natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Rather, those advantages are designed to encourage this type of society and the cooperative movement in Spain.
Namen teh ugodnosti je okrepiti to vrsto družb in zadružno gibanje v Španiji.
Lastly, concerning local taxes, the comments from the associations of service stations are aimed not so much at the tax advantages enjoyed by specially protected cooperatives themselves as at the change introduced by Royal Decree-Law No 10/2000, which alters the requirements to be met by agricultural cooperatives to qualify for specially protected status, specifically the fact of allowing such cooperatives to distribute B diesel to non-member third parties without restrictions.
In, nazadnje, kritike združenj črpalk v zvezi z lokalnimi davki se ne nanašajo toliko na same veljavne davčne ugodnosti, ki se uporabljajo za posebej zaščitene zadruge, ampak se nanašajo bolj na spremembo, ki se uvaja s kraljevim zakonodajnim odlokom št. 10/2000, tj. na spremembo pogojev za kmetijske zadruge, da so upravičene do statusa posebej zaščitene zadruge, konkretno na dejstvo, da lahko zadruge brez omejitev prodajajo dizelsko gorivo B tretjim osebam, ki niso člani zadruge.
Spain considers that the measures adopted by the Spanish Government to support agriculture should not be considered as ‘State aid’ since they are all fully compatible with Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Španija meni, da si nobeden od ukrepov, ki jih je španska vlada sprejela v korist kmetijskega sektorja, ne zasluži oznake „državna pomoč“, ker so povsem skladni z določbami člena 107(1) PDEU.
V. DECISION 2003/293/EC
V. ODLOČBA 2003/293/ES
In Decision 2003/293/EC, the Commission reached the following conclusions.
Komisija je v Odločbi 2003/293/ES ugotovila naslednje.
The changes made by Royal Decree-Law No 10/2000 to Law No 27/1999 and Law No 20/1999 merely restore the legal situation regarding the distribution of petroleum products by agricultural cooperatives that existed prior to the adoption of Law No 34/1998.
S spremembami, ki so bile v zakona št. 27/1999 in št. 20/1999 uvedene s kraljevim zakonodajnim odlokom št. 10/2000, se znova vzpostavlja zakonska ureditev, ki je v zvezi z distribucijo naftnih derivatov, ki jo izvajajo kmetijske zadruge, veljala do sprejetja zakona 34/1998.
Spain has explained that under Law No 20/1990 agricultural cooperatives pay the general rate of company tax on income from their transactions with non-member third parties, so such transactions enjoy no rebate and the changes introduced by Royal Decree-Law No 10/2000 do not alter the tax regime applicable to sales of B diesel by cooperatives to non-member third parties.
Španija je pojasnila, da so v skladu z zakonom št. 20/1990 dobički, ki jih kmetijske zadruge ustvarijo v poslih s tretjimi osebami, ki niso člani zadruge, obdavčene po splošni davčni stopnji davka od dobička pravnih oseb, tako da za te posle ni nobene davčne olajšave in da spremembe, uvedene s kraljevim zakonodajnim odlokom št. 10/2000, nikakor ne spreminjajo davčne ureditve, ki se uporablja za zadruge, ki dobavljajo dizelsko gorivo B tretjim osebam, ki niso člani zadruge.
The amendments made by Royal Decree-Law No 10/2000 allow agricultural cooperatives to distribute B diesel to non-member third parties without having to create a new legal entity for that purpose and allow those transactions to account for more than 50 % of their turnover in supply transactions with such third parties without losing their preferential tax treatment.
Zaradi sprememb, uvedenih s kraljevim zakonodajnim odlokom št. 10/2000, lahko kmetijske zadruge opravljajo to dejavnost, ne da bi jim bilo treba ustanoviti nov subjekt za distribucijo dizelskega goriva B tretjim osebam, ki niso člani zadruge, in lahko presežejo omejitev v višini 50 % prometa za dejavnost dobave tretjim osebam, ki niso člani zadruge, ne da bi izgubile davčno ugodnost.
While it is true that agricultural cooperatives pay the same rate of company tax as other firms on their income from transactions with non-member third parties, it is nevertheless also true that, since these amendments were introduced, cooperatives may distribute B diesel to non-member third parties without any restriction in turnover and without having to set up a separate legal entity, while continuing to benefit from differentiated tax treatment as cooperatives.
Res je, da so prihodki, ki jih kmetijske zadruge ustvarijo v poslih s tretjimi osebami, ki niso člani zadruge, obdavčeni po splošni davčni stopnji davka od dobička pravnih oseb, enako kot velja za druge družbe, vendar je prav tako res, da lahko po teh spremembah zadruge prodajajo dizelsko gorivo B tretjim osebam, ki niso člani zadruge, brez omejitev prometa in ne da bi jim bilo treba ustanoviti nov pravni subjekt, pri čemer so še naprej upravičene do posebne davčne obravnave za zadruge.
Since before Royal Decree-Law No 10/2000, cooperatives have enjoyed advantages under the tax on capital transfers and documented legal acts, economic activities tax, immovable property tax and company tax.
Že preden je začel veljati kraljevi zakonodajni odlok št. 10/2000, so zadruge imele davčne ugodnosti pri davku na prenos premoženja in kolkovini za sklenitev pravnega posla, davku na gospodarske dejavnosti, davku na nepremičnine ter davku od dobička pravnih oseb.
In the case of company tax, transactions with members are subject to a reduced rate and specially protected cooperatives, such as, in principle, agricultural cooperatives, also receive a 50 % rebate on their overall company tax bill.
Pri zadnjem so posli s člani obdavčeni po znižani stopnji, posebej zaščitene zadruge, kar so načeloma kmetijske zadruge, pa so upravičene do 50-odstotnega vračila davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
However, the Commission considered it desirable to examine the tax advantages enjoyed by cooperatives in the light of the obligations that the technical adjustment standards impose on them.
Vendar je Komisija menila, da je treba davčne ugodnosti zadrug proučiti z vidika obveznosti, ki se jim nalagajo s standardi za tehnično prilagoditev.
‘As stated by the Spanish Confederation of agricultural cooperatives in its comments’, says the Commission in Decision 2003/293/EC, ‘this tax advantage cannot be considered in isolation from the tax paid by cooperative members on their share of their cooperative’s profits when they pay their personal income tax, which is completely different from the dividends paid out by companies with share capital.
Tako kot opozarja Konfederacija kmetijskih zadrug Španije v svojih pripombah, Komisija v Odločbi meni, da te davčne ugodnosti ni mogoče presojati neodvisno od davčnega obravnavanja neto poslovnih presežkov člana zadruge v okviru dohodnine, kajti ti poslovni presežki imajo popolnoma drugačne značilnosti kot dividende v kapitalskem podjetju.
The advantage that a cooperative might have enjoyed as a result of the company tax rebate is offset by the double taxation on personal income imposed on cooperative members and the increase in their tax burden in this way.’
Z ugodnostjo, ki jo za zadrugo pomeni znižanje davka od dobička pravnih oseb, se popravi dvojno obdavčenje z dohodnino, ki bremeni člana zadruge in torej poveča njegovo davčno obremenitev.
In its Decision, the Commission considered that the tax regime for agricultural cooperatives in Spain should be analysed as a whole.
Komisija je v Odločbi menila, da je treba obdavčitev kmetijskih zadrug v Španiji analizirati kot celoto.
This tax regime makes structural distinctions so that the advantages it confers are linked to specific obligations (financing the mandatory reserves, treatment of capital and double taxation).
Ta obdavčitev uvaja razlikovanje glede na splošno shemo in vsebuje elemente ugodnosti, ki se izravnajo s posebnimi obveznostmi (dodelitvijo sredstev v obvezne sklade, obravnavanjem kapitala, dvojnim obdavčenjem).
Consequently, in view of the information provided by Spain and by Agri-food Cooperatives Spain, the Commission considered that the changes introduced by Royal Decree-Law No 10/2000 to the legislation on agricultural cooperatives did not confer an advantage that alleviated the normal tax burden on their budgets and did not constitute a selective tax measure affecting the resources of the State.
Zato je Komisija glede na informacije, ki sta jih sporočili Španija in Konfederacija španskih kmetijskih zadrug, menila, da spremembe, ki so bile v zakonodajo o kmetijskih zadrugah uvedene s kraljevim zakonodajnim odlokom št. 10/2000, niso ugodnost v obliki zmanjšanja njihovih obremenitev in niso selektiven davčni ukrep, ki prizadene državna sredstva.
The Commission concluded in its Decision that, on the basis of information provided by Spain, the measures to support agricultural cooperatives are to be considered as tax measures justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system, which therefore do not meet the criteria for the application of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, with the result that these measures do not constitute State aid.
Na podlagi informacij, ki jih je predložila Španija, Komisija v Odločbi ugotavlja, da je treba ukrepe pomoči kmetijskim zadrugam šteti za davčne ukrepe, upravičene zaradi narave ali splošne sheme davčnega sistema, na katere se merila za uporabo člena 107(1) PDEU ne nanašajo, tako da ti ukrepi niso državne pomoči.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN CASE T-146/03
SODBA SODIŠČA PRVE STOPNJE V ZADEVI T-146/03
In the action brought against Commission Decision 2003/293/EC, the Association of Service Station Managers of Madrid (Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad de Madrid) and the Catalan Federation of Service Stations (Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio) plead, in substance, that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) of the TFEU, in so far as it affirms in the contested Decision that the disputed measures do not constitute State aid as they do not confer any advantage on agricultural cooperatives and are in keeping with the nature and scheme of the cooperative tax system.
V tožbi zoper Odločbo Komisije 2003/293/ES sta Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad de Madrid in Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v bistvu trdila, da je Komisija kršila člen 107(1) PDEU, ko je v izpodbijani odločbi trdila, da sporni ukrepi niso pomoč, ker kmetijskim zadrugam ne dajejo ugodnosti ter so skladni z naravo in splošno shemo davčnega sistema, ki se uporablja za zadruge.
During the course of its examination, the Court of First Instance states that within the context of the first part of the plea, the complainant pleads that the Commission wrongly concluded that there was no advantage, due to an incorrect assessment of the Spanish tax system.
Sodišče prve stopnje v presoji opozarja, da tožeča stranka v prvem delu trdi, da je Komisija zaradi napačne presoje španske davčne ureditve zmotno sklepala, da ni bilo ugodnosti.
In the context of the second part, the complainant pleads that the Commission made an incorrect determination of an absence of selectivity in relation to the disputed measures due to an incorrect assessment that the disputed measures are in keeping with the nature and scheme of the Spanish tax system.
V drugem delu tožeča stranka trdi, da je Komisija zaradi napačne presoje skladnosti spornih ukrepov z naravo in splošno shemo španskega davčnega sistema zmotno sklepala, da sporni ukrepi niso selektivni.
First part of the plea: error of assessment of the Spanish tax system vitiating the finding that the disputed measures do not confer any advantage on agricultural cooperatives
Prvi del: napačna presoja španske davčne ureditve, ki je vplivala na presojo, da sporni ukrepi kmetijskim zadrugam ne dajejo ugodnosti
The complainant pleads that the Commission failed to take into account the advantageous tax status of agricultural cooperatives in relation to tax on capital transfers and documented legal acts, tax on economic activities, and tax on immovable property.
Tožeča stranka trdi, da Komisija ni upoštevala ugodnega davčnega statusa kmetijskih zadrug pri davku na prenos premoženja in kolkovino za sklenitev pravnega posla, davku na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davku na nepremičnine.
The Court of First Instance considers that it is unable to ascertain the merits of the contested Decision on this point.
Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da ne more preverjati utemeljenosti tega dela izpodbijane odločbe.
In the Court’s view, the contested Decision does not provide clear and unequivocal reasons as to why the tax regime for agricultural cooperatives, as regards tax on capital transfers and documented legal acts, tax on economic activities, and tax on immovable property, does not constitute an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje v izpodbijani odločbi ni jasno in nedvoumno navedeno, zakaj davčna ureditev, ki se uporablja za kmetijske zadruge, pri davku na prenos premoženja in kolkovino za sklenitev pravnega posla, davku na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davku na nepremičnine ni ugodnost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Therefore, on one hand, recital 145 of the contested Decision expressly states that the cooperatives enjoy tax advantages besides those relating to company tax, in relation to tax on capital transfers and documented legal acts, economic activities tax and immovable property tax.
Tako je po eni strani v uvodni izjavi 145 izpodbijane odločbe eksplicitno navedeno, da imajo zadruge davčne ugodnosti pri davku od dobička pravnih oseb, davku na prenos premoženja in kolkovini za sklenitev pravnega posla, davku na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davku na nepremičnine.
On the other hand, recital 148 of the contested Decision states that the disputed measures do not confer an advantage and, consequently, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Po drugi strani je v uvodni izjavi 148 izpodbijane odločbe navedeno, da sporni ukrepi niso ugodnost, torej niso državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Whilst the European Commission argued during the hearing that the reasoning in recitals 146 and 147 of the contested Decision applied not only to company tax but also to the tax on capital transfers and documented legal acts, the tax on economic activities and the tax on immovable property, the Court considers this argument to be incomprehensible.
Čeprav je Komisija na obravnavi trdila, da se sklepanje iz uvodnih izjav 146 in 147 izpodbijane odločbe nanaša ne samo na davek od dobička pravnih oseb, ampak tudi na davek na prenos premoženja in kolkovino za sklenitev pravnega posla, davek na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davek na nepremičnine, po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje taka obrazložitev ni razumljiva.
Firstly, the Court declares, recital 146 provides that the advantage that a cooperative might have enjoyed as a result of the 50 % company tax rebate is offset by the double taxation on personal income.
Prvič, Sodišče prve stopnje trdi, da je v uvodni izjavi 146 navedeno, da se ugodnost, ki jo za zadrugo lahko pomeni 50-odstotno znižanje davka od dobička pravnih oseb, popravi z dvojnim obdavčenjem, tj. z dohodnino.
Inasmuch as the Commission, in the Court’s opinion, has not given the slightest reason as to why the advantages in relation to taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, on economic activities and on immovable property might also be offset by the double taxation on personal income tax, recital 146 may only be understood to refer to the offsetting of the 50 % rebate on company tax.
Komisija ni navedla nobenega razloga, zaradi katerega bi se tudi ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz davka na prenos premoženja in kolkovine za sklenitev pravnega posla, davka na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davka na nepremičnine, popravile z dvojnim obdavčenjem, tj. z dohodnino, zato po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje uvodne izjave 146 ni mogoče razumeti tako, da se nanaša na popravek 50-odstotnega znižanja davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
Secondly, the Court continues, recital 147 merely mentions that the tax regime applicable to agricultural cooperatives, examined as a whole, makes structural distinctions so that the advantages it confers are linked to specific obligations (financing the mandatory reserves, treatment of capital and double taxation).
Drugič, Sodišče prve stopnje trdi še, da je v uvodni izjavi 147 samo navedeno, da obdavčitev kmetijskih zadrug kot celota uvaja razlikovanje glede na strukturo in vsebuje elemente ugodnosti, ki jih izravnajo posebne obveznosti (dodelitev sredstev v obvezne sklade, obravnavanje kapitala, dvojno obdavčenje).
This recital remains silent as to the reasons why the specific obligations it mentions would offset not only the 50 % rebate on company tax, but also the advantages in relation to the taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, economic activities, and immovable property.
V tej uvodni izjavi ni govora o razlogih, zakaj se z navedenimi posebnimi obveznostmi poleg 50-odstotnega znižanja davka od dobička pravnih oseb izravnajo tudi ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz davka na prenos premoženja in kolkovine za sklenitev pravnega posla, davka na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davka na nepremičnine.
The Court of First Instance finds such reasons to be all the more inadequate in the present case in consideration of the fact that the specific obligations expressly mentioned must be understood when reading the contested Decision to relate to company tax.
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje ti razlogi še toliko bolj manjkajo v tem primeru, ker je treba navedene posebne obveznosti ob branju izpodbijane odločbe razumeti tako, da se nanašajo na davek od dobička pravnih oseb.
In fact, in addition to the reference to these specific obligations in recital 147, they are also mentioned in recitals 83 to 95 of the contested Decision which consider company tax alone.
Poleg tega da so posebne obveznosti navedene v uvodni izjavi 147, so namreč navedene tudi v uvodnih izjavah od 83 do 95 izpodbijane odločbe, ki se nanašajo samo na davek od dobička pravnih oseb.
First and foremost, as regards the argument whereby the measures linked to taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, on economic activities and on immovable property have not been altered by the Decree-Law and that consequently, these aspects are not, in principle, evaluated in the contested Decision, the Court of First Instance states that this argument lacks any factual basis when recital 145 attests to the Commission’s recognition of the existence of tax advantages enjoyed by cooperatives on these taxes.
Najprej v zvezi s trditvijo, da z zakonodajnim odlokom niso bili spremenjeni ukrepi, povezani z davkom na prenos premoženja in kolkovino za sklenitev pravnega posla, davkom na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davkom na nepremičnine, in da zato ti vidiki načeloma niso ocenjeni v izpodbijani odločbi, Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da je treba opozoriti, da ta trditev nima dejanske podlage, ker uvodna izjava 145 potrjuje, da je Komisija upoštevala obstoj davčnih ugodnosti v korist zadrug, ki izhajajo iz teh davkov.
Moreover, contrary to the Commission’s assertion, the Court of First Instance is of the opinion that the tax situation of cooperatives in respect of taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, on economic activities, and on immovable property, was altered by the disputed measures.
Poleg tega Sodišče prve stopnje v nasprotju s trditvami Komisije meni, da je bil s spornimi ukrepi spremenjen davčni položaj zadrug na področju davka na prenos premoženja in kolkovine za sklenitev pravnega posla, davka na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davka na nepremičnine.
In fact, prior to the adoption of these measures, the tax status of cooperatives did not apply to the sale of fuel since this activity had to be carried out by a separate legal entity which would not have enjoyed this privileged tax status.
Pred sprejetjem teh ukrepov se davčni status zadrug namreč ni uporabljal za dejavnost distribucije goriva, ker je to dejavnost moral opravljati ločen pravni subjekt, ki ni bil upravičen do ugodnejšega davčnega statusa.
Since the entry into force of the disputed measures, the scope of application of this privileged tax status has been extended to include the sale of fuel.
Z začetkom veljavnosti spornih ukrepov se je področje uporabe ugodnejšega davčnega statusa razširilo na dejavnosti distribucije goriva.
The Court of First Instance therefore considers that the disputed measures have altered the tax situation of agricultural cooperatives.
Sodišče prve stopnje zato meni, da je bil s spornimi ukrepi spremenjen davčni položaj kmetijskih zadrug.
Next, as regards the argument whereby the tax status in respect of taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, on economic activities, and on immovable property might constitute existing aid in so far as this status does not appear to have been altered since the accession of the Kingdom of Spain, the Court of First Instance finds that this argument does not contribute to an understanding of the reasons why the Commission made a determination of no advantage in recital 148 of the contested Decision.
Nato v zvezi s trditvijo, da je davčni status na področju davka na prenos premoženja in kolkovine za sklenitev pravnega posla, davka na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davka na nepremičnine obstoječa pomoč, če se ta status ni spremenil od pristopa Kraljevine Španije, Sodišče prve stopnje ugotavlja, da Kraljevina Španija nikjer ne pojasnjuje, zakaj je Komisija v uvodni izjavi 148 izpodbijane odločbe ugotovila, da ni ugodnosti.
In fact, as much as the Commission means to affirm that the privileged tax status constitutes existing aid, it is forced to admit that this tax status constitutes aid and hence certainly does confer an advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Če namreč Komisija trdi, da je ugodnejši davčni status obstoječa pomoč, s tem nujno priznava, da ta davčni status je pomoč in torej nedvomno daje ugodnost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Finally, as regards the argument whereby the advantage on taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, on economic activities and on immovable property is of little importance in relation to company tax, the Court of First Instance finds that even this does not make the logic of the contested Decision any clearer.
Nazadnje v zvezi s trditvijo, da je ugodnost, ki izhaja iz davka na prenos premoženja in kolkovine za sklenitev pravnega posla, davka na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davka na nepremičnine, majhna v primerjavi z davkom od dobička pravnih oseb, Sodišče prve stopnje ugotavlja, da se tudi s to trditvijo izpodbijana odločba ne osmisli.
In fact, states the Court of First Instance, to admit that the advantage is of little importance amounts inevitably to admitting that such an advantage does indeed exist.
Sodišče prve stopnje namreč trdi, da priznanje, da je ugodnost majhna, nujno pomeni priznanje, da ugodnost je.
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance recalls that the Commission explained at the hearing that it did not wish to argue that the advantage from taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, on economic activities, and on immovable property is lower than the de minimis threshold.
Poleg tega opozarja na pojasnilo Komisije na obravnavi, da s to trditvijo ni nameravala trditi, da je ugodnost, ki izhaja iz davka na prenos premoženja in kolkovine za sklenitev pravnega posla, davka na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davka na nepremičnine, nižja od praga pravila de minimis.
Consequently, the argument put forward does not allow the Court of First Instance to understand the reasons why the tax regime in respect of taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, on economic activities, and on immovable property does not constitute an advantage.
Zato predstavljena trditev Sodišču prve stopnje ne pojasnjuje, zakaj davčna ureditev davka na prenos premoženja in kolkovine za sklenitev pravnega posla, davka na gospodarske dejavnosti ter davka na nepremičnine ni ugodnost.