that investment decisions are based on economic rather than tax considerations.
Končni cilj spornega ukrepa je namreč enak kot cilj Direktive o čezmejni obdavčitvi, in sicer zagotoviti, da naložbene odločitve temeljijo na ekonomskih premislekih, in ne davčnih.
Regarding the alleged distorting features of the contested measure, the Spanish authorities point out that any tax relief that reduces the operating costs of a company increases the competitive edge of the beneficiary.
V zvezi z značilnostmi izkrivljanja, ki naj bi jih imel sporni ukrep, španski organi poudarjajo, da vsaka davčna olajšava, s katero se zmanjšajo operativni stroški družbe, povečuje konkurenčno prednost upravičenca.
However, this statement is irrelevant since the contested measure is a general measure.
Vendar ta trditev ni pomembna, saj je sporni ukrep splošni ukrep.
The different tax rates applied across the Member States, which impact on the competitiveness of their resident companies, do not fall under the State aid rules.
Različne davčne stopnje, ki se uporabljajo v državah članicah in vplivajo na konkurenčnost njihovih družb rezidentk, ne spadajo na področje pravil o državni pomoči.
In addition, the contested measure has not been shown to affect trade between Member States.
Poleg tega za sporni ukrep ni dokazov, da vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
As regards the compatibility of the contested measure with the internal market, the Spanish authorities consider Article 12(5) TRLIS to be appropriate and proportionate to address a market failure by establishing a neutral tax system for domestic and cross-border operations that fosters the development of pan- European companies.
V zvezi z združljivostjo spornega ukrepa z notranjim trgom španski organi menijo, da je člen 12(5) TRLIS ustrezen in sorazmeren za odpravljanje tržne nepopolnosti z vzpostavitvijo nevtralnega davčnega sistema za domače in čezmejne operacije, ki pospešuje razvoj vseevropskih družb.
In order to ascertain whether a measure constitutes aid, the Commission has to assess whether the contested measure fulfils the conditions of Article 107(1) TFUE.
Komisija mora presoditi, ali sporni ukrep izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 107(1) PDEU, da bi ugotovila, ali ukrep pomeni pomoč.
This provision states that ‘Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
V tej določbi je navedeno, da „razen če Pogodbi ne določata drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
In the light of this provision, the Commission will assess hereunder whether the contested measure constitutes State aid.
Komisija bo ob upoštevanju te določbe v nadaljevanju presodila, ali sporni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč.
The Commission Notice [41] states that ‘The main criterion in applying Article 92(1) (now Article 107(1) TFEU) to a tax measure is therefore that the measure provides in favour of certain undertakings in the Member State an exception to the application of the tax system.
V Obvestilu Komisije [41] je navedeno, da je „[g]lavno merilo pri uporabi člena 92(1) [zdaj člen 107(1) PDEU] za davčni ukrep […] tako dejstvo, da ukrep v korist posameznim družbam v državi članici zagotavlja izjemo pri uporabi davčnega sistema.
It must then be examined whether the exception to the system or differentiations within that system are justified “by the nature or general scheme” of the tax system, that is to say, whether they derive directly from the basic or guiding principles of the tax system in the Member State concerned.’
Nato je treba preučiti, ali so izjema v sistemu ali razlikovanja znotraj zadevnega sistema utemeljena ‚zaradi narave ali splošne sheme‘ davčnega sistema, to pomeni, ali izhajajo neposredno iz temeljnih ali vodilnih načel davčnega sistema zadevne države članice.“
According to the case law of the Court of Justice [42], ‘as regards the assessment of the condition of selectivity, which is a constituent factor in the concept of State aid, it is clear from settled case law that Article 87(1) EC (now Article 107(1) TFEU) requires assessment of whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State measure is such as to “favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods” in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question’ [43].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [42]„glede presoje pogoja selektivnosti, ki je sestavni del pojma državne pomoči, iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da člen 87(1) ES [zdaj člen 107(1) PDEU] predpisuje, da se v okviru določenega pravnega sistema ugotovi, ali nacionalni ukrep lahko daje prednost ‚posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga‘ v primerjavi z drugimi, ki so glede na cilje, ki jih ta ureditev zasleduje, v dejansko in pravno primerljivem položaju“ [43].
The Court has also held on numerous occasions that Article 107(1) TFEU does not establish a distinction between the causes or the objectives of state measures, but rather defines them in relation to their effects [44].
Sodišče je prav tako ob več priložnostih menilo, da člen 107(1) PDEU ne določa razlikovanja med vzroki ali cilji državnih ukrepov, ampak jih opredeljuje glede na njihove učinke [44].
In particular, tax measures which do not constitute an adaptation of the general system to particular characteristics of certain undertakings, but have been conceived as a means of improving their competitiveness, fall within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU [45].
Zlasti davčni ukrepi, ki ne pomenijo prilagajanja splošnega sistema posebnim značilnostim posameznih družb, ampak so bili oblikovani kot sredstvo za izboljšanje konkurenčnosti, spadajo na področje člena 107(1) PDEU [45].
The concept of State aid does not, however, apply to state measures which differentiate between undertakings where that differentiation arises from the nature or the overall structure of the system of which they form part.
Vendar se pojem državne pomoči ne uporablja za državne ukrepe, ki razlikujejo med družbami, če to razlikovanje izhaja iz narave ali celotne strukture sistema, katerega del so.
As explained in the Commission Notice [46], ‘some conditions may be justified by objective differences between taxpayers’.
Kot je pojasnjeno v Obvestilu Komisije [46], „je nekatere pogoje mogoče razložiti z objektivnimi razlikami med davkoplačevalci“.
As explained in more detail in the following section, the Commission considers that the contested measure is selective in that it only favours certain groups of undertakings that carry out certain investments abroad and that this specific character is not justified by the nature of the scheme.
Komisija meni, kot je podrobneje razloženo v naslednjem oddelku, da je sporni ukrep selektiven, ker daje prednost le nekaterim skupinam družb, ki izvajajo nekatere naložbe v tujini, in da ta značilnost ni utemeljena z naravo sheme.
The Commission considers that the contested measure should be assessed in the light of the general provisions of the corporate tax system, and more precisely the rules on the tax treatment of financial goodwill (see paragraphs 48 to 69).
Komisija meni, da je treba sporni ukrep presoditi ob upoštevanju splošnih določb sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb in zlasti pravil o davčni obravnavi finančnega dobrega imena (glej odstavke od 48 do 69).
The Commission has also analysed whether the factual hypothesis used as a basis by the Spanish authorities is sound and whether there are barriers in the legislations of third countries.
Komisija je prav tako analizirala, ali je dejanska predpostavka, na katero se opirajo španski organi, razumna in ali v zakonodajah tretjih držav obstajajo ovire.
However, it should be pointed out that this exercise cannot constitute a recognition that such barriers could justify a different tax treatment in the present case.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da to ne more pomeniti priznanja, da bi lahko take ovire upravičile različno davčno obravnavo v tem primeru.
Moreover, the purpose of the present Decision is not to set out the conditions which would have allowed the Member State concerned to avoid the classification of the contested measure as State aid.
Poleg tega namen tega sklepa ni določiti pogoje, ki bi zadevni državi članici omogočili izogibanje opredelitvi spornega ukrepa za državno pomoč.
Even if an alternative reference system inspired by the one suggested by the Spanish authorities were chosen, the Commission concludes that the contested measure would still constitute a selective advantage, essentially due to the absence of different factual and legal conditions required for the different scenarios to benefit from the provisions on the goodwill or financial goodwill on foreign transactions.
Tudi če bi bil izbran drug referenčni sistem, ki se zgleduje po tistem, ki so ga predlagali španski organi, Komisija ugotavlja, da bi sporni ukrep še vedno pomenil selektivno prednost, predvsem zaradi neobstoja različnih dejanskih in pravnih položajev, ki se zahtevajo v različnih okoliščinah za izkoriščanje ugodnosti iz določb o dobrem imenu ali finančnem dobrem imenu za tuje transakcije.
More importantly still, under the contested measure the financial goodwill can be recognised separately and can also be amortised if the beneficiary acquires a minority shareholding of 5 %.
Še pomembneje, na podlagi spornega ukrepa je mogoče finančno dobro ime priznati ločeno in ga tudi amortizirati, če upravičenec pridobi 5-odstotni manjšinski delež.
This level is well below that needed to apply the general rules on amortisation of goodwill [47].
Ta stopnja je veliko nižja od stopnje, potrebne za uporabo splošnih pravil o amortizaciji dobrega imena [47].
The contested measure is therefore an exception to the reference system, whatever its definition.
Sporni ukrep je torej izjema od referenčnega sistema ne glede na to, kako se opredeli.
In addition to this, the Commission notes other differences as regards the implementing conditions applying to the contested measure and the provisions of the reference system.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja druge razlike v zvezi z izvedbenimi pogoji, ki se uporabljajo za sporni ukrep, in določbami referenčnega sistema.
Indeed, under the contested measure, shareholding acquisitions made before 1 January 2002 are not taken into account for the calculation of the base to be amortised.
Na podlagi spornega ukrepa se prevzemi deležev, izvedeni pred 1. januarjem 2002, namreč ne upoštevajo za izračun osnove za amortizacijo.
By contrast, under a business combination scenario, such a cut-off date does not exist when calculating the goodwill and the taxpayer has to prove that the combination is made for valid economic reasons to avoid combinations being aimed at purely obtaining tax benefits [48], whereas the contested measure only provides tax benefits.
Po drugi strani v scenariju poslovne združitve ni takega presečnega datuma pri izračunavanju dobrega imena, pri čemer mora davčni zavezanec dokazati, da se združitev izvaja zaradi tehtnih gospodarskih razlogov, za izogibanje združitvam, katerih edini cilj je doseganje davčnih olajšav [48], medtem ko sporni ukrep zagotavlja le davčne olajšave.
The Spanish authorities have been unable to provide convincing arguments to justify these differences, and thus the measure cannot be considered to be justified by the logic of the Spanish tax system.
Španski organi niso mogli predložiti prepričljivih argumentov, ki bi upravičili te razlike, zato ni mogoče šteti, da je ukrep upravičen na podlagi logike španskega davčnega sistema.
Hence, the contested measure is too imprecise and indiscriminate since it does not set any conditions, such as the existence of specific, legally circumscribed situations which would justify different tax treatment.
Zato je sporni ukrep preveč nenatančen in samovoljen, ker ne določa nobenih pogojev, kot je obstoj posebnih, pravno omejenih položajev, ki bi utemeljevali različno davčno obravnavo.
Consequently, situations which have not been demonstrated to be sufficiently different to justify a selective derogation from general goodwill rules end up benefiting from the contested measure.
Posledično imajo primeri, za katere ni bilo dokazano, da so dovolj različni za utemeljitev selektivnega odstopanja od splošnih pravil o dobrem imenu, koristi od spornega ukrepa.
The Commission therefore considers that the contested measure concerns the tax deduction of specific types of costs and covers a broad category of transactions in a discriminatory manner, which cannot be justified by objective differences between taxpayers.
Zato Komisija meni, da se sporni ukrep nanaša na odbitek davka za posebne vrste stroškov in diskriminacijsko zajema obsežno kategorijo transakcij, česar ni mogoče utemeljiti z objektivnimi razlikami med davčnimi zavezanci.
Moreover, in line with the case law of the Court of Justice [49], the Commission considers that it is not necessary, in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding the State aid qualification of a scheme, to demonstrate that all individual aid granted under that scheme qualifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Poleg tega Komisija v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [49] meni, da za končno ugotovitev, da shema pomeni državno pomoč, ni treba dokazati, da vsaka individualna pomoč, dodeljena na podlagi te sheme, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
For this purpose, it is sufficient that the implementation of the scheme under review leads to situations which qualify as aid to be able to conclude that the scheme contains aid elements within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
V ta namen za ugotovitev, da shema vključuje elemente pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, zadostuje, da izvajanje preučevane sheme vodi v položaje, ki jih je mogoče opredeliti kot pomoč.
Hence, reviewing the legislation of all possible non-EU countries for which the Commission investigation procedure is still open is unnecessary in the context of this Decision.
Pregled zakonodaje vseh morebitnih držav zunaj EU, v zvezi s katerimi se postopek preiskave Komisije še vedno izvaja, je v okviru tega sklepa torej nepotreben.
Therefore, as indicated already in paragraphs 115 et seq. of the previous Decision [50], the Commission has verified — on the basis of methodology explained in detail below — whether some of the individual applications of the contested aid scheme in non-EU transactions involve State aid.
Zato je Komisija, kot je že bilo navedeno v odstavkih 115 in naslednjih prejšnje odločbe [50], na podlagi metodologije, ki je v nadaljevanju podrobno pojasnjena, preverila, ali nekatere individualne uporabe sporne sheme pomoči pri transakcijah zunaj EU pomenijo državno pomoč.
According to the information submitted by the Spanish authorities in the course of the procedure, it would appear that, of the 15 non-EU countries for which the Spanish authorities presented information, transactions took place not only in the above-mentioned four countries but also in the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Ecuador.
Glede na informacije, ki so jih med postopkom predložili španski organi, se zdi, da so med 15 državami zunaj EU, za katere so ti organi predložili informacije, transakcije poleg zgoraj navedenih štirih držav potekale tudi v Republiki Kolumbiji, Republiki Peru in Republiki Ekvador.
The Commission has therefore extended its review to these three countries also.
Zato je Komisija pregled razširila še na te tri države.
The Commission’s reasoning, summarised above, is developed in the following paragraphs.
Zgoraj povzeto sklepanje Komisije je nadalje pojasnjeno v naslednjih odstavkih.
Tax treatment of financial goodwill under the Spanish tax system with respect to non-EU acquisitions
Davčna obravnava finančnega dobrega imena na podlagi španskega davčnega sistema v zvezi s prevzemi zunaj EU
In the opening Decision as well as in the previous Decision, the Commission considered that the appropriate reference system is the Spanish corporate tax system and, more precisely, the rules on the tax treatment of financial goodwill set out in the Spanish tax system.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka in prejšnji odločbi menila, da je ustrezen referenčni sistem španski sistem davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb in zlasti pravila o davčni obravnavi finančnega dobrega imena, določena v španskem davčnem sistemu.
This approach is in line with previous Commission practice and the case law of the European Courts, which consider the ordinary corporate tax system to be the reference system [51].
Ta pristop je v skladu s predhodno prakso Komisije in sodno prakso evropskih sodišč, ki običajni sistem davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb obravnavajo kot referenčni sistem [51].
This approach is maintained in the present Decision.
Ta pristop se uporablja tudi v tem sklepu.
The Spanish authorities state that, in general, the constraints on cross-border business combinations place taxpayers buying shareholdings in domestic companies in a different legal and factual situation from those buying shareholdings in non-resident companies, and in particular in companies located in non-EU countries.
Španski organi na splošno navajajo, da so zaradi ovir pri čezmejnih poslovnih združitvah davčni zavezanci, ki kupujejo deleže v domačih družbah, v drugačnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju kot tisti, ki kupujejo deleže v družbah nerezidentkah, zlasti družbah s sedežem v državah zunaj EU.