natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the measure results from an Act of the Hungarian Parliament, it is clearly imputable to the Hungarian State.
Sodišča Unije so že razsodila, da oprostitve davka, ki jo sprejme država članica, ki izvaja direktivo Unije v skladu s svojimi obveznostmi iz Pogodbe, ni mogoče pripisati zadevni državi članici, ampak izhaja iz akta zakonodajalca Unije in zato ne pomeni državne pomoči [9].
Hungary's argument that, given that the legal basis of the fee is Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, the fee cannot be imputed to the Hungarian State, cannot be accepted.
Vendar Uredba (ES) št. 882/2004 določa splošne obveznosti držav članic in jim ne nalaga obveznosti, naj za izvajanje nadzora določijo progresivne pristojbine na podlagi prometa, zato za spremembo iz leta 2014 ni mogoče trditi, da izhaja iz akta zakonodajalca Unije.
The Union Courts have previously held that a tax exemption adopted by a Member State implementing a Union directive in accordance with its obligations under the Treaty is not imputable to that Member State, but stems from an act of the Union legislature and therefore does not constitute State aid [9].
Člen 26 Uredbe (ES) št. 882/2004 določa, da „[d]ržave članice zagotovijo, da so na voljo ustrezna finančna sredstva za potrebno osebje in druge vire za uradni nadzor na kateri koli način, ki se jim zdi primeren, vključno s splošno obdavčitvijo ali določanjem pristojbin ali dajatev“.
However, Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 sets out general obligations for Member States and does not impose upon them the obligation to establish progressive fees based on turnover for the performance of controls, so that the 2014 amendment cannot be said to stem from an act of the Union legislature.
Vsako odločitev, sprejeto v tem okviru, je zato mogoče pripisati Madžarski.
Pursuant to Article 27(1), ‘Member States may collect fees or charges to cover the costs occasioned by official controls’.
V tem primeru se je Madžarska odpovedala sredstvom, ki bi jih drugače morala pobrati od upravljavcev prodajaln izdelkov široke potrošnje z manjšim prometom (in torej manjših podjetij), če bi zanje veljala enaka pristojbina za inšpekcijski nadzor kot za upravljavce prodajaln izdelkov široke potrošnje z večjim prometom.
It is thus the responsibility of individual Member States to set the amount of the fees within the bounds of the said legislation, and in particular in compliance with Article 27 thereof.
Prednost
Any choice made in that context is therefore imputable to the Hungarian State.
V skladu s sodno prakso sodišč Unije v pojem pomoči niso zajete le pozitivne dajatve, ampak tudi ukrepi, ki v različnih oblikah znižujejo stroške, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja [11].
As regards the measure's financing through State resources, where the result of a measure is that the State forgoes revenues which it would otherwise have to collect from an undertaking in normal circumstances, that condition is also fulfilled [10].
Čeprav ukrep, ki vključuje znižanje davka ali dajatve, ne zajema pozitivnega prenosa državnih sredstev, upravičencu prinese prednost, saj podjetja, za katera velja, postavlja v ugodnejši finančni položaj kot druge davčne zavezance, posledica pa je izguba prihodka za državo [12].
In the present case, the Hungarian State waives resources it would otherwise have to collect from operators of stores selling fast-moving consumer goods with a lower level of turnover (and thus smaller undertakings), if they had been subject to the same inspection fee as operators of stores selling fast-moving consumer goods with a high level of turnover.
Prednost se lahko dodeli z različnimi vrstami zniževanja davčnega bremena podjetja in še zlasti z zniževanjem davčne stopnje, davčne osnove ali zneska dolgovanega davka [13].
Advantage
Sprememba zakona o prehranski verigi iz leta 2014 določa progresivno strukturo pristojbin, ki se uporablja za upravljavce prodajaln izdelkov široke potrošnje in je odvisna od razpona, v katerega spada promet zadevnih podjetij.
According to the case law of the Union Courts, the notion of aid embraces not only positive benefits, but also measures which, in various forms, mitigate the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking [11].
Progresivna narava navedenih pristojbin deluje tako, da se povprečni delež pristojbine, ki se obračuna na promet prodajalne, poveča, ko se poveča njen promet in doseže naslednji višji razpon.
Although a measure that entails a reduction to a tax or a levy does not involve a positive transfer of resources from the State, it gives rise to an advantage because it places the undertakings to which it applies in a more favourable financial position than other taxpayers and results in a loss of income to the State [12].
Podjetjem z majhnim prometom (manjšim podjetjem) se zato obračuna pristojbina po precej nižjih povprečnih stopnjah kot podjetjem z velikim prometom (večjim podjetjem).
An advantage may be granted through different types of reduction in a company's tax burden and, in particular, through a reduction in the applicable tax rate, taxable base or in the amount of tax due [13].
Zaradi plačevanja pristojbine po tej bistveno nižji povprečni stopnji se znižajo stroški podjetij z majhnim prometom v primerjavi s podjetji z velikim prometom, kar pomeni prednost v korist manjših podjetij glede na večja podjetja za namene člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
The 2014 amendment to the Food Chain Act lays down a progressive fee structure that applies to operators of stores selling fast-moving consumer goods depending on the brackets into which those undertakings' turnover falls.
Selektivnost
The progressive character of those fees has the effect that the average percentage of the fee levied on a store's turnover increases when its turnover increases and reaches the next upper brackets.
Ukrep je selektiven, če daje prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
This has the result that undertakings with low turnover (smaller undertakings) are subject to the fee at substantially lower average rates than undertakings with high turnover (larger undertakings).
Kar zadeva davčne sheme, je Sodišče razsodilo, da bi bilo treba selektivnost ukrepa običajno presojati z analizo v treh korakih [14].
Being subject to the fee at this substantially lower average rate mitigates the charges that undertakings with low turnover have to bear as compared to undertakings with high turnover and therefore constitutes an advantage to the benefit of smaller undertakings over larger undertakings for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Najprej je treba opredeliti skupno ali običajno davčno ureditev, ki se uporablja v zadevni državi članici: „referenčni sistem“.
Selectivity
Drugič, treba bi bilo ugotoviti, ali zadevni ukrep pomeni odstopanje od zadevnega sistema, tako da različno obravnava gospodarske subjekte, ki so z vidika ciljev, ki so lastni sistemu, v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.
A measure is selective if it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Če zadevni ukrep ne pomeni odstopanja od referenčnega sistema, ni selektiven.
For fiscal schemes the Court of Justice has established that the selectivity of a measure should in principle be assessed by means of a three-step analysis [14].
Če od tega sistema odstopa (in je zato selektiven prima facie), je treba v tretjem koraku analize ugotoviti, ali je ukrep, ki odstopa od sistema, utemeljen z naravo ali splošno shemo (referenčnega) davčnega sistema [15].
First, the common or normal tax regime applicable in the Member State is identified: ‘the reference system’.
Če je ukrep, ki je selektiven prima facie, utemeljen z naravo ali splošno shemo sistema, se ne obravnava kot selektiven in torej ne spada na področje uporabe člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Second, it should be determined whether a given measure constitutes a derogation from that system in so far as it differentiates between economic operators who, in light of the objectives intrinsic to the system, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Referenčni sistem
If the measure in question does not constitute a derogation from the reference system, it is not selective.
Komisija v tem primeru meni, da je referenčni sistem pristojbina za inšpekcijski nadzor za podjetja, ki na Madžarskem poslujejo v prehranski verigi [16].
If it does (and therefore is prima facie selective), it must be established, in the third step of the analysis, whether the derogatory measure is justified by the nature or the general scheme of the (reference) tax system [15].
Po njenem mnenju progresivna struktura pristojbin, uvedena s spremembo iz leta 2014, ne more biti del navedenega referenčnega sistema.
If a prima facie selective measure is justified by the nature or the general scheme of the system, it will not be considered selective and it will thus fall outside the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Kot je pojasnilo Sodišče [17], ni vedno dovolj, da se analiza selektivnosti omeji na vprašanje, ali ukrep odstopa od referenčnega sistema, kot ga je opredelila država članica.
System of reference
Treba je tudi oceniti, ali je država članica meje navedenega sistema oblikovala dosledno ali pa, v nasprotnem primeru, očitno samovoljno ali pristransko, da bi dala nekaterim podjetjem prednost pred drugimi.
In the present case, the Commission considers the reference system to be the inspection fee on food chain undertakings operating in Hungary [16].
Namesto da bi država članica določila splošna pravila za vsa podjetja in odstopanje od teh pravil za nekatera podjetja, bi lahko ob izogibanju pravil o državni pomoči dosegla enak rezultat s spremembo in kombiniranjem svojih pravil tako, da njihova sama uporaba vodi v različno davčno breme za različna podjetja [18].
The Commission does not consider that the progressive fee structure introduced by the 2014 amendment can form a part of that reference system.
V zvezi s tem je treba zlasti opozoriti, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča člen 107(1) Pogodbe med ukrepi državnega posredovanja ne razlikuje glede na njihove vzroke ali cilje, ampak jih opredeljuje glede na njihove učinke in torej ne glede na uporabljene tehnike [19].
As the Court of Justice has specified [17], it is not always sufficient to confine the selectivity analysis to whether the measure derogates from the reference system as defined by the Member State.
Uporaba pavšalne pristojbine za promet subjektov, ki poslujejo v prehranski verigi, je primerno sredstvo za kritje stroškov, ki jih ima država zaradi svojih dejavnosti inšpekcijskega nadzora v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 882/2004, za progresivno strukturo pristojbin, uvedeno s spremembo zakona o prehranski verigi iz leta 2014, pa se zdi, da jo je Madžarska namerno oblikovala, da bi dala nekaterim podjetjem prednost pred drugimi.
It is also necessary to evaluate whether the boundaries of that system have been designed by the Member State in a consistent manner or, conversely, in a clearly arbitrary or biased way, so as to favour certain undertakings over others.
Pred spremembo iz leta 2014 so morali vsi subjekti, ki poslujejo v prehranski verigi, vključno s prodajalnami izdelkov široke potrošnje, za ustvarjeni promet plačati pristojbino po 0,1-odstotni pavšalni stopnji.
Otherwise, instead of laying down general rules applying to all undertakings from which a derogation is made for certain undertakings, the Member State could achieve the same result, side stepping the State aid rules, by adjusting and combining its rules in such a way that their very application results in a different burden for different undertakings [18].
Na podlagi progresivne strukture pristojbin, uvedene s spremembo iz leta 2014, bi lahko za upravljavce prodajaln izdelkov široke potrošnje veljalo osem različnih stopenj pristojbin – od 0 do 6 %, pri čemer se stopnje postopno višajo glede na razpon, v katerega spada promet upravljavca.
It is particularly important to recall in that respect that the Court of Justice has consistently held that Article 107(1) of the Treaty does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or their aims, but defines them in relation to their effects, and thus independently of the techniques used [19].
Zato se na podlagi spremembe iz leta 2014 za podjetja, za katera velja pristojbina, uporablja različna povprečna davčna stopnja, ki je odvisna od narave njihovih dejavnosti (ali upravljajo prodajalne izdelkov široke potrošnje) in višine njihovega prometa (ali promet presega prage, določene s spremembo).
Whereas the application of a flat fee to the turnover of food chain operators is an appropriate means to cover the costs incurred by the State for its inspection activities in line with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, the progressive fee structure introduced by the 2014 amendment to the Food Chain Act appears deliberately designed by Hungary to favour certain undertakings over others.
Učinek spremembe iz leta 2014 je torej ta, da različna podjetja plačujejo različne stopnje davka (izražene kot delež ustvarjenega skupnega letnega prometa), ki so odvisne od njihovih dejavnosti in – ker je znesek ustvarjenega prometa podjetja deloma povezan z velikostjo zadevnega podjetja – njihove velikosti.
Prior to the 2014 amendment, all food chain operators, including store selling fast moving consumer goods, had to pay the fee in respect of their turnover at a flat rate of 0,1 %.
Vendar je cilj pristojbine za inšpekcijski nadzor živil financiranje preverjanj zdravstvenih in varnostnih vidikov živil, ki prehajajo skozi prehransko verigo, v progresivni strukturi pristojbin s stopnjami med 0 % in 6 % pa se ne kaže razmerje med stroški inšpekcijskih pregledov v prostorih podjetij, ki jih ukrep zajema, in prometom teh podjetij.
Consequently, as a result of the 2014 amendment, a different average tax rate applies to undertakings subject to the fee depending on the nature of their activities (whether they operate stores selling fast moving consumer goods) and the level of their turnover (whether it surpasses the thresholds laid down by that amendment).
Komisija se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na uvodne izjave 52 do 57.
Because each company is taxed at a different rate, it is not possible for the Commission to identify one single reference rate in the fees as amended in 2014.
Madžarska je torej pristojbino za inšpekcijski nadzor v prehranski verigi namerno oblikovala tako, da samovoljno daje prednost nekaterim podjetjem, tj. upravljavcem prodajaln izdelkov široke potrošnje z manjšim prometom (in torej manjšim podjetjem), in prikrajša druga, tj. večja podjetja, ki so večinoma tudi v tuji lasti [20].
Hungary also did not present any specific rate as the reference rate or ‘normal’ rate and also did not explain why a higher rate would be justified by exceptional circumstances for operators of stores selling fast moving consumer goods with a high level of turnover, nor why lower rates should apply to certain categories of operators or operators of stores selling fast moving consumer goods with lower levels of turnovers.
Referenčni sistem je torej po zasnovi selektiven, saj ni upravičen ob upoštevanju cilja inšpekcijskega nadzora nad živili, tj. financiranja preverjanj zdravstvenih in varnostnih vidikov živil, ki prehajajo skozi prehransko verigo.
The effect of the 2014 amendment is therefore that different undertakings pay different levels of taxation (expressed as a proportion of their overall annual turnover) depending on their activities and, since the amount of turnover achieved by an undertaking correlates to a certain extent with the size of that undertaking, their size.
Zato je v tem primeru za podjetja, ki na Madžarskem poslujejo v prehranski verigi, ustrezen referenčni sistem uvedba pristojbine za inšpekcijski nadzor na podlagi njihovega prometa, pri čemer progresivna struktura pristojbin ni del navedenega sistema.
However, the objective of the food inspection fee is to finance health and safety-related checks of food as it passes through the food chain and the progressive fee structure, with rates ranging between 0 % and 6 %, does not mirror the relationship between the cost of inspections on the premises of the undertakings covered by the measure and their turnover.
Odstopanje od referenčnega sistema
In light of that objective, the Commission considers all food chain operators, in general, and all operators of stores selling fast-moving consumer goods, in particular, to be in a comparable legal and factual situation, regardless of their activities or their level of turnover, and Hungary has advanced no convincing justification to discriminate between those types of undertakings when it comes to levying the food chain inspection fee.
Kot drugi korak je treba ugotoviti, ali ukrep odstopa od referenčnega sistema v korist posameznih podjetij, ki so v podobnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju glede na cilj, ki je del referenčnega sistema.
The Commission refers, in this regard, to recitals 52 to 57 below.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 44, je resnični cilj pristojbine za inšpekcijski nadzor nad živili financiranje preverjanj zdravstvenih in varnostnih vidikov živil, ki prehajajo skozi prehransko verigo na Madžarskem.
Hungary has therefore deliberately designed the food chain inspection fee in such a manner so as to arbitrarily favour certain undertakings, namely operators of stores selling fast-moving consumer goods with a lower level of turnover (and thus smaller undertakings), and disadvantage others, namely larger undertakings, which also tend to be foreign-owned [20].
Kot je nadalje pojasnjeno v navedeni uvodni izjavi, bi bilo treba na splošno za vse subjekte, ki poslujejo v prehranski verigi, in zlasti za vse upravljavce prodajaln izdelkov široke potrošnje ob upoštevanju navedenega cilja šteti, da so v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju ne glede na svoje dejavnosti ali višino prometa.
The reference system is therefore selective by design in a way that is not justified in light of the objective of the food inspection fee, which is to finance health and safety-related checks of food as it passes through the food chain.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 37, je rezultat progresivne strukture pristojbin, ki v skladu s spremembo iz leta 2014 velja le za upravljavce prodajaln izdelkov široke potrošnje, ta, da se podjetjem z velikim prometom obračunajo precej višje mejne pristojbine za inšpekcijski nadzor in precej višje povprečne stopnje pristojbin za inšpekcijski nadzor kot upravljavcem prodajaln z majhnim prometom in drugim subjektom, ki poslujejo v prehranski verigi.
Consequently, the appropriate reference system in the present case is the imposition of an inspection fee on food chain undertakings operating in Hungary based on their turnover, without the progressive fee structure being a part of that system.
Povedano drugače, progresivna struktura pristojbin, uvedena s spremembo iz leta 2014, med podjetji, ki so v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju, kar zadeva cilj pristojbine za inšpekcijski nadzor živil, razlikuje na podlagi njihovih dejavnosti in velikosti.
Derogation from the system of reference
Komisija ugotavlja zlasti, da se je zaradi stopenj pristojbin, določenih s spremembo zakona o prehranski verigi iz leta 2014, in razponov, za katere veljajo, povišala pristojbina za podjetja, za katera velja pristojbina, to pa je odvisno od prometa, ki so ga podjetja ustvarila z nekaterimi dejavnostmi, in s tem od njihove velikosti.
As a second step, it is necessary to determine whether the measure derogates from reference system in favour of certain undertakings which are in a similar factual and legal situation in light of the intrinsic objective of the system of reference.
Mejna stopnja pristojbine je 0,1 % za podjetja, ki ustvarijo več kot 500 milijonov HUF in do 50 milijard HUF prometa.
As explained in recital 44, the intrinsic objective of the food inspection fee is to finance health and safety-related checks of food as it passes through the food chain in Hungary.
Ta mejna stopnja je pomnožena s 60, da se doseže 6 % za podjetja, ki prodajajo izdelke široke potrošnje in ustvarijo promet nad 300 milijardami HUF.
As further explained in that recital, all food chain operators, in general, and all operators of stores selling fast-moving consumer goods, in particular, should be considered to be in a comparable legal and factual situation in light of that objective, regardless of their activities or their level of turnover.
Posledica navedenega povišanja mejne stopnje pristojbine je, da je povprečna stopnja pristojbine za prodajalno s prometom v zgornjem razponu precej višja od tiste, ki velja za podjetja z manjšim prometom (in torej manjša podjetja).
As explained in recital 37, the progressive fee structure, which pursuant to the 2014 amendment applies only to operators of stores selling fast-moving consumer goods, has the result that undertakings with high levels of turnover are subject to both substantially higher marginal inspection fees and substantially higher average inspection fee rates as compared to operators of stores with low levels of turnover and other food chain operators.
Zato progresivna struktura pristojbin, uvedena s spremembo iz leta 2014, od referenčnega sistema, ki obsega uvedbo pristojbine za inšpekcijski nadzor za podjetja, ki na Madžarskem poslujejo v prehranski verigi, odstopa v korist upravljavcev prodajaln izdelkov široke potrošnje z manjšim prometom (in torej manjših podjetij).
In other words, the progressive fee structure introduced by the 2014 amendment differentiates between undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation as regards the objective of the food inspection fee based on their activities and their size.
Komisija zato meni, da je sporni ukrep selektiven prima facie.
The Commission notes, in particular, that the fee rates laid down by the 2014 amendment to the Food Chain Act and the brackets to which they apply result in an increase of the fee for undertakings subject to the fee depending on their turnover from certain activities and thus their size.
Utemeljitev
The marginal fee rate is 0,1 % for undertakings generating a turnover higher than HUF 500 million, but not exceeding HUF 50 billion.
Ukrep, ki odstopa od referenčnega sistema, ni selektiven, če je utemeljen z naravo ali splošno shemo navedenega sistema.
That marginal rate is multiplied by 60 to reach 6 % for undertakings selling fast-moving consumer goods that generate a turnover exceeding HUF 300 billion.
To se zgodi, kadar je selektivna obravnava posledica mehanizmov, ki so del sistema in so potrebni za njegovo delovanje in učinkovitost [21].
The consequence of that increase in the marginal fee rate is that for a store with turnover in the top bracket, the average level of fee is substantially higher than the one applicable to undertakings with lower levels of turnover (and thus smaller undertakings).
Države članice se za ta namen ne morejo sklicevati na zunanje cilje politike, kot so cilji regionalne, okoljske ali industrijske politike, da bi s tem utemeljile različno obravnavo podjetij v okviru posamezne ureditve.
Consequently, the progressive rate structure introduced by the 2014 amendment derogates from the reference system consisting of the imposition of an inspection fee on food chain undertakings operating in Hungary in favour of operators of stores selling fast-moving consumer goods with a lower level of turnover (and thus smaller undertakings).
Utemeljitev mora predložiti država članica, tj. madžarski organi.
The Commission therefore considers the contested measure to be prima facie selective.
Po navedbah madžarskih organov je namen odstopanja zagotoviti, da je stopnja pristojbine za inšpekcijski nadzor bolj sorazmerna z viri, ki jih organ potrebuje za inšpekcijski pregled velikih akterjev na trgu (npr. certifikati, čas, potreben za inšpekcijski pregled s sistemi IT in sistemi zagotavljanja kakovosti, število obratov podjetja, uporaba strokovnjakov in stroški motornih vozil).
Justification
Po njihovem mnenju bi morali subjekti, ki poslujejo v prehranski verigi in imajo večji promet ali predstavljajo večje tveganje zaradi večjega števila potrošnikov, s katerimi poslujejo, več prispevati k financiranju inšpekcijskega nadzora v prehranski verigi.