natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A ruling of […] 2013 (No 2) [182] concerns the application of the Circular to intermediary financing activities […].
Drugače povedano, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 221, ko je treba določiti transferne cene, da se določijo cene blaga in storitev, dobavljenih različnim pravnim subjektom iz iste skupine, ima mehanizem določanja transfernih cen po svoji naravi učinek na več kot eno družbo v skupini (višje cene pri eni družbi bodo znižale dobiček druge družbe).
A ruling of […] 2013 (No 4) also deals with the analysis of the arm's length principle under the Circular to intra-group financing activities.
Zato je treba, kljub dejstvu, da skupino sestavljajo ločeni pravni subjekti, v okviru sporazuma v zvezi s transfernimi cenami ta podjetja šteti za eno samo skupino, ki prejeme izpodbijani ukrep pomoči [193].
A cursory reading of those two rulings and a comparison with the contested tax ruling reveals that there is no consistent treatment of treasury companies under the Circular and Luxembourg tax administration's assessment of the taxable profit.
Nazadnje znesek davka, ki ga družba FFT plača v Luksemburgu, vpliva na cenovne pogoje posojil znotraj skupine, ki jih dodeljuje družbam skupine Fiat, glede na to, da cene temeljijo na tehtanih povprečnih stroških kapitala in marži [194], tako da se zaradi znižanja davčnega bremena družbe FFT nujno znižajo cenovni pogoji posojil znotraj skupine.
Without assessing whether the two rulings properly apply the CUP, the two rulings in question expressly acknowledge that for intermediary financing transactions, the CUP method is in any event the most appropriate method based on the functional analysis and the availability of comparables, which include, among others, banks.
Znižanje davka družbe FFT v Luksemburgu ne koristi samo tej družbi, ampak tudi vsem družbam v skupini, ki se financirajo pri družbi FFT, in posledično skupini Fiat.
This is also in line with the Circular, which considers the functions performed by intra-group financing companies, in substance, comparable to the functions performed by independent financial institutions.
Sklepna ugotovitev glede obstoja pomoči
Contrary, to those two rulings, the CUP method was not applied in the contested tax ruling because FFT's tax advisor considered the TNMM as most appropriate method based on the fact that the ‘TNMM looks adequate’ [183].
Glede na navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da sporno davčno stališče, ki ga je Luksemburg izdal za družbo FFT, dodeljuje tej družbi in skupini Fiat selektivno prednost, ki jo je mogoče pripisati tej državi in se financira iz državnih sredstev, kar izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljalo konkurenco ter lahko prizadene trgovino v Uniji.
Three other rulings submitted by Luxembourg equally concern intra-group financing activities applying the Circular, but without any accompanying transfer pricing report to justify the request:
Zato je sporno davčno stališče državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
A ruling of […] 2012 (No 1) concerns a financing activity […].
Ker se zaradi spornega davčnega stališča zmanjša breme, ki bi ga običajno morala nositi družba FFT v okviru svojih dnevnih dejavnosti, je treba šteti, da je z njim družbi FFT in skupini Fiat odobrena pomoč za dnevno poslovanje.
A ruling of […] 2012 (No 5) concerns, among others, a tracking loan […].
NEZDRUŽLJIVOST POMOČI Z NOTRANJIM TRGOM
A ruling of […] 2013 (No 22) concerns, among others, a financing activity […].
Pomoč se šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom, če spada v eno od kategorij, navedenih v členu 107(2) PDEU [195].
As regards a comparison between rulings No 1, 5 and 22 with the contested tax ruling, the obvious difference in treatment by the Luxembourg tax administration is that, contrary to the contested tax ruling, the requests for rulings No 1, 5 and 22 were not accompanied by a transfer pricing report, although this is expressly required under the Circular [184].
Za združljivo z notranjim trgom se lahko šteje tudi, če je Komisija ugotovila, da spada v eno od kategorij, navedenih v členu 107(3) PDEU.
Two further rulings submitted by Luxembourg to the Commission concern financing activities, but do not refer to the Circular:
Vendar mora država članica, ki dodeli pomoč, dokazati da je državna pomoč, ki jo je dodelila, združljiva z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(2) in (3) PDEU.
A ruling of […] 2012 (No 6) concerns a company restructuring.
Luksemburg se ni skliceval na nobeno od izjem iz določb, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 345, za ugotavljanje združljivosti pomoči, dodeljene družbi FFT in skupini Fiat s spornim davčnim stališčem.
It contains, among others, a tracking loan […].
Poleg tega je treba, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 347, šteti, da je s spornim davčnim stališčem družbi FFT in skupini Fiat odobrena pomoč za dnevno poslovanje.
A ruling of […] 2012 (No 21) concerns the acquisition of […].
Na splošno se taka pomoč običajno ne more šteti za združljivo z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(3)(c) PDEU, ker ne pospešuje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij in ker davčne spodbude niso časovno omejene, se postopoma ne zmanjšujejo in niso sorazmerne s tem, kar je potrebno za odpravo posebnih gospodarskih ovir na zadevnih območjih.
Finally, the Commission examined the two tax rulings provided by Luxembourg as part of the 13 rulings covering a treasury function identified in the list of 5323 rulings provided by Luxembourg on 22 December 2014 [185].
Iz tega sledi, da državna pomoč, ki jo je Luksemburg s spornim davčnim stališčem dodelil družbi FFT in skupini Fiat, ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
Both of those rulings are based on the Circular.
NEZAKONITOST POMOČI
A ruling on treasury functions of Company E consists of meeting notes produced by Company E's tax advisor and signed on […] by representatives of the Luxembourg tax administration.
V skladu s členom 108(3) PDEU morajo države članice Komisijo obvestiti o vseh načrtih za dodelitev pomoči (obveznost priglasitve) in ne smejo izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov pomoči, dokler Komisija ne sprejme dokončnega sklepa (obveznost mirovanja).
A ruling on treasury functions of Company G dates from […], approving a request of the same day by company G. […]
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Luksemburg ni obvestil o nikakršnem načrtu za sprejetje spornega davčnega stališča niti ni upošteval obveznosti mirovanja na podlagi člena 108(3) PDEU.
The Commission observes that, contrary to the contested tax ruling, neither of those two rulings applies the TNMM or the CAPM, and neither ruling seems to determine the taxable profit of the company as a return on a hypothetical regulatory capital.
Zato v skladu s členom 1(f) Uredbe Sveta (EU) 2015/1589 [196] sporno davčno stališče pomeni nezakonito državno pomoč, izvedeno v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU.
Moreover, although the ruling request of Company G refers to a transfer pricing report to be provided at a later stage, such a report does not seem to have ever been provided to the Luxembourg tax administration [186].
VRAČILO
Finally, although the ruling of Company G does not clearly indicate the level of the margin nor to what the margin applies, it is distinct from the contested tax ruling because the margin would be, according to the ruling request, based on assets and additional to a return on equity.
V skladu s členom 16(1) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 mora Komisija odrediti vračilo vse nezakonite pomoči, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
In short, the tax treatment of those two companies for treasury functions does not seem to follow any coherent method or approach when compared to the contested tax ruling.
V tej določbi je navedeno tudi, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe za vračilo nezakonite pomoči, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
Luxembourg argues that FFT cannot be compared to other treasury companies, since FFT raises funds on the market whereas other financing companies usually obtain financing intra-group.
Člen 16(2) navedene uredbe določa, da pomoč, ki se vrne, vključuje obresti od datuma, ko je bila nezakonita pomoč na razpolago upravičencu, do datuma vračila.
Luxembourg also argues FFT cannot be compared to any other taxable company in Luxembourg: ‘la situation de chaque contribuable est suffisamment spécifique, pour empêcher toute comparaison pertinente avec des dossiers d'autres contribuables.’ [187]
V Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [197] so podrobno opredeljene metode za izračun obresti, ki se vrnejo.
While the Commission does not agree with those arguments, it submits that the lack of a consistent set of rules that generally apply to financing and treasury companies making a ruling request on the basis of objective criteria is best demonstrated by the existence of an alternative tax ruling in favour of [company F].
Člen 16(3) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 pa določa, da „se vračilo izvede nemudoma in skladno s postopki, določenimi v nacionalnem pravu zadevne države članice, če omogočajo takojšnje in učinkovito izvajanje sklepa Komisije“.
The [company F] ruling, issued on the same day and covering the same functions as the contested tax ruling (with [company F] covering the industrial segment […] in an alternative structure of group treasury companies), arrives at a substantially different conclusion as regards the companies' respective tax bases, without any apparent justification for that difference in treatment.
Legitimno pričakovanje in pravna varnost
Indeed, the contested tax ruling agrees on a tax base of around EUR 2,5 million, whereas the tax ruling in favour of [company F] agrees to a remuneration of similar financing and treasury activities resulting in a tax base of EUR […].
V členu 16(1) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 je določeno tudi, da Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava.
This difference in treatment of practically identical companies without any apparent justification further demonstrates that Luxembourg's tax ruling practice, based on the broad wording of the Circular, does not constitute an appropriate reference system for the purposes of the selectivity analysis.
Zato Luksemburg trdi, da je bilo na zasedanju Sveta 27. maja 2011 izrecno potrjeno, da ob upoštevanju sprejete okrožnice prakse izdajanja davčnih stališč ni treba preučiti na podlagi kodeksa ravnanja [198].
In sum, an examination of the tax ruling practice of the Luxembourg tax administration does not allow for the identification of a consistent set of rules that generally apply on the basis of objective criteria to all undertakings falling within its scope as defined by its objective.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se država članica, katere organi so pomoč dodelili v nasprotju s postopkovnimi pravili iz člena 108(3) PDEU, ne more sklicevati na legitimno pričakovanje upravičenca, da bi se izognila obveznosti sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe za izvršitev sklepa, s katerim ji Komisija nalaga vračilo te pomoči.
That practice can therefore not constitute the framework against which the contested tax ruling is examined to determine whether FFT obtained a selective advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Dopustiti tako možnost bi pomenilo, da se členoma 107 in 108 PDEU odvzame polni učinek, ker bi se nacionalni organi lahko oprli na lastno nezakonito ravnanje, da bi sklepom Komisije, sprejetim na podlagi teh členov PDEU, odvzeli učinek [199].
Justification by the nature or general scheme of the tax system
Zato se mora na obstoj izjemnih okoliščin, na katere je lahko oprlo legitimno pričakovanje, da bi ugovarjalo vračilu nezakonite pomoči, sklicevati upravičeno podjetje in ne država članica [200].
Neither Luxembourg nor FFT have advanced any possible justification for the selective treatment of FFT as a result of the contested tax ruling.
Ker družba FFT v pripombah, ki jih je poslala Komisiji, ni navedla nobene trditve v ta namen, Komisija meni, da trditve Luksemburga, ki se nanaša na načelo legitimnega pričakovanja, za ta sklep ni mogoče upoštevati.
The Commission recalls that the burden of establishing such a justification lies with the Member State.
Da je trditev, ki se sklicuje na legitimno pričakovanje, mogoče upoštevati, mora to pričakovanje izhajati iz predhodnega ukrepa Komisije, s katerim so bila dana natančna zagotovila [201].
In any event, the Commission has not been able to identify any possible ground for justifying the preferential treatment from which FFT benefits as a result of the contested tax ruling that could be said to derive directly from the intrinsic, basic or guiding principles of the reference system or that is the result of inherent mechanisms necessary for the functioning and effectiveness of the system, [188], whether that reference system is the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system, as established by the Commission, or Article 164 L.I.R. and the Circular, as advocated by Luxembourg and Fiat.
Po mnenju Luksemburga je dogovor, dosežen na zasedanju Skupine za kodeks ravnanja, da luksemburškega davčnega ukrepa za podjetja, ki opravljajo dejavnosti financiranja znotraj skupine, ni treba oceniti glede na merila kodeksa ravnanja, natančno zagotovilo, ki lahko ustvari legitimno pričakovanje.
Conclusion on the existence of a selective advantage
Komisija opozarja, da kodeks ravnanja, ki ga je sprejel Svet ECOFIN [202], ni pravno zavezujoč instrument, s katerim bi se državam članicam omogočil prostor za razpravo o ukrepih, ki imajo ali lahko imajo očiten vpliv na izbiro kraja za opravljanje gospodarskih dejavnosti podjetij v EU.
The Commission concludes that the contested tax ruling, by endorsing a method for arriving at a profit allocation to FFT within the Fiat group that departs from a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle resulting in a lowering of FFT's tax liability under the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system as compared to non-integrated companies taxable in Luxembourg that transact on market terms, confers a selective advantage on FFT for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Kodeks ravnanja in pravila o državni pomoči si prizadevajo doseči različne cilje.
By a subsidiary line of reasoning, the Commission concludes that the contested ruling, by endorsing a method for arriving at a profit allocation to FFT within the Fiat group that departs from a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle resulting in a lowering of FFT's tax liability under Article 164(3) L.I.R. and the Circular as compared to other group companies taxable in Luxembourg, confers a selective advantage on FFT for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Cilj kodeksa ravnanja je boj proti nelojalni davčni konkurenci med državami članicami, cilj pravil o državni pomoči pa odpraviti izkrivljanje konkurence, ki izvira iz ugodnega obravnavanja določenih podjetij s strani držav članic, zlasti v obliki znižanja davkov.
Beneficiary of the contested measure
Poleg tega ima Skupina za kodeks ravnanja določeno polje proste presoje, medtem ko Komisija nima nobene diskrecijske pravice za ugotavljanje, ali nek ukrep spada v pojem državna pomoč, ker je ta pojem objektiven.
The Commission considers the contested tax ruling to grant a selective advantage to FFT within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, since it leads to a lowering of that entity's taxable profit in Luxembourg as compared to non-integrated companies whose taxable profits are determined by transactions concluded on market terms.
Zato dogovor, sklenjen v Skupini za kodeks ravnanja, ne more ne zavezovati ne omejevati delovanja Komisije pri izvajanju pooblastil, ki so ji dodeljena s PDEU na področju državnih pomoči [203].
Separate legal entities may be considered to form one economic unit for the purpose of the application of State aid rules.
Forum OECD je na zasedanju 6. decembra 2011 sklenil (v angleščini): „[…] nadaljnja presoja naslednjih 10 shem ni potrebna … Luksemburg – podrobna davčna analiza financiranja znotraj skupine“ (prosti prevod).
That economic unit is then considered to be the relevant undertaking benefitting from the aid measure.
OECD ni institucija Unije in Unija ni članica te organizacije [204].
As the Court of Justice has previously held, ‘[i]n competition law, the term ‘undertaking’ must be understood as designating an economic unit […] even if in law that economic unit consists of several persons, natural or legal.’ [189] To determine whether several entities form an economic unit, the Court of Justice looks at the existence of a controlling share or functional, economic or organic links [190].
Njegovi sklepi, ki niso zavezujoči, ne morejo zavezovati institucij Unije.
In the present case, FFT is owned by Fiat SpA (now Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, NV) and by FF, which, in turn, is wholly owned by Fiat, SpA [191] FFT is thus fully controlled by Fiat S.p.A which in turn controls the Fiat group [192].
Forum OECD se je – daleč od tega da bi dal natančno zagotovilo – odločil, da ne bo podrobneje presojal luksemburške davčne analize dejavnosti financiranja znotraj skupine.
Moreover, it is the Fiat group which took the decision to establish FFT in Luxembourg and thus the Fiat group which benefits from the contested tax ruling as that ruling, as indicated in recital 52, establishes the profit that should be allocated to FFT within that corporate group for the financing and treasury functions it provides to the companies of that group.
Zato na podlagi tega citata nikakor ni mogoče priti niti do najmanjšega sklepa ali ugotovitve v zvezi z uporabo pravil o državni pomoči v spornem davčnem stališču.
The contested tax ruling is, after all, a ruling that accepts a transfer pricing methodology for transactions within the Fiat group, so that any favourable tax treatment afforded to FFT by the Luxembourg tax administration, benefits the Fiat group as a whole by providing additional resources not only to FFT, but to the entire the group.
Drugič, Luksemburg trdi, da je Komisija kršila načelo pravne varnosti.
In other words, as discussed in recital 221, where transfer pricing is required to set prices for products and services within various legal entities of one and the same group, the effects of setting a transfer price affects by its very nature more than one group company (a price increase in one company reduces the profit of the other).
Sklicuje se na predhodno prakso odločanja Komisije, v skladu s katero je Komisija sprejela, da se vračilo omeji na podlagi tega načela.
Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that the group is organised in different legal personalities, in the context of a transfer pricing arrangement those companies must be considered as a single group benefitting from the contested aid measure [193].
Vendar ne obstaja nobena predhodna praksa odločanja, v skladu s katero bi se lahko ustvarila negotovost glede dejstva, da je zaradi davčnih stališč lahko dodeljena državna pomoč.
Finally, in the present case the amount of taxes paid by FFT to Luxembourg influence the pricing conditions of the inter-group loans granted by it to the Fiat group companies, since they are based on the WACC and a margin [194], so that reductions of FFT's tax liability necessarily reduce the pricing conditions of its inter-group loans.
V odločbi, na katero se sklicuje Luksemburg, je Komisija vračilo namreč omejila zaradi negotovosti, ki jo je ustvarila predhodna odločba Komisije.
A reduction of FFT's tax liability in Luxembourg therefore not only benefits FFT but all the group companies receiving financing from FFT and therefore the Fiat group.
Nasprotno pa se v tej zadevi obvestilo o neposredni obdavčitvi ustvarjenega dohodka izrecno sklicuje na davčna stališča in okoliščine, v katerih je treba šteti, da je z njimi dodeljena državna pomoč.
Conclusion on the existence of aid
Komisija v zvezi s trditvijo Luksemburga, da zneska pomoči ni mogoče natančno količinsko opredeliti, zlasti ker je izbrani pristop nov, in da bi bilo torej treba vračilo izključiti, opozarja, da je neodvisno tržno načelo uporabila v predhodni praksi odločanja, zlasti za ukrepe, ki jih je sprejel Luksemburg, ter ugotovila, da kršitev tega načela lahko pomeni državno pomoč [205].
In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the contested tax ruling granted by Luxembourg in favour of FFT grants FFT and the Fiat group a selective advantage that is imputable to Luxembourg and financed through State resources and which distorts or threatens to distort competition and is liable to affect intra-EU trade.
To ugotovitev je potrdilo tudi Sodišče [206].
The contested tax ruling therefore constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Pristop Komisije do spornega davčnega stališča torej ni nič novega.
Since the contested tax ruling gives rise to a reduction of charges that should normally be borne by FFT in the course of its business operations, the contested tax ruling should be considered as granting operating aid to FFT and the Fiat group.
Države članice ne morejo prezreti tega, da sporazum, sklenjen med davčnim organom in družbo, ki tej družbi z umetnim znižanjem njene davčne osnove zagotavlja ugodnejšo obravnavo, ker uporabljene transferne cene ne zagotovijo zanesljivega približka tržno naravnanega izida, vodi do kršitve pravil o državni pomoči in ga je treba v primeru dvoma priglasiti Komisiji.
COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID
Nazadnje, kar zadeva domnevno težavo s količinsko opredelitvijo zneska pomoči, s katero bi se moralo upravičiti, da se vračila ne odredi, je Sodišče že presodilo [207], da Komisiji ni treba navesti natančnega zneska pomoči, ki ga je treba vrniti.
State aid shall be deemed compatible with the internal market if it falls within any of the categories listed in Article 107(2) of the TFEU [195] and it may be deemed compatible with the international market if it found by the Commission to fall within any of the categories listed in Article 107(3) of the TFEU.
Pravo Unije zahteva le, da se nezakonito dodeljena pomoč vrne, da se ponovno vzpostavi prejšnje stanje in da se vračilo izvede v skladu s pravili nacionalnega prava [208].
However, it is the Member State granting the aid which bears the burden of proving that State aid granted by it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Articles 107(2) or 107(3) of the TFEU.
Zato se Komisija lahko omeji samo na ugotovitev obveznosti vračila zadevnih pomoči, nacionalnim organom pa prepusti izračun natančnih zneskov pomoči, ki jih je treba vrniti [209].
Luxembourg has not invoked any of the grounds for a finding of compatibility in either of those provisions for the State aid it has granted to FFT and the Fiat group by way of the contested tax ruling.
Komisija lahko zato ugotovi, da so trditve, ki se nanašajo na načeli legitimnega pričakovanja in pravne varnosti, na kateri se sklicuje Luksemburg, neutemeljene v zvezi z obveznostjo vračila pomoči, ki jo je s spornim davčnim stališčem nezakonito dodelil družbi FFT.
Moreover, as explained in recital 347, the contested tax ruling should be considered as granting operating aid to FFT and the Fiat group.
Metoda vračila
As a general rule, such aid can normally not be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU in that it does not facilitate the development of certain activities or of certain economic areas, nor are the tax incentives in question limited in time, digressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy to a specific economic handicap of the areas concerned.
Komisija je v skladu s PDEU in ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča pristojna za odločanje o tem, ali mora zadevna država članica ukiniti ali spremeniti pomoč, za katero je ugotovila, da ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
Consequently, the State aid granted to FFT and the Fiat group by Luxembourg through the contested tax ruling is incompatible with the internal market.
Sodišče je prav tako večkrat razsodilo, da je namen obveznosti države, da ukine pomoč, za katero Komisija meni, da ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, ponovna vzpostavitev prejšnjih razmer.
UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče navedlo, da je ta cilj dosežen, ko prejemnik odplača znesek, ki mu je bil dodeljen v okviru nezakonite pomoči, s čimer izgubi prednost, ki jo je užival glede na konkurente na trgu, ter se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere pred plačilom pomoči.