natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this respect, Belgium emphasizes that in this case the authorities did not have and did not use any discretionary or arbitrary powers in applying VAT law.
V zvezi s tem Belgija poudarja, da v tem primeru uprava niti ni imela in ni uporabila diskrecijske pravice niti ni ravnala samovoljno pri uporabi davčnega zakona o DDV.
According to Belgium, the measure under investigation is justified also by the nature and structure of the Belgian tax system.
Po mnenju Belgije sta obravnavani ukrep utemeljevali narava in struktura belgijskega davčnega sistema.
Under any administrative procedure, it is logical to expect a correct solution as soon as possible, which contributes to legal certainty while ensuring strict procedural compliance and effective recovery of the tax.
Logično je, da se v vsakem upravnem postopku pričakuje čim hitrejša dosega zadovoljivega rezultata, ki prispeva k pravni varnosti ter obenem zagotavlja dosledno spoštovanje gospodarnosti postopka in učinkovito izterjavo davka.
The agreements concluded with taxpayers such as Umicore ultimately serve the purpose of avoiding protracted and indecisive legal disputes.
Navsezadnje je namen sporazumov, sklenjenih z davčnimi zavezanci, kot je družba Umicore, izogniti se tveganjem dolgih sodnih sporov z negotovim izidom.
The Belgian authorities point out that, to the best of their knowledge, the European competitors of Umicore supplied fine silver to the same Italian customers as Umicore and under the same terms, and that the VAT situation of those producers has not been the object of any adjustment applied by their national authorities on the ground that the fraud occurred in Italy and not at the producers.
Belgija navaja, da so po njenih informacijah evropski konkurenti družbe Umicore pod enakimi pogoji dobavljali čisto srebro istim italijanskim strankam kot družba Umicore in da davčni položaj teh proizvajalcev na področju DDV ni bil predmet poravnave z nacionalnimi organi z obrazložitvijo, da je goljufija potekala v Italiji, ne pri proizvajalcih.
Because it accepted to pay a significant fine, while its competitors paid neither VAT nor any administrative fines, Umicore was certainly not an aid recipient, but the object of a measure that affected its competitive position in the relevant market. If there was any distortion of trade, it was to its disadvantage.
S tem ko je družba Umicore sprejela plačilo visoke globe, njeni konkurenti pa niso plačali ne DDV ne upravne globe, nikakor ni dobila pomoči, ampak je bila predmet ukrepa, ki je škodil njenemu konkurenčnemu položaju na zadevnem trgu, in če je ukrep vplival na trgovino, je bil ta vpliv v njeno škodo.
Belgium considers therefore that the measure does not meet any of the conditions required in order to establish the existence of State aid under the Treaty.
Zato po mnenju Belgije ta ukrep ne izpolnjuje nobenega od pogojev, ki so potrebni, da se ugotovi obstoj državne pomoči na podlagi Pogodbe.
The case does not involve any transfer of resources, advantage, selectivity or distortion of competition or trade between Member States.
Ta primer namreč ne zajema nobenega prenosa sredstev, prednosti, selektivnosti, izkrivljanja konkurence ali vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
General comment on the application of Article 107 of the Treaty to tax agreements
Splošna pripomba v zvezi z uporabo člena 107 Pogodbe za davčne sporazume
Belgium concludes that if the Commission intends henceforth to attack the very mechanism of tax settlements, even though it is widely used and essential for the proper functioning of tax collection by any tax authorities, in order to assess the substantive application of law it will have, in each case, to substitute itself for the national court acting as ‘appeal court’ for decisions by national authorities.
Nazadnje Belgija ugotavlja, da bo morala Komisija, če namerava izpodbijati mehanizem davčnih poravnav, ki je sicer zelo razširjen in bistven za dobro delovanje pobiranja davkov v vsaki davčni upravi, za presojo materialne uporabe prava v vsaki zadevi nadomestiti nacionalno sodišče ter delovati kot „prizivno sodišče“ za odločbe nacionalne uprave.
Outline of the general background
Splošno ozadje
Umicore begins by pointing out that, under the current practice developed in the area of international trade in precious metals, deliveries take place at the plant (‘ex works’), the transportation of the goods being taken care of by the buyer.
Družba Umicore najprej opozarja, da se v skladu z običajno prakso, ki se je razvila v sektorju mednarodne trgovine s plemenitimi kovinami, dobava opravi v tovarni (po klavzuli franko tovarna), kar pomeni, da kupec poskrbi za prevoz blaga.
This type of sale appears to be very risky under the new VAT system for intra-Community supplies.
Izkazalo se je, da je ta vrsta prodaje v novem sistemu DDV za dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti zelo tvegana.
The seller has to prove the reality of the transport operation, but in this case the documents proving the transport operation are in the possession of the buyer (given that, since 1993, the ultimate proof of transport, namely the customs stamp on the export document, no longer applies to intra-Community supplies).
Resničnost prevoza mora namreč dokazati prodajalec, dokumente, ki dokazujejo prevoz, pa ima v tem primeru kupec (saj od leta 1993 za dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti ne obstaja več odločilen dokaz o prevozu, to je carinski žig na izvoznem dokumentu).
As regards the proof of transport of the goods, more particularly, Umicore emphasizes that it submitted to the Special Tax Inspectorate very detailed documentation justifying the transport.
Posebej v zvezi z dokazom o prevozu blaga družba Umicore poudarja, da je Posebni davčni inšpektorat predloži zelo podrobno dokumentacijo, s katero se dokazuje ta prevoz.
Umicore also mentions that it acted in good faith in connection with the disputed transactions, as witness the 10 % fine indicated in the adjustment notices, which applies only to taxable persons who act in good faith.
Poleg tega družba Umicore navaja, da je sporne transakcije opravila v dobri veri, kar naj bi dokazovala 10-odstotna globa v zahtevkih za poravnavo, saj se ta globa uporabi, kadar davčni zavezanec ravna v dobri veri.
In this context, Umicore also points out that it cooperated spontaneously with the Italian legal authorities, which, convinced of its good faith, did not proceed against it.
V teh okoliščinah družba Umicore še pojasnjuje, da je prostovoljno sodelovala z italijanskimi sodnimi organi, ki proti njej zaradi prepričanja, da je ravnala v dobri veri, niso uvedli postopka.
Umicore also underscores that, in its opinion, the Italian authorities are liable to the extent that they did not cancel the VAT numbers of the fictitious Italian companies as soon as serious irregularities were found by the Italian tax authorities.
Družba Umicore tudi poudarja, da je po njenem mnenju odgovorna Italija, ker izmišljenim italijanskim družbam ni odvzela identifikacijske številke za DDV, takoj ko so njeni davčni organi ugotovili hude nepravilnosti.
Umicore also maintains that other competing silver producers, established in other Member States, carried out deliveries to the same Swiss and Italian intermediaries under the same circumstances and terms as those of the deliveries carried out by itself but their deliveries have not been questioned by their tax authorities.
Trdi še, da so drugi konkurenčni proizvajalci srebra s sedeži v drugih državah članicah v enakih okoliščinah in pod enakimi pogoji dobavljali istim švicarskim in italijanskim posrednikom kot družba Umicore, ne da bi njihove davčne uprave izpodbijale te dobave.
It is therefore unacceptable for Umicore, after having paid BEF 423 million (EUR 10485896), to be considered a State aid recipient when those other competing companies escape any prosecution.
Zato se zdi družbi Umicore, ki je plačala 423 milijonov BEF (10485896 EUR), nesprejemljivo, da se obravnava kot prejemnik državne pomoči, druge konkurenčne družbe pa so se izognile pregonu.
Finally, Umicore agrees with the comments submitted by Belgium, according to which an adjustment notice, contrary to a constraining order, does not in any way create a VAT debt under Belgian law.
Nazadnje se družba Umicore pridružuje pripombam Belgije, da po belgijskem pravu zahtevek za poravnavo v nasprotju s prisilnim ukrepom ne povzroči nastanka dolga DDV.
Procedure followed by the Special Tax Inspectorate
Postopek Posebnega davčnega inšpektorata
Umicore’s arguments are similar to those made by Belgium in respect of the legality and validity of VAT agreements concluded between the authorities and taxable persons.
Družba Umicore v zvezi z zakonitostjo in veljavnostjo sporazumov na področju DDV med upravo in davčnimi zavezanci navaja podobne argumente kot Belgija.
The interested party recalls that such agreements may apply only to factual questions such as the proof of transport for intra-Community supplies (and the resulting tax base).
Zadevna stran opozarja, da se taki sporazumi lahko nanašajo le na dejanska vprašanja, kot je dokaz o prevozu na področju dobav blaga znotraj Skupnosti (in s tem povezano davčno osnovo).
In this context, Umicore states that the practice of concluding such agreements is widespread, including at the level of the Special Tax Inspectorate services [42].
V teh okoliščinah družba Umicore pojasnjuje, da je sklepanje takih sporazumov zelo razširjeno, tudi na ravni služb Posebnega davčnega inšpektorata [42].
The interested party also mentions that the validity and legality of reductions in administrative fines, in exchange for an agreement with the taxpayer in respect of the amount, are confirmed by case law [43].
Zadevna stran tudi pojasnjuje, da se s sodno prakso potrjujeta veljavnost in zakonitost zmanjšanja upravnih glob v zameno za sporazum z davčnim zavezancem glede zneska [43].
Finally, as regards the factoring-in of the tax deductibility of the payable amount, Umicore emphasizes the following:
Nazadnje v zvezi z upoštevanjem možnosti odbitka davka od zneska, ki ga je treba plačati, družba Umicore poudarja, da:
the Special Tax Inspectorate does not have only VAT competences, but also competences relating to income tax,
Posebni davčni inšpektorat ni pristojen le za DDV, ampak tudi za davek od dohodka,
instead of requesting that Umicore pay a gross amount before income tax, which would have been tax deductible, the Special Tax Inspectorate accepted the payment of a net amount, after tax, provided that, of course, as specified in the agreement, the net amount was not itself tax deductible.
je Posebni davčni inšpektorat, namesto da bi od družbe Umicore zahteval plačilo bruto zneska pred davkom od dohodka, ki bi se lahko odbil od davka, sprejel plačilo neto zneska po plačilu davka, seveda pod pogojem, kot je zapisano v sporazumu, da tega neto zneska ni mogoče odbiti od davka.
In return, Umicore accepted to pay the (net) amount within a very short period (a week), which did not violate any applicable legal provision.
Družba Umicore je v zameno sprejela, da bo (neto) znesek plačala v zelo kratkem roku (v tistem tednu), kar naj ne bi kršilo nobene veljavne zakonske določbe na tem področju.
Umicore considers that the amount of BEF 423 million represents VAT owed for the period 1995-96 and that the Special Tax Inspectorate exempted Umicore from paying late interest pursuant to Article 84a of the VAT Code and a proportional fine (of 10 %) pursuant to Article 9 of the Regent’s Decree.
Družba Umicore meni, da je 423 milijonov BEF znesek dolgovanega DDV za leti 1995–1996 ter da jo je Posebni davčni inšpektorat oprostil plačila zamudnih obresti na podlagi člena 84a belgijskega zakonika o DDV in sorazmerne globe (10 %) na podlagi člena 9 regentovega odloka.
As regards the reduction of the VAT owed from BEF 708 million to BEF 423 million, Umicore stresses that it is justified by the fact that the VAT claim established when Umicore invoiced the VAT to Italian and Swiss buyers remains unpaid and is therefore tax deductible.
Družba Umicore v zvezi z znižanjem zneska dolgovanega DDV s 708 milijonov BEF na 423 milijonov BEF poudarja, da je ta odbitek upravičen, ker terjatev, ki je nastala, ko je družba Umicore italijanskim in švicarskim kupcem obračunala DDV, ni bila plačana in se je zato odštela pred plačilom davka.
In connection with the years 1997-98, Umicore states that the adjustment notice of 30 April 1999 has not been acted upon, since the taxable person provided appropriate evidence that the sales in question could be exempted from VAT pursuant to Article 39a of the VAT Code.
Družba Umicore za leti 1997–1998 pojasnjuje, da zahtevek za poravnavo z dne 30. aprila 1999 ni bil izveden, ker je zavezanka ustrezno dokazala, da so zadevne prodaje lahko oproščene plačila DDV na podlagi člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
Umicore considers that a tax agreement such as the agreement at issue does not constitute an advantage within the meaning of the TFEU and therefore it is not State aid.
Družba Umicore meni, da davčni sporazum, kakršen je zadevni, ni prednost v smislu PDEU, zato ne spada v pojem državne pomoči.
In particular, Umicore disputes the Commission’s allegation that the tax agreement at issue placed the company in a more favourable position than other taxpayers.
Zlasti se ne strinja s trditvijo Komisije, da je zaradi zadevnega davčnega sporazuma v ugodnejšem finančnem položaju kot drugi davčni zavezanci.
First, Umicore states that in reality the Special Tax Inspectorate itself assessed the tax agreement as more advantageous for the Treasury than the launching of a procedure whose final outcome risked being less favourable.
Prvič, družba Umicore pojasnjuje, da je Posebni davčni inšpektorat ocenil, da je za državno blagajno davčni sporazum ugodnejši od nadaljevanja postopka, katerega dokončni izid bi lahko bil manj ugoden.
Second, the possibility of concluding a tax agreement and reaching a compromise does not constitute in itself an advantage specific to Umicore. Such agreements are available to all taxable persons and are a current and normal practice in the field of VAT.
Drugič, možnost popuščanja in sklenitve davčnega sporazuma sama po sebi ni posebna prednost za družbo Umicore, saj so taki sporazumi običajno dostopni vsem davčnim zavezancem ter so redna in običajna praksa na področju DDV.
Third, a settlement agreement, by its very nature, does not grant any advantage capable of being caught by the State aid rules.
Tretjič, sporazum o poravnavi po naravi ne daje nobene prednosti, na katero bi se lahko nanašala pravila o državnih pomočeh.
By definition, any decision to compromise involves assessing the risks for each of the parties in question by comparing a certain and immediate payment with the supposed or possible outcome of a legal dispute.
Po definiciji naj bi pri vseh odločitvah o popuščanju vsaka zadevna stran ocenila tveganja, povezana z zanesljivim in takojšnjim plačilom na eni strani in domnevno ali mogočo rešitvijo spora na drugi strani.
Umicore considers, therefore, that it is an error to describe the terms of a settlement as an ‘advantage’, except in exceptional situations where one party derives from that settlement an outcome that is obviously superior to what it could expect from a legal dispute.
Zato je po mnenju družbe Umicore nepošteno pogoje poravnave opredeliti kot „prednost“, razen v izjemnih primerih, ko ena stran s poravnavo doseže očitno boljši rezultat, kot bi ga lahko dosegla v sporu.
According to Umicore, the Commission presupposes that if the tax dispute had had to be brought before the Belgian courts, by way of an appeal against the administrative decision, the court seized would necessarily have sentenced Umicore to pay a larger amount than that based on the agreement concluded between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore.
Po mnenju družbe Umicore Komisija domneva, da bi, če bi o davčnem sporu zaradi pritožbe zoper upravno odločbo odločala belgijska sodišča, moralo sodišče, ki bi zadevo obravnavalo, družbo Umicore obsoditi na plačilo višjega zneska, kot je znesek iz sporazuma med Posebnim davčnim inšpektoratom in družbo Umicore.
To reach such a conclusion, the Commission would have to substitute its own assessment for that of the national authorities or even that of the national courts, as applicable.
Vendar bi morala Komisija za tako ugotovitev presojo nacionalne uprave ali celo, če bi bilo potrebno, presojo nacionalnega sodišča nadomestiti s svojo presojo.
Fourth, Umicore refers to the case Déménagements-Manutention Transport SA (DMT) [44], where the Court of Justice concluded that by granting payment facilities to the company in question the ONSS [45] acted as a public creditor which, like a private creditor, sought to obtain the amounts owed to it by a debtor in financial difficulty.
Četrtič, družba Umicore se sklicuje na zadevo Déménagements-Manutention Transport SA [44] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zadeva DMT), v kateri je Sodišče menilo, da je ONSS [45], ko je zadevnemu podjetju dodelil plačilne olajšave, ravnal kot javni upnik, ki tako kot zasebni upnik želi doseči plačilo zneskov, ki mu jih dolguje dolžnik v finančnih težavah.
The Court then decided that it was for the national courts to determine whether the payment facilities were clearly more significant than those that the company could obtain from a private creditor.
Sodišče naj bi nato odločilo, da mora nacionalno sodišče ugotoviti, ali so bile te plačilne olajšave očitno ugodnejše od olajšav, ki bi jih zasebni upnik priznal tej družbi.
Following the reasoning of the Court, Umicore estimates that in the present case the Special Tax Inspectorate, acting as a public creditor which seeks to obtain the amounts owed to it just like a private creditor, opted for the immediate payment of a net amount instead of a gross amount, which made the recovery of the amount certain and very fast.
Družba Umicore je sklepala enako kot Sodišče in menila, da se je v tem primeru Posebni davčni inšpektorat, ki je ravnal kot javni upnik, ki skuša doseči plačilo dolgovanih zneskov tako kot zasebni upnik, odločil za takojšnje plačilo neto zneska namesto bruto zneska, kar mu je omogočilo zanesljivo in izjemno hitro izterjavo.
This behaviour is therefore rational and cautious from an economic standpoint, and comparable with the behaviour of a hypothetical private creditor in the same situation.
Tako ravnanje naj bi bilo ekonomsko razumno in previdno ter primerljivo z ravnanjem hipotetičnega zasebnega upnika v enakem položaju.
Umicore considers that the selectivity criterion has clearly not been met in this case, since the tax agreement at issue is only one specific application of a general scheme available to all taxpayers in the same situation and the Special Tax Inspectorate does not exercise any discretionary powers when compromising.
V tem primeru družba Umicore meni, da v tej zadevi merilo selektivnosti očitno ni izpolnjeno, kajti zadevni davčni sporazum je le posebna uporaba splošne ureditve, dostopne vsem davčnim zavezancem v enakem položaju, za davčnega zavezanca, in da, kadar Posebni davčni inšpektorat popušča, ne uporablja diskrecijske pravice.
Even if the measure at issue were considered selective, it would still be justified by the nature and structure of the system.
Tudi če bi bil zadevni ukrep selektiven, bi bil upravičen zaradi narave in strukture sistema.
According to Umicore, even if it is selective, a tax measure should be considered as not conferring an advantage as long as it has been demonstrated that it contributes to the effectiveness of tax recovery [46].
Po mnenju družbe Umicore je treba šteti, da davčni ukrep, čeprav je selektiven, ne daje prednosti, če se dokaže, da prispeva k učinkovitosti izterjave davka [46].
In the present case, Umicore considers that the measure is justified by the nature and structure of the system to the extent that the agreement concluded contributed to the effective recovery of tax [47].
V tem primeru družba Umicore meni, da je ukrep upravičen zaradi narave in strukture sistema, saj je sklenjeni sporazum prispeval k učinkoviti izterjavi davka [47].
Exceeding of powers
Zloraba pooblastil
Umicore states that interpreting the concept of State aid as including a tax agreement such as the one concluded with the Special Tax Inspectorate would inevitably lead the Commission to exceed its powers by assuming a competence in respect of the recovery of indirect taxes which it does not have, and to encroach upon the prerogatives of the national courts, which are alone competent to decide on tax disputes.
Družba Umicore trdi, da bi razlaga pojma državna pomoč, ki vključuje davčni sporazum, kakršen je bil sklenjen s Posebnim davčnim inšpektoratom, neizogibno povzročila, da bi Komisija prekoračila svoje pristojnosti in si prisvojila pristojnost na področju izterjave posrednih davkov, ki je nima, ter posegla v pravico nacionalnih sodišč, ki so edina pristojna za odločanje o davčnih sporih.
Absence of effect on competition or trade
Odsotnost vpliva na konkurenco in trgovino
Umicore points out that it paid a considerable amount to the Special Tax Inspectorate while other competing silver producers established in other Member States did not pay any VAT, fine or interest on deliveries carried out under identical circumstances and terms.
Družba Umicore navaja, da je Posebni davčni inšpektorat plačal visok znesek, medtem ko drugi proizvajalci srebra s sedeži v drugih državah članicah za dobave, opravljene v enakih okoliščinah in pogojih, sploh niso plačali DDV, globe ali obresti.
In this context, Umicore considers that the measure at issue clearly could not strengthen its competitive position in the relevant market, i.e. the market for silver granules.
V teh okoliščinah družba Umicore meni, da zadevni ukrep očitno ni mogel okrepiti njenega konkurenčnega položaja na zadevnem trgu, to je na trgu srebra v zrncih.
Consequently, Umicore takes the view that the agreement concluded with the Special Tax Inspectorate does not affect competition or trade between Member States and therefore Article 107(1) of the Treaty does not apply to the present case.
Zato družba Umicore ugotavlja, da sporazum s Posebnim davčnim inšpektoratom ne vpliva ne na konkurenco ne na trgovino med državami članicami, zato je v tem primeru izključena uporaba člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Anonymous third party
Anonimna tretja stran
An anonymous third party sent the Commission a copy of a letter addressed to the Belgian Finance Minister, dated 15 February 2002, containing a legal analysis of the agreement concluded with Umicore and of the transactions in question.
Anonimna tretja stran je Komisiji predložila kopijo dopisa, naslovljenega na belgijskega ministra za finance, z dne 15. februarja 2002, v katerem je povzeta pravna analiza sporazuma z družbo Umicore in zadevnih poravnav.
In that letter, the anonymous third party points out that (a) the effect of the agreement concluded between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore was to transform an amount of VAT due into a fine, in breach of Articles 10 and 172 of the Belgian Constitution and Article 84 of the VAT Code; (b) it is illegal to take into account the impact of corporate tax when calculating the amount of VAT due or the fine; and (c) it is illogical to apply a fine proportional to the amount of VAT without demanding payment of the VAT itself.
Anonimna tretja stran v dopisu trdi, (a) da je sporazum med Posebnim davčnim inšpektoratom in družbo Umicore povzročil ponovno določitev zneska dolgovanega DDV v globi, v nasprotju s členoma 10 in 172 belgijske ustave in členom 84 belgijskega zakonika o DDV; (b) da je upoštevanje vpliva davka od dobička pravnih oseb na določitev zneska dolgovanega DDV ali zneska globe nezakonito in (c) da je naložitev (z zneskom DDV) sorazmerne globe brez zahtevanega plačila DDV nelogična.
BELGIUM’S REACTION TO THE COMMENTS OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES
ODGOVOR BELGIJE NA PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI