natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the Commission fails to recognise that the selectivity criterion is not determined by the fact that the beneficiary of the measure at issue is a group of companies or a multinational company that has a share in a target company.
Vendar Komisija ni ugotovila, da merila selektivnosti ne določa dejstvo, da je upravičenec do zadevnega ukrepa skupina družb ali večnacionalna družba z deležem v ciljni družbi.
The fact that a measure benefits only companies that comply with the objective criterion laid down in the measure at issue does not in itself make it selective.
Zaradi samega dejstva, da ukrep koristi le družbam, ki izpolnjujejo objektivno merilo iz zadevnega ukrepa, ukrep ni selektiven.
The selectivity criterion implies that subjective restrictions should be imposed on the beneficiary of the measure at issue.
Merilo selektivnosti pomeni, da morajo subjektivne omejitve veljati za upravičenca do zadevnega ukrepa.
The selectivity criterion created for this procedure is inconsistent with previous Commission practice and too vague and broad.
Merilo selektivnosti, oblikovano za ta postopek, ni skladno s predhodno prakso Komisije ter je preveč nejasno in presplošno.
Taking this concept further would lead to the erroneous conclusion that most tax deductible expenses fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Nadaljnja uporaba tega pojma bi povzročila napačno sklepanje, da večina odhodkov za davek, ki se odbijejo, spada na področje člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
The Spanish authorities add that the fact of limiting the amortisation of financial goodwill to that resulting from the acquisition of a significant shareholding in a target company is not sufficient to remove the general character of the measure at issue, since it applies indiscriminately to any company that is tax resident in Spain with no further requirements.
Španski organi dodajajo, da dejstvo omejevanja amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena na to, ki izhaja iz prevzema znatnega deleža v ciljni družbi, ne zadostuje za odpravo splošnega značaja zadevnega ukrepa, saj se brez razlikovanja uporablja za vse družbe, ki imajo davčni domicil v Španiji, brez dodatnih zahtev.
In line with the case-law of the European Court of Justice [25], a measure which benefits all undertakings in national territory, without distinction, cannot therefore constitute State aid.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti [25] ukrep, ki brez razlikovanja koristi vsem družbam na nacionalnem ozemlju, ne more pomeniti državne pomoči.
Thirdly, as regards the 5 % threshold, this level does not set a minimum amount to be invested and therefore the measure at issue does not benefit only large undertakings.
Tretjič, s 5-odstotno mejno vrednostjo ni določen najmanjši znesek, ki ga je treba vložiti, zato zadevni ukrep ne koristi le velikim družbam.
As for the fact that there is no requirement for the seller to pay capital gains in order for the measure at issue to apply, the Spanish authorities consider this to be irrelevant since control of income received abroad by a seller who is not liable for tax in Spain lies outside their field of competence.
V zvezi z dejstvom, da se od prodajalca ne zahteva plačilo kapitalskih dobičkov za uporabo zadevnega ukrepa, to po mnenju španskih organov ni pomembno, saj nadzor nad dohodki, ki jih v tujini prejme prodajalec, ki ni davčni zavezanec v Španiji, ni v njihovi pristojnosti.
Lastly, limiting the scope of a measure — for fiscal technical reasons — to shareholding acquisitions in target companies is consistent with the situation resulting from the implementation of various Community Directives.
Nazadnje, omejevanje področja uporabe ukrepa zaradi davčnih in tehničnih razlogov na prevzeme deleža v ciljnih družbah je v skladu z razmerami, ki so posledica izvajanja različnih direktiv Skupnosti.
For example, as a result of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States [26] (hereinafter the Cross-border Interest and Royalty Payments Directive) and Council Directive 2003/123/EC of 22 December 2003 amending Directive 90/435/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States [27] (hereinafter the Parents-Subsidiary Directive), the tax treatment of dividends, interests or royalties may differ according to whether the payment is made to a domestic or a foreign company.
Na primer, zaradi Direktive Sveta 2003/49/ES z dne 3. junija 2003 o skupnem sistemu obdavčevanja plačil obresti ter licenčnin med povezanimi družbami iz različnih držav članic [26] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Direktiva o čezmejnih plačilih obresti in licenčnin) in Direktive Sveta 2003/123/ES z dne 22. decembra 2003 o spremembah Direktive 90/435/EGS o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve matičnih družb in odvisnih družb iz različnih držav članic [27] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Direktiva o matičnih in odvisnih družbah) se lahko davčna obravnava dividend, obresti ali licenčnin razlikuje glede na to, ali je plačilo izvedeno za domačo ali tujo družbo.
Fourthly, the introduction of the measure at issue is in any case justified by the principle of neutrality, which underlies all Spanish tax legislation.
Četrtič, uvedbo zadevnega ukrepa vsekakor utemeljuje načelo nevtralnosti, ki je osnova celotne španske davčne zakonodaje.
This principle implies that the tax treatment of an investment should be neutral irrespective of the instruments used, whether transfer of assets, business combination or share acquisition.
To načelo pomeni, da mora biti davčna obravnava naložbe nevtralna ne glede na uporabljene instrumente, naj je to prenos sredstev, poslovna združitev ali prevzem deleža.
Therefore, the tax amortisation of an investment should be identical whatever the instrument used to carry out the acquisition in question.
Zato mora biti davčna amortizacija naložbe enaka ne glede na instrument, uporabljen za izvedbo zadevnega prevzema.
The final aim of the measure at issue, in this broader perspective, is to ensure the free movement of capital by avoiding discriminatory tax treatment between transactions with target companies and purely domestic transactions.
Gledano širše, je končni cilj zadevnega ukrepa zagotoviti prosti pretok kapitala z izognitvijo diskriminacijskemu davčnemu obravnavanju med transakcijami s ciljnimi družbami in izključno domačimi transakcijami.
Given that acquisitions of significant shareholdings in domestic companies could lead to a business combination of the acquiring and the acquired companies with no legal or fiscal barriers, the goodwill that would ensue for tax purposes as a result of the combination could be amortised [28].
Ob upoštevanju, da lahko prevzemi obsežnih deležev v domačih družbah vodijo v poslovno združitev prevzete in prevzemne družbe brez pravnih ali finančnih ovir, je mogoče dobro ime, ki bi sledilo za davčne namene kot posledica združitve, amortizirati [28].
However, goodwill of cross-border operations cannot arise because harmonisation at Community level is not complete or — even worse — because there is no harmonisation outside the Community.
Vendar dobro ime čezmejnih operacij ne more nastati, ker usklajenost na ravni Skupnosti ni dokončna ali, še slabše, ker zunaj Skupnosti usklajenosti ni.
According to the Spanish authorities [29], the Spanish tax system provides for different tax schemes, as in the case of shareholding acquisitions in foreign companies compared with acquisitions in Spanish companies (impossible to undertake merger operations, risk assumption, etc.), in order to achieve the tax neutrality sought by the Spanish domestic legislation and Community law itself and also in order to ensure that the Spanish tax system is consistent and efficient.
Po mnenju španskih organov [29] španski davčni sistem zagotavlja različne davčne sheme, kot v primeru prevzemov deležev v tujih družbah v primerjavi s prevzemi v španskih družbah (izvajanje operacij združitev, prevzema tveganja itd. ni mogoče), da bi dosegli davčno nevtralnost, za katero si prizadevata španska domača zakonodaja in samo pravo Skupnosti, ter tudi za zagotavljanje usklajenosti in učinkovitosti španskega davčnega sistema.
Although Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States [30] (hereinafter the Cross-border Taxation Directive) has removed tax barriers, Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies [31] (hereinafter the Cross-border Mergers Directive) [32] has not yet been transposed into national law.
Čeprav so bile z Direktivo Sveta 90/434/EGS z dne 23. julija 1990 o skupnem sistemu obdavčitve za združitve, delitve, prenose sredstev in zamenjave kapitalskih deležev družb iz različnih držav članic [30] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Direktiva o čezmejni obdavčitvi) odpravljene davčne ovire, Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2005/56/ES z dne 26. oktobra 2005 o čezmejnih združitvah kapitalskih družb [31] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Direktiva o čezmejnih združitvah) [32] še ni bila prenesena v nacionalno zakonodajo.
In practice, this situation makes business combinations between companies from different Member States impossible.
V praksi take razmere onemogočajo poslovne združitve med družbami iz različnih držav članic.
Therefore, the aim of the measure at issue is to remove the negative impact of these barriers, for whose existence Spain is not answerable [33].
Zato je namen zadevnega ukrepa odpraviti negativen vpliv teh ovir, za katere Španija ni odgovorna [33].
Consequently, limiting the scope of the measure at issue to cross-border acquisitions is necessary to enforce the neutrality principle.
Posledično je omejevanje področja uporabe zadevnega ukrepa na čezmejne prevzeme nujno za izvajanje načela nevtralnosti.
In this way, still according to the Spanish authorities, the Spanish tax system treats differently taxpayers who are in different situations [34], thereby ensuring that the Spanish tax system is neutral as required by the Spanish tax system itself and the Treaty.
Tako – še vedno po mnenju španskih organov – španski davčni sistem različno obravnava davčne zavezance v različnih položajih [34], s čimer se zagotavlja njegova nevtralnost, kot se zahteva s samim sistemom in Pogodbo.
In particular, on 16 June 2009 the Spanish authorities acknowledged that although the Cross-border Mergers Directive had a positive impact, European companies would still face a number of obstacles [35] to cross-border mergers because of non-harmonisation of national legislation (rights of minority shareholders, rights of creditors, trademark issues, wider regulatory aspects including labour law, general political and strategic considerations).
Zlasti pa so španski organi 16. junija 2009 priznali, da se bodo evropske družbe kljub pozitivnemu učinku Direktive o čezmejnih združitvah še vedno spopadale s številnimi ovirami [35] pri čezmejnih združitvah zaradi neusklajenosti nacionalne zakonodaje (pravice manjšinskih delničarjev, pravice upnikov, vprašanja blagovnih znamk, širši regulativni vidiki, vključno z delovnim pravom, splošni politični in strateški pomisleki).
To conclude, the contested measure is designed to remove the tax barriers that the Spanish tax system generates in investment decisions by penalising share acquisitions in foreign companies as opposed to acquisitions in domestic companies.
Za zaključek, namen izpodbijanega akta je odpraviti davčne ovire, ki jih španski davčni sistem ustvarja pri odločitvah o naložbah, tako da v nasprotju s prevzemi v domačih družbah kaznuje prevzeme deležev v tujih družbah.
The measure at issue guarantees the same tax treatment for both types of acquisition (direct acquisitions of assets and indirect acquisitions by purchasing shareholdings): goodwill arising from both of them (direct goodwill and financial goodwill) can thus be identified in order to promote the integration of the different markets, until factual and legal barriers to cross-border business combinations have been removed.
Zadevni ukrep zagotavlja enako davčno obravnavo za obe vrsti prevzemov (neposredni prevzemi sredstev in posredni prevzemi z nakupom deležev): dobro ime, ki izhaja iz obeh vrst prevzemov (neposredno dobro ime in finančno dobro ime), je tako mogoče opredeliti za pospeševanje vključevanja različnih trgov, dokler se dejanske in pravne ovire za čezmejne poslovne združitve ne odpravijo.
The Spanish authorities thus ensure that taxpayers can opt to invest at local or cross-border level without being affected by these barriers.
Španski organi tako zagotavljajo, da lahko davčni zavezanci izbirajo med naložbo na lokalni ali čezmejni ravni, ne da bi nanje vplivale te ovire.
Article 12(5) TRLIS basically restores fair conditions of competition by eliminating the adverse impacts of the barriers.
S členom 12(5) TRLIS se z odpravo škodljivih učinkov ovir dejansko obnavljajo pošteni pogoji konkurenčnosti.
The measure at issue neither distorts competition nor affects Community trade
Zadevni ukrep ne izkrivlja konkurence niti ne vpliva na trgovino Skupnosti
The Spanish authorities state that the Commission has not established to the requisite legal standard that Article 12(5) TRLIS restricts competition, as (i) the alleged ‘market for the acquisition of shares in companies’ does not constitute a relevant market for the purposes of competition law; and (ii) even if this were the case, the amortisation of financial goodwill does not per se affect the competitive position of Spanish undertakings.
Španski organi navajajo, da Komisija ni opredelila zahtevanega zakonskega standarda, da se s členom 12(5) TRLIS omejuje konkurenca, ker (i) domnevni „trg za prevzeme deležev v družbah“ ni ustrezni trg za namene konkurenčnega prava; in (ii) čeprav bi bilo tako, amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena sama po sebi ne vpliva na konkurenčni položaj španskih družb.
First, the Commission qualified the measure at issue as an anti-competitive advantage on the grounds that Article 12(5) allows Spanish taxpayers to obtain a premium for the acquisition of significant shareholdings in a target company.
Prvič, Komisija je označila zadevni ukrep kot protikonkurenčno prednost, ker se s členom 12(5) španskim davčnim zavezancem omogoča pridobitev premije za prevzem obsežnega deleža v ciljni družbi.
However, the Commission did not carry out any benchmarking study on the economic circumstances of Spanish and international companies.
Vendar Komisija ni izvedla primerjalne študije o gospodarskem položaju španskih in mednarodnih družb.
Second, since the measure at issue is open to any Spanish company with no restrictions, it cannot distort competition.
Drugič, zadevni ukrep ne more izkrivljati konkurence, ker je brez omejitev na voljo vsem španskim družbam.
Indeed, any company in the same situation as a beneficiary of the measure at issue can benefit from the measure, thus reducing its tax burden, which would cancel any competitive advantage that might derive from it.
Seveda ima lahko vsaka družba v enakem položaju kot upravičenec do zadevnega ukrepa korist od ukrepa in tako zmanjša svojo davčno obremenitev, kar bi onemogočilo vsako konkurenčno prednost, ki bi lahko izhajala iz tega ukrepa.
In addition, a lower rate of taxation in a Member State that can increase the competitive edge of local companies should not come under State aid rules as long as it is of a general nature.
Poleg tega za nižjo stopnjo obdavčitve v državi članici, ki lahko poveča konkurenčno prednost lokalnih družb, ne smejo veljati pravila o državni pomoči, če je splošne narave.
Finally, the Commission has already examined many Spanish cross-border operations under the Merger Regulation [36] that could have benefited from the measure at issue.
Nazadnje, Komisija je na podlagi Uredbe o združitvah [36] že preučila veliko španskih čezmejnih operacij, ki bi lahko imele koristi od zadevnega ukrepa.
Yet the Commission did not raise any concerns about potential distortions of competition in any of these cases.
Vendar Komisija v nobenem od zadevnih primerov ni bila zaskrbljena zaradi mogočega izkrivljanja konkurence.
The Commission’s allegations are not only far removed from reality but also out of touch with the investment situation of Spanish companies.
Navedbe Komisije so ne le daleč od resničnosti, ampak tudi niso realne glede na položaj v zvezi z naložbami v španskih družbah.
The measure at issue neither distorts competition nor adversely affects intra-Community trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Zadevni ukrep ne izkrivlja konkurence niti nima škodljivih učinkov na trgovinske pogoje znotraj Skupnosti v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
In a non-harmonised market, as a result of competition between tax systems, identical operations have a different fiscal impact depending on where traders are resident.
Na neusklajenem trgu, ki je posledica konkurence med davčnimi sistemi, imajo enake operacije različne davčne posledice, ki so odvisne od sedeža trgovcev.
This situation distorts competition even if the national measures at stake are general measures.
Tak položaj izkrivlja konkurenco, čeprav so zadevni nacionalni ukrepi splošne narave.
In other words, this distortion is not the result of State aid but of a lack of harmonisation.
Z drugimi besedami, to izkrivljanje ni posledica državne pomoči, ampak je posledica pomanjkanja usklajenosti.
If the Commission’s reasoning were followed through, it would have to open formal investigations into hundreds of national measures, which would create a situation of legal uncertainty that is highly detrimental to foreign investment.
Če bi se obrazložitve Komisije nadaljevale, bi bilo treba sprožiti formalne preiskave o stotinah nacionalnih ukrepov, kar bi povzročilo pravno negotovost, ki bi bila izjemno škodljiva za tuje naložbe.
Even if the Commission considers that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, this provision is compatible with Article 87(3) of the Treaty since it contributes to the Community interest of promoting the integration of international companies.
Čeprav Komisija meni, da člen 12(5) TRLIS pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe, je ta določba združljiva s členom 87(3) Pogodbe, ker prispeva k interesu Skupnosti za pospeševanje povezovanja mednarodnih družb.
As stated in the State Aid Action Plan [37], a measure can be considered compatible if it addresses a market failure, if it fulfils clearly defined objectives of common interest and if it does not distort intra-Community competition and trade to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Ukrep je mogoče obravnavati kot združljiv, če odpravlja tržno nepopolnost, izpolnjuje jasno opredeljene cilje skupnega interesa ter znotraj Skupnosti ne izkrivlja konkurence in trgovine v obsegu, ki je v nasprotju s skupnim interesom, kot je navedeno v Akcijskem načrtu državnih pomoči [37].
In the case at hand, the market failure is the difficulty (or virtual impossibility) of carrying out cross-border business combinations.
V zadevnem primeru pomeni tržna nepopolnost težavo (ali dejansko nezmožnost) pri izvajanju čezmejnih poslovnih združitev.
The effect of Article 12(5) TRLIS is to promote the creation of pan-European undertakings, by putting domestic and cross-border acquisitions on the same footing.
Učinek člena 12(5) TRLIS je pospeševanje vzpostavljanja vseevropskih družb z vzpostavljanjem enakopravnosti pri domačih in čezmejnih prevzemih.
Therefore, for the Spanish authorities, Article 12(5) TRLIS is compatible with the common market since, in the absence of European tax harmonisation, it achieves the objective of breaking down barriers to cross-border investment in a proportionate manner.
Torej je po mnenju španskih organov člen 12(5) TRLIS združljiv s skupnim trgom, ker ob neobstoječem evropskem davčnem usklajevanju sorazmerno dosega cilj odpravljanja ovir za čezmejne naložbe.
The measure at issue is effectively aimed at removing the adverse impact of barriers to cross-border business combinations and aligning the tax treatment of cross-border and local business combinations in order to ensure that the decisions taken as regards such operations are based not on fiscal considerations but exclusively on economic considerations.
Učinkovita namena zadevnega ukrepa sta odpravljanje škodljivega učinka ovir za čezmejne poslovne združitve ter usklajevanje davčne obravnave čezmejnih in lokalnih poslovnih združitev z namenom zagotoviti, da sprejete odločitve v zvezi s takšnimi operacijami temeljijo izključno na ekonomskih razmislekih, in ne na davčnih razmislekih.
Legitimate expectations and legal certainty
Upravičena pričakovanja in pravna varnost
Finally, and in the event that the Commission declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid incompatible with the common market, the Commission must acknowledge the existence of certain circumstances that justify the non-recovery of the alleged State aid received pursuant to Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Nazadnje, če Komisija izjavi, da člen 12(5) TRLIS pomeni državno pomoč, ki je nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, mora Komisija priznati obstoj nekaterih okoliščin, ki utemeljujejo nevračilo domnevne državne pomoči, prejete v skladu s členom 12(5) TRLIS.
The beneficiaries should have the right to complete the exceptional amortisation of the financial goodwill corresponding to acquisitions made before the date of publication of the final decision.
Upravičenci morajo imeti pravico do zaključka izredne amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena glede na prevzeme, opravljene pred datumom objave končne odločbe.
Firstly, the Commission seems to recognise, in the initiating Decision, the probable existence of legitimate expectations.
Prvič, Komisija v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka očitno priznava verjeten obstoj upravičenih pričakovanj.
Therefore, in line with the case-law of the Court of First Instance [38], this statement constitutes a clear indication of the existence of legitimate expectations.
Zato ta izjava v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča prve stopnje [38] pomeni jasen znak obstoja upravičenih pričakovanj.
Since the initiating Decision does not prejudge the outcome of the formal investigation, legitimate expectations should be recognised for all the operations that took place before the date of publication of the final decision.
Ker v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka niso prejudicirani rezultati formalne preiskave, je treba upravičena pričakovanja priznati za vse operacije, ki so bile opravljene pred datumom objave končne odločbe.
Secondly, in its answers to written questions from MEPs [39], the Commission stated that Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute State aid.
Drugič, Komisija je v odgovorih na pisna vprašanja poslancev Evropskega parlamenta [39] navedla, da člen 12(5) TRLIS ne pomeni državne pomoči.
This statement constitutes a clear position from the Commission which offers obvious legitimate expectations to the Spanish authorities and the beneficiaries of the measure at issue.
Ta izjava pomeni jasno stališče Komisije, ki španskim organom in upravičencem do zadevnega ukrepa omogoča očitna upravičena pričakovanja.
Thirdly, in line with the conclusion reached by the Commission in similar cases [40], the Commission has provided a set of indirect evidence that Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute State aid.
Tretjič, Komisija je v skladu s sklepom, ki ga je sprejela v podobnih primerih [40], zagotovila niz posrednih dokazov, da člen 12(5) TRLIS ne pomeni državne pomoči.
In view of these Decisions, a prudent undertaking would not have been able to predict that the Commission could take an opposite position.
Glede na navedene odločbe preudarna družba ne bi mogla predvidevati, da bi lahko Komisija sprejela nasprotno stališče.
Finally, the measure at issue should continue to apply to all operations prior to the publication date of a negative decision until amortisation of the financial goodwill is completed.
Nazadnje, zadevni ukrep je treba še naprej uporabljati za vse operacije pred datumom objave negativne odločbe, dokler amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena ni končana.