natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this regard, it is also contradictory that the Danish authorities should consider offline and online betting services to be similar activities and so subject them to the same tax treatment while regarding other types of online and land-based gambling activities as distinct activities and subjecting them to different tax rates.
Glede tega je sporno tudi, da bi danski organi klasične in spletne stave šteli za podobne dejavnosti in zanje uvedli enako davčno obravnavo, druge vrste spletnih in klasičnih iger na srečo pa bi obravnavali kot različne dejavnosti in zanje uvedli različne davčne stopnje.
The alleged differences in the socioeconomic profiles of consumers, addiction risks, or market evolution are likewise insufficient to demonstrate that online and land-based gambling constitute two different types of activities that are not legally and factually comparable.
Domnevna razlika med družbeno-gospodarskimi profili potrošnikov, nevarnost zasvojenosti ali razvoj trga prav tako ne zadoščajo za dokaz, da spletne in klasične igre na srečo predstavljajo dve različni vrsti dejavnosti, ki pravno in dejansko nista primerljivi.
Some of the studies relied upon by the Danish authorities and the complainants alike, appear to contain enough findings to support opposing conclusions.
Za nekatere študije, na katere so se opirali danski organi in drugi pritožniki, se zdi, da obsegajo dovolj ugotovitev za podporo nasprotnih sklepov.
Thus, with regard to the 2006 Commission Study on Gambling Services in the Internal Market [41], the Danish authorities claim that the study tends to show that online and land-based markets are separate [42].
Tako danski organi glede študije Komisije o igrah na srečo na notranjem trgu iz leta 2006 [41] trdijo, da študija dokazuje, da sta spletni in klasični trg ločena [42].
By contrast, the same report is cited by some interested parties [43] to show that the online gambling market should not be regarded as a new market but rather as the evolution of the same gambling market, marked by the development of new hybrid gaming venues [44].
Nasprotno pa nekatere zainteresirane strani isto študijo [43] navajajo, da bi dokazale, da trga spletnih iger na srečo ne bi smeli obravnavati kot nov trg, ampak kot razvoj istega trga iger na srečo, ki ga je zaznamoval razvoj novih hibridnih igralnic [44].
Likewise, contradictory statements are found in the study carried out by the Danish National Centre for Social Research [45], which is cited by the Danish authorities and the complainants.
Podobno se nasprotujoče si izjave najdejo v študiji, ki jo je izvedel danski nacionalni center za socialne raziskave [45], navajajo pa jo tako danski organi kot pritožniki.
Whereas the Danish authorities claim that gamblers in land-based casinos differ from those in online casinos in terms of age, gender and education level, the complainants, relying on the same study, come to the opposite conclusion, claiming that the study demonstrates that there are no major distinctions between the profiles of the consumers playing in land-based or online casinos.
Danski organi trdijo, da se igralci v klasičnih igralnicah razlikujejo od igralcev v spletnih igralnicah glede na starost, spol in stopnjo izobrazbe, pritožniki pa s sklicevanjem na isto študijo trdijo, da študija kaže, da med profili igralcev, ki igrajo v klasičnih ali spletnih igralnicah, ni bistvene razlike.
In their view, the study shows that gamblers playing games both in land-based and online casinos would typically be the same young men between 18 and 24 years old [46].
Po njihovem mnenju študija kaže, da so igralci, ki igrajo igre tako v klasičnih kot spletnih igralnicah, običajno mladi moški, stari med 18 in 24 let [46].
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that online and land-based casinos should be perceived as legally and factually comparable.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija ugotavlja, da je treba spletne in klasične igralnice obravnavati kot pravno in dejansko primerljive.
As both online and land-based gambling pose the same risks, the notified measure addresses both online and land-based gambling.
Ker spletno in klasično igranje iger na srečo predstavljata enako nevarnost, priglašeni ukrep obravnava tako spletne kot klasične igre na srečo.
The measure at issue introduces differential tax treatment favouring online gambling operators to the detriment of land-based casinos.
Zadevni ukrep uvaja različno davčno obravnavo v korist spletnih igralnic in na škodo klasičnih igralnic.
It follows that the measure under review should be regarded prima facie as selective within the meaning of article 107 TFEU, since it constitutes a departure from the general tax regime.
Iz tega sledi, da je treba zadevni ukrep a priori obravnavati kot selektiven v smislu člena 107 PDEU, saj pomeni odmik od splošnega davčnega sistema.
Justification by the logic of the tax system
Upravičenost v skladu z logiko davčnega sistema
Whether a measure that appears prima facie to be selective can be justified by the nature and general scheme of the system has to be assessed in the light of existing case law.
Ali se ukrep, ki se zdi a priori selektiven, lahko upraviči z naravo in logiko sistema, je treba oceniti ob upoštevanju obstoječe sodne prakse.
The guiding principles or rationales of the tax system can be relied upon to justify the selectivity of the measure.
Selektivnost ukrepa je mogoče upravičiti z usmerjevalnimi načeli ali utemeljitvijo davčnega sistema.
In this regard, the Danish authorities argued that, given the peculiarities of the sector involved, the differential tax treatment in favour of online gambling operators constitutes the only way to ensure the efficiency of their tax regime.
Glede tega so danski organi trdili, da je glede na posebnosti zadevnega sektorja različna davčna obravnava v korist spletnih igralnic edini način za zagotavljanje učinkovitosti davčnega sistema.
Setting a higher tax rate would discourage online gambling operators from applying for a Danish licence, whereas introducing a lower tax burden for all operators concerned would be contrary to the overall objective of keeping gambling at a reasonable level.
Višja davčna stopnja bi ponudnike spletnih igralnic odvrnila od pridobivanja danskega dovoljenja, uvedba nižjega davčnega bremena za vse zadevne ponudnike pa bi bila v nasprotju s splošnim ciljem ohranjanja igranja iger na srečo na razumni ravni.
The Danish authorities have also asserted that the financial capacity of online gambling operators, being allegedly lower than that of land-based casino operators, justified the different tax rates between the two categories of operators.
Danski organi so trdili tudi, da finančna zmožnost spletnih igralnic, ki naj bi bila nižja od finančne zmožnosti klasičnih igralnic, upravičuje različne davčne stopnje med obema kategorijama igralnic.
In the light of the foregoing arguments, the Commission recalls that, according to case law [47] and the Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation [48], a Member State has to establish whether the measure under consideration derives from the basic or guiding principles of that system.
Ob upoštevanju navedenih trditev Komisija opozarja, da mora država članica v skladu s sodno prakso [47] in Obvestilom Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka [48] ugotoviti, ali zadevni ukrep izhaja iz osnovnih ali iz usmerjevalnih načel tega sistema.
A justification based on the nature or overall structure of the tax system in question constitutes an exception to the principle that State aid is prohibited.
Utemeljitev na podlagi narave ali splošne sheme zadevnega davčnega sistema predstavlja izjemo od načela, da je državna pomoč prepovedana.
It follows that it is incumbent upon the Danish authorities to prove that the tax measure in question is justified by the logic of the tax system.
Iz tega sledi, da morajo danski organi dokazati, da je zadevni davčni ukrep upravičen zaradi logike davčnega sistema.
However, the Danish authorities did not adduce any sufficient and convincing evidence to support their assertion that lowering the tax rate for a particular segment (online operators) of a wider category (gambling operators) as a means to ensure that the former would apply for a license derives from the principles and the logic underpinning their tax system.
Vendar pa danski organi niso predložili zadostnih in prepričljivih dokazov, ki bi podprli njihovo trditev, da znižanje davčne stopnje za določen segment (spletni ponudniki) obsežnejše kategorije (ponudniki iger na srečo) kot sredstvo za zagotavljanje, da bodo spletni ponudniki zaprosili za dovoljenje, izhaja iz načel in logike, na katerih temelji danski davčni sistem.
In particular, the objective of attracting foreign online gambling service providers in Denmark and making them subject to the Danish rules should be regarded as a public policy objective that falls outside the logic of the tax system.
Zlasti cilj privabljanja tujih ponudnikov storitev spletnih iger na srečo na Danskem in njihovo upoštevanje danskih pravil bi bilo treba obravnavati kot cilj javne politike, ki je zunaj logike davčnega sistema.
Likewise, with regard to online gambling operators’ alleged lower capacity to pay, the Danish authorities failed to establish that there is a difference in profitability between online and land-based casino activities that would justify the differential tax treatment.
Podobno glede domnevne zmožnosti plačila ponudnikov spletnih iger na srečo danski organi niso uspeli dokazati, da obstaja razlika med dobičkonosnostjo spletnih in klasičnih iger na srečo, ki bi upravičila različno davčno obravnavo.
Nor have the Danish authorities demonstrated that the financial capacity to pay is a principle embedded in their system of direct business taxation that could be relied upon in the present case as a justification for the differential tax treatment of online and land-based casinos.
Prav tako danski organi niso dokazali, da je finančna zmožnost plačila načelo, ki je zajeto v njihovem sistemu neposrednega obdavčenja podjetij in ki bi ga lahko uporabili v zadevnem primeru za utemeljitev različne davčne obravnave spletnih in klasičnih igralnic.
It follows from the foregoing that the Commission does not consider that the selectivity of the notified Act is justified in the light of the logic of the tax system.
Iz navedenega sledi, da po mnenju Komisije selektivnost priglašenega ukrepa ob upoštevanju logike davčnega sistema ni upravičena.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the criteria set out in Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled and that the measure imposing a lower tax rate on online gambling constitutes State aid for the providers of online gambling services established in Denmark.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega Komisija meni, da so merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU izpolnjena in da ukrep, ki uvaja nižjo davčno stopnjo za spletne igre na srečo, pomeni državno pomoč za ponudnike storitev spletnih iger na srečo s sedežem na Danskem.
Compatibility of the measure on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU
Združljivost ukrepa na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU
Article 107(2) and (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union lay down rules stipulating when certain aid measures are compatible with the internal market and what types of aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market.
Člen 107(2) in (3) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije navaja pravila, ki določajo, kdaj so določeni ukrepi pomoči združljivi z notranjim trgom in katere vrste pomoči se lahko štejejo za združljive z notranjim trgom.
The Commission considers that the measure at issue can be declared compatible with the internal market under the derogation provided for in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, which allows ‘… aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’
Komisija meni, da se lahko zadevni ukrep šteje za združljivega z notranjim trgom na podlagi odstopanja iz člena 107(3)(c) PDEU, ki omogoča „… pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne spreminja trgovinskih pogojev v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.“
The Commission notes that the measure does not fall within the scope of existing guidelines for the application of Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU.
Komisija ugotavlja, da ukrep ne spada na področje uporabe veljavnih smernic za uporabo člena 107(3)(c) PDEU.
It therefore has to be assessed directly under this Treaty provision.
Zato ga je treba oceniti neposredno ob upoštevanju te določbe Pogodbe.
To be compatible under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, an aid measure must pursue an objective of common interest in a necessary and proportionate way.
Da bi veljal za združljivega s skupnim trgom po členu 107(3)(c) PDEU, mora ukrep pomoči slediti cilju skupnega interesa ter veljati za potrebnega in sorazmernega.
When assessing a measure’s compatibility with the internal market, the Commission balances its positive impact in terms of attaining an objective of common interest against its potentially negative side effects, such as distortion of trade and competition.
Pri ocenjevanju združljivosti ukrepa z notranjim trgom Komisija tehta njegov pozitivni učinek pri doseganju cilja skupnega interesa in njegove možne negativne stranske učinke, kot je izkrivljanje trgovine in konkurence.
This test is based on a three-stage examination.
Ta preizkus temelji na tristopenjskem preverjanju.
The first two stages address the positive effects of the State aid and the third stage deals with the negative effects and the resulting balance of positive and negative effects [50].
Prvi dve stopnji obravnavata pozitivne učinke državne pomoči, tretja pa negativne učinke ter posledično tehtanje pozitivnih in negativnih učinkov [50].
The test is structured as follows:
Preizkus je sestavljen na naslednji način:
Does the aid measure have a well-defined objective of common interest?
Ali ima ukrep pomoči natančno opredeljen cilj skupnega interesa?
Is the aid well suited to attain the objective of common interest i.e. does the proposed aid address a market failure or other objective?
Ali je pomoč dobro oblikovana za dosego cilja skupnega interesa, tj. ali predlagana pomoč odpravlja tržno nepopolnost ali izpolnjuje drug cilj?
In particular:
Pri tem je treba zlasti izpostaviti naslednje:
is there an incentive effect, i.e. does the aid change the behaviour of potential beneficiaries?
ali obstaja spodbujevalni učinek, tj. ali pomoč spreminja vedenje morebitnih upravičencev?
is the aid measure proportional, i.e. could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid?
ali je ukrep pomoči sorazmeren, tj. ali bi lahko bila enaka sprememba v vedenju dosežena z manj pomoči?
Are the distortions of competition and effect on trade limited, so that the overall balance is positive?
Ali sta izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino omejena, tako da je splošno ravnovesje pozitivno?
The Danish authorities explained that they decided to proceed with a reform of the existing legislation on gambling and betting services in order to replace the existing monopoly regime with a regulated and partially liberalised regime.
Danski organi so pojasnili, da bodo preoblikovali nacionalno zakonodajo o prirejanju iger na srečo in stav ter veljavno monopolno ureditev nadomestili z regulirano in delno liberalizirano ureditvijo.
Liberalisation was considered necessary, inter alia, to comply with EU law following the initiation of infringement proceedings and the issuing of a reasoned opinion on 23 March 2007 [51], and to respond to the threat posed by illegal online gambling services provided by gaming service providers located in other countries.
Liberalizacija naj bi bila med drugim potrebna tudi zaradi skladnosti z zakonodajo EU po začetku postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev in izdaji obrazloženega mnenja dne 23. marca 2007 [51] ter zaradi odziva na grožnjo, ki so jo predstavljale nezakonite spletne igre na srečo ponudnikov iger na srečo iz drugih držav.
Up to now the Danish gambling sector has essentially been a State monopoly as only one licence has been issued to a state-controlled company, ‘Danske Spil A/S’.
Do zdaj je bil danski sektor iger na srečo v bistvu državni monopol, saj je bilo izdano samo eno dovoljenje, in sicer podjetju, ki ga nadzira država, „Danske Spil A/S“.
Despite the regulatory framework prohibiting foreign online gambling providers from marketing their services to consumers resident in Denmark, many online gambling providers established in other Member States and also in third countries have offered their services via channels not located in Denmark, such as satellite television channels broadcast from the UK.
Kljub regulativnemu okviru, ki tujim ponudnikom spletnih iger na srečo prepoveduje oglaševanje njihovih storitev potrošnikom, ki prebivajo na Danskem, so številni ponudniki spletnih iger na srečo s sedežem v drugih državah članicah in tudi iz tretjih držav svoje storitve nudili preko kanalov, ki se ne nahajajo na Danskem, npr. satelitskih televizijskih kanalov, ki oddajajo iz Združenega kraljestva.
The Danish authorities stated in their notification that they could not in practice enforce the prohibition against other gaming service providers marketing their services in Denmark because of Danish court proceedings in which it was claimed that the current Danish gambling monopoly constituted a restriction of the free movement of services.
Danski organi so v priglasitvi navedli, da prepovedi za druge ponudnike iger na srečo, ki svoje storitve oglašujejo na Danskem, ne morejo izvajati v praksi zaradi danskih sodnih postopkov, v katerih je bilo izpostavljeno, da obstoječi danski monopol v sektorju iger na srečo pomeni omejitev prostega pretoka storitev.
As a result, an unsatisfactory situation persisted whereby the legality of the existing monopoly was challenged not only in administrative and judicial proceedings but also through the direct supply of online gambling services by unlicensed operators established in other jurisdictions.
Zato je prišlo do nezadovoljivega položaja, v katerem je bila zakonitost obstoječega monopola izpodbijana tako v upravnih in sodnih postopkih kot tudi preko neposrednega zagotavljanja storitev spletnih iger na srečo s strani ponudnikov brez dovoljenja, ki imajo sedež v drugih jurisdikcijah.
According to explanatory memorandum accompanying the Gaming Act, the liberalisation process was justified by reference to the latest technological developments, which meant that Denmark was now part of a global communication society where consumers have access to a wide range of services from providers of various jurisdictions.
V skladu z obrazložitvenim memorandumom, ki spremlja zakon o igrah na srečo, je bil postopek liberalizacije upravičen s sklicevanjem na najnovejši tehnološki razvoj, kar je pomenilo, da je Danska zdaj del globalne komunikacijske družbe, v kateri imajo potrošniki dostop do številnih storitev ponudnikov iz različnih jurisdikcij.
Over the past 10 years, gaming has developed into a major sales product on the Internet, especially after the introduction of online poker.
V zadnjih desetih letih so se spletne igre na srečo razvile v pomemben prodajni proizvod na internetu, zlasti po uvedbi spletnega pokra.
The Internet has provided Danish citizens with the opportunity to compare Danske Spil’s products and product range with the products offered by online gambling providers established in the UK, Malta, Gibraltar and other countries.
Internet je danskim državljanom ponudil priložnost, da primerjajo proizvode podjetja Danske Spil in obseg teh proizvodov s proizvodi, ki jih nudijo ponudniki spletnih iger na srečo s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu, na Malti, v Gibraltarju in drugih državah.
In recent years a rapidly growing number of Danes have begun to gamble with the international gaming providers.
V zadnjih letih vedno večje število Dancev uporablja storitve mednarodnih ponudnikov iger na srečo.
As explained by the Danish authorities, the government’s fear was that the provision of gaming, if not regulated and controlled effectively, could be linked with negative effects on society in the form of crime and a breakdown of public order, and could cause vulnerable individuals to become addicted to gambling.
Kot so pojasnili danski organi, je vlado skrbelo, da bi lahko bilo nudenje iger na srečo, če ga ne bi učinkovito uredili in nadzorovali, povezano z negativnimi učinki na družbo v obliki kaznivih dejanj in izgube nadzora nad javnim redom ter bi lahko povzročilo zasvojenost ranljivih posameznikov od iger na srečo.
At the same time, the profits of Danske Spil have been steadily declining.
Hkrati je dobiček podjetja Danske Spil stalno upadal.
The Danish authorities therefore needed to be able to regulate and control the gaming offered to Danish citizens in order to channel gaming into a controlled framework and so prevent negative consequences for society.
Danski organi morajo zato urediti in nadzorovati igre na srečo, ki so na voljo danskim državljanom, da bi lahko usmerili igre na srečo v nadzorovan okvir in tako preprečili pojav negativnih učinkov na družbo.
In this connection, the Commission recalls that the gambling sector has never been subject to any harmonisation within the European Union.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja, da sektor iger na srečo v Evropski uniji še nikoli ni bil predmet usklajevanja.
Under Article 2 of the Services Directive, gambling is even explicitly excluded from the Directive’s scope [52].
V skladu s členom 2 Direktive o storitvah so igre na srečo celo izrecno izključene iz področja uporabe Direktive [52].
However, despite the lack of any kind of secondary legislation in this field, cross-border gambling activities may fall within the scope of the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty, namely the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU) and the freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU).
Vendar pa lahko kljub pomanjkanju sekundarne zakonodaje na tem področju čezmejne igre na srečo sodijo na področje uporabe temeljnih svoboščin Pogodbe, tj. pravice do ustanavljanja (člen 49 PDEU) in svobode opravljanja storitev (člen 56 PDEU).
In principle, Article 56 TFEU requires the abolition of all restrictions on the freedom to provide services, even if those restrictions apply without distinction to national providers of services and to providers from other Member States, if the restrictions are liable to prohibit, impede, or render less advantageous the activities of service providers established in another Member State where they lawfully provide similar services [53].
Člen 56 PDEU načeloma zahteva prepoved vseh omejitev svobode opravljanja storitev, tudi če se ta omejitev uporablja brez razlikovanja za nacionalne ponudnike storitev in ponudnike iz drugih držav članic, če ta omejitev prepoveduje, ovira ali zmanjšuje privlačnost dejavnosti ponudnika s sedežem v drugi državi članici, kjer zakonito ponuja podobne storitve [53].
It is also settled case law that legislation by a Member State prohibiting providers established in other Member States from offering services in the territory of that first Member State via the Internet constitutes a restriction of the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 56 TFEU [54].
Uveljavljena sodna praksa je tudi, da zakonodaja države članice, ki ponudnikom s sedežem v drugih državah članicah prepoveduje nudenje storitev na območju te prve države članice prek interneta, pomeni omejitev svobode opravljanja storitev iz člena 56 PDEU [54].
In the present case, although the provision of gambling services primarily falls under the scope of the fundamental freedom of Article 56 TFEU, the Danish legislation also affects the freedom of establishment.
V zadevnem primeru, čeprav nudenje iger na srečo prvenstveno spada na področje uporabe temeljne svoboščine iz člena 56 PDEU, danska zakonodaja vpliva tudi na pravico do ustanavljanja.