natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The measure at issue corresponds to a right to deduct a given amount, determined at the moment of the acquisition, whose deduction is spread over the following 20 years.
Zadevni ukrep ustreza pravici do odbitka danega zneska, ki se določi ob prevzemu, katerega odbitek se razporedi prek naslednjih 20 let.
Moreover, because of the position taken by the Commission in similar cases [41], it is justified to assume that the legitimate expectations should remain until the date of publication of the final decision.
Poleg tega je zaradi stališča Komisije v podobnih primerih [41] upravičeno predvidevati, da je treba upravičena pričakovanja ohraniti do datuma objave končne odločbe.
Comments from the two parties
Pripombe dveh strani
According to the two parties, Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid.
Po mnenju dveh strani člen 12(5) TRLIS pomeni državno pomoč.
They maintain that there are no legitimate expectations in the case at hand and therefore call on the Commission to order recovery of any unlawful aid granted.
Strani vztrajata, da upravičenih pričakovanj v zadevnem primeru ni, zato pozivata Komisijo, naj naloži vračilo vse nezakonito dodeljene pomoči.
The measure at issue constitutes State aid
Zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč
The measure at issue confers an economic advantage
Zadevni ukrep daje gospodarsko prednost
According to the two parties, Article 12(5) TRLIS is exceptional in nature because the Spanish tax system, with the exception of this provision, does not allow any amortisation of financial goodwill but only a deduction in the case of an impairment test.
Po mnenju dveh strani je člen 12(5) TRLIS glede na svojo naravo izjema, ker španski davčni sistem, razen te določbe, ne omogoča amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena, ampak le odbitek v primeru preskusa oslabitve.
Until the introduction of Article 12(5) TRLIS the Spanish corporate tax legislation did not allow the amortisation of shareholdings regardless of whether or not there had actually been an impairment.
Španska zakonodaja o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb do uvedbe člena 12(5) TRLIS ni omogočala amortizacije deležev, ne glede na to, ali se je oslabitev dejansko zgodila ali ne.
They stress that Article 12(5) TRLIS is probably unique in the European context as no other Member State has a similar system for cross-border transactions not involving the acquisition of controlling shares.
Strani poudarjata, da je člen 12(5) TRLIS verjetno edinstven v evropskem okviru, saj nobena druga država članica nima podobnega sistema za čezmejne transakcije, ki ne vključuje prevzema nadzornih deležev.
Under the Spanish tax system, goodwill can be amortised only if there is a business combination — the sole exception is the measure at issue, which allows amortisation in an exceptional case: if a minority shareholding is acquired in a target company.
V skladu s španskim davčnim sistemom je mogoče dobro ime amortizirati le pri poslovni združitvi; edina izjema, ki omogoča amortizacijo v izjemnih primerih, je zadevni ukrep: pri prevzemu manjšinskega deleža v ciljni družbi.
This diverges from the general tax system since amortisation is possible not only without there being a business combination but also in cases where the purchaser does not even acquire control of the foreign target company.
To se razlikuje od splošnega davčnega sistema, ker je amortizacija mogoča ne le brez poslovne združitve, ampak tudi v primerih, ko kupec sploh ne prevzame nadzora nad tujo ciljno družbo.
Article 12(5) TRLIS thus confers a benefit on certain Spanish companies vis-à-vis (a) other Spanish companies that operate only at national level; and (b) other Community operators that compete internationally with the Spanish beneficiaries of the measure at issue.
Tako se s členom 12(5) TRLIS dodeljuje ugodnost nekaterim španskim družbam v primerjavi z (a) drugimi španskimi družbami, ki delujejo le na nacionalni ravni, in (b) drugimi subjekti iz Skupnosti, ki na mednarodnem trgu konkurirajo španskim upravičencem do zadevnega ukrepa.
From an economic point of view, the Spanish authorities are not only providing an interest-free loan that will be drawn over a period of 20 years (interest-free tax deferral), but also effectively leaving the repayment date of the interest-free loan to the discretion of the borrower — if indeed the loan is repaid.
Španski organi z ekonomskega vidika zagotavljajo ne le brezobrestno posojilo, ki se bo črpalo v dvajsetletnem obdobju (brezobrestni odlog plačila davkov), ampak tudi učinkovito prepuščajo datum vračila brezobrestnega posojila presoji posojilojemalca, če se posojilo dejansko vrne.
If the investor does not transfer the significant shareholding, the effect is the same as cancellation of the debt by the Spanish authorities.
Če vlagatelj ne prenese obsežnega deleža, je učinek enak kot odpis dolga s strani španskih organov.
In this case, the measure turns into a permanent tax exemption.
V tem primeru se ukrep spremeni v trajno davčno oprostitev.
One of the two parties estimates that, as a result of the measure at issue, Spanish acquirers, for instance in the banking sector, are able to pay some 7 % more than they would otherwise be able to.
Ena od obeh strani ocenjuje, da lahko španski prevzemniki zaradi zadevnega ukrepa na primer v bančnem sektorju plačajo približno 7 % več, kot bi bili sicer sposobni.
However, it also recognises that as the offer price is a combination of various additional elements, the measure at issue is not the only factor, although probably one of the most decisive factors behind the aggressiveness of Spanish bidders benefiting from the measure at issue.
Vendar prav tako priznava, da je ponudbena cena sestavljena iz različnih dodatnih elementov, zato zadevni ukrep ni edini dejavnik, čeprav je verjetno eden od odločilnih dejavnikov za napadalnost španskih ponudnikov, ki imajo korist od zadevnega ukrepa.
This party considers also that the measure provides a definite advantage to Spanish bidders in international auctions.
Ta stran meni tudi, da ukrep zagotavlja določeno prednost španskim ponudnikom na mednarodnih dražbah.
The measure at issue favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods
Zadevni ukrep daje prednosti nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterih izdelkov
This same reasoning can be applied to Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Enako sklepanje je mogoče uporabiti pri členu 12(5) TRLIS.
The selectivity of Article 12(5) TRLIS is therefore due to the fact that only companies acquiring shareholdings in foreign companies are eligible for this provision.
Vzrok za selektivnost člena 12(5) TRLIS je torej dejstvo, da so le družbe, ki prevzemajo delež v tujih družbah, upravičene do te določbe.
Furthermore, only enterprises of a certain size and financial strength with multinational operations can benefit from Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Poleg tega imajo lahko le družbe določene velikosti in z določeno finančno močjo, ki izvajajo večnacionalne operacije, korist od člena 12(5) TRLIS.
Although the company’s balance sheet discloses the book values of assets, it is unlikely that it also reflects the tacit market values of assets.
Čeprav bilanca stanja družbe razkriva knjigovodske vrednosti sredstev, običajno ne pokaže tudi tihe tržne vrednosti sredstev.
Therefore, in practice, only operators with a controlling interest in target companies have sufficient access to a company’s records to ascertain the tacit market value of the company’s assets.
Zato imajo v praksi le subjekti s kontrolnim deležem v ciljnih družbah ustrezen dostop do poslovnih knjig družbe, da preverijo tiho tržno vrednost sredstev družbe.
Consequently, the 5 % threshold favours companies that perform multinational operations.
Posledično 5-odstotna mejna vrednost daje prednost družbam, ki izvajajo večnacionalne operacije.
Moreover, only a Spanish operator with existing business in Spain has a Spanish tax base and can benefit from the depreciation.
Poleg tega ima lahko le španski subjekt z obstoječo dejavnostjo v Španiji špansko davčno osnovo in ima lahko korist od amortizacije.
Therefore, only companies resident in Spain with a significant Spanish tax base can in practice benefit from it, since the potential benefit is linked to the size of the Spanish operation rather than of the acquisition.
Zato imajo lahko v praksi le družbe s sedežem v Španiji in z obsežno špansko davčno osnovo korist od ukrepa, saj je mogoča korist povezana z obsegom španskega poslovanja, ne pa s prevzemom.
Although Article 12(5) TRLIS is drafted to apply to all operators established in Spain, in practice only a limited and identifiable number of companies with a Spanish tax base, which make foreign acquisitions in the relevant tax year and have a sizeable tax base against which to offset the financial goodwill deduction, can benefit from the application of the measure on an annual basis.
Čeprav je člen 12(5) TRLIS oblikovan tako, da se uporablja za vse v Španiji ustanovljene subjekte, ima lahko v praksi na leto od ukrepa korist le omejeno in opredeljivo število družb s špansko davčno osnovo, ki izvajajo tuje prevzeme v zadevnem davčnem letu in imajo obsežno davčno osnovo, od katere je mogoče odšteti odbitek finančnega dobrega imena.
As a result, the measure at issue in fact gives a different tax treatment even to Spanish operators in the same position of making acquisitions abroad.
Zato se z zadevnim ukrepom nalaga različna davčna obravnava celo za španske subjekte, ki so v enakem položaju pri izvajanju prevzemov v tujini.
The two parties consider that they have not been able to identify any objective or horizontal criterion or condition that justifies the measure at issue.
Obe strani menita, da nista mogli opredeliti nobenega cilja, ali horizontalnega merila, ali pogoja, s katerim bi utemeljili zadevni ukrep.
On the contrary, they are of the view that the basic intention of the measure is to give a benefit to certain Spanish operators.
Prav nasprotno, menita, da je osnovni namen ukrepa omogočiti korist nekaterim španskim subjektom.
In addition, if the measure at issue is inherent to the Spanish tax system, foreign shareholdings acquired prior to that date should also qualify for the measure, which is not the case since the tax relief is granted only for shareholdings acquired after 1 January 2002.
Poleg tega, če je zadevni ukrep del španskega davčnega sistema, bi morali tuji deleži, prevzeti pred zadevnim datumom, prav tako izpolnjevati merila za ukrep, vendar ni tako, saj se davčna olajšava dodeli le za deleže, prevzete po 1. januarju 2002.
Accordingly, and in the light of Commission policy [43], the measure at issue must be considered selective.
V skladu s tem in ob upoštevanju politike Komisije [43] je treba zadevni ukrep obravnavati kot selektiven.
The measure at issue distorts competition and affects Community trade
Zadevni ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino Skupnosti
The measure at issue is clearly discriminatory as it gives Spanish operators a clear fiscal and monetary benefit that foreign operators are not able to enjoy.
Zadevni ukrep je očitno diskriminacijski, saj španskim subjektom omogoča jasno davčno in denarno korist, ki je tuji subjekti ne morejo uživati.
In a situation of an auction or other competitive procedure for the acquisition of a company, such an advantage makes a significant difference.
V primeru dražbe ali drugega konkurenčnega postopka za prevzem družbe taka prednost pomeni bistveno razliko.
Takeover bids usually presuppose the payment of a premium over the share price of the target company that would almost always result in financial goodwill.
Za ponudbe za prevzem se običajno pričakuje plačilo premije nad ceno delnice ciljne družbe, kar skoraj vedno prinese finančno dobro ime.
On several occasions, the financial press has reported on large acquisitions by Spanish companies and the respective tax benefits accruing from the Spanish tax rules on the amortisation of financial goodwill.
V več primerih so finančni mediji poročali o večjih prevzemih, ki so jih izvedle španske družbe, in ustreznih davčnih olajšavah, ki izhajajo iz španskih davčnih predpisov o amortizaciji finančnega dobrega imena.
For one of those acquisitions by an investment bank, the tax benefit resulting from Article 12(5) TRLIS was estimated to be EUR 1,7 billion, or 6,5 % of the offer price.
V primeru enega od prevzemov, ki ga je izvedla investicijska banka, je bila davčna ugodnost na podlagi člena 12(5) TRLIS ocenjena na 1,7 milijarde EUR ali 6,5 % ponudbene cene.
Another report indicated that the Spanish acquirer had been able to bid about 15 % more than non-Spanish competitors.
V drugem poročilu je bilo navedeno, da je lahko španski prevzemnik ponudil za približno 15 % višjo ceno od nešpanskih konkurentov.
The measure at issue also seems to favour certain export activities (export aid for foreign share acquisitions) of Spanish companies, which is at odds with established Commission policy [44] in this area.
Prav tako se zdi, da zadevni ukrep daje prednost nekaterim izvoznim dejavnostim (izvozna pomoč za prevzeme tujih deležev) španskih družb, kar je v nasprotju z uveljavljeno politiko Komisije [44] na tem področju.
The measure at issue affects State resources
Zadevni ukrep vpliva na državna sredstva
The measure at issue is of benefit to undertakings that meet certain requirements and enables them to reduce their tax base and thereby the amount of tax that would normally be due in a given year if this provision did not exist.
Zadevni ukrep koristi družbam, ki izpolnjujejo nekatere zahteve, in jim omogoča zmanjšanje njihove davčne osnove ter s tem zneska davka, ki bi ga sicer v danem letu morale plačati, če ne bi bilo te določbe.
It therefore provides the beneficiary with a financial advantage, the cost of which is directly borne by the budget of the Member State concerned.
Tako daje upravičencu finančno prednost, katere stroške neposredno nosi proračun zadevne države članice.
V. REACTION FROM SPAIN TO COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES
V. ODZIV ŠPANIJE NA PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANI
The Spanish authorities point out that the vast majority of third parties’ comments support their point of view.
Španski organi poudarjajo, da velika večina pripomb tretjih strani podpira njihovo stališče.
Only two parties consider that the measure at issue constitutes State aid, whereas all the others conclude that Article 12(5) TRLIS does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Le dve strani menita, da zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč, medtem ko preostale sklepajo, da člen 12(5) TRLIS ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Otherwise, fewer economic operators would have submitted comments.
V nasprotnem primeru bi pripombe predložilo manj gospodarskih subjektov.
In addition, the wide range of activities and size of the interested third parties demonstrates the general nature of the measure at issue.
Poleg tega veliko različnih dejavnosti in velikost zainteresiranih tretjih strani kažejo na splošno naravo zadevnega ukrepa.
Regarding the exceptional nature of the measure at issue, the Spanish authorities reject this qualification by recalling the common feature of goodwill and financial goodwill amortisation according to Spanish accounting rules [45].
V zvezi z izjemnostjo zadevnega ukrepa španski organi zavračajo to opredelitev z opozarjanjem na splošno značilnost amortizacije dobrega imena in finančnega dobrega imena v skladu s španskimi računovodskimi pravili [45].
In addition, the deduction of goodwill amortisation constitutes the general rule of the Spanish corporate tax system in accordance with the provisions laid down in Articles 11(4) and 89(3) TRLIS.
Poleg tega je odbitek amortizacije dobrega imena splošno pravilo španskega sistema o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb v skladu z določbami člena 11(4) in člena 89(3) TRLIS.
Article 12(5) TRLIS follows the same logic.
Člen 12(5) TRLIS upošteva enako logiko.
Regarding the selective nature of the measure at issue, the parallels drawn with the Court judgment of 15 July 2004 [46] are incorrect since in that case the Commission had clearly defined the profile of the beneficiary, whereas in the present case this could not be done.
V zvezi s selektivnostjo zadevnega ukrepa so podobnosti s sodbo Sodišča z dne 15. julija 2004 [46] netočne, saj je Komisija v navedenem primeru jasno opredelila profil upravičenca, medtem ko v tem primeru to ni mogoče.
Indeed, Article 12(5) TRLIS does not require any link between the shareholding acquisition and the export of goods and services.
Dejansko se v členu 12(5) TRLIS ne zahteva povezava med prevzemom deleža ter izvozom blaga in storitev.
Therefore the measure at issue does not have the effect of increasing exports of Spanish goods or services.
Zato zadevni ukrep ne vpliva na povečanje izvoza španskega blaga ali storitev.
The fact that this non-selective measure is not available for domestic operations does not affect its general nature.
Dejstvo, da ta neselektivni ukrep ni na voljo domačim izvajalcem dejavnosti, ne vpliva na njegovo splošno naravo.
In fact, the final objective of the measure at issue is the same as that of the Cross-border Tax Directive, which is to ensure that investment decisions are based on economic rather than tax considerations.
Končni cilj zadevnega ukrepa je pravzaprav enak kot cilj Direktive o čezmejni obdavčitvi, in sicer zagotoviti, da naložbene odločitve temeljijo na ekonomskih premislekih, in ne davčnih.
Therefore, since it is possible to carry out business combinations with domestic acquisitions and not with cross-border acquisitions, treating domestic operations and cross-border operations differently is not only legally justified but also necessary in order to guarantee the neutrality of the tax system.
Ker je torej mogoče izvesti poslovne združitve z domačimi prevzemi, ne s čezmejnimi, različno obravnavanje domačih in čezmejnih operacij ni le pravno utemeljeno, ampak je tudi nujno za zagotavljanje nevtralnosti davčnega sistema.
Regarding the alleged distorting features of the measure at issue, the Spanish authorities point out that any tax relief that reduces the operating costs of a company increases the competitive edge of the beneficiary.
V zvezi z domnevnimi značilnostmi izkrivljanja zadevnega ukrepa španski organi poudarjajo, da vsaka davčna olajšava, s katero se zmanjšajo operativni stroški družbe, povečuje konkurenčno prednost upravičenca.
However, this statement is irrelevant since the measure at issue is a general measure.
Vendar ta izjava ni pomembna, saj je zadevni ukrep splošni ukrep.
The different tax rates applied across the Member States, which impact on the competitiveness of their resident companies, do not fall under State aid rules.
Različne davčne stopnje, ki se uporabljajo v državah članicah in vplivajo na konkurenčnost njihovih družb rezidentk, ne spadajo med pravila o državni pomoči.
In addition, the measure at issue has not been shown to affect trade between Member States.
Poleg tega za zadevni ukrep ni dokazov, da vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
Moreover, the consequence of amortising financial goodwill is not necessarily to increase the price offered by a competitor.
Prav tako posledica amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena ni nujno zvišanje cene, ki jo ponudi konkurent.
As regards the compatibility of the contested measure with the common market, the Spanish authorities consider Article 12(5) TRLIS to be appropriate and proportionate to address a market failure by establishing a neutral tax system for domestic and cross-border operations that fosters the development of pan- European companies.
V zvezi z združljivostjo izpodbijanega akta s skupnim trgom španski organi menijo, da je člen 12(5) TRLIS ustrezen in sorazmeren za odpravljanje tržne nepopolnosti z vzpostavitvijo nevtralnega davčnega sistema za domače in čezmejne operacije, ki pospešuje razvoj vseevropskih družb.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEME
PRESOJA SHEME
In order to ascertain whether a measure constitutes aid, the Commission must assess whether the measure at issue fulfils the conditions of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija mora presoditi, ali zadevni ukrep izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 87(1) Pogodbe, da bi ugotovila, ali ukrep pomeni pomoč.
This provision states that: ‘save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
V tej določbi je navedeno, da: „razen če Pogodba ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
In the light of this provision, the Commission will assess below whether the measure at issue constitutes State aid.
Komisija bo ob upoštevanju te določbe presodila, ali zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč.
Selectivity and advantage inherent in the measure
Selektivnost in prednost iz ukrepa
To be considered State aid, a measure must be specific or selective in the sense that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
Da se ukrep šteje za državno pomoč, mora biti poseben ali selektiven v smislu dajanja prednosti le posameznim družbam ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga.
The Commission Notice [47] states that ‘The main criterion in applying Article 92(1) [now Article 87(1)] to a tax measure is therefore that the measure provides in favour of certain undertakings in the Member State an exception to the application of the tax system.
V Obvestilu Komisije [47] je navedeno, da je „[g]lavno merilo pri uporabi člena 92(1) [zdaj člen 87(1)] za davčni ukrep […] tako dejstvo, da ukrep v korist posameznim družbam v državi članici zagotavlja izjemo pri uporabi davčnega sistema.
The common system applicable should thus first be determined.
Torej je treba najprej določiti veljavni skupni sistem.
It must then be examined whether the exception to the system or differentiations within that system are justified “by the nature or general scheme” of the tax system, that is to say, whether they derive directly from the basic or guiding principles of the tax system in the Member State concerned’.
Nato je treba preučiti, ali so izjema v sistemu ali so razlikovanja znotraj zadevnega sistema utemeljena ‚zaradi narave ali splošne sheme“ davčnega sistema, to pomeni, ali izhajajo neposredno iz temeljnih ali vodilnih načel davčnega sistema zadevne države članice.‘
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice [48], ‘as regards the assessment of the condition of selectivity, which is a constituent factor in the concept of State aid, it is clear from settled case-law that Article 87(1) EC requires assessment of whether, under a particular statutory scheme, a State measure is such as to “favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods” in comparison with other undertakings which are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable in the light of the objective pursued by the measure in question’ [49].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [48]„glede presoje pogoja selektivnosti, ki je sestavni del pojma državne pomoči, iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da člen 87(1) ES predpisuje, da se v okviru določenega pravnega sistema ugotovi, ali nacionalni ukrep lahko daje prednost ‘posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga‚ v primerjavi z drugimi, ki so glede na cilje, ki jih ta ureditev zasleduje, v dejansko in pravno primerljivem položaju“ [49].
The Court has also held on numerous occasions that Article 87(1) of the Treaty does not distinguish between the causes and the objectives of State aid, but defines them in relation to their effects [50].
Sodišče je prav tako ob več priložnostih menilo, da člen 87(1) Pogodbe ne razlikuje med vzroki in cilji državne pomoči, ampak jih opredeljuje glede na njihove učinke [50].