natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, it would follow under the logic of the fiscal neutrality principle that Article 12(5) TRLIS covers both direct and indirect acquisitions.
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani so navedli zlasti združitev družb Scottish Power in Iberdrola, ki jo je odobrila Komisija.
The new administrative interpretation has no retroactive effects
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani menijo, da je bila Komisija na podlagi informacij, predloženih službam GD za konkurenco, seznanjena s tem, da je bil navedeni prevzem posredni prevzem deleža v družbi nerezidentki, ki izhaja iz predhodnega prevzema holdinga.
The Spanish authorities and the interested third parties also contest the statement contained in the Opening decision of 2013 relating to the retroactive effects of the administrative interpretation.
Previden in skrben gospodarski subjekt zato na podlagi odgovorov poslancem Evropskega parlamenta ni mogel sklepati, da se nanašajo le na neposreden prevzem deležev.
According to the Spanish authorities, retroactivity exists only with regard to legal provisions or legal acts that trigger legal effects on third parties.
Po mnenju španskih organov obstoj prejšnje omejevalne upravne razlage člena 12(5) TRLIS ne vpliva na legitimna pričakovanja tistih upravičencev, ki so izvedli posredne prevzeme deležev.
According to the Spanish Supreme Court, an administrative interpretation such as a tax opinion is not a legal act, but a mere procedural act.
Člen 12(5) TRLIS je namreč jasna določba, vključuje sklic na pravila o konsolidaciji računovodskih izkazov in je namenjen spodbujanju naložb španskih družb v tujini, če se lahko v določeni meri vpliva na dejavnost prevzete družbe, ki opravlja gospodarske dejavnosti.
Tax opinions cannot be appealed by the incumbent and their purpose is purely informative.
Po mnenju zainteresiranih tretjih strani interni pogovori med Komisijo in španskimi organi v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave ne spreminjajo legitimnih pričakovanj glede upravičencev ukrepa pomoči.
Since they cannot trigger legal effects, they cannot have a retroactive effect.
Ti interni pogovori bi lahko imeli pravne učinke za tretje strani, če bi bili vključeni v besedilo odločbe in sklepa.
The interested third parties agree that there is not a retroactive application of the measure.
Zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo, da je Komisija prekršila načelo „estoppel“, v skladu s katerim Komisija ne more nasprotovati lastnim aktom ali ukrepom.
First, the tax interpretations are submitted by the taxpayer for those taxes that have not been assessed and levied yet.
Komisija je v odločbi in sklepu stalno navajala posredne prevzeme.
Second, many tax payers disregarded the initial criteria contained in the administrative interpretation and applied the deduction of financial goodwill contained in Article 12(5) TRLIS to indirect acquisitions of shareholdings.
Zato ne bi smela spremeniti prvotnega jamstva iz navedenega pravnega ukrepa s trditvijo, da je davčna uprava spremenila razlago določbe.
B. LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS, LEGAL CERTAINTY AND PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL
Zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo tudi, da Komisija krši načelo pravne varnosti.
According to the Spanish authorities, in the event that the Commission determines that the new administrative interpretation relating to Article 12(5) TRLIS is unlawful new aid, the same conclusions reached in Article 1 of the First and Second Decisions with regard to legitimate expectations should also be applicable to indirect acquisitions of shareholdings.
Zainteresirane tretje strani menijo, da bi previden in skrben subjekt na podlagi besedila odločbe in sklepa menil, da so posredni prevzemi vključeni v področje uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS.
The Spanish authorities invoke Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — whereby the Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law — to claim the absence of recovery of the aid in the present case due to the existence of legitimate expectations.
PRIPOMBE ŠPANIJE NA PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANI
According to the Spanish authorities and interested parties, the following Commission acts underpinned the creation of legitimate expectations for the beneficiaries of the aid:
Španski organi ugotavljajo, da imajo vse zainteresirane tretje strani enako mnenje in podpirajo trditve, predložene v pripombah španskih organov.
The Commission has generated new legitimate expectations for the operators who carried out indirect acquisitions of shareholdings, and which meet the conditions laid down in the two Commission decisions, due to the constant references to indirect acquisitions both in the First and Second Decisions.
Španski organi ponavljajo, da nova upravna razlaga organa DGT iz consulta št. V0608/12 z dne 21. marca 2012 in resolucije sodišča TEAC z dne 26. junija 2012 ne pomeni nove pomoči.
Indeed, the recognition of legitimate expectations in the First Decision (paragraphs 164 to 167) and in the Second Decision (paragraphs 190 to 193) referred both to direct and indirect acquisitions.
Odgovori na davčna mnenja in resolucije sodišča TEAC nimajo pravnih učinkov.
The answers given by the Commission to the written parliamentary questions of the MEPs M Erik Mejier, Ms Sharon Bowles and David Martín [31] about whether the measure in question was to be qualified as aid, explicitly referred to the acquisition of O2 by Telefónica, the bids of Abertis, Cintra and Sacyr with regard to French Highways and the acquisition of Scottish Power by Iberdrola.
Sodba španskega vrhovnega sodišča z dne 24. junija 2013 dokazuje, da bi bilo treba pri izračunu finančnega dobrega imena upoštevati pravila glede konsolidiranih računovodskih izkazov ne glede na to, ali prevzete družbe nerezidentke predložijo konsolidirane ali posamične računovodske izkaze.
It is acknowledged in the First and Second Decisions that the answers to these parliamentary questions created legitimate expectations.
Čeprav se predmet te sodbe ni nanašal na uporabo člena 12(5) TRLIS za neposredne ali posredne prevzeme, bi bilo potrebno sklicevanje na računovodska pravila, kar pomeni, da bi morali biti neposredni in posredni prevzemi za namene člena 12(5) TRLIS obravnavani podobno.
The Spanish authorities and the third interested parties believe that not only these answers did not expressly limit the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS to direct acquisitions, but also it was presumable that they would relate to indirect acquisitions given the structure of the acquired groups of companies.
Pet zainteresiranih strani je v svojih pripombah navedlo, da so v svojih odmerah davka od dohodka pravnih oseb v zvezi s posrednimi prevzemi odbile finančno dobro ime.
In particular, the Spanish authorities and the interested third parties recall the merger between Scottish Power and Iberdrola, which was approved by the Commission.
Nova upravna razlaga torej ni vplivala na področje uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS.
Consequently, the Spanish authorities and interested third parties believe that the Commission was aware, based on the information provided to DG Competition services that the latter acquisition was an indirect acquisition of shareholding in a non-resident company that results from a previous acquisition of a holding company.
Komisija je glede na odgovora na pisni parlamentarni vprašanji, ki sta ju zastavila Erik Mejier in Sharon Bowles, v odločbi in sklepu priznala obstoj legitimnih pričakovanj.
Therefore, from the answers given to the MEP's, a prudent and diligent economic operator could not infer that they only referred to direct acquisitions of shareholdings.
Iz odgovorov ni razvidno, da bi bila ta pričakovanja omejena na neposredne prevzeme.
This is due to the fact that Article 12(5) TRLIS is a clear provision, contains a reference to the rules for consolidation of accounts and aims at fostering Spanish investment abroad as long as there is some influence in the activity of the acquired company and that it is engaged in economic activities.
Poleg tega je cilj načela legitimnih pričakovanj zaščita upravičencev do domnevne državne pomoči, ne pa države članice.
According to the interested third parties, the internal discussions between the Commission and the Spanish authorities in the context of the formal investigation procedure do not alter the legitimate expectations towards the beneficiaries of an aid measure.
Upravičenci do pomoči so torej tisti, ki bi morali oceniti, ali bi lahko ukrepi, ki jih je sprejela Komisija (nikoli pa država članica), povzročili obstoj legitimnih pričakovanj.
These internal discussions could trigger legal effects against third parties if they were to be reflected in the wording of the decisions.
Komisija bo z začetkom tega postopka preiskave proučila lastne ukrepe, s tem pa bo kršila načeli pravne varnosti in „estoppel“.
The interested third parties allege that the Commission has breached the principle of estoppel, according to which the Commission cannot go against its own acts or measures.
Španski organi so spomnili Komisijo, da narava pomoči iz člena 12(5) TRLIS ni končna, saj jo mora proučiti še Sodišče Evropske unije.
The Commission referred constantly in the First and Second Decisions to indirect acquisitions.
OCENA UKREPA
Therefore, the Commission should not alter the initial guarantee conferred in that legal measure arguing that there is a modification in the interpretation of the provision by the tax administration.
Komisija je v svoji odločbi in sklepu ugotovila, da člen 12(5) TRLIS pomeni nezakonito in nezdružljivo shemo tako glede prevzemov znotraj EU kot zunaj EU.
The interested third parties also argue that the Commission is in breach of the principle of legal certainty.
Ugotovila je zlasti, da zadevni ukrep, ki španskim družbam omogoča odbitek finančnega dobrega imena, ki izhaja iz prevzemov vsaj 5-odstotnega deleža v tuji družbi, pomeni selektivno prednost, ki ni utemeljena z logiko davčnega sistema.
Not only the Commission refers repeatedly to direct and indirect acquisitions, but also it does not refer to t he administrative interpretation of Article 12(5) TRLIS in the wording of the two decisions.
Poleg tega je bil ukrep razglašen za nezdružljiv z notranjim trgom [32].
The interested third parties believe that from the wording of the decisions, a diligent and prudent operator would have believed that indirect acquisitions were covered by the scope of application of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Komisija se sklicuje na utemeljitev, na kateri temeljita ta dva akta, da bi pokazala, da so zadevni ukrepi pomenili nezakonito nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
COMMENTS FROM SPAIN ON THIRD-PARTY COMMENTS
Španski organi zoper odločbo ali sklep niso vložili ničnostne tožbe.
The Spanish authorities note that all the interested third parties share the same point of view and support the arguments submitted in the Spanish authorities' observations.
So pa na Splošnem sodišču v odločanju številni spori, ki so jih sprožile tretje strani [33].
The Spanish authorities reiterate that the new administrative interpretation of the DGT contained in the consulta V0608/12 of 21 March 2012 and the TEAC Resolution of 26 June 2012 does not constitute new aid.
Ta sklep obravnava izključno učinke nove upravne razlage člena 12(5) TRLIS, ki so jo španski organi uvedli po sprejetju odločbe in sklepa.
Neither the replies to the tax opinions nor the resolutions of the TEAC produce legal effects.
Namen odločbe in sklepa je bil oceniti združljivost španske sheme, kot so jo španski organi predložili med upravnim postopkom, na podlagi katerega sta bila sprejeta odločba in sklep, z notranjim trgom.
The judgement adopted by the Spanish Supreme Court of 24 June 2013 demonstrates that the calculation of the financial goodwill should be done taking into account the consolidated account rules, irrespective of whether the non-resident acquired companies present consolidated or individual accounts.
V odločbi in sklepu je bila shema (člen 12(5) TRLIS) „ki jo je Španija nezakonito uporabljala“, razglašena za nezakonito in nezdružljivo [34].
Although the subject matter of this judgement was not whether Article 12(5) TRLIS applies to direct or indirect acquisitions, the fact that reference should be made to the accounting rules means that there should be a similar treatment for direct and indirect acquisitions for the purpose of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba področje uporabe sklepa ali odločbe določiti s sklicevanjem na dejansko besedilo zadevnega akta, pa tudi z upoštevanjem sheme pomoči, kakor jo je opisala država članica [35].
The five interested parties state in their observations that they have deducted the financial goodwill with regard to indirect acquisitions in their corporate tax assessments.
Sodišče je v zadevi Kahla menilo, da je treba zahtevo Komisije po dodatnih informacijah, ki bi pojasnile področje uporabe sheme pomoči, in odgovor države članice na to zahtevo šteti za sestavni del sheme pomoči [36].
Therefore, the new administrative interpretation has not affected the scope of application of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Španski organi so v dopisu z dne 4. junija 2007 [37] pojasnili, da je zadevna upravna praksa omogočala le odbitek finančnega dobrega imena za neposredne prevzeme deležev v delujočih družbah.
The Commission acknowledged the existence of legitimate expectations in the First and Second Decisions due to the replies give to written parliamentary questions of Mr. Erik Mejier and Ms Sharon Bowles.
Ta razlaga se je uporabljala od 1. januarja 2002, ko je prvič začel veljati člen 12(5) TRLIS.
The replies do not suggest that they were limited to direct acquisitions.
Poleg tega je nova upravna razlaga člena 12(5) TRLIS, ki so jo španski organi uvedli marca 2012, razširila področje uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS, saj naj bi ukrep od takrat veljal za finančno dobro ime, ki izhaja iz neposrednih prevzemov deležev v družbah nerezidentkah, pa tudi finančno dobro ime, ki izhaja iz posrednih prevzemov deležev družb nerezidentk prek prevzema deležev holdinga.
On the contrary, the replies to these parliamentary questions referred to specific indirect acquisitions.
Poudariti je treba, da namen tega sklepa ni ugotoviti, ali bi se lahko pomoč opredelila kot obstoječa pomoč.
In addition, the principle of legitimate expectations has the aim to protect the beneficiaries of an alleged State aid, not the Member State.
V odločbi in sklepu je že bilo ugotovljeno, da so proučeni ukrepi (člen 12(5) TRLIS, kot so ga izvajali španski organi) pomenili nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč.
Therefore, the beneficiaries of the aid are the ones who should assess whether the measures adopted by the Commission (and never the Member State) could trigger the existence of legitimate expectations.
Nova upravna razlaga zato v nobenem primeru ne bi mogla pomeniti obstoječe pomoči.
By opening the present investigation procedure, the Commission intends to revise their own measures, infringing the principles of legal certainty and the estoppel.
Nasprotno, v tej primeru je pomembno, ali je obseg uporabe odločbe in sklepa vključeval tudi posredne deleže, ki izhajajo iz predhodnega prevzema holdinga.
The Spanish authorities remind the Commission that the aid character of Article 12(5) TRLIS is not final, being subject to review by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Komisija iz razlogov, pojasnjenih v nadaljevanju, meni, da nobena trditev španskih organov in zainteresiranih tretjih strani ne dokazuje, da ukrep ne pomeni nove pomoči.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani v podporo svojemu mnenju, da ukrep ne pomeni nove pomoči, v bistvu trdijo, da prejšnja upravna razlaga ni bila končna, nanjo se bi bilo vedno mogoče pritožiti pred sodišči in ni bila dosledna praksa.
In its First and Second Decision, the Commission concluded that Article 12(5) TRLIS constituted an unlawful and incompatible scheme both as regards intra-EU and extra-EU acquisitions.
Te trditve za namene tega sklepa niso pomembne.
In particular, the Commission established that the measure at issue, allowing Spanish companies to deduct the financial goodwill arising from acquisitions of a shareholding of at least 5 % in a foreign company, constituted a selective advantage, which was not justified by the logic of the tax system.
Komisija je v odločbi in sklepu proučila shemo državne pomoči, kot so jo izvajali španski organi.
Furthermore, the measure was not found to be compatible with the internal market [32].
Okoliščina, da bi se lahko v prihodnosti sistem prilagodil ali spremenil (to bi lahko storila uprava ali sodišča), ne vpliva na obseg preiskave in s tem na področje uporabe odločbe in sklepa.
The Commission refers to the reasoning followed by these Decisions to show that the measure at stake constituted illegal incompatible State aid.
Trditve španskih organov je treba v vsakem primeru zavrniti iz naslednjih dodatnih razlogov:
However, there is abundant litigation pending before the General Court brought about by third parties [33].
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo tudi, da prvotna upravna razlaga ni zadevna in končna upravna praksa, saj ni pravni vir, nanjo pa se je vedno mogoče pritožiti pred pristojnimi sodišči.
The present decision deals exclusively with the effects of the new administrative interpretation of Article 12(5) TRLIS, which was introduced by the Spanish authorities after the adoption of the First and the Second Decision.
Komisija meni, da dejstvo, da je mogoče zoper upravno razlago in resolucije sodišča TEAC vložiti pritožbo na sodiščih na nadaljnjih stopnjah, ne pomeni, da te consultas in zlasti resolucije sodišča TEAC nimajo pravnih učinkov na prvotno družbo.
The aim of the First and Second Decisions was to assess the compatibility with the internal market of a Spanish scheme as it was presented by the Spanish authorities during the administrative procedure that led to the adoption of the First and Second Decision.
Kot je določeno v členu 89 splošnega davčnega zakona št. 58/2003 z dne 17. decembra, so odgovori, ki so podani v okviru zahteve po davčnem mnenju, za davčno upravo zavezujoči.
The First and Second Decisions declared unlawful and incompatible the scheme (Article 12.5 TRLIS) ‘unlawfully applied by Spain’ [34].
To pomeni, da mora davčna uprava uporabljati enaka merila, če so pri davkoplačevalcih prisotna enaka dejstva in okoliščine.
It is settled case law that the scope of a decision must be determined not only by reference to the actual wording of that decision, but also by taking into account the aid scheme as described by the Member State [35].
Previden in skrben subjekt bi zato od davčne uprave pričakoval, da bo v primerih, ko so pri davkoplačevalcih prisotna enaka dejstva in okoliščine, uporabljala dosleden pristop.
In Kahla Thüringen, the Court held that a request for additional information of the Commission that aims at clarifying the scope of application of an aid scheme, and the reply given by the Member States to that request, must be considered an indivisible part to the aid scheme [36].
Španski organi in nekatere zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo, da prvotna upravna razlaga ni dosledna upravna praksa, saj je merila iz upravne razlage mogoče kadar koli nadalje spremeniti.
The Spanish authorities had explained in a letter of 4 June 2007 [37] that the relevant administrative practice only allowed the deduction of the financial goodwill for direct shareholding acquisitions in operating companies.
Kot pa so pojasnili španski organi, člen 89 zakona št. 58/2003 zahteva dosledno uporabo meril iz upravne razlage, če se ne spremenijo s sodno prakso ali veljavnim zakonom.
This practice is also evidenced by the consistent administrative interpretations of the DGT and the TEAC in place since 2002 until 2012.
Komisija ugotavlja, da vse consultas organa DGT in resolucije sodišča TEAC kažejo na to, da se je v obdobju 2002–2012 uporabljala dosledna praksa, ki ni bila spremenjena niti z zakonom niti s sodno prakso.
Irrespective of the wording of the relevant provisions of the TRLIS, at the moment of the adoption of the First and Second Decisions, the DGT and the TEAC were consistently systematically applying Article 12(5) TRLIS only to direct shareholding acquisitions of operating companies.
Resolucija sodišča TEAC ter sodbi sodišča Audiencia Nacional in španskega vrhovnega sodišča so bile povezane s prevzemi deležev znotraj skupine, kar pa ni enako zadevnemu primeru.
This interpretation had been in place since 1 January 2002, when Article 12(5) TRLIS first entered into force.
Obe sodbi se ne nanašata izključno na vprašanje posrednih prevzemov deležev in ne obravnavata obstoja finančnega dobrega imena kot takega, saj je obstoj finančnega dobrega imena ocenilo že sodišče prejšnje stopnje in ni bil vključen v obseg pritožbe.
Moreover, the new administrative interpretation of Article 12(5) TRLIS introduced by the Spanish authorities in March 2012 has enlarged the scope of application of Article 12(5) TRLIS since the measure would now be applicable not only to financial goodwill arising from direct acquisitions of shareholdings of non-resident companies, but also to the financial goodwill arising from indirect acquisitions of shareholdings of non-resident companies through the acquisition of shareholdings of a holding company.
Glede tega je bila upravna praksa španskih davčnih organov pri postopku vračila takšna, da so najprej preverili posredno ali neposredno naravo prevzemov – ne glede na to, ali so bili prevzemi znotraj skupine – in tako ugotovili, ali iz teh prevzemov izhajajo davčne ugodnosti.
It is important to point out that the matter at stake is not to determine whether the aid might qualify as existing aid.
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani nasprotujejo tudi izjavi Komisije v sklepu o začetku postopka z dne 17. julija 2013, da so bili odbitki finančnega dobrega imena, povezani s posrednimi prevzemi iz davčnih napovedi, sistematično zavrnjeni.
Indeed, the First and Second Decisions already concluded that the measures examined (Article 12(5) TRLIS as implemented by the Spanish authorities) constituted unlawful and incompatible aid.
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo, da odbitka ni bilo mogoče sistematično zavrniti, ker španski sistem za pobiranje davkov temelji na „sistemu samoodmere“ (t. i. autoliquidación).
Therefore, the new administrative interpretation could not in any case constitute existing aid.
Komisija meni, da obstoj sistema za pobiranje davkov na podlagi samoodmere ne odpravi nove narave pomoči ukrepa.
By contrast, what is relevant in the present case is whether the scope of application of the First and Second Decisions also covered indirect shareholdings that result from a previous acquisition of a holding.
Dejstvo, da španski sistem za pobiranje davkov temelji na sistemu „samoodmere“, ne zagotavlja ustreznosti in posledično zakonitosti posamezne davčne operacije, ki jo izvede prvotna družba.
The Commission considers that none of the arguments presented by the Spanish authorities and the interested third parties demonstrate that the measure does not constitute new aid due to the reasons explained below.
Davčna uprava lahko preverja in spremlja davčne operacije samoodmere, ki jih izvedejo davkoplačevalci.
In order to support their view that the measure would not amount to new aid, the Spanish authorities and interested third parties claim in substance that the previous administrative interpretation was not final, could always be subject to appeal before the courts and was not a consistent practice.
Kot so navedli španski organi, če bi bil pri davkoplačevalcu, ki je odbil finančno dobro ime, ki izhaja iz posrednih prevzemov, opravljen davčni inšpekcijski nadzor, davčna uprava, ki mora, kadar so pri davkoplačevalcih prisotna enaka dejstva in okoliščine, uporabljati enaka merila, odbitka finančnega dobrega imena v davčni napovedi družbe ne bi sprejela.
These arguments are irrelevant for the purposes of this decision.
Obstoj davčnega sistema „samoodmere“ zato ni v nasprotju z mnenjem Komisije, da so bile zahteve družb glede odbitka finančnega dobrega imena v okviru prevzemov posrednih deležev sistematično zavrnjene.