natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 17 February 2006, in reply to the parliamentary question by Ms Sharon Bowles MEP, a Commissioner answered on behalf of the Commission as follows: ‘According to the information currently in its possession, it would however appear to the Commission that the Spanish (tax) rules related to the write off of “goodwill” are applicable to all undertakings in Spain independently from their sizes, sectors, legal forms or if they are privately or publicly owned because they constitute general depreciation rules.
Komisar je v odgovoru na parlamentarno vprašanje poslanke Evropskega parlamenta Sharon Bowles 17. februarja 2006 v imenu Komisije odgovoril: „V skladu z razpoložljivimi informacijami Komisija domneva, da španska (davčna) pravila, ki zadevajo odpis ‚dobrega imena‘, veljajo za vse družbe v Španiji ne glede na velikost, sektor, pravno obliko ali zasebno ali javno lastništvo, ker pomenijo splošna pravila o amortizaciji.
Therefore, they do not appear to fall within the scope of application of the state aid rules’ [140].
Zato domnevno ne spadajo na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči“ [140].
By these statements to the European Parliament, the Commission provided specific, unconditional and consistent assurances of a nature such that the beneficiaries of the contested measure entertained justified hopes that the goodwill amortisation scheme was lawful, in the sense that it did not fall within the scope of the State aid rules, [141] and that any advantages derived from it could not, therefore, be subject to subsequent recovery proceedings.
Komisija je s tema izjavama za Evropski parlament zagotovila posebna, neomejena in dosledna jamstva, da so upravičenci do spornega ukrepa upravičeno pričakovali, da je bila shema amortizacije dobrega imena zakonita tako, da ni spadala na področje pravil o državni pomoči [141] in da zato za katero koli prednost, ki izhaja iz tega, ne morejo veljati naknadni postopki za vračilo.
Although these statements did not amount to a formal Commission decision establishing that the amortisation scheme did not constitute State aid, their effect was equivalent from the point of view of the creation of a legitimate expectation, especially in view of the fact that the applicable procedures ensuring the respect of the collegiality principle had been respected in this case.
Čeprav te izjave niso sprožile uradne odločbe Komisije, s katero bi bilo ugotovljeno, da shema amortizacije ni pomenila državne pomoči, je bil njihov učinek s stališča ustvarjanja upravičenih pričakovanj enak, zlasti glede na dejstvo, da so bili v tem primeru veljavni postopki, ki zagotavljajo spoštovanje načela solidarnosti, upoštevani.
As the notion of State aid is objective [142] and the Commission does not have any discretionary power as regards its interpretation – unlike what happens when assessing compatibility — any precise and unconditional statement on behalf of the Commission to the effect that a national measure is not to be regarded as State aid will naturally be understood as meaning that the measure was ‘non-aid’ from the outset (i.e. also before the statement in question).
Ker je pojem državne pomoči objektiven [142] in Komisija v zvezi z njegovo razlago nima diskrecijske pravice, v nasprotju s primerom presoje združljivosti, se bo seveda vsaka natančna in neomejena izjava v imenu Komisije, da nacionalni ukrep ni obravnavan kot državna pomoč, razumela, kot da je ukrep pomenil „nepomoč“ že od začetka (tj. tudi pred zadevno izjavo).
Any undertaking which had previously been uncertain as to whether or not it would in future be liable, under the State aid rules, to recovery of advantages it had obtained under the goodwill amortisation scheme arising from transactions entered into before the Commission statements could have concluded thereafter that such uncertainty was unfounded, as it could not be expected to demonstrate greater diligence than the Commission in this respect.
Vsaka družba, ki je bila negotova glede tega, ali bo v prihodnje na podlagi pravil o državni pomoči morala vrniti ugodnosti, ki jih je pridobila na podlagi sheme amortizacije dobrega imena, ki izhajajo iz transakcij, ki jih je začela pred izjavami Komisije, je lahko po njih sklepala, da je bila ta negotovost neutemeljena, saj v zvezi s tem od nje ni mogoče pričakovati večje skrbnosti od Komisije.
In these specific circumstances, and bearing in mind that EU law does not require the demonstration of a causal link between the assurances given by a Community institution and the behaviour by citizens or undertakings to which such assurances relate, [143] any diligent entrepreneur could reasonably expect the Commission subsequently not to impose any recovery [144] as regards measures which it had itself previously classified, in a statement to another Community institution, as not constituting aid, irrespective of when the transaction benefiting from the aid measure was concluded.
V teh posebnih okoliščinah in ob upoštevanju, da se z zakonodajo EU ne zahteva dokaz vzročne povezave med jamstvi institucije Skupnosti in ravnanjem državljanov ali družb, ki jih zadevajo ta jamstva [143], lahko vsak skrben podjetnik upravičeno pričakuje, da Komisija naknadno ne bo uveljavljala nobenega vračila [144] v zvezi z ukrepi, ki jih je v izjavi za drugo institucijo sama predhodno opredelila, da ne pomenijo pomoči, ne glede na čas izvedbe transakcije, ki je imela koristi od ukrepa pomoči.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that some beneficiaries of the contested measure could have the legitimate expectation that the aid would not be recovered and hence is not requiring recovery of the tax aid granted to those beneficiaries in the context of any shareholdings held by a Spanish acquiring company, directly or indirectly in a foreign company, before the date of publication [145] in the Official Journal of the European Union of the Commission Decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, which could have then benefited from the contested measure.
V skladu s tem Komisija sklepa, da so nekateri upravičenci do spornega ukrepa lahko upravičeno pričakovali, da jim pomoči ne bo treba vrniti, in zato ne zahteva vračila davčne pomoči, dodeljene tem upravičencem v okviru vsakega deleža, ki ga je španska prevzemna družba imela neposredno ali posredno v tuji družbi pred datumom objave [145] odločitve Komisije o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave v skladu s členom 108(2) PDEU v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, in bi potem lahko imela koristi od spornega ukrepa.
Beyond these considerations, which are identical to those expressed in the previous Decision, the Commission takes the view that a series of additional factors should be taken into account.
Poleg teh premislekov, ki so enaki tistim, izraženim v prejšnji odločbi, Komisija meni, da je treba upoštevati več dodatnih dejavnikov.
In accordance with paragraph 117 of the previous Decision, although the Commission considered that the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties had provided insufficient evidence to justify different tax treatment of Spanish shareholding transactions and transactions between companies established within the European Union, the Commission stated that it could not ‘a priori completely exclude this differentiation as regards transactions concerning third countries.
Kot je navedeno v odstavku 117 prejšnje odločbe, čeprav je Komisija menila, da španski organi in 30 zainteresiranih strani niso zagotovili zadostnih dokazov za utemeljitev različne davčne obravnave španskih transakcij deležev in transakcij med družbami s sedežem v Evropski uniji, je navedla, da ne more „na prvi pogled popolnoma izključiti tega razlikovanja, kar zadeva transakcije v zvezi s tretjimi državami.
As a result, extra-Community acquisitions that could have led to the tax amortisation of goodwill — as in the case of a majority shareholding — may be excluded from this tax advantage because it is impossible to perform business combinations. Amortisation of financial goodwill for these transactions, which fall outside the Community factual and legal framework, may be necessary to ensure tax neutrality.’
Posledično bi bilo mogoče prevzeme zunaj Skupnosti, ki bi lahko vodili k davčni amortizaciji dobrega imena, kot v primeru večinskega deleža, izločiti iz te davčne prednosti, ker izvajanje poslovnih združitev ni mogoče.
The Commission concluded its analysis by stating in paragraph 119 of the previous Decision, which has been available on the Commission’s website since the beginning of January 2010, that ‘In this context, the Commission maintains the procedure, as initiated by the initiating Decision of 10 October 2007, open for extra-Community acquisitions in the light of new elements which the Spanish authorities have undertaken to provide as regards the obstacles to extra-Community cross-border mergers.
Amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena za te transakcije, ki so zunaj dejanskega in pravnega okvira Skupnosti, je lahko nujna za zagotavljanje davčne nevtralnosti.“ Komisija je ob koncu analize izjavila, kot je navedeno v odstavku 119 prejšnje odločbe, ki je od začetka januarja 2010 na voljo na spletni strani Komisije, da „[v] tem okviru Komisija ohranja postopek, kakor je bil sprožen z odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka z dne 10. oktobra 2007, odprt za prevzeme zunaj Skupnosti, ob upoštevanju novih elementov, ki so jih španski organi zagotovili v zvezi z ovirami za čezmejne združitve zunaj Skupnosti.
The procedure as opened on 10 October 2007 is therefore still ongoing for extra-Community acquisitions’.
Zato postopek, kot je bil sprožen 10. oktobra 2007, še vedno poteka za prevzeme zunaj Skupnosti.“
In paragraphs 115 to 119 of the previous Decision, the Commission indicated that there could be a differentiation between acquisition transactions which took place within the EU and those taking place outside the EU.
Komisija je v odstavkih od 115 do 119 prejšnje odločbe navedla, da je mogoče razlikovanje med transakcijami prevzema, ki potekajo znotraj EU, in tistimi, ki potekajo zunaj EU.
In particular, the Commission observed that ‘legal barriers to cross-border business combinations may persist, which would place cross-border transactions in a different legal and factual situation from intra-Community transactions’.
Komisija je zlasti opozorila, da „se lahko pravne ovire za čezmejne poslovne združitve ohranijo, zaradi česar bi bile čezmejne transakcije v drugačnem pravnem in dejanskem položaju kot transakcije znotraj Skupnosti“.
The references to the criteria of ‘legal barriers’ and ‘majority shareholding’ are particularly relevant in those specific circumstances.
Sklicevanja na merila „pravnih ovir“ in „večinskega deleža“ so v teh posebnih okoliščinah posebej upoštevna.
In the light of these specific and characteristic features of the present case, the Commission takes the view that the statement in paragraph 117 of the previous Decision could have given rise to legitimate expectations as regards the application of the contested aid scheme to transactions by Spanish companies in those third countries where there are explicit ‘legal barriers’ to cross-border business combinations and where a ‘majority shareholding’ has been acquired by the Spanish company concerned, irrespective of the date on which the transaction took place before the adoption of this Decision.
Ob upoštevanju teh posebnih in značilnih lastnosti te zadeve Komisija meni, da bi izjava iz odstavka 117 prejšnje odločbe lahko povzročila upravičena pričakovanja, kar zadeva uporabo sporne sheme pomoči za transakcije španskih družb v tistih tretjih državah, v katerih obstajajo izrecne „pravne ovire“ za čezmejne poslovne združitve in v katerih je zadevna španska družba pridobila „večinski delež“, ne glede na datum izvedbe transakcije pred sprejetjem tega sklepa.
On the basis of the information submitted by the Spanish authorities in the reports and without prejudice to the classification of the contested scheme as State aid and its application to individual transactions for the reasons outlined in paragraph 107, the Commission notes that, among the countries analysed, the legislation in force in two of them, i.e. India and China, presents explicit legal barriers to cross-border business combinations.
Komisija na podlagi informacij, ki so jih španski organi predložili v poročilih, ter brez poseganja v opredelitev sporne sheme kot državne pomoči in njeno uporabo za posamezne transakcije iz razlogov, opisanih v odstavku 107, ugotavlja, da med analiziranimi državami v zakonodaji dveh, in sicer Indije in Kitajske, obstajajo izrecne pravne ovire za čezmejne poslovne združitve.
In the light of the findings presented in paragraphs 119 and 120 and, the Commission concludes that, for transactions relating to those two countries, the beneficiaries of the contested measure which had acquired a majority shareholding could have the legitimate expectation that the aid would not be recovered.
Komisija ob upoštevanju ugotovitev iz odstavkov 119 in 120 ugotavlja, da so upravičenci do spornega ukrepa, ki so pridobili večinski delež, za transakcije v zvezi s tema državama lahko upravičeno pričakovali, da se pomoč ne bo vračala.
The same treatment will apply to those beneficiaries which have carried out a transaction in other third countries, which have acquired a majority shareholding and which can provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of an explicit legal barrier, within the meaning of this Decision, in the legislation of that third country.
Enako bodo obravnavani tisti upravičenci, ki so transakcijo izvedli v drugih tretjih državah, ki so pridobili večinski delež in ki lahko zagotovijo dovolj dokazov o obstoju izrecne pravne ovire v zakonodaji te tretje države v smislu tega sklepa.
For the countries mentioned in the reports, the Commission will take into account that, on the basis of the information provided by the Spanish authorities, it was not possible to identify such barriers, but is willing to examine further relevant evidence.
Komisija bo za države, navedene v poročilih, upoštevala, da na podlagi informacij, ki so jih predložili španski organi, takih ovir ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, vendar je pripravljena preučiti nadaljnje ustrezne dokaze.
For beneficiaries enjoying legitimate expectations either on the basis of the Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament or on the basis of the previous Decision, the Commission also considers that all those beneficiaries should continue to enjoy the benefits of the contested measure until the end of the amortisation period established by the measure.
V zvezi z upravičenci, ki imajo upravičena pričakovanja na podlagi izjav Komisije za poslance Evropskega parlamenta ali na podlagi prejšnje odločbe, Komisija prav tako meni, da morajo vsi ti upravičenci še naprej prejemati ugodnosti iz spornega ukrepa do konca obdobja amortizacije, kot ga določa ukrep.
The Commission acknowledges that the operations were planned and investments were made in the reasonable and legitimate expectation of a certain degree of continuity in the economic conditions, including the contested measure.
Komisija priznava, da so bile operacije načrtovane in naložbe izvedene v okviru razumnih in upravičenih pričakovanj z določeno stopnjo stalnosti v gospodarskih razmerah, vključno s spornim ukrepom.
Therefore, in line with the previous case law of the Court of Justice and Commission practice [146], in the absence of an overriding public interest [147], the Commission considers that the beneficiaries should be allowed to continue enjoying the benefits of the contested measure over the entire amortisation period provided by Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Zato Komisija v skladu s predhodno sodno prakso Sodišča in prakso Komisije [146] ob pomanjkanju prevladujočega javnega interesa [147] meni, da je treba upravičencem še naprej dovoliti prejemanje ugodnosti spornega ukrepa v celotnem obdobju amortizacije, kot je določeno v členu 12(5) TRLIS.
Moreover, the Commission considers that a reasonable transition period should be envisaged for companies enjoying legitimate expectations which had already acquired, in a long-term perspective, rights in foreign companies, and which had not held those rights for an uninterrupted period of at least 1 year on the date of the publication of the opening Decision (legitimate expectations arising from Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament) or on the date of publication of this Decision (legitimate expectations arising from the previous Decision).
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da je treba predvideti razumno prehodno obdobje za družbe, ki imajo upravičena pričakovanja ter so dolgoročno že pridobile pravice v tujih družbah in ki niso imele teh pravic v neprekinjenem obdobju vsaj enega leta od datuma objave odločitve o sprožitvi postopka (upravičena pričakovanja, ki izhajajo iz izjav Komisije za poslance Evropskega parlamenta) ali od datuma objave tega sklepa (upravičena pričakovanja, ki izhajajo iz prejšnje odločbe).
The Commission therefore considers that companies which fulfilled all other relevant conditions of Article 12(5) TRLIS by 21 December 2007, or respectively by the date of publication of this Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union, apart from the condition that they hold their shareholdings for an uninterrupted period of at least 1 year, should also benefit from legitimate expectations if they held those rights for an uninterrupted period of at least 1 year by 21 December 2008, or respectively 1 year after the publication of this Decision.
Zato Komisija meni, da morajo družbe, ki so do 21. decembra 2007 ali do datuma objave tega sklepa v Uradnem listu Evropske unije izpolnile vse druge pomembne pogoje iz člena 12(5) TRLIS, razen pogoja o lastništvu svojih deležev v neprekinjenem obdobju vsaj enega leta, prav tako uživati ugodnosti upravičenih pričakovanj, če so imele te pravice v neprekinjenem obdobju vsaj enega leta do 21. decembra 2008 ali eno leto po objavi tega sklepa.
On the other hand, in cases where a Spanish acquiring company does not enjoy legitimate expectations, any incompatible aid will be recovered from this beneficiary unless, firstly, an irrevocable obligation was entered into before 21 December 2007 (legitimate expectations arising from Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament) or before the date of publication of this Decision (legitimate expectations arising from the previous Decision) by a Spanish acquiring company to hold such rights and, secondly, the contract contained a suspensive condition linked to the fact that the operation in question is subject to the mandatory approval of a regulatory authority and, thirdly, the operation had been notified before 21 December 2007 (legitimate expectations arising from Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament) or before the publication of this Decision (legitimate expectations arising from the previous Decision).
Po drugi strani upravičenec v primerih, ko španska prevzemna družba ne uživa upravičenih pričakovanj, vsako nezdružljivo pomoč vrne, razen, prvič, če je pred 21. decembrom 2007 (upravičena pričakovanja, ki izhajajo iz izjav Komisije za poslance Evropskega parlamenta) ali pred datumom objave tega sklepa (upravičena pričakovanja izhajajo iz prejšnje odločbe) začela veljati nepreklicna obveznost španske prevzemne družbe za lastništvo teh pravic; drugič, če je pogodba vsebovala odložilni pogoj, da za zadevno operacijo velja obvezna odobritev regulativnega organa, in, tretjič, če je bila operacija priglašena pred 21. decembrom 2007 (upravičena pričakovanja, ki izhajajo iz izjav Komisije za poslance Evropskega parlamenta) ali pred objavo tega sklepa (upravičena pričakovanja, ki izhajajo iz prejšnje odločbe).
The Commission also considers that the contested measure does not constitute aid if, at the time beneficiaries enjoyed its advantages, all the conditions laid down by the legislation adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 [148], which was applicable at the time the tax reduction was utilised, were fulfilled.
Komisija prav tako meni, da sporni ukrep ne pomeni pomoči, če so bili med uživanjem ugodnosti upravičencev izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz zakonodaje, sprejete v skladu s členom 2 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 994/98 [148], ki je veljala ob izvajanju odbitka davka.
In the light of all the above considerations and as already highlighted in the previous Decision, in a given year, for a given beneficiary, the precise amount of the aid corresponds to the net discounted value of the reduction in the tax burden granted by the amortisation under Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Ob upoštevanju vseh zgoraj navedenih pomislekov in kot je že bilo poudarjeno v prejšnji odločbi, v danem letu in za danega upravičenca točen znesek pomoči ustreza neto znižani vrednosti davčne obremenitve, ki je bila odobrena z amortizacijo v skladu s členom 12(5) TRLIS.
For a given year and a given beneficiary, the nominal value of the aid corresponds to the tax reduction granted by the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS for rights in foreign companies that do not fulfil the conditions set out in the preceding paragraphs.
Nominalna vrednost pomoči za dano leto in danega upravičenca ustreza znižanemu davku, odobrenemu z uporabo člena 12(5) TRLIS, za pravice v tujih družbah, ki ne izpolnjujejo pogojev iz predhodnih odstavkov.
The discounted value is calculated by applying the interest rate to the nominal value, in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [149], as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 [150].
Znižana vrednost se izračuna z uporabo obrestne mere na nominalno vrednost v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [149], kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 271/2008 [150].
When calculating the tax burden of beneficiaries in the absence of the unlawful aid measure, the Spanish authorities must base themselves on the transactions that were carried out in the period prior to the publication of the opening Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union (legitimate expectations arising from Commission statements to Members of the European Parliament) or prior to the date of publication of this Decision (legitimate expectations arising from the previous Decision), as indicated above.
Pri izračunu davčne obremenitve upravičencev brez nezakonitega ukrepa pomoči se morajo španski organi opirati na transakcije, ki so bile izvedene v obdobju pred objavo odločitve o sprožitvi postopka v Uradnem listu Evropske unije (upravičena pričakovanja, ki izhajajo iz izjav Komisije za poslance Evropskega parlamenta) ali pred datumom objave tega sklepa (upravičena pričakovanja, ki izhajajo iz prejšnje odločbe), kot je navedeno zgoraj.
As clearly stated by the Court of Justice in the Unicredito judgment [151], these hypothetical considerations cannot be taken into account for the purposes of calculating aid.
Kot Sodišče jasno navaja v sodbi Unicredito [151], teh hipotetičnih pomislekov ni mogoče upoštevati za namene izračuna pomoči.
The Commission must consider that, in the light of the above-mentioned case law and the specific features of the case, Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes a State aid scheme within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, also to the extent that it applies to extra-EU acquisitions.
Komisija meni, da v smislu navedene sodne prakse in posebnosti zadeve člen 12(5) TRLIS pomeni shemo državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, tudi kolikor velja za prevzeme zunaj EU.
The Commission also finds that the contested measure, having been implemented in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU, constitutes an unlawful aid scheme to the extent that it applies to intra-EU acquisitions.
Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da sporni ukrep, ki je bil izveden v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU, pomeni nezakonito shemo pomoči, kolikor velja za prevzeme znotraj EU.