natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission points out that only companies in difficulty are eligible for the exception provided for by §8c(1a) KStG.
Komisija poudarja, da so samo podjetja v težavah upravičena do izjeme, ki jo omogoča člen 8c(1a) KStG.
However, companies which are not insolvent or over-indebted, or at risk thereof at the time of acquisition, might also be loss-making, but are not eligible for loss carry-forward.
Vendar lahko podjetja, ki v času prevzema niso oz. niso v nevarnosti, da bi bila plačilno nesposobna ali prekomerno zadolžena, prav tako ustvarjajo izgubo, ampak niso upravičena do prenosa izgub.
The Commission therefore concludes that §8c(1a) KStG differentiates between loss-making companies that are otherwise healthy and those that are insolvent or over-indebted, or at risk thereof, by benefiting the latter.
Zato Komisija zaključi, da člen 8c(1a) KStG razlikuje med podjetji, ki ustvarjajo izgubo, vendar so sicer stabilna, in podjetji, ki so ali bi lahko bila plačilno nesposobna ali prekomerno zadolžena, in sicer v prid slednjim.
§8c(1a) KStG thus differentiates between companies that are, with regard to the objective of the tax system, in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Člen 8c(1a) KStG tako razlikuje med podjetji, ki so z vidika cilja davčnega sistema v primerljivem stvarnem in pravnem položaju.
Secondly, the Commission stresses that, contrary to the German view, the case-law of the Court and the General Court has never regarded a measure applicable to all undertakings in difficulty and which does not leave any discretion to the public authorities as, by definition, not selective.
Drugič, Komisija poudarja, da sodna praksa Sodišča in Splošnega sodišča v nasprotju z nemškim stališčem ukrepa, ki velja za vsa podjetja v težavah in ne dopušča diskrecije javnih organov, po definiciji ni nikoli obravnavala kot neselektivnega.
With regard to DMT, it should be noted that, in response to the observation by the French government, which corresponds to the view held by Germany in this case, the Court concludes in recital 28 that even if the national authorities enjoyed no discretion, it was still for the national court to determine whether the national measure in question was general in nature or selective.
Glede zadeve DMT je treba upoštevati, da Sodišče v odgovor na pripombo francoske vlade, ki ustreza stališču Nemčije v tej zadevi, v točki 28 zaključuje, da četudi nacionalne oblasti niso imele diskrecije, je bilo še vedno nacionalno sodišče tisto, ki bi moralo odločiti, ali je zadevni nacionalni ukrep splošen ali selektiven.
Thus, the Court recognises implicitly that a national measures open to all undertakings in difficulty, and which does not leave any discretion to the public authorities, may still be selective.
Zato Sodišče posredno priznava, da je nacionalni ukrep, ki je dostopen vsem podjetjem v težavah in ne dopušča diskrecije javnih organov, še vedno lahko selektiven.
With regard to HAMSA, the Commission observes that the obiter dictum in paragraph 157 refers to the general Spanish insolvency legislation.
V zvezi z zadevo HAMSA Komisija ugotavlja, da se obiter dictum v točki 157 nanaša na splošno špansko zakonodajo o plačilni nesposobnosti.
The measure at issue in HAMSA, however, was not a measure under insolvency law, but a debt waiver granted by the Spanish authorities on a voluntary basis, without there being any legal obligation, and which was much higher than the debt waivers agreed by private investors.
Vendar pri zadevnem ukrepu v zadevi HAMSA ni šlo za ukrep na podlagi zakona o plačilni nesposobnosti, temveč za opustitev dolga, ki so jo španske oblasti odobrile prostovoljno, brez vsakršne pravne obveznosti, znesek dolga pa je bil veliko višji kot pri opustitvah dolgov, ki so jih odobrili zasebni upniki.
The case is therefore not relevant to the assessment of the measure in question.
Zadeva torej ni pomembna za oceno zadevnega ukrepa.
Advocate General Fennelly, in his opinion in Ecotrade, confirms that rules which are applicable to all undertakings in difficulty may be selective and constitute State aid [30].
Generalni pravobranilec Fennelly skladno s svojim mnenjem v zadevi Ecotrade potrjuje, da so pravila, ki veljajo za vsa podjetja v težavah, lahko selektivna in pomenijo državno pomoč [30].
Therefore, contrary to the position of Germany, the Commission’s analysis of the measure in question is in line with the case-law of the Court and the General Court.
V nasprotju s stališčem Nemčije je torej analiza zadevnega ukrepa, ki jo je izvedla Komisija, skladna s sodno prakso Sodišča in Splošnega sodišča.
The Commission therefore considers §8c (1a) KStG to be prima facie selective.
Komisija je torej mnenja, da je člen 8c (1a) KStG prima facie selektiven.
Justification on the basis of the nature or the general scheme of the tax system of which it is part
Upravičenost ukrepa na podlagi narave ali splošne sheme davčnega sistema, katerega del je
According to the case-law of the Court, a measure which, although conferring an advantage on its recipient, is justified by the nature or general scheme of the system of which it is part, does not fulfil that condition of selectivity [31].
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča ukrep, ki je upravičen z naravo ali splošno shemo sistema, katerega del je, ne izpolnjuje tega pogoja selektivnosti, čeprav daje prednost prejemniku [31].
Therefore, where, as in the present case, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the measure in question prima facie appears to be selective, it must assess whether the differentiation is justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system of which it forms part.
Ko torej Komisija, kot v zadevnem primeru, sklene, da se zdi zadevni ukrep prima facie selektiven, mora oceniti, ali je razlikovanje upravičeno z naravo ali splošno shemo davčnega sistema, katerega del je.
The Commission notes that it is settled case-law of the Court that it is for the Member State to provide such justification [32].
Komisija ugotavlja, da mora za takšno upravičenost v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča poskrbeti država članica [32].
The Court has further clarified that a distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the objectives attributed to a particular tax scheme which are extrinsic to it and, on the other, the mechanisms inherent in the tax system itself which are necessary to achieve such objectives.
Sodišče je nadalje pojasnilo, da je treba razlikovati med cilji posamezne davčne ureditve, ki so zanjo postranskega pomena, in mehanizmi, vključenimi v davčni sistem, ki so potrebni za doseganje teh ciljev.
Only the second mechanisms qualify for a justification by the nature or the general scheme of the tax system of which it is part.
Samo drugi mehanizmi izpolnjujejo pogoje za upravičenost ukrepa zaradi narave ali splošne sheme davčnega sistema, katerega del je.
The Commission considers that it is necessary in this case to distinguish between the objective of §8c(1) KStG and the objective of §8c(1a) KStG.
Komisija meni, da je v tem primeru treba razlikovati med ciljem iz člena 8c(1) KStG in ciljem iz člena 8c(1a) KStG.
As Germany recognises in its submissions, the objective of §8c(1) KStG is to prevent abuse of the loss carry-forward allowed by the German tax system in the form of purchases of empty shell companies.
Kot priznava Nemčija v svojih stališčih, je cilj člena 8c(1) KStG preprečiti zlorabo prenosa izgub, ki ga dovoljuje nemški davčni sistem v obliki nakupov slamnatih podjetij.
The Commission notes in this respect that §8c(1) KStG has a much broader scope than its predecessor, §8(4) KStG.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da ima člen 8c(1) KStG veliko širši obseg kot njegov predhodnik, člen 8(4) KStG.
Whereas the latter ruled out the carrying forward of losses only when two cumulative conditions were met, namely acquisition by another corporate entity and new economic activity, the new provision does not contain the second condition.
Medtem ko je slednji izključeval prenos izgub samo v primeru, ko sta bila izpolnjena dva kumulativna pogoja, namreč prevzem s strani druge gospodarske družbe in nova gospodarska dejavnost, nova določba ne vključuje drugega pogoja.
Acquisition by another corporate entity is therefore enough to forfeit the possibility of loss carry-forward.
Prevzem s strani druge gospodarske družbe torej zadostuje za zapadlost pravice do prenosa izgub.
The legislator was aware of this difference in scope since the explicit purpose of the change in legislation was to finance a reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 25 % to 15 % [33].
Zakonodajalec se je zavedal te razlike v obsegu, saj je bil izrecni namen spremembe zakonodaje financirati znižanje stopnje davka od dobička pravnih oseb s 25 na 15 % [33].
§8c(1a) KStG, on the contrary, is not intended to prevent abuse.
Nasprotno pa člen 8c(1a) KStG ni namenjen preprečevanju zlorab.
That is clear from the explanatory memorandum with the introduction of the new Sanierungsklausel published by the German Parliament.
To je razvidno iz obrazložitvenega memoranduma z uvedbo nove Sanierungsklausel, ki jo je objavil nemški parlament.
The explanatory memorandum states that §8c(1a) KStG was introduced to tackle the global financial and economic crisis [34].
V obrazložitvenem memorandum je navedeno, da je bil člen §8c(1a) KStG uveden z namenom obvladovanja globalne finančne in gospodarske krize [34].
During the crisis, the restrictions on loss carry-forward were perceived to be a particular obstacle to the restructuring of companies.
Med krizo so bile omejitve v zvezi s prenosom izgub zaznane kot posebna ovira pri prestrukturiranju podjetij.
The Commission notes that Germany, in its comments on the opening decision, stresses the fact that §8c(1a) KStG does not constitute an anti-abuse measure, but was introduced to support ailing companies during the financial and economic crisis.
Komisija ugotavlja, da Nemčija v svojih pripombah k odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka poudarja dejstvo, da člen 8c(1a) KStG ni ukrep, namenjen preprečevanju zlorab, temveč je bil uveden za podporo podjetjem, ki so se v času finančne in gospodarske krize znašla v težavah.
The Commission concludes that the objective pursued by this specific tax measure is extrinsic to the tax system.
Komisija zaključuje, da je cilj, ki ga želi doseči ta poseben davčni ukrep, postranskega pomena za davčni sistem.
According to the case-law of the Court, the pursuit of such an extrinsic objective cannot be relied upon to justify a measure by the nature and overall structure of the tax system [35].
Skladno s sodno prakso Sodišča se ne gre zanašati na to, da bi prizadevanje za dosego takšnega postranskega cilja upravičilo ukrep z naravo in celotno strukturo davčnega sistema [35].
It can be analysed only in the compatibility assessment.
Analizirati ga je mogoče le z oceno združljivosti.
The three arguments presented by Germany cannot alter this assessment.
Trije argumenti, ki jih je predložila Nemčija, te ocene ne morejo spremeniti.
With regards to Germany’s argument that a company in difficulty has no choice for but to obtain finance through an investor, whereas a healthy company, which is temporarily loss-making, has the choice between obtaining finance on the capital market and acquisition by an investor with subsequent refinancing, the Commission is of the opinion that the way a company finances its business is irrelevant in the light of the objective of the tax system.
Glede argumenta Nemčije, da podjetje v težavah nima druge možnosti, kot da pridobi finančna sredstva od vlagatelja, medtem ko stabilno podjetje, ki začasno ustvarja izgubo, lahko izbira med pridobitvijo finančnih sredstev na trgu kapitala in prevzemom s strani vlagatelja s poznejšim refinanciranjem, Komisija meni, da z vidika cilja davčnega sistema ni pomembno, kako podjetje financira svoje poslovanje.
A corporate tax system is based on the taxation of profits and the declaration of losses.
Sistem obdavčenja pravnih oseb temelji na obdavčenju dobička in objavi izgub.
As could be observed during the financial and economic crisis, financially sound companies also reported losses temporarily.
Kot je bilo mogoče opaziti med finančno in gospodarsko krizo, so o izgubah občasno poročala tudi finančno stabilna podjetja.
But these financially sound companies are not eligible for the loss carry-forward in application of the Sanierungsklausel and are thus at disadvantage compared with ailing loss-making companies in the event of a change of ownership and subsequent refinancing by the new shareholders.
Toda ob uporabi Sanierungsklausel ta finančno stabilna podjetja niso upravičena do prenosa izgub in so zato v primeru spremembe lastništva in naknadnega refinanciranja s strani novih delničarjev v primerjavi z nestabilnimi podjetji, ki ustvarjajo izgubo, v slabšem položaju.
Furthermore, the Commission also notes that during the financial and economic crisis healthy companies, which temporarily recorded losses, had great difficulties accessing the capital markets.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da so imela stabilna podjetja, ki so občasno beležila izgubo, med finančno in gospodarsko krizo velike težave pri dostopanju do trgov kapitala.
Therefore, even the factual assumptions underlying the first argument are inaccurate.
Tako so celo dejanske predpostavke, na katerih je osnovan prvi argument, nepravilne.
The Commission therefore rejects Germany’s first argument.
Na osnovi tega Komisija zavrača prvi argument Nemčije.
With regard to Germany’s second argument, that the exception provided in §8c(1a) KStG to the general prohibition on loss carry-forward in the event of a change of ownership laid down by §8c(1) KStG was justified by the ratio legis of §8c(1) KStG, because there was no risk of abuse in the case of the restructuring of a company in difficulty, the Commission observes that this argument does not justify the restriction of §8c(1a) KStG to companies in difficulty.
V zvezi z drugim argumentom Nemčije, da je izjemo iz člena 8c(1a) KStG od splošne prepovedi prenosa izgub v primeru spremembe lastništva, določene v členu 8c(1) KStG, upravičeval ratio legis člena 8c(1) KStG, ker ni bilo nevarnosti zlorab v primeru prestrukturiranja podjetja v težavah, Komisija ugotavlja, da ta argument ne upravičuje omejitve iz člena 8c(1a) KStG za podjetja v težavah.
The Commission points out that there is no risk of abuse either when a financially sound company is acquired.
Komisija poudarja, da v primeru prevzema finančno stabilnih podjetij prav tako ni nevarnosti zlorabe.
The risk of abuse exists only in relation to empty-shell companies.
Nevarnost zlorabe obstaja samo v zvezi s slamnatimi podjetji.
As pointed out above, the ratio legis of §8c(1) KStG goes further than combating abuse.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, ratio legis člena 8c(1) KStG ni le preprečevanje zlorab.
Its objective is also to increase the German corporate tax base and to offset the reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 25 % to 15 %.
Njegov cilj je tudi povečati davčno osnovo nemškega sistema obdavčenja pravnih oseb in izravnati zmanjšanje stopnje davka od dobička pravnih oseb s 25 % na 15 %.
This explains why §8c(1) KStG also includes a number of acquisitions of interests where there is no risk of abuse.
To pojasnjuje, zakaj člen 8c(1) KStG vključuje tudi številne prevzeme deležev, pri katerih ni nevarnosti zlorabe.
The Commission therefore rejects Germany’s argument that the exception introduced by §8c(1a) KStG corresponds to the ratio legis of §8c(1) KStG.
Komisija torej zavrača argument Nemčije, da izjema, predstavljena v členu 8c(1a) KStG, ustreza ratio legis člena 8c(1) KStG.
With regard to Germany’s third argument, that losses of ailing companies are usually not attributed any value by auditors when calculating deferred tax for consolidated financial statements, and therefore the possibility of carrying forward losses has no impact on the sale price of the ailing company, the Commission notes first that this is based on accounting criteria and is therefore irrelevant for tax considerations.
V zvezi s tretjim argumentom Nemčije, da izgubam podjetij v težavah revizorji običajno ne pripisujejo nobene vrednosti, ko računajo časovno razmejene davčne obveznosti za konsolidirane računovodske izkaze, in zato možnost prenosa ne vpliva na prodajno ceno podjetja v težavah, Komisija ugotavlja, da je to osnovano na računovodskih merilih in torej z davčnega vidika nepomembno.
Secondly, the Commission notes that this argument contradicts Germany’s statement that the inability to carry forward losses constitutes an obstacle to restructuring.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je ta argument v nasprotju z izjavo Nemčije, da nezmožnost prenosa izgub predstavlja oviro pri prestrukturiranju.
This is true only if the acquiring company attributes a certain monetary value to the possibility of carrying forward losses.
To velja le, če prevzemno podjetje možnosti prenosa izgub pripisuje določeno denarno vrednost.
Therefore, the Commission also rejects Germany’s third argument.
Zato Komisija zavrača tudi tretji argument Nemčije.
Moreover, Germany claims that other Member States also provide tax relief for the restructuring of companies, such as the French aid scheme for the takeover of firms in difficulty.
Poleg tega Nemčija trdi, da ostale države članice prav tako zagotavljajo davčne olajšave za prestrukturiranje podjetij; ena takšnih je francoska shema pomoči za prevzem podjetij v težavah.
The Commission cannot accept Germany’s argument, which is based on a comparison.
Komisija ne more sprejeti argumenta Nemčije, ki temelji na primerjavi.
Secondly, the conditions imposed on measures under the French scheme differ from §8c(1a) KStG.
Drugič, pogoji, ki veljajo za ukrepe v francoski shemi, se razlikujejo od člena 8c(1a) KStG.
The French scheme provides for a tax exemption for newly created companies which take over a firm in difficulty.
Francoska shema predvideva davčno oprostitev za novo nastala podjetja, ki prevzamejo podjetje v težavah.
After the scheme was declared incompatible within the common market by the Commission in 2004, [36] France changed it to comply with the State aid rules. The benefits provided are now partly de minimis.
Ko je Komisija leta 2004 razglasila shemo za nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom [36], ga je Francija spremenila, tako da je ustrezal pravilom o državni pomoči.
The other part of the aid is compatible as regional aid or SME aid.
Zagotovljene koristi so zdaj deloma de minimis.
The Commission therefore concludes from the above that the measure in question does not derive directly from the basic principles of the tax system and is not justified by the nature and general scheme of the tax system.
Zato Komisija na podlagi zgoraj navedenega sklene, da zadevni ukrep ne izhaja neposredno iz osnovnih načel davčnega sistema ter ni upravičen z naravo in splošno shemo davčnega sistema.
The link between the old and new Sanierungsklausel
Povezava med staro in novo shemo za prenos davčnih izgub (Sanierungsklausel)
Germany argues that §8c(1a) KStG essentially corresponds to the old §8(4) KStG and that the Commission had never considered §8(4) KStG to be State aid.
Nemčija trdi, da je člen 8c(1a) KStG v bistvu enak staremu členu 8(4) KStG in da Komisija ni nikoli obravnavala člena 8(4) KStG kot državno pomoč.
The Commission points out that Germany never notified §8(4) KStG.
Komisija poudarja, da Nemčija ni nikoli priglasila člena 8(4) KStG.
The Commission has therefore not yet taken a view on whether it involved State aid.
Komisija zato še ni presodila, ali vsebuje državno pomoč.
This procedure concerns only §8c(1a) KStG, since the opening of the formal investigation procedure was limited to this provision.
Ta postopek se nanaša samo na člen 8c(1a) KStG, ker je bil začetek formalnega postopka preiskave omejen na to določbo.
Germany cannot rely on the argument that the Commission has never formally objected to §8(4) KStG in order to justify §8c(1a) KStG because the German authorities have never notified §8(4) KStG.
Nemčija se pri utemeljevanju člena 8c(1a) KStG ne more sklicevati na argument, da Komisija ni nikoli formalno oporekala členu 8(4) KStG, ker ga nemške oblasti nikoli niso priglasile.
The Commission reserves the right to analyse §8(4) KStG under the State aid rules, should it transpire that this provision may have provided undertakings with a selective advantage.
Če bi se izkazalo, da je ta odločba podjetjem zagotavljala selektivno prednost, si Komisija pridržuje pravico, da analizira člen 8(4) KStG v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči.
Similar tax schemes in other Member States
Podobne davčne sheme v drugih državah članicah
The fact that other Member States have similar or identical tax schemes in operation, which they have not notified to the Commission, has no bearing on the analysis of the question whether a given measure constitutes State aid.
Dejstvo, da druge države članice uporabljajo podobne ali enake davčne sheme, ki jih niso priglasile Komisiji, ne vpliva na analizo vprašanja, ali zadevni ukrep pomeni državno pomoč.
The Commission will analyse the information submitted by Germany pursuant to Article 10 of the Procedural Regulation [38].
Komisija bo informacije, ki jih je posredovala Nemčija, analizirala v skladu s členom 10 postopkovne uredbe [38].
Conclusion on the existence of a selective advantage
Sklep o obstoju selektivne prednosti
The Commission therefore concludes that §8c(1a) KStG provides a selective advantage to the companies to which it applies.
Zato Komisija sklene, da člen 8c(1a) KStG zagotavlja selektivno prednost podjetjem, za katera velja.
Effect on intra-Union trade
Vpliv na trgovino znotraj Unije
The measure must be liable to affect intra-Union trade and distort or threaten to distort competition.
Ukrep mora biti takšen, da vpliva na trgovino znotraj Unije in izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco.
§8c(1a) KStG is not sector-specific, i.e. all sectors can benefit from it.
Člen 8c(1a) KStG se ne osredotoča na posamezne sektorje; to pomeni, da imajo lahko od njega korist vsi sektorji.
Virtually all sectors of the German economy are active on markets open to competition and intra-Union trade.
Skoraj vsi sektorji nemškega gospodarstva so dejavni na trgih, ki so odprti za konkurenco in trgovino znotraj Unije.
Hence, the measure is liable to affect intra-Union trade and to distort or threaten to distort competition.
Zato je ukrep takšen, da vpliva na trgovino znotraj Unije in izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco.
The Commission observes that, according to the information provided by Germany, all undertakings eligible for the measure are eligible for insolvency proceedings under German insolvency law (see recital 14 and footnote 7).
Komisija na podlagi informacij, ki jih je predložila Nemčija, ugotavlja, da so vsa podjetja, ki so upravičena do ukrepa, po nemškem zakonu o plačilni nesposobnosti upravičena do postopkov zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti (glej uvodno izjavo 14 in opombo 7).
Therefore, all potential beneficiaries of the measure are undertakings in difficulty within the meaning of point 10(c) of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereinafter: the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines).
Tako so torej vsi potencialni upravičenci ukrepa podjetja v težavah v smislu člena 10(c) Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah (v nadaljevanju: smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje).
As a consequence, none of the beneficiaries is eligible for de minimis aid pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid [39], as Article 1(h) of that Regulation excludes undertakings in difficulty from its scope.
Posledično v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1998/2006 z dne 15. decembra 2006 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe pri pomoči de minimis noben od upravičencev ni upravičen do pomoči de minimis [39], saj člen 1(h) te Uredbe s svojega področja uporabe izključuje podjetja v težavah.