natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As PCT has undertaken considerable investments that would include separate actions and stages and types of expenditure on goods and services, if each of these costs were treated separately, PCT would be treated differently for the purposes of the VAT regime from any undertaking investing in order to engage in an economic activity.
Končno dejstvo, da se pravila o vračilu po Ministrski odločbi iz leta 2013 ne razlikujejo ne glede na opredelitev investicijskega blaga, prav tako kaže, da je ta opredelitev pomenila selektivno prednost v korist podjetja PCT v času, ko je bila odobrena.
To support their argumentation, the Greek authorities and PCT refer to the INZO case-law [107], according to which the economic activities in the sense of the VAT directive ‘… may consist in several consecutive transactions and preparatory acts …’ [108] that allow the relevant VAT credit refund during the construction period.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da se navedena sodna praksa v zadevi INZO nanaša na pravico do odbitka DDV za transakcije, ki so predmet DDV in ki so povezane z gospodarsko dejavnostjo davčnega zavezanca in ne s pravico do vračila.
Moreover they indicate that in the same line of reasoning the law on PPPs was amended in 2011 [109] in order to foresee that PPPs are eligible to claim the refund of VAT credit each year upon the submission of their annual VAT return, without having to carry forward the credit balance to the next accounting period.
O izračunu obresti od prvega dne po izteku 60-dnevnega roka
Finally they argue that even if the investment was not considered as falling within the scope of the definition of ‘investment good’, PCT would be entitled to claim the refund: (i) upon an annual basis if it could establish that it would not be able to offset its VAT credit against output VAT over a three year period and (ii) upon the completion of three years.
Določba v preiskavi daje podjetju PCT tudi pravico do obresti od DDV iz dobropisa v razmerju do države, ki začne veljati samodejno po izteku 60-dnevnega roka, ne da bi bilo treba upoštevati postopkovnih ali časovnih zahtev, ki jih določa splošni veljavni okvir, povezan z vračilom DDV iz dobropisa, tj. prej kot za druga podjetja in brez upravnih postopkov sodišč.
The Commission notes that the provision under examination includes a specific definition of the notion of ‘investment good’ which is broader for PCT than for other companies that are in the same legal and factual situation.
Zato za podjetje PCT pomeni dodatno selektivno prednost.
In practice this definition has as a consequence that PCT has the right to be refunded for VAT credit in respect of all works, services and goods related to the construction object, although according to the generally applicable rules this possibility would only exist for tangible goods and not for services, works, repair and maintenance costs.
Ta ugodnost vključuje obresti, ki jih podjetje PCT od grške države lahko (v skladu s to določbo) zahteva 60 dni od dneva oddaje ustrezne napovedi za odmero davka (s katero je zahtevalo vračilo DDV), medtem ko druga podjetja v podobnem položaju ne bi bila upravičena do obresti v istem času.
As according to the generally applicable rules PCT would be entitled to a VAT credit refund upon an annual basis by establishing that it would not be able to offset its VAT credit against output VAT over a three-year period and upon the completion of three years, the broader definition of the single investment good for the purposes of the concession contract in practice results in granting to PCT additional cash in advance from VAT credit that would normally be refunded later [110].
Grški organi vztrajajo pri svoji utemeljitvi, ki jo podjetje PCT podpira, in se sklicujejo na sodno prakso EU o DDV [113], po kateri vračilo obračunanega DDV pomeni vračilo sredstev davčnega zavezanca in ne državnih sredstev.
Indeed, thanks to this provision, PCT can get a tax refund not only for tangible goods but also for expenses relating to services, works, repair & maintenance, while other companies could for such expenses only offset input against output VAT or wait for 3 years to get a refund.
Trdijo tudi, da 60-dnevni rok izhaja iz načela nevtralnosti in enakosti, ki temelji na sodni praksi EU o DDV [114].
Therefore, the advantage that PCT enjoys thanks to this provision is equal to the interests accrued on VAT refunded for all expenses other than for tangible goods (relating to the investment good), from the moment the refund was put at the disposal of PCT up to the moment PCT would have been entitled to such refund, namely 3 years later or up to the moment where PCT would have been able to offset its VAT credit (concerning these expenses) against output VAT.
Kadar država zamuja z vračilom obračunanega DDV za dlje od določenega „razumnega časa“, bi se od nje moralo zahtevati plačilo zamudnih obresti kot nadomestilo davkoplačevalcu, ki tako vračilo zahteva.
The fact that the tax authorities could possibly apply differently the VAT credit refund rules in the absence of this definition, demonstrates that this definition entails a selective advantage for PCT that is not applicable to all companies.
Zato plačilo tovrstnih zamudnih obresti od obračunanega DDV ne pomeni plačila državnih sredstev.
Moreover the fact that the law on PPPs that is mainly applicable for infrastructure projects, was amended in order to foresee the right of PPPs to claim the refund and avoid VAT credit carrying forward to the next year, also proves that according to the generally applicable rules every expenditure related to an infrastructure project will not be treated as a ‘single investment good’ for the purposes of the application of VAT credit refund rules.
Komisija meni, da izračun obresti zaradi zamude vračila DDV vključuje državna sredstva, država pa bo morala na podlagi te določbe podjetju PCT plačati dodatne obresti.
The letter of the Ministry of Mercantile Marine to the Ministry of Economic Affairs [111] requesting specific VAT credit refund arrangements [112] for PCT and the successful bidder of the Port of Thessaloniki at the time, demonstrates that the generally applicable rules related to refund would not be the same.
V praksi bo država na podlagi te določbe po pravu samem obresti plačala dan po 60-dnevnem obdobju in ne od datuma, ko naj bi podjetje PCT vložilo pritožbo v zvezi s tem, kot predvidevajo veljavna pravila.
Finally the fact that after the 2013 Ministerial Decision there is no differentiation in the refund rules irrespective of the definition of investment good, also demonstrates that this definition constituted a selective advantage in favour of PCT at the time it was granted.
Ker to pravico dobi podjetje PCT po pravu samem, čeprav je to na splošno mogoče šele po vložitvi pritožbe, določba vključuje selektivno prednost za podjetje PCT.
Moreover the Commission notes that the INZO case-law mentioned refers to the right to deduct VAT for transactions subject to VAT that are related to the economic activity of the taxable person and not to the right for a refund.
Grški organi in podjetje PCT trdijo, da določba zagotavlja samo, da država ne pridobi finančne koristi na stroške podjetja PCT.
Concerning the computation of interests from the first day after the expiry of the 60-day deadline
V primeru tovrstnih koncesijskih sporazumov bi se veliko zamudo pri vračilu DDV iz dobropisa štelo za znaten strošek in zato resno strukturno pomanjkljivost za podjetje PCT.
The provision under examination grants also PCT the right to interests from VAT credit against the state arising automatically once the 60-day deadline expires, without having to follow the procedural or temporal requirements set out by the general applicable framework related to the VAT credit refund, i.e. at an earlier stage than for other companies and without having to go through the administrative courts' procedure.
Poleg tega možnost plačila manjših zneskov zamudnih obresti drugim podjetjem ne zmanjša stroškov, ki bi običajno bremenili podjetje PCT pri opravljanju svoje gospodarske dejavnosti.
Therefore it entails an additional selective advantage for PCT.
Tako podjetje PCT nima nobene konkurenčne prednosti in ni obravnavano drugače kot druga podjetja.
This advantage consists in the interests which PCT can request (under this provision) from the Greek state once 60 days have passed from the moment it filed the relevant fiscal declaration (to request the VAT refund), while other companies in a similar situation would not be entitled to interests at the same point in time.
Komisija meni, da podjetje PCT ni v drugačnem položaju od drugih podjetij, kar bi opravičevalo drugačno obravnavo.
The Greek authorities retain their argumentation that is supported by PCT by referring to the EU case-law on VAT [113] which states that the refund of VAT credit balance constitutes the refund of resources of the taxable person and not state resources.
Kot že navedeno, dejstvo, da podjetje PCT izvaja veliko naložbo, ne pomeni trditve v prid selektivnosti.
They argue further that the 60-day time limit derives to the principle of neutrality and equality deriving from the EU VAT case-law [114].
Poleg tega samodejno plačilo obresti podjetju PCT zmanjša njegove običajne stroške in mu daje prednost v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji.
Where the state delays in refunding VAT credit balance beyond what it has established as a ‘reasonable period of time’, it should be required to pay arrears interest by way of compensating the taxpayer claiming such refund.
Grški organi in podjetje PCT trdijo, da čeprav določbe o vračilu DDV iz dobropisa vsebujejo element selektivnosti, bi bilo to upravičeno s temeljnimi ali vodilnimi načeli, ki so del sistema DDV, kot so potrdila sodišča EU in grška sodišča.
Thus the payment of this type of arrears interest on VAT credit balance does not constitute state resources.
Komisija ugotavlja, da v tem primeru ukrepi v korist podjetja PCT kažejo, da je bila temu podjetju odobrena ugodna obravnava v zvezi z vračilom DDV v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki izvajajo naložbe in odbijajo DDV, kar se po načelu nevtralnosti ali celo enakosti sistema DDV ne more šteti za upravičeno.
The Commission considers that the computation of interests in respect of the delay in the payment of the VAT refund implies state resources, as regards the additional interests the state will have to pay to PCT due to this provision.
Zlasti kar zadeva vračilo DDV iz dobropisa ne glede na fazo zaključenosti predmeta pogodbe, čeprav bi se morebiti lahko sprejelo, da bi bilo odstopanje mogoče zaradi daljšega obdobja gradnje, ki se lahko predvidi v večjih projektih, se nedoločno trajanje tega odstopanja ne more šteti za skladno z načelom enakosti ali nevtralnosti sistema DDV.
In practice due to this provision the state will pay interests automatically from the next day after the 60-day period and not from the date PCT would file an appeal in this respect, as it would be the case according to the applicable rules.
Zlasti ker je bilo podjetje PCT v skladu s pogoji koncesijske pogodbe zavezano pomol II dokončati najpozneje do 30. aprila 2014, pomol III pa najpozneje do 31. oktobra 2015, navedena prožnost za neomejen čas ne more pojasniti, po čem se primerljivi pravni in dejanski položaj podjetja PCT razlikuje od položaja drugih podjetjih, ki izvajajo naložbe in dobijo vrnjen DDV iz dobropisa.
As only PCT gets this right automatically although this is possible in general only after the filing of an appeal, the provision entails a selective advantage for PCT.
Glede na načela sistema DDV, v skladu s katerimi je treba zagotoviti, da podjetja ne koristijo neupravičene prednosti na podlagi sprejetega sistema DDV, se taka posebna obravnava ne more šteti za upravičeno v skladu z logiko tega sistema.
The Greek authorities and PCT argue that this provision merely ensures that the state does not obtain a financial benefit at the expense of PCT.
Kar zadeva široko opredelitev pojma investicijskega blaga, Komisija ugotavlja, da direktiva o DDV državam članicam omogoča, da se na podlagi lastne presoje odločijo, ali se podjetjem vrne DDV iz dobropisa ali ga bodo ta prenesla na naslednje leto ter kako bodo opredelili „investicijsko blago“ za namene DDV.
In the case of concession agreements of this type a big delay in VAT credit refund would be a considerable expense and thus a serious structural disadvantage for PCT.
Tako imajo grški organi možnost, da po lastni presoji določijo pravila, ki se bodo uporabljala v zvezi s tem, in natančno opredelijo, v katerih primerih se lahko zahteva vračilo in na kateri podlagi.
Moreover the possible payment of smaller amounts of arrear interests to other undertakings does not reduce the cost that PCT should normally bear in its business activity.
Vendar se široka opredelitev pojma investicijskega blaga, ki je podjetju PCT omogočila lažje in hitrejše vračilo DDV iz dobropisa, ne more šteti za upravičeno v skladu z logiko davčnega sistema, ker bi bilo to v nasprotju z načelom enakosti, ki bi moralo veljati za vsa podjetja, ki izvajajo naložbe, in ne samo za podjetje PCT.
Thus PCT does not have any competitive advantage and is not treated differently than other companies.
Komisija v zvezi z izračunom obresti po 60-mesečnem roku meni, da se tudi ta ne more upravičiti v skladu z logiko grškega sistema DDV.
The Commission does not consider that PCT is in a different situation than other companies which would justify a different treatment.
Na podlagi splošnega načela nevtralnosti glede DDV se lahko upraviči nalaganje obresti v primeru zamude pri vračilu DDV, da se prepreči, da bi država obremenitev, ki izhaja iz sistema DDV, prenesla na davkoplačevalca.
As already mentioned the fact that PCT realises a large investment does not constitute an argument regarding the notion of selectivity.
Grške določbe v zvezi s tem so grška sodišča razlagala tako, da noben davkoplačevalec ne trpi posledic morebitnega neukrepanja države.
Moreover, the automatic payment of interest to PCT reduces the normal costs of the company and gives PCT an advantage compared to other companies.
Ta razlaga je bila neodvisna od zneskov, ki jih mora država vrniti davkoplačevalcu.
The Greek authorities and PCT argue that even if there was an element of selectivity in the provisions relevant to VAT credit refund, this would be justified by the basic or guiding principles which are inherent in the VAT system, as this has been confirmed by the EU and Greek courts.
Zato se prednost podjetja PCT iz določbe v preiskavi, ki naj bi dodatno pritiskala na grško državo, če ta DDV ne vrne v roku, ne more šteti za upravičeno glede na visoke izdatke, ki jih ima podjetje pri naložbi.
The Commission notes that in this case the measures in favour of PCT indicate that PCT was granted a favourable treatment as regards VAT refund as compared to other companies that conduct investments and deduct VAT and this cannot be considered as justified by the principle of neutrality or even more of equality of the VAT tax system.
Posledično Komisija meni, da navedeni ukrepi glede pogojev vračila DDV dajejo podjetju PCT selektivno prednost.
In particular as regards the VAT credit refund irrespective of the stage of completion of the contract object, even if it could potentially be accepted that a deviation would be possible due to a longer construction period, that can be anticipated in bigger projects, an indefinite duration of this deviation cannot be considered as respecting the principle of equality or of neutrality of the VAT system.
Prenos izgube brez časovne omejitve – Davek od dohodkov (člen 2(5) Zakona št. 3755/2009)
In particular, as PCT under the terms of the concession contract was under the obligation to complete Pier II until 30 April 2014 and Pier III until 31 October 2015 at the latest, the said flexibility for an unlimited period of time cannot explain in which terms the comparable and legal factual situation of PCT is different from that of other undertakings that make investments and get a VAT credit refund.
V skladu s splošno veljavnim okvirom [115] se za namene izračuna davka od dohodkov izgube, ki nastanejo v enem letu, pri gospodarskih dejavnostih in dejavnostih svobodnega poklica lahko prenašajo za obdobje največ 5 let.
In light of the principles of the VAT system, according to which it has to be ensured that companies do not benefit from an undue advantage from the VAT system in place, such specific treatment cannot be considered as justified by the logic of the system.
GZDD ne predvideva nobene izjeme v zvezi s tem pravilom.
As regards the broad definition of the notion of investment good, the Commission notes that the VAT directive allows Member States discretion to decide whether the companies may get VAT credit refunds or whether they will carry the VAT credit forward to the next year, as well as how they will define the ‘investment good’ for VAT purposes.
Podjetje PCT lahko v skladu z odstavkom 5 člena 2 Zakona št. 3755/2009 prenese svoje izgube brez vsakršne časovne omejitve.
Thus the Greek state had the discretion to determine the rules applicable in this respect and specify in which cases a refund could be claimed and on which basis.
Ta ukrep daje podjetju PCT očitno selektivno prednost, ker odstopa od splošno veljavnega pravila, ki v okviru GZDD ne predvideva izjem.
However, the broad definition of the notion of investment good that allowed PCT a facilitated and earlier refund of VAT credit cannot be considered as justified by the logic of the tax system, as this would be contrary to the equality principle that should be applied to all companies that conduct investments and not only to PCT.
Na podlagi te določbe bo podjetje PCT svoje izgube lahko preneslo naprej v katero koli obdobje, ki bo zanj ugodnejše glede na obresti, potem ko se saldo med stroški naložb in njegovim obdavčljivim dohodkom spremeni, tj. ko bo imelo velik dobiček, da se izogne plačilu davkov, ki bi jih običajno plačalo, če te prednosti, ki omogoča tako izjemo, ne bi bilo.
Concerning the computation of interests after the 60-month deadline, the Commission considers that it cannot be justified by the logic of the Greek VAT system either.
Zato ta določba daje podjetju PCT prednost, ki je enakovredna razliki med davkom od dohodkov, ki ga dejansko plača, in davkom od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki bi ga plačalo, če ne bi imelo možnosti, da svoje izgube prenese naprej za več kot 5 let po tem, ko jih ustvari.
The general VAT neutrality principle may justify the imposition on interests in case of delay of the VAT refund, to oblige the state not to shift the burden of the VAT system to the taxpayer.
Grški organi in podjetje PCT trdijo tudi, da se v tem primeru pravica do prenosa izgub za čas trajanja koncesije šteje za ustrezno, ker pomeni uporabo načela o ujemanju dohodkov in stroškov.
The Greek provisions in this respect have been interpreted by the Greek Courts so that the taxpayer of any kind does not suffer the consequences of a possible inaction of the state.
Po mnenju grških organov in podjetja PCT je to eno temeljnih načel GZDD v zvezi s tem in se je kot tako uporabljalo v splošni shemi, ki vsebuje člen 2(5) in ki bi po njihovem mnenju morala obravnavati kot referenčni sistem.
This interpretation was made independently of the amounts that the state has to return to the taxpayer.
Poleg tega trdijo, da je pri dolgoročnih koncesijah za gradnjo in upravljanje javne infrastrukture tržno neravnovesje med začetnim obdobjem gradnje infrastrukture in nadaljnjimi fazami njenega upravljanja, pri čemer se pričakuje, da bo infrastruktura donosna, da se pokrijejo začetne izgube.
Thus the advantage that PCT derives from the provision under examination that is supposed to put additional pressure to the Greek state in case it does not refund VAT in time cannot be considered as justified in view of the high expenditure of its investment.
Ker naložbe, ki se zahtevajo vnaprej, vodijo v znatne izgube v obdobju več kot 5 let in se lahko poračunajo šele pozneje v koncesijskem obdobju, bi 5-letna omejitev za koncesionarja pomenila, da ne more koristiti pravila o prenosu davčne izgube v naslednja obdobja.
Consequently, the Commission considers that the abovementioned measures concerning the conditions of refund of VAT provide a selective advantage in favour of PCT.
V tem smislu bi bila podjetja, odgovorna za velike infrastrukturne projekte, v drugačnem položaju od običajnih podjetij.
Loss carry-forward without temporal limitation — Income tax (Article 2(5) of Law 3755/2009)
Komisija meni, da se to odstopanje od splošnega pravila ne more šteti za del logike grškega davčnega sistema.
According to the general applicable framework [115], for the purposes of calculating the income tax, the losses of one year for commercial activities and activities of a liberal profession may be carried forward for up to a maximum period of 5 years.
Ker je pravilo o prenosu davčne izgube v obdobju 5 let splošno in ne predvideva razlik, se v primeru javnih infrastrukturnih projektov prenos izgube brez časovne omejitve ne more šteti za upravičen.
The GITC does not foresee any exception in respect of this rule.
Sedanja 10-letna omejitev, ki velja za javno-zasebna partnerstva, potrjuje sklep, da nedoločni čas, predviden predvsem za podjetje PCT, pomeni očitno selektivno prednost zanj.
According to Article 2 paragraph 5 of Law 3755/2009, PCT may carry forward its losses without any limitation in time.
Končno Komisija meni, da so vsa podjetja, ki izvajajo naložbe, ki lahko trajajo več let, v enakem pravnem in dejanskem položaju kot podjetje PCT in drugi koncesionarji v Grčiji z vidika ciljev Splošnega zakona o davku od dohodkov.
This measure grants a clear selective advantage to PCT as it deviates from the generally applicable rule that has no exceptions under the GITC.
Ker grški davčni sistem ne dovoljuje razlikovanj glede trajanja naložb podjetij, ampak določa to splošno 5-letno pravilo za vse, se ne more šteti, da je podjetje PCT drugačno od drugih podjetij, kar zadeva to pravilo.
Due to this provision PCT will be able to carry forward its losses to any time it will be more appropriate for its interests, mainly once the balance between its investment costs and its taxable income will change, i.e. when it will have high profits, in order to avoid paying taxes that it would normally pay in the absence of the benefit of this exception.
Kot je navedeno v točki 107, je ukrep, ki velja za vsa podjetja, odgovorna za velike infrastrukturne projekte, selektiven, ker se uporablja samo za omejeno kategorijo podjetij.
Therefore, this provision provides to PCT an advantage which is equal to the difference between the income tax that it actually pays and the corporate tax that it would have paid in the absence of the possibility to carry forward its losses more than 5 years after these losses occurred.
Grški organi in podjetje PCT trdijo, da (a) bi moral biti „zastavljeni cilj“ za ta ukrep enak cilju odstopajoče določbe, (b) je cilj te določbe uporabiti splošno načelo o ujemanju dohodka in stroškov davčnega sistema za posebne značilnosti koncesij, (c) se to načelo pri teh projektih ne uporablja, da se izključi tveganje koncesionarja, ampak da se zagotovita enaka obravnava in odprava „strukturne pomanjkljivosti“ teh projektov, (d) se je ta določba uporabljala dosledno za vse velike javne infrastrukturne projekte v Grčiji, (e) je možnost prenosa izgub v času trajanja koncesije ustrezen mehanizem za obravnavo teh posebnih značilnosti takih koncesij in objektivne razlike med koncesionarjem in drugimi gospodarskimi podjetji.
The Greek authorities and PCT also argue that the right to carry forward losses for the duration of the concession in this case has been considered appropriate as an application of the income-expenses matching principle.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je treba cilj davčnega sistema določiti na ravni referenčnega sistema in ne na ravni izjemnega ukrepa [116].
According to the Greek authorities and PCT one of the basic principles of the GITC in this respect and has been applied as such in the general scheme of which Article 2(5) forms part, which they consider should be taken as the system of reference.
Če je ukrep kot tak pomenil referenčni sistem, ne bi bil noben davčni ukrep uvrščen v državno pomoč, ne glede na to, kako izjemen bi bil.