natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Third, the Commission notes also that, as already stated, a measure which creates an exception to the application of a general tax system may be justified if it results directly from the basic or guiding principles of the (reference) tax system, in this instance the ICI.
Po ugotovitvah Komisije, kot je bilo že navedeno, je lahko ukrep, s katerim se ustvari izjema pri uporabi splošnega davčnega sistema, utemeljen, če izhaja neposredno iz osnovnih ali vodilnih načel (referenčnega) davčnega sistema, v tem primeru občinskega davka na nepremičnine.
In this context, as stated in paragraph 26 of the Commission notice on the application of the state aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation [50], a distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the external objectives assigned to a particular tax scheme (in particular, social or social objectives) and, on the other hand, the objectives which are inherent in the tax system itself.
V tem okviru, kot je bilo navedeno v točki 26 obvestila Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka [50], je treba razlikovati na eni strani med zunanjimi cilji določene davčne sheme (predvsem socialnimi ali regionalnimi cilji) in cilji, ki jih vsebuje sam davčni sistem, na drugi.
Consequently, tax exemptions which are the result of objectives unrelated to the reference tax system cannot circumvent the requirements under Article 107(1) of the Treaty [51].
Zato se oprostitve davka, ki bi izhajale iz cilja, ki ni cilj referenčnega davčnega sistema, ne bi mogle izogniti zahtevam iz člena 107(1) [51].
The primary purpose of the tax system in question is to collect revenue to finance state expenditure [52] by taxing possession of real estate.
Prvotni namen zadevnega davčnega sistema je pobiranje prihodkov za financiranje državnih odhodkov [52], tako da se obdavči lastništvo nepremičnin.
Thus, the Commission considers that the social objectives pursued by the entities falling within the scope of the ICI exemption are external to the logic of the ICI tax system and therefore cannot be relied upon to justify prima facie the selectivity of the measure.
Tako Komisija meni, da so socialni cilji subjektov, ki spadajo v področje uporabe oprostitve davka na nepremičnine, zunaj logike davčnega sistema občinskega davka na nepremičnine in jih zato ni mogoče uveljavljati, da se na prvi pogled utemelji selektivnost ukrepa.
Fourth, in line with the case law [53], when determining if a measure can be justified by the nature or general scheme of the national system of which it forms part, it is necessary to establish not only if the measure forms an inherent part of the essential principles of the tax system applicable in the Member State concerned, but also if it complies with the principles of consistency and proportionality.
Pri določanju, ali je ukrep lahko utemeljen z naravo ali splošno shemo nacionalnega sistema, v katerega spada, je treba v skladu s sodno prakso [53] ugotoviti ne le, ali je ukrep sestavni del osnovnih načel davčnega sistema, ki se uporablja v zadevni državi članici, ampak tudi, ali je skladen z načeli doslednosti in sorazmernosti.
However, given that the measure at issue does not result directly from the basic principles of the reference tax system, the Commission considers it superfluous to analyse the system of controls put in place by Italy to ensure compliance with the conditions for the ICI exemption for non-commercial entities, as described by the Italian authorities.
Vendar Komisija ob upoštevanju tega, da obravnavani ukrep ne izhaja neposredno iz osnovnih načel referenčnega davčnega sistema, meni, da ni potrebno analizirati sistema nadzora, vzpostavljenega v Italiji, da se zagotovi skladnost s pogoji za oprostitev občinskega davka na nepremičnine za nekomercialne subjekte, kot opisujejo italijanski organi.
In any event, the differentiated tax treatment of non-commercial entities, introduced by the measure at issue, is neither necessary nor proportionate in terms of the logic of the tax system.
Različna davčna obravnava nekomercialnih subjektov, uvedena z obravnavanim ukrepom, ni niti potrebna niti sorazmerna glede na logiko davčnega sistema.
In the light of paragraphs 122 to 127, the Commission concludes that the selective nature of the tax measure in question is not justified by the logic of the tax system.
Komisija glede na odstavke od (122) do (127) ugotavlja, da selektivna narava zadevnega davčnega ukrepa ni utemeljena z logiko davčnega sistema.
Therefore, the contested measure must be considered to grant a selective advantage to non-commercial entities performing specific activities.
Zato je treba sporni ukrep obravnavati, kot da dodeljuje selektivno prednost nekomercialnim subjektom, ki opravljajo posebne dejavnosti.
Effects on trade between Member States and distortion of competition
Vplivi na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivljanje konkurence
Article 107(1) of the Treaty prohibits aid which affects trade between Member States and distorts or threatens to distort competition.
S členom 107(1) Pogodbe se prepoveduje pomoč, ki lahko prizadene trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco.
According to the case law of the Court of Justice [54], to classify a national measure as state aid, the Commission is required, not to establish that the aid in question has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether the aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition.
Da bi se nacionalni ukrep obravnaval kot državna pomoč, Komisija v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [54] ni dolžna ugotavljati stvarnega vpliva pomoči na trgovino med državami članicami niti dejanskega izkrivljanja konkurence, ampak je dolžna le proučiti, ali lahko te pomoči vplivajo na to trgovino in na izkrivljanje konkurence.
It should also be noted, as explained in paragraph 107 above, that in order to decide on classifying a scheme as state aid, it is not necessary to demonstrate that all individual aid granted under that scheme qualifies as state aid under Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Prav tako je treba upoštevati, kot je pojasnjeno v odstavku (107), da za opredelitev sheme kot državne pomoči ni treba dokazati, da se vsa individualna pomoč, dodeljena v skladu s to shemo, šteje kot pomoč iz člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
For this purpose, in order to conclude that a scheme contains aid elements within the meaning of Article 107(1), it is sufficient for situations to arise during its implementation that constitute aid.
V ta namen za ugotovitev, da shema vključuje elemente pomoči v smislu člena 107(1), zadostuje, da se med izvajanjem sheme pojavijo položaji, ki pomenijo pomoč.
With regard more specifically to the condition that trade between Member States must be affected, it follows from the case law that the grant of aid by a Member State, in the form of tax relief, to some of its taxable persons must be regarded as likely to have an effect on trade and, consequently, as meeting that condition, where those taxable persons perform an economic activity in the field of such trade or it is conceivable that they are in competition with operators established in other Member States [55].
Iz sodne prakse zlasti glede pogoja vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami izhaja, da je treba dodelitev pomoči, ki jo država članica v obliki davčne olajšave nameni nekaterim davčnim zavezancem, šteti, kot da lahko vpliva na trgovino in kot da zato izpolnjuje ta pogoj, kadar navedeni davčni zavezanci opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, ki je predmet te trgovine, ali kadar se domneva, da so ti zavezanci konkurenti subjekti s sedežem v drugih državah članicah [55].
Furthermore, when aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid.
Poleg tega se, kadar pomoč države članice okrepi položaj enega podjetja v razmerju do drugih konkurenčnih podjetij v trgovini znotraj Unije, šteje, da pomoč vpliva na ta podjetja.
Moreover, it is not necessary for the recipient undertaking itself to be involved in intra-Union trade.
Opozoriti je treba, da ni nujno, da je upravičeno podjetje vključeno v trgovino znotraj Unije.
Where a Member State grants aid to an undertaking, its activity on the domestic market may be maintained or increased as a result, so that the opportunities for undertakings established in other Member States to penetrate the market in that Member State are thereby reduced.
Kadar država članica dodeli pomoč podjetju, se lahko njegova dejavnost na nacionalnem trgu zaradi tega ohrani ali poveča, tako se možnosti, da druga podjetja s sedežem v drugih državah članicah prodrejo na trg v tej državi članici, s tem zmanjšajo.
With regard to the condition of the distortion of competition, it should be borne in mind that, in principle, aid intended to release an undertaking from costs which it would normally have to bear in its day-to-day management or normal activities distorts the conditions of competition [56].
Glede pogoja izkrivljanja konkurence je treba upoštevati, da načeloma pomoč, ki naj bi podjetju omogočila zmanjšanje stroškov, ki ga sicer bremenijo v okviru izvajanja tekočih poslov ali običajnih dejavnosti, izkrivlja pogoje konkurence [56].
The Italian authorities did not submit any comment in this respect.
V zvezi s tem niso italijanski organi predložili nobene pripombe.
Some of the 78 third interested parties consider that the ICI exemption is unable to cause any significant effect on trade or distortion of competition, given the specific features of the recipients of the scheme and the way they carry on the activities giving rise to the exemption.
Nekatere od 78 tretjih zainteresiranih strani menijo, da oprostitev občinskega davka na nepremičnine ne more bistveno prizadeti trgovine ali izkrivljati konkurence zaradi posebnih značilnosti prejemnikov sheme in načina, na katerega opravljajo dejavnosti, ki privedejo do oprostitve.
The Commission cannot agree with the views presented by those interested parties, according to which the exemption at issue, granted to non-commercial entities operating at local level, did not cause any significant effect on trade and distortion of competition.
Komisija se ne more strinjati s stališči teh strani, ki menijo, da obravnavana oprostitev, dodeljena nekomercialnim subjektom, ki delujejo na lokalni ravni, ni bistveno prizadela trgovine in izkrivljala konkurence.
According to well established case law, in fact, an adverse effect on trade requires nothing more than a determination that the favoured undertaking is active in a market which is open to competition (import or export of goods or transnational provision of services) [57].
V skladu z dobro ustaljeno sodno prakso škodljiv vpliv na trgovino dejansko ne potrebuje drugega kot določitev, da je podjetje s prednostjo dejavno na trgu, ki je odprt za konkurenco (bodisi uvoz ali izvoz blaga bodisi mednarodno zagotavljanje storitev) [57].
It is irrelevant whether the affected markets are local, regional, national or Union-wide.
Ni pomembno, ali so prizadeti trgi lokalni, regionalni, nacionalni ali na ravni Unije.
Indeed, it is not the definition of the substantively and geographically relevant markets which is decisive, but rather the potential adverse effect on intra-Union trade.
Dejansko ni odločilna opredelitev vsebinsko in geografsko upoštevnih trgov, temveč prej možnega škodljivega vpliva na trgovino znotraj Unije.
The relatively small amount of aid or the relatively small size of the undertaking which receives it does not as such exclude the possibility that intra-Union trade might be affected [58].
Sorazmerno majhen pomen pomoči ali sorazmerna majhnost podjetja, ki prejme pomoč, kot taka ne izključujeta možnosti, da bi lahko bila prizadeta trgovina znotraj Unije [58].
In fact, neither the insignificant amount of the aid nor the small size of the favoured undertakings rules out the presence of the aid [59].
Dejansko niti relativno majhen znesek pomoči niti majhnost podjetij s prednostjo ne izključujeta obstoja državne pomoči [59].
In the case at hand, the Commission notes that at least some of the sectors benefiting from the ICI exemption, such as accommodation and health services, were and are indeed exposed to competition and trade within the Union.
V obravnavani zadevi Komisija navaja, da so vsaj nekateri sektorji, ki so upravičeni do oprostitve občinskega davka na nepremičnine, kot so nastanitvene in zdravstvene storitve, bili ter so dejansko še vedno izpostavljeni konkurenci in trgovini v Uniji.
With reference to the measure at issue, the Commission considers that the conditions set out in the case law are met because the measure provides an advantage in terms of financing the activities of the entities concerned, releasing those entities from costs which they would have normally borne.
Komisija s sklicevanjem na obravnavani ukrep meni, da so pogoji iz sodne prakse izpolnjeni, ker ukrep zagotavlja prednost v smislu financiranja dejavnosti zadevnih subjektov, tako da subjektom ni treba plačati stroškov, ki bi jih sicer krili.
The measure is therefore liable to distort competition.
Ukrep bi zato lahko izkrivljal konkurenco.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the measure at issue is liable to affect trade between Member States and distort competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da bi obravnavani ukrep lahko prizadel trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivljal konkurenco v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Conclusion on the classification of the contested measure
Sklepna ugotovitev glede opredelitve spornega ukrepa
In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that the measure at issue fulfils all the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) of the Treaty and should thus be regarded as state aid.
Komisija glede na navedeno ugotavlja, da sporni ukrep izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz člena 107(1) Pogodbe in bi ga bilo treba na ta način obravnavati kot državno pomoč.
Classification of the measure as new aid
Opredelitev ukrepa kot nova pomoč
In the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission considered that the ICI exemption under Article 7(1)(i) of Legislative Decree No 504/92 constituted new aid.
Komisija je v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka menila, da je oprostitev občinskega davka na nepremičnine iz člena 7(1)(i) zakonske uredbe št. 504/92 pomenila novo pomoč.
The exemption applied to a wide range of activities which were open to competition at the time of its introduction.
Oprostitev se je uporabljala za širok razpon dejavnosti, ki so bile ob uvedbi tega davka odprte za konkurenco.
Italy submits that the approach taken by the Commission in the decision initiating the procedure is incorrect and that, if the ICI exemption were considered to be aid, it should be classified as existing aid.
Italija trdi, da pristop, ki ga je uporabila Komisija v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka, ni pravilen ter da bi se oprostitev občinskega davka na nepremičnine, če se je obravnavala kot pomoč, morala opredeliti kot veljavna pomoč.
Italy maintains that ICI represents the logical legislative progression from the earlier property taxes, with which it provides formal and material continuity.
Italijanski organi vztrajajo pri tem, da je občinski davek na nepremičnine logična pravna nadaljnja stopnja prejšnjih davkov na premoženje, s katerimi ima formalno in materialno zvezo.
Exempting real estate used for specific activities with a high social value has been a fundamental component of all taxes on real estate introduced since 1931, well before the entry into force of the EEC Treaty.
Oprostitev davka na nepremičnine za posebne dejavnosti z velikim družbenim pomenom je bila bistvena sestavina vse nepremičninske zakonodaje od leta 1931, mnogo preden je začela veljati Pogodba EGS.
The Italian authorities also argue that the Commission’s replies to the complainants concerning the ICI exemption, of which Italy was informally notified, had created a legitimate expectation on the part of non-commercial entities as to the compatibility of the ICI exemption with Union law.
Italijanski organi tudi trdijo, da je Komisija z odgovori pritožnikom v zvezi z oprostitvijo občinskega davka na nepremičnine, o čemer je bila Italija neuradno obveščena, pri nekomercialnih subjektih ukrepa ustvarila legitimno pričakovanje glede združljivosti te oprostitve s pravom Unije.
Italy presented a detailed description of the real estate taxes that were in force before ICI.
Italija je zagotovila podroben opis nepremičninskih davkov, veljavnih pred občinskim davkom na nepremičnine.
In 1931, Italy introduced the specific and general improvement taxes in the Single Act on Local Finance.
Italija je leta 1931 v enotnem aktu o lokalnih financah uvedla posebne in splošne davčne izboljšave.
Similarly, the 1963 tax also targeted the capital gain of building areas.
Podobno je bil davek iz leta 1963 usmerjen tudi na kapitalski dobiček zazidalnih območij.
This capital gain was also taxed at the time of transfer of the properties by inter vivos deeds and, in general, at the end of every ten years of possession of the real estate.
Ta kapitalski dobiček je bil tudi obdavčen ob prenosu premoženja z akti med živimi in na splošno na koncu vsakega desetletnega obdobja lastništva nepremičnine.
INVIM was abolished with the introduction of ICI.
Davek na povečanje vrednosti nepremičnine je bil ukinjen z uvedbo občinskega davka na nepremičnine.
According to Italy, this analysis demonstrates the close continuity between the various real estate tax instruments used since 1931.
Po mnenju Italije ta analiza pojasnjuje tesno zvezo med različnimi nepremičninskimi davčnimi instrumenti, ki so se uporabljali od leta 1931.
Italy also notes that the rules on real estate tax exemptions have always taken into account the type of activity carried on by the entities that were entitled to the exemption.
Italija prav tako navaja, da se je pri pravilih o oprostitvi davka na nepremičnine vedno upoštevala dejavnost, ki so jo opravljali subjekti, upravičeni do oprostitve.
The fact that the categories of exempted recipients have increased over the years is simply due to the fact that the range of entities pursuing social interest activities has broadened.
Dejstvo, da so se kategorije prejemnikov, upravičenih do oprostitve davka, z leti povečale, je preprosto posledica tega, da se je razširil razpon dejavnosti v socialnem interesu.
The Commission does not consider the Italian authorities’ arguments to be correct.
Po mnenju Komisije trditve italijanskih organov niso pravilne.
First, the Commission points out that ICI is completely different from the earlier property taxes that it replaces.
Komisija najprej opozarja, da je občinski davek na nepremičnine povsem drugačen od prejšnjih davkov na premoženje, ki jih nadomešča.
In any case, there are a number of substantial differences between ICI and the previous real estate taxes, in terms of taxable persons, taxable base and events which gave rise to the obligation to pay these taxes.
V vsakem primeru je med občinskim davkom na nepremičnine in prejšnjimi davki na nepremičnine veliko znatnih razlik glede na davčne zavezance, davčno osnovo in dogodke, ki so privedli do obveznosti plačevanja teh davkov.
For instance, until the introduction of ICI, real estate taxes were calculated on the capital gain of the real estate whereas ICI was calculated on the basis of the real estate’s cadastral value.
Na primer, do uvedbe občinskega davka na nepremičnine so se davki na nepremičnine izračunavali na podlagi kapitalskega dobička nepremičnine, medtem ko se občinski davek na nepremičnine izračuna na podlagi katastrske vrednosti nepremičnine.
In addition, whereas INVIM was due by the transferor for consideration or by the transferee without charge, ICI was due by every natural and legal person that possessed real estate.
Davek na povečanje vrednosti nepremičnine mora plačati odplačni odsvojitelj ali neodplačni prevzemnik, medtem ko mora davek na nepremičnine plačati vsaka fizična ali pravna oseba, ki je imela v lasti nepremičnino.
Finally, whereas INVIM was generally paid every ten years, ICI had to be paid each year.
Davek na povečanje vrednosti nepremičnine je treba plačati vsakih deset let, davek na nepremičnine pa je bilo treba plačati vsako leto.
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that the amendments introduced over time and, in particular, with the ICI Law, affect the actual substance of the original scheme and cannot be separated from it, so that the original scheme is transformed into a new aid scheme [60].
Komisija glede na navedeno meni, da postopoma uvedene spremembe in zlasti zakon o občinskem davku na nepremičnine vplivajo na dejansko bistvo prvotne sheme ter se od nje ne morejo ločiti, tako da se prvotna shema preoblikuje v novo shemo pomoči [60].
The Commission has no reason to review the position set out in the decision initiating the procedure and confirms that the ICI exemption constituted new aid.
Komisija nima razloga, da bi pregledala stališče iz sklepa o sprožitvi postopka, in potrjuje, da je oprostitev občinskega davka na nepremičnine pomenila novo pomoč.
As regards the alleged authorisation of the ICI measure, the Commission notes that the aid in question was never authorized by the Commission or the Council.
Komisija glede domnevne odobritve ukrepa občinskega davka na nepremičnine navaja, da nista ne Komisija in ne Svet nikoli odobrila obravnavane pomoči.
If this had been the case, the aid would be considered existing aid, according to Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Če bi se to zgodilo, bi se pomoč obravnavala kot veljavna pomoč v skladu s členom 1(b)(ii) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
However, the letters containing the Commission’s preliminary assessment, which were sent to the complainants in the context of the administrative proceedings prior to the decision initiating the procedure, cannot be equated to Commission decisions.
Vendar se dopisi s predhodno oceno Komisije, poslani pritožnikom v okviru upravnega postopka pred sklepom o sprožitvi postopka, ne morejo izenačevati z odločitvami Komisije.
Indeed, a measure can be considered existing aid under Article 1(b)(ii) only if the aid has already been approved by an express decision of the Commission or the Council.
Ukrep se dejansko lahko obravnava kot veljavna pomoč iz člena 1(b)(ii) le, če je bila pomoč že odobrena z izrecno odločitvijo Komisije ali Sveta.
In any event, the letter sent to the complainants on 15 February 2010 was challenged by two complainants before the General Court and did not become final; these Court actions were withdrawn only after the decision initiating the procedure.
Dve zainteresirani strani sta dopis, poslan pritožnikom 15. februarja 2010, izpodbijali pred Splošnim sodiščem s tožbama, ki pa nista postali pravnomočni; ti tožbi pred Sodiščem sta bili umaknjeni šele po sklepu o sprožitvi postopka.
The Commission accordingly concludes that, in the absence of any Commission or Council decision, Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 does not apply.
Komisija v skladu s tem ugotavlja, da se člen 1(b)(ii) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 ne uporablja, ker nista ne Komisija in ne Svet sprejela kakršne koli odločitve.
Therefore, the aid at issue cannot be considered existing aid - on the contrary, it constitutes new aid.
Zato se obravnavani ukrep ne more obravnavati kot veljavna pomoč, ampak nasprotno pomeni novo pomoč.
In the decision initiating the procedure, the Commission considered that the aid scheme in question did not qualify for any of the exemptions laid down in Article 107(2) and (3) of the Treaty and that the Italian authorities had not demonstrated that the aid could be declared compatible under Article 106(2) of the Treaty.
Komisija je v sklepu o sprožitvi postopka menila, da obravnavana shema pomoči ni upravičena do nobenih olajšav iz člena 107(2) in (3) Pogodbe ter da italijanski organi niso dokazali, da bi se lahko pomoč razglasila za združljivo v skladu s členom 106(2) Pogodbe.