natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission therefore held that an amicable settlement such as the one from which Umicore had benefited, involving a reduction in a VAT liability, fines and interest, was not generally available to all taxpayers, even assuming that they were to dispute the merits of the infringements attributed to them, and that the criterion of selectivity was thus fulfilled.
Komisija je torej menila, da prijateljska poravnava, kakršna je bila sklenjena z družbo Umicore, o zmanjšanju dolga DDV, glob in obresti ni bila splošno dostopna vsem davčnim zavezancem, tudi če nasprotujejo utemeljenosti pripisanih kršitev, in da je zato v zadevnem primeru izpolnjeno merilo selektivnosti.
According to the Commission, the aid in question did not appear to benefit from any of the exemptions laid down in Article 107 of TFEU.
Po mnenju Komisije zadevna pomoč ne bi smela biti upravičena do nobenega odstopanja iz člena 107 Pogodbe.
Concerning the procedure followed
Opravljeni postopek
Belgium emphasises that the VAT Code does not lay down any precise formal procedure for imposing adjustments on persons liable for VAT.
Belgija poudarja, da zakonik o DDV ne določa natančnega formalnega postopka za sklepanje poravnav z davčnimi zavezanci.
A standard practice has, nevertheless, become established in this respect, aimed firstly at informing the taxpayer of the adjustment planned by the authorities and asking him to submit information which might prevent such taxation.
Kljub temu se je v zvezi s tem vzpostavila praksa, katere namen je najprej obvestiti davčnega zavezanca, da uprava predvideva poravnavo in ga poziva, naj navede elemente, ki bi lahko nasprotovali tej obdavčitvi.
This practice is consonant with the application of the principles of sound administration and the rights of the defence.
Ta praksa spada na področje uporabe načel dobrega upravljanja in pravice do obrambe.
In this context, the adjustment notice merely constitutes a proposal from the authorities designed as a basis for discussion with the taxable person, without giving rise to any legal effect on the taxable person or establishing a claim for the authorities.
V teh okoliščinah naj bi bil zahtevek za poravnavo le predlog uprave, s katerim se začne razprava z davčnim zavezancem ter ki ne ustvarja pravnega učinka za zavezanca in terjatev za državo.
The adjustment notice essentially therefore enables the taxpayer to challenge the initial stance of the tax authorities and provide information in support of his position.
Zato zahtevek za poravnavo predvsem omogoča davčnemu zavezancu, da nasprotuje predhodnemu stališču uprave in navede elemente, ki podpirajo njegovo stališče.
According to Belgium, after examining the arguments presented by the taxpayer in response to the adjustment notice, it can happen that the adjustment planned has to be modified or even that the taxation has to be completely abandoned.
Po mnenju Belgije je mogoče, da je po preučitvi argumentov, ki jih davčni zavezanec navede v odgovoru na zahtevek za poravnavo, predvideno poravnavo treba spremeniti ali obdavčitev popolnoma opustiti.
Belgium also explains that the adjustment notice does not have the effect of creating a tax liability.
Belgija tudi pojasnjuje, da zahtevek za poravnavo ne povzroči nastanka dolga.
Only the constraining order, rendered enforceable, constitutes the legal act by which the State establishes a tax liability for VAT [31].
Samo prisilni ukrep, ki je izvršljiv, naj bi bil izvršilni naslov, s katerim država ugotovi davčno terjatev na področju DDV [31].
As no constraining order was ever issued to Umicore in the context of the case in question, the expression ‘reduction of a VAT debt’ is, in Belgium’s view, inaccurate.
Ker družbi Umicore v obravnavani zadevi ni bil vročen nikakršen prisilni ukrep, je po mnenju Belgije izraz „zmanjšanje dolga DDV“ nepravilen.
In order to show that the procedure followed in the Umicore case is also adopted with respect to other taxpayers, Belgium submits a copy of an agreement made with a taxable person in 2000 for an amount of BEF 6 million, whereas the notice issued in 1995 to the same taxable person for the same transactions indicated that they were liable for a total of BEF 14 million.
Da bi Belgija dokazala, da se postopek, kakršnega je uporabila za obravnavo spisa družbe Umicore, uporablja tudi za obravnavanje zadev drugih oseb, ki so dolžne plačati davek, je predložila kopijo sporazuma, z davčnim zavezancem sklenjenega leta 2000, za znesek 6 milijonov BEF, medtem ko je v zapisniku iz leta 1995, poslanemu istemu davčnemu zavezancu, za iste transakcije sporočeno, da mora plačati 14 milijonov BEF.
With regard to the procedure followed with that taxable person, Belgium adds that tax agreements are basic instruments in VAT matters, widely acknowledged by scholarly works and case law, and explicitly provided for by Article 84 of the VAT code.
Belgija v zvezi s potekom postopka z davčnim zavezancem dodaja, da so davčni sporazumi temeljni instrumenti na področju DDV, določeni z doktrino in sodno prakso ter izrecno predvideni v členu 84 belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
Settlements are thus an intrinsic part of the procedure in itself and are available to all taxpayers without exception.
Poravnava je torej neločljiv del postopka in je brez izjeme dostopna vsem davčnim zavezancem.
As for the fact that the agreement does not specify its legal basis, Belgium explains that Article 84 of the VAT Code does not lay down any binding form or content for tax agreements on VAT.
Belgija v zvezi s tem, da v sporazumu ni navedena pravna podlaga, navaja, da člen 84 belgijskega zakonika o DDV ne določa obvezne oblike ali vsebine davčnih sporazumov na področju DDV.
There was consequently no obligation to mention any legal basis or formal justification in the agreement.
Zato v sporazumu ni treba navesti pravne podlage ali formalne utemeljitve.
The rules of proof
Dokazna pravila
Belgium notes that the Commission questioned it in 1999 about the severity shown by the Belgian authorities in their appraisal of the evidence provided by taxpayers to prove the reality of the intra-Community supplies they had carried out.
Belgija opozarja, da je Komisija leta 1999 državi Belgiji postavila vprašanje o tem, kako strogo belgijska uprava presoja dokaze, ki jih predložijo davčni zavezanci, da dokažejo resničnost dobav blaga znotraj Skupnosti.
It refers, in this respect, to correspondence between the Commission and the Belgian Ministry of Finance regarding the standard of proof required to obtain an exemption in the event of an intra-Community supply [32].
V zvezi s tem se sklicuje na izmenjavo dopisov med Komisijo in belgijskim ministrom za finance o zahtevanem dokaznem standardu za pridobitev oprostitve za dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti [32].
Belgium also notes that there is no precise method formally provided for in European Union legislation or in Belgian law by which taxpayers could and should, in all circumstances, prove their right to an exemption.
Belgija tudi opozarja, da v zakonodaji Unije in belgijskem pravu ni natančno opredeljeno, kako bi davčni zavezanci lahko dokazali in vsekakor morali dokazati, da so upravičeni do oprostitve.
On the contrary, it is for the tax authorities initially and, where necessary, for the courts subsequently, to assess on a case-by-case basis whether or not the information aimed at establishing that the conditions for an exemption have been fulfilled is sufficiently persuasive.
Nasprotno, najprej mora uprava in, po potrebi, nato še sodišče za vsak posamezen primer presoditi, ali so podatki, na podlagi katerih se ugotavlja izpolnjevanje pogojev za oprostitev, zadosten dokaz ali niso.
In this context, Belgium also submits copies of a number of judgments deciding such issues in favour of the tax authorities.
V teh okoliščinah je Belgija predložila tudi kopije več sodb, v katerih je bilo o takem vprašanju odločeno nasprotno.
Change in the authorities’ appraisal
Sprememba presoje uprave
With regard to the first adjustment notice concerning the years 1995 and 1996, Belgium explains that the following factors were taken into account in deciding not to levy the taxation initially considered:
Belgija v zvezi s prvim zahtevkom za poravnavo za leti 1995 in 1996 pojasnjuje, da so se pri opustitvi sprva predvidenega davka upoštevali naslednji elementi:
the non-involvement of Umicore in the fraudulent system,
družba Umicore ni bila soudeležena v sistemu goljufanja,
the goods were paid for before being transported by professional hauliers appointed by the purchasers,
blago je bilo plačano, preden so ga poklicni prevozniki, ki so jih naročili kupci, odpeljali,
proof of the goods being transported to Italy was provided, even though this was essentially furnished by the Italian authorities rather than Umicore [33].
predložen je bil dokaz o prevozu blaga v Italijo, čeprav v bistvu ne prihaja od družbe Umicore, ampak prav od italijanskih organov [33].
Belgium indicates, however, that having recorded Umicore’s shortcomings in terms of identifying the real customers, the Special Tax Inspectorate was of the opinion that a significant fine should be imposed on it.
Belgija vseeno pojasnjuje, da je Posebni davčni inšpektorat zaradi ugotovljenih pomanjkljivosti v zvezi z identifikacijo resničnih strank pri družbi Umicore menil, da je treba davčni zavezanki naložiti visoko globo.
Against this backdrop, the authorities only compromised on the amount of the fine, as can be shown by the fact that the taxpayer’s payment was recorded as a proportional fine in the Government accounts.
V teh okoliščinah je uprava popustila le pri znesku globe, kar naj bi dokazovalo dejstvo, da je plačilo davčne zavezanke v računovodskih izkazih države knjiženo kot sorazmerna globa.
As for the second adjustment notice concerning the years 1997 and 1998, Belgium notes that proposal not to levy VAT is warranted as the conditions for the exemption were proven to have effectively been met.
Belgija v zvezi z drugim zahtevkom za poravnavo za leti 1997 in 1998 trdi, da je opustitev predvidene obdavčitve upravičena, saj se je izkazalo, da sta pogoja za oprostitev dejansko izpolnjena.
The goods were indeed sent to another Member State (Italy) and the deliveries were made to a company registered for VAT purposes in another Member State (the United Kingdom) [34].
Blago je bilo namreč odposlano v drugo državo članico (Italijo) in dobavljeno davčnemu zavezancu, registriranemu za namene DDV v drugi državi članici (v Združenem kraljestvu) [34].
Belgium also indicated that the change in appraisal flowed from the fact that not all the relevant documents had become available in 1998 and 1999.
Belgija tudi navaja, da sprememba presoje izhaja iz dejstva, da vsi upoštevni dokumenti v letih 1998 in 1999 še niso bili na voljo.
When they were obtained, however, it was up to the authorities to assess, on the basis of all the information at its disposal, whether they could refuse the exemption and whether they would have a reasonable chance of success in defending such a decision before the courts.
Ko pa so bili pridobljeni, je morala uprava na podlagi vseh elementov, ki jih je imela na voljo, presoditi, ali lahko zavrne oprostitev in ali lahko to zavrnitev s precejšnjo gotovostjo uspešno zagovarja pred sodnimi organi.
Belgium adds that, on the basis of a risk analysis similar to that of any private creditor, the Special Tax Inspectorate preferred an immediate, tangible and undisputed result rather than engaging in long and costly litigation the outcome of which was less than certain.
Belgija dodaja, da je Posebni davčni inšpektorat na podlagi ocene tveganj, podobne oceni katerega koli zasebnega upnika, dal prednost takojšnji, realni in nesporni rešitvi pred dolgim in dragim sporom z bolj negotovim izidom.
Imposition of a fine
Naložitev globe
Belgium notes that when the adjustment notices were drawn up, the staff responsible automatically applied the legal provisions relating to the taxation concerned.
Belgija trdi, da naj bi uradniki, ko so pisali zahtevka za poravnavo, samodejno uporabili zakonske določbe za predvideno obdavčitev.
In the event of an exemption wrongfully claimed or applied without fraudulent intent, Article 70(1) of the VAT Code and Table G (point VII.2.A) of Royal Decree No 41 provide for a fine of 10 % of the tax due.
V primeru sklicevanja na oprostitev ali nepravilno uporabljene oprostitve brez goljufivih namenov člen 70(1) belgijskega zakonika o DDV in preglednica G (točka VII, 2, A) kraljevega odloka št. 41 določata, da se naloži globa v višini 10 % dolgovanega davka.
Belgium emphasises that in doing so the Special Tax Inspectorate’s staff had necessarily considered that it was not possible to establish any fraudulent intent on Umicore’s part.
V zvezi s tem Belgija poudarja, da so uradniki uprave pri tem nujno ocenili, da družbi Umicore ne morejo dokazati goljufivega namena.
According to Belgium, the motive for the fine accepted in the agreement of 21 December 2000 was radically different from that underpinning the fine considered in the adjustment notices.
Po mnenju Belgije je bila utemeljitev globe, sprejete v sporazumu z dne 21. decembra 2000, popolnoma drugačna od utemeljitve globe, predvidene v zahtevkih za poravnavo.
With the reality of the intra-Community supplies having been established to the requisite legal standard, Belgium emphasises that it would have been completely contradictory to impose a fine based on Article 70(1) of the VAT Code on the ground that the exemption under Article 39 bis of that Code had been wrongfully claimed.
Ker je bilo pravno zadostno dokazano, da so bile dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti resnične, Belgija poudarja, da bi bilo popolnoma protislovno naložiti globo na podlagi člena 70(1) belgijskega zakonika o DDV, saj naj bi bilo sklicevanje na oprostitev iz člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV napačno.
Belgium further highlights that, although the reality of the intra-Community supplies had been established, the invoices produced by Umicore nonetheless showed gross negligence with respect to identifying the real Italian customers for the silver supplied.
Belgija še poudarja, da je bila sicer dokazana resničnost dobav blaga znotraj Skupnosti, vendar računi, ki jih je predložila družba Umicore, razkrivajo resno malomarnost pri identifikaciji resničnih italijanskih kupcev dobavljenega srebra.
The fact that Umicore is a major player in economic terms, active essentially and continually at the international and, thus, European level, was taken into account when assessing the seriousness of this negligence.
Resnost te malomarnosti naj bi bila ocenjena ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je družba Umicore velik gospodarski subjekt, ki je stalno prisoten predvsem na mednarodnem in torej na evropskem trgu.
It was therefore assumed that the company’s managers must have known that the invoices bore shortcomings in the identification of customers and did not thus entirely comply with Belgian regulations.
Z domnevanjem je bilo ugotovljeno, da so odgovorni v družbi morali vedeti, da je identifikacija strank na računih pomanjkljiva in da zato računi niso skladni z belgijskimi zakonskimi zahtevami.
In view of the lack of other elements, however, this assumption was insufficient to establish fraudulent intent on the part of Umicore.
Brez drugih elementov pa ta domneva ni zadoščala za dokaz, da je družba Umicore nameravala goljufati.
Belgium refers to the way in which the amount of the settlement was calculated and explains that the imposition of a proportional fine when no VAT is due does not run counter to the legislation in force.
Belgija se sklicuje na način, na katerega je bil ugotovljen znesek globe v poravnavi, in pojasnjuje, da naložitev sorazmerne globe ni v nasprotju z veljavno zakonodajo, čeprav se plačilo DDV ne zahteva.
When a transaction is taxable in principle [35], the VAT Code grants a subsequent exemption, which is entirely ex post, from tax in Belgium for certain transactions such as intra-Community supplies.
Kadar je transakcija načeloma obdavčljiva [35], je z belgijskim zakonikom o DDV odobrena poznejša oprostitev davka v Belgiji – ampak samo naknadno – za nekatere transakcije, kot so dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti.
It follows from this that a proportional fine can be imposed on the amount of tax due in principle on the transactions concerned, even if those transactions are subsequently exempted [36].
Iz tega sledi, da je sorazmerno globo mogoče naložiti na znesek davka, ki ga je načeloma treba plačati na zadevne transakcije, čeprav so ga nato oproščene [36].
Belgium concludes that the fine referred to in Article 70(2) of the VAT Code is a punishment for the inexactitude of the indications on invoices, irrespective of the VAT scheme to be applied to the transactions concerned.
Belgija zaključuje, da globa na podlagi člena 70(2) belgijskega zakonika o DDV sankcionira nepravilne navedbe na računih neodvisno od ureditve DDV, ki jo je treba uporabiti za zadevne transakcije.
It is therefore, in its view, not true that such a fine cannot be imposed in the event of a transaction which is not taxable pursuant to Article 2 of the VAT Code.
Take globe ne bi bilo mogoče naložiti le takrat, ko transakcija ni obdavčljiva na podlagi člena 2 tega zakonika.
The fine provided for under Article 70(2) of the VAT Code is not, moreover, a punishment for failing to pay the tax, which is punished under Article 70(1) of the Code, but for making it possible to evade tax due at subsequent stages of the marketing of the goods concerned.
Poleg tega globa iz člena 70(2) tega zakonika ni kazen zaradi neplačila davka – kazen za to je določena v členu 70(1) tega zakonika – temveč zaradi omogočanja utaje davka v poznejših fazah trženja blaga.
By disguising the true identity of the purchaser of the goods, the authorities would lose track of them and would not be able to secure payment of either VAT or even the direct taxes due as result of the subsequent transactions involving the goods supplied.
S prikritjem resnične identitete naslovnika blaga naj bi država izgubila njegovo sled in ne bi mogla obračunati ne DDV ne neposrednih davkov, ki bi jih bilo treba plačati za nadaljnje transakcije z dobavljenim blagom.
The administrative guidelines for the VAT Code are very clear in this respect [37].
Upravna pojasnila belgijskega zakonika o DDV na to temo naj bi bila eksplicitna [37].
Regarding the calculation of the proportional fine, Belgium explains that a reduction from 200 %, as laid down in Article 70(2) of the VAT Code, to 100 % is entirely legal, since such a reduction is in line with the levels of fines stipulated in Table C of Royal Decree No 41 when there is no fraudulent intent.
Belgija v zvezi z določitvijo sorazmerne globe pojasnjuje, da je znižanje z 200 % – kot je predvideno v členu 70(2) belgijskega zakonika o DDV – na 100 % popolnoma zakonito, ker je tako znižanje v skladu z zneski glob iz kraljevega odloka št. 41, preglednica C, kadar ni goljufivih namenov.
Belgium also emphasises that, according to the settled case law of the Belgian Court of Cassation, proportional fines for VAT are deductible from the tax base for corporate tax [38].
Nazadnje Belgija poudarja, da se v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso kasacijskega sodišča sorazmerne globe na področju DDV lahko odbijejo od davčne osnove za davek od dobička pravnih oseb [38].
It also stresses that Umicore actually paid the amount of BEF 423 million before 31 December 2000 as it had undertaken to do.
Poudarja še, da je družba Umicore znesek 423 milijonov BEF res plačala pred 31. decembrom 2000, kot se je zavezala.
The existence of State aid
Obstoj državne pomoči
Belgium disputes ever having granted aid to Umicore.
Belgija se ne strinja, da bi družbi Umicore kadar koli dodelila pomoč.
It also emphasises that the settlement under consideration did not bear any special feature or advantage for Umicore and it did not strengthen the position of the company in relation to competitors in trade between Member States in any way.
Poudarja tudi, da obravnavana poravnava ni nobena posebnost ali prednost za družbo Umicore in da nikakor ni okrepila njenega položaja v primerjavi s konkurenti v trgovini med državami članicami.
It is of the opinion that Umicore did not benefit from any special treatment whatsoever, but was merely the subject of the material application to a particular case of a basic instrument which is very widely used.
Meni, da družba Umicore ni bila upravičena do posebne obravnave, temveč je v posebnem primeru konkretno uporabila osnovni instrument, ki se sicer zelo široko uporablja.
According to Belgium, such settlement agreements are commonplace not only in Belgium but, for obvious reasons (that is, to avoid long and costly litigation the outcome of which is uncertain) with the authorities of numerous other Member States.
Po mnenju Belgije so taki sporazumi o poravnavi običajni ne le v Belgiji, ampak iz očitnih razlogov (to je preprečevanje dolgih in dragih sporov z negotovim izidom) tudi v upravah številnih držav članic.
In this respect, Belgium notes that the Commission itself had recourse to a settlement agreement with Philip Morris International in a case involving the loss of customs duties and VAT which should have been paid for legal imports [39].
V zvezi s tem Belgija opozarja, da je celo Komisija sklenila sporazum o poravnavi z družbo Philip Morris International v zadevi zaradi izgube carine in DDV, ki bi morala biti plačana pri zakonitem uvozu [39].
Belgium adds that if VAT had been charged on the transactions at issue, that VAT would have had to be reimbursed to Umicore’s customers by the tax authorities, since those customers could use their right to the deduction of VAT as undertakings registered for VAT.
Belgija dodaja, da bi davčna uprava, če bi bil za sporne transakcije obračunan DDV, morala DDV vrniti strankam družbe Umicore, ker lahko kot zavezanci za DDV uveljavljajo pravico do odbitka DDV.
It would therefore have had no financial impact on Belgium’s public accounts, with no transfer of state resources.
Iz tega naj bi izhajalo, da je transakcija za belgijsko državno blagajno „čista“, brez kakršnega koli prenosa državnih sredstev.
As for the criterion of specificity, Belgium indicates that, contrary to what the Commission argued in its decision to open the procedure, the mere fact that the settlement agreement related only to Umicore is not enough to claim that the criterion of specificity has been fulfilled [40].
V zvezi z merilom posebnosti Belgija pojasnjuje, da v nasprotju s trditvami Komisije iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka zaradi preprostega dejstva, da sporazum zadeva samo družbo Umicore, ni mogoče trditi, da je izpolnjeno merilo selektivnosti [40].
In order to determine if there was a specific advantage, the measure would have to be assessed in the light of the treatment given to undertakings in similar factual and legal circumstances as the allegedly favoured undertaking [41].
Da bi ugotovili, ali obstaja posebna prednost, je treba ukrep preučiti glede na to, kako se obravnavajo podjetja v enakem dejanskem in pravnem položaju kot družba z domnevno prednostjo [41].
According to Belgium, if, as in this case, any person subject to VAT has the possibility to contest an adjustment notice, to present his arguments before the authorities and to conclude an agreement with the authorities relating to his specific case, which does not imply any derogation from the law and is confined, as indicated by the evidence submitted, to accepting the merits of the facts as established by the taxable person, the measure would be general and would not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty.
Če ima, kot trdi Belgija, tako kot v tem primeru, vsak zavezanec za DDV možnost, da izpodbija zahtevek za poravnavo, organom predloži argumente in z upravo sklene dogovor o svojem posebnem primeru, ter če ta dogovor v ničemer ne odstopa od zakona in na podlagi predloženih dokazov samo sprejme utemeljitev dejstev, ki jih je dokazal davčni zavezanec, je ta ukrep splošen in ni pomoč v smislu člena 107 Pogodbe.
According to Belgium, the procedure applicable to Umicore is open to other undertakings and applies in a similar manner to all disputes.
Po navedbah Belgije je postopek, ki je bil uporabljen za družbo Umicore, odprt za druga podjetja in se podobno uporablja v vseh spornih zadevah.