natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, it is not for the Member State concerned, but for the recipient undertaking, to invoke the existence of exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had entertained legitimate expectations, leading it to decline to repay the unlawful aid [125].
Vsekakor mora, da bi se bilo mogoče sklicevati na načelo legitimnega pričakovanja, to pričakovanje izhajati iz ravnanja Komisije, ki je ustvarilo utemeljena pričakovanja [126].
Since none of the beneficiaries of the contested scheme claimed a legitimate expectation as to the lawfulness of that scheme, the Commission considers Belgium's reliance on that principle ineffective for the purposes of recovery under the present Decision.
Belgijski organi se ne morejo sklicevati na nikakršna natančna zagotovila glede sheme oprostitve presežnega dobička.
In any event, for a claim of legitimate expectations to succeed, the expectation must arise from prior Commission action in the form of precise assurances [126].
Poleg dejstva, da poročilo skupine za kodeks ravnanja, na katero je predsedstvo oprlo svoje sklepe z dne 19. marca 2003, ni bilo objavljeno, je Sodišče zlasti potrdilo, da sklepi Sveta Evropske unije, s katerimi je potrjen sporazum, ki so ga države članice sklenile v okviru preučitve nacionalnih davčnih ukrepov s strani skupine za kodeks ravnanja, ne pomenijo natančnih zagotovil [127].
No such precise assurance have been given to Belgium with respect to the Excess Profit exemption scheme.
Sodišče je zlasti potrdilo, da „ti sklepi Sveta izražajo politično voljo in zaradi svoje vsebine ne morejo imeti pravnih učinkov, na katere bi se lahko zadevne osebe sklicevale pred Sodiščem.
In particular, beyond the fact that the Code of Conduct group's Report on which the Presidency based its conclusions of 19 March 2003 has not been published, the Court has confirmed that the conclusions of the Council of Ministers endorsing an agreement reached by the Member States in the context of the review of national tax measures by the Code of Conduct group do not constitute such precise assurances [127].
Poleg tega navedeni sklepi nikakor ne morejo zavezovati Komisije k izvajanju njenih lastnih pristojnosti, ki so ji na področju državnih pomoči dodeljene s Pogodbo“.
The Court notably confirmed that ‘the conclusions of the Council express an aspiration of a political nature and cannot, by reason of their contents, produce legal effects on which parties could rely before the Court.
Kar zadeva sklicevanje Belgije na načelo pravne varnosti in zlasti predhodno prakso odločanja Komisije, v kateri je potrjeno neodvisno tržno načelo, Komisija najprej opozarja, da je ta praksa odločanja ne zavezuje.
Furthermore, those conclusions could in no event bind the Commission in the exercise of its own powers, which are conferred on it by the Treaty in State aid matters’.
Vsak morebitni ukrep pomoči je treba oceniti na podlagi njegovih značilnosti glede na objektivna merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU, tako da, tudi če bi bila dokazana nasprotna praksa odločanja, to ne more vplivati na veljavnost ugotovitev, navedenih v tem sklepu [128].
As regards Belgium's reliance on the principle of legal certainty and, in particular, the Commission's previous decision-making practice accepting the arm's length principle, the Commission recalls, as a preliminary matter, that it is not bound by its decision-making practice.
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da je glede na sklepe, ki jih navajajo belgijski organi, v preteklosti že ugotovila, da odstopanje od neodvisnega tržnega načela za namene določitve obdavčljivega dobička skupine pomeni državno pomoč, kadar to vodi do znižanja davčne obveznosti tega subjekta na podlagi splošnega sistema obdavčitve dobička pravnih oseb [129].
Each potential aid measure must be assessed on the basis of its own merits under the objective criteria of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, so that even if a contrary decision-making practice were shown to exist, that could not affect the findings of the present decision [128].
Poleg tega opozarja, da je v okviru preučitve sheme v korist novih centrov za usklajevanje, ki jo je predlagala Belgija, jasno ugotovila, da bi moral biti dobiček, ki nastane belgijskemu subjektu in ki presega dobiček, določen s tako imenovano metodo dodatka na stroške, obdavčen v Belgiji, tudi če je ta metoda privedla do dobička, ki se šteje za skladnega z neodvisnim tržnim načelom [130].
The Commission further observes that according to the decisions cited by Belgium, the Commission has previously concluded that a deviation from the arm's length principle for determining a group entity's taxable profit will constitute State aid where it leads to a reduction of that entity's tax liability under the ordinary system of taxation of corporate profits [129].
To ugotovitev je potrdilo Sodišče [131].
In addition, the Commission recalls that it clearly concluded in the context of its investigation into the new Coordination Centres scheme proposed by Belgium that profit accrued to a Belgian entity in excess of a profit determined according to a cost plus method should be subject to tax in Belgium even though the cost plus method led to a profit deemed to be at arm's length [130].
Ker shema oprostitve presežnega dobička pomeni odstopanje od neodvisnega tržnega načela, kot je bilo prikazano v oddelku 6.3.2.2, se Belgija ne more sklicevati na te sklepe in trditi, da bi bilo vračilo v nasprotju s splošnim načelom pravne varnosti.
That conclusion has been confirmed by the Court of Justice [131].
Nasprotno, Belgija bi se morala zavedati, da lahko davčna shema, ki vodi do ugodnega obravnavanja upravičencev do navedene sheme, tako da se jim umetno zniža njihova davčna osnova, privede do kršitve pravil o državni pomoči.
Considering that the Excess Profit exemption scheme constitutes a deviation from the arm's length principle, as demonstrated in Section 6.3.2.2, Belgium cannot rely on those decisions to claim that recovery would be contrary to the general principle of legal certainty.
Zato bi morala v primeru dvoma sporno shemo priglasiti Komisiji, preden jo je začela izvajati.
On the contrary, Belgium should have been aware that a tax scheme that leads to a favourable treatment for the beneficiaries under that scheme in terms of artificially lowering their tax base, could lead to a violation of the State aid rules and should therefore, in case of doubt, have notified the contested scheme to the Commission before putting it into effect.
Kar zadeva domnevno težavo z opredelitvijo zneska pomoči na podlagi sheme, Komisija ne razume, zakaj naj bi bila taka opredelitev zneska težavna.
As regards the alleged difficulty to quantify the aid amount under the scheme, the Commission sees no difficulty in quantifying that amount.
Ker oprostitev presežnega dobička ustreza odstotku dobička pred obdavčitvijo, uporabljenemu za dejansko zabeleženi dobiček belgijskega subjekta skupine, za odpravo selektivne prednosti, ki jo je povzročil ukrep, zadostuje, da se povrne razlika med davkom, dolgovanim na podlagi dejansko zabeleženega dobička, in davkom, dejansko plačanim zaradi sporne sheme, povečana za obresti na ta znesek, obračunane od datuma dodelitve pomoči.
Since the Excess Profit exemption corresponds to a percentage of pre-tax profit applied to the Belgian group entity's profit actually recorded, all that is needed to eliminate the selective advantage granted by the measure is the repayment of the difference between the tax due on the profit actually recorded and the tax effectively paid as a result of the contested scheme plus the cumulated interest on that amount as from the moment that the aid was granted.
Nazadnje, kar zadeva trditev Belgije, da lahko vračilo privede do dvojne obdavčitve, se Komisija sklicuje na oddelek 6.3.3 in opozarja, da lahko do dvojne obdavčitve pride samo, če je isti dobiček vključen v davčno osnovo belgijskega subjekta skupine in v davčno osnovo tujega povezanega subjekta.
Finally, as regards Belgium's argument that recovery might lead to double taxation, the Commission refers to Section 6.3.3 and recalls that double taxation can only occur in situations where the same profit is included in the tax base of the Belgian group entity as well as in the tax base of an associated foreign entity.
Oprostitev presežnega dobička pa se nanaša na enostransko prilagoditev, ki ni odobrena zaradi predhodne obdavčitve istega dobička na drugem davčnem ozemlju.
The Excess Profit exemption, however, concerns a unilateral adjustment that is not granted in response to the prior taxation of the same profit in another tax jurisdiction.
Vsekakor tudi če bi tveganje dvojne obdavčitve vzbujalo upravičeno bojazen, bi jo bilo mogoče odpraviti z običajnimi mehanizmi reševanja sporov, vzpostavljenimi v skladu z dvostranskimi sporazumi o izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju, arbitražno konvencijo EU ali pravilno uporabo člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92.
In any event, even if double taxation were a legitimate concern, it could be solved through the normal resolution mechanisms put in place pursuant to Double Tax Treaties, the EU Arbitration Convention or the proper application of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 itself.
Kot je namreč pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 173, bi bile negativne prilagoditve, ki bi jih belgijska davčna uprava izvedla zaradi obdavčitve istega dobička v drugi davčni jurisdikciji (po njegovi prijavi s strani davčnega zavezanca ali primarni pozitivni prilagoditvi v tuji davčni jurisdikciji), upravičene z naravo in splošno sistematiko davčnega sistema ter ne bi pomenile državne pomoči.
Indeed, as explained in recital 172, downward adjustments applied by the Belgian tax administration in response to the taxation of the same profit in another tax jurisdiction (following their declaration by the taxpayer or a primary upward adjustment applied by the foreign jurisdiction) would then be justified by the nature and general scheme of the tax system and would not constitute State aid.
Skratka, nobene od trditev, ki jih Belgija navaja za preprečitev ali omejitev vračila pomoči, dodeljenih zaradi uporabe sporne sheme, ni mogoče sprejeti.
In conclusion, none of Belgium's arguments for preventing or limiting recovery of aid granted through the application of the contested scheme can be accepted.
Metoda vračila
Methodology for recovery
V skladu s PDEU in ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča je Komisija pristojna za odločanje, ali mora zadevna država članica ukiniti ali spremeniti pomoč, za katero je ugotovila, da ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
In accordance with the Treaty and the established case-law of the Court of Justice, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market.
Poleg tega je Sodišče vedno trdilo, da je obveznost države, da ukine pomoč, za katero Evropska komisija meni, da ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, namenjena ponovni vzpostavitvi prejšnjega stanja.
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation.
V zvezi s tem je menilo, da je ta cilj dosežen, ko upravičenec vrne zneske, dodeljene z nezakonito pomočjo, in se tako odpove prednosti, ki jo je imel v primerjavi s konkurenti na trgu, ter ko se ponovno vzpostavi stanje pred izplačilom pomoči.
In this context, the Court has stated that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored.
Z nobeno določbo prava Unije se ne zahteva, da Komisija ob odreditvi vračila pomoči, razglašene za nezdružljivo z notranjim trgom, opredeli natančen znesek pomoči, ki jo je treba vrniti.
No provision of Union law requires the Commission, when ordering the recovery of aid declared incompatible with the internal market, to quantify the exact amount of the aid to be recovered.
Nasprotno, zadostuje, da so v sklepu Komisije podatki, ki njegovemu naslovniku omogočajo, da ta znesek brez večjih težav opredeli sam [132].
Rather, it is sufficient for the Commission's decision to include information enabling the addressee of the decision to work out that amount itself without overmuch difficulty [132].
Kar zadeva nezakonite državne pomoči v obliki davčnih ukrepov, je v točki 35 obvestila o obdavčitvi ustvarjenega dohodka pojasnjeno, da se znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, izračuna na podlagi primerjave med dejansko plačanim davkom in davkom, ki bi ga bilo treba plačati na podlagi splošno veljavnega pravila.
In relation to unlawful State aid in the form of tax measures, the Notice on business taxation provides in point (35) thereof that the amount to be recovered should be calculated on the basis of a comparison between the tax actually paid and the amount which should have been paid if the generally applicable rule had been applied.
Za izračun zneska davka, ki bi ga bilo treba plačati, če bi se upoštevala splošno veljavna pravila, se pravi, če oprostitev presežnega dobička ne bi bila odobrena, mora belgijska davčna uprava ponovno oceniti davčno obveznost subjektov, upravičenih do sporne sheme, za vsako poslovno leto, v katerem so bili upravičeni do sheme.
In order to arrive at an amount of tax which should have been paid if the generally applicable rules would have been complied with, that is, if the Excess profit exemption had not been granted, the Belgium tax administration must reassess the tax liability of the entities benefitting from the contested scheme for each year that they benefitted from that scheme.
Pri zneskih pomoči, ki jih je treba izterjati od vsakega upravičenca [133], je treba upoštevati:
The amounts of aid to be recovered from each beneficiary [133] shall take into account:
prihranjeni znesek davka zaradi vseh predhodnih odločb, sprejetih v korist upravičenca, in
the amount of tax saved as a consequence of all rulings delivered to that beneficiary, as well as
obresti na ta znesek, obračunane od datuma dodelitve pomoči.
the cumulated interest on that amount calculated as from the moment the aid is granted.
Za pomoč se šteje, da je bila dodeljena na dan, ko bi bilo treba plačati prihranjeni znesek v vsakem poslovnem letu, če ne bi bila izdana predhodna odločba.
The aid is deemed granted on the day the tax saved would have been due in each tax year in the absence of the ruling.
Prihranjeni znesek davka v določenem letu zaradi posamezne predhodne odločbe je enak:
The amount of tax saved in a specific year in respect of a specific ruling shall be calculated as:
dobičku, dejansko odštetemu od pozitivne davčne osnove,
the profit effectively deducted from a positive tax base,
pomnoženemu s stopnjo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v zadevnem davčnem letu.
multiplied by the corporate tax rate applicable in the tax year concerned.
Načeloma bi bilo treba za izračun prihranjenega zneska davka upoštevati odštetje presežnega dobička, ki ga je davčni zavezanec navedel v svoji letni davčni napovedi, eventualno po popravku s strani belgijske davčne uprave v okviru davčnega nadzora.
In principle, the Excess Profit deduction claimed by the taxpayer in its annual tax return should be taken into account, possibly after correction by the Belgian tax administration in the context of a tax audit, for the purposes of determining the amount of tax saved.
Če odštetja, do katerega je imel upravičenec pravico v določenem poslovnem letu, v navedenem letu ni bilo mogoče (v celoti) izvesti zaradi nezadostne pozitivne davčne osnove in če je bil znesek, ki ni bil dejansko odštet, prenesen v naslednje davčno leto, se za pomoč šteje, da je bila dodeljena v naslednjem ali naslednjih poslovnih letih, če je zneske presežnega dobička dejansko mogoče odšteti od pozitivne davčne osnove.
If the deduction to which the beneficiary was entitled in a specific year could not (fully) take place in that year because of an insufficient positive tax base, and if the amount not effectively deducted was carried forward to a subsequent tax year, then the aid shall be deemed attributed in the subsequent year(s) when the amounts of excess profit could effectively be deducted from a positive tax base.
Glede na to, da bi moralo vračilo zagotoviti, da je davek, ki ga mora upravičenec do sheme nazadnje plačati, davek, ki bi ga moral plačati, če ne bi bilo sheme oprostitve presežnega dobička, se lahko metoda, opisana v uvodnih izjavah 207 do 210, nadalje izpopolni v sodelovanju z belgijskimi organi med postopkom vračila, da bi se določil dejanski znesek davčne ugodnosti, dodeljene upravičencem na podlagi njihovega individualnega položaja.
Bearing in mind that recovery should ensure that the tax ultimately due by the beneficiary of the scheme is the tax that would have been due in the absence of the Excess Profit exemption scheme, the methodology described above can be further refined in cooperation with the Belgian authorities during the recovery stage to establish the actual amount of the tax advantage enjoyed by the beneficiaries in the light of their individual situation.
Davek, ki bi ga bilo treba plačati, če ne bi bilo sheme oprostitve presežnega dobička, je treba izračunati na podlagi splošnega sistema, ki je v Belgiji veljal ob dodelitvi pomoči, ter ob upoštevanju dejanskega in pravnega položaja upravičenca, in ne drugih hipotetičnih položajev, ki temeljijo na različnih operativnih in pravnih okoliščinah, ki bi jih lahko upravičenec izbral, če ne bi bilo navedene sheme oprostitve.
The tax that would have been due in the absence of the Excess Profit exemption scheme must be calculated on the basis of the general scheme applicable in Belgium at the time of the granting of the aid and in respect of the actual factual and legal situation of the beneficiary, not in respect of hypothetical alternative situations based on different operational and legal circumstances that the beneficiary could have chosen in the absence of the Excess Profit exemption.
SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV
CONCLUSION
Komisija meni, da je Belgija nezakonito izvedla shemo oprostitve presežnega dobička v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that Belgium has unlawfully implemented the Excess Profit exemption scheme in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Belgija mora v skladu s členom 16 Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 od upravičencev do navedene sheme zahtevati vračilo vse dodeljene pomoči –
By virtue of Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 Belgium is required to recover all aid granted to the beneficiaries of the scheme,
SPREJELA NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
Article 1
Shema oprostitve presežnega dobička, ki temelji na členu 185(2)(b) zakonika o davku od dohodkov iz leta 1992, na podlagi katere je Belgija belgijskim subjektom multinacionalnih skupin podjetij izdala predhodne odločbe, s katerimi je navedenim subjektom odobrena oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za del dobička, ki ga ustvarijo, pomeni pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom in jo je Belgija izvedla nezakonito v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU.
The Excess Profit exemption scheme, based on Article 185(2)(b) of the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992, pursuant to which Belgium granted tax rulings to Belgian entities of multinational corporate groups authorising those entities to exempt part of their profit from corporate income taxation constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty that is incompatible with the internal market and that was unlawfully put into effect by Belgium in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Člen 2
Article 2
Belgija mora od upravičencev zahtevati vračilo nezdružljive in nezakonite pomoči iz člena 1.
Belgium shall recover all incompatible and unlawful aid referred to in Article 1 from the recipients of that aid.
Zneski, ki še niso bili izterjani od upravičencev na podlagi zahteve za vračilo iz odstavka 1, se izterjajo od skupine podjetij, ki ji upravičenec pripada.
Any sums that remain unrecoverable from the recipients of the aid, following the recovery described in the paragraph 1, shall be recovered from the corporate group to which the recipient belongs.
Zneskom, ki jih je treba vrniti, se prištejejo obresti od datuma, ko so bili dani na voljo upravičencem, do njihovega dejanskega vračila.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until their actual recovery.
Obresti na zneske, ki jih je treba vrniti, se izračunajo na podlagi obrestnoobrestnega računa v skladu s poglavjem V Uredbe (ES) št. 794/2004.
The interest on the sums to be recovered shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.
Belgija ukine pomoč iz člena 1 in od datuma sprejetja tega sklepa prekliče vsa še neizvedena plačila na podlagi navedene pomoči.
Belgium shall stop granting the aid referred to in Article 1 and shall cancel all outstanding payments of such aid with effect from the date of adoption of this decision.
Belgija zavrne vsako vlogo za predhodno odločbo v zvezi s pomočjo iz člena 1, ki se vloži pri službi za predhodne odločbe ali ki na datum sprejetja tega sklepa še ni rešena.
Belgium shall also reject all requests for an advance ruling concerning the aid referred to in Article 1 submitted to the Ruling Commission and pending on the date of the adoption of this decision.
Člen 3
Article 3
Vračilo dodeljene pomoči iz člena 1 se takoj in dejansko izterja.
Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.
Belgija zagotovi, da se ta sklep v celoti izvrši v štirih mesecih od uradnega obvestila o tem sklepu.
Belgium shall ensure that this Decision is fully implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.
Člen 4
Article 4
Belgija v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tem sklepu Komisiji predloži naslednje informacije:
Within two months following notification of this Decision, Belgium shall submit the following information:
seznam upravičencev do pomoči iz člena 1 in skupni znesek, ki ga je prejel posamezni upravičenec;
the list of beneficiaries that have received the aid referred to in Article 1 and the total amount of aid received by each of them;
skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti), ki ga je treba izterjati od vsakega upravičenca;
the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from each beneficiary;
podroben opis že sprejetih in načrtovanih ukrepov za uskladitev z zahtevami iz tega sklepa;
a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;
dokumente, ki dokazujejo, da je bilo upravičencem odrejeno vračilo pomoči.
documents demonstrating that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid.
Belgija Komisijo obvešča o napredku glede nacionalnih ukrepov, sprejetih za izvajanje tega sklepa, dokler dodeljena pomoč iz člena 1 ni v celoti vrnjena.
Belgium shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed.
Na zahtevo Komisije takoj predloži vse informacije o že sprejetih in načrtovanih ukrepih za uskladitev s tem sklepom.
It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Predloži tudi podrobne informacije o zneskih pomoči in obrestih, ki so jih upravičenci že vrnili.
It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.
Člen 5
Article 5
Ta sklep je naslovljen na Kraljevino Belgijo.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.
V Bruslju, 11. januarja 2016
Done at Brussels, 11 January 2016.
Za Komisijo
Member of the Commission
UL C 188, 5.6.2015, str. 24.
OJ C 188, 5.6.2015, p. 24.
Glej opombo 1.
See footnote 1.
Glej točko 30 pripomb Belgije z dne 29. maja 2015 v zvezi s sklepom o začetku postopka, v kateri je izraz „samostojen“ opisan kot dejstvo, da podjetje ni član multinacionalne skupine povezanih družb.