natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
and any bodies in which the abovementioned undertakings are shareholders and any bodies whose directors are appointed and dismissed by the abovementioned undertakings, with the exception of bodies that exclusively or nearly exclusively supply water.
Nizozemski organi menijo, da Komisija ni uradno sporočila, da odgovora Nizozemske ne obravnava kot sprejetje primernih ukrepov.
This list has regularly been modified and certain indirect public undertakings have been added.
Menijo, da dopis, ki ga je Komisija poslala 11. marca 2014, ni uradni dopis zaradi tega postopka.
NOB Holding NV (1999);
V zvezi z vsebino nizozemski organi navajajo, da po njihovem mnenju v tem času na evropski ravni ne obstajajo želeni enaki konkurenčni pogoji.
Weerbureau HWS BV (2002);
Navajajo tudi, da je položaj nizozemskih morskih pristanišč glede na pristanišča v sosednjih državah članicah zelo pomemben.
Luchthaven Schiphol NV (2002) — in response to the Commission decision of 3 July 2001 proposing appropriate measures in case E45/2000;
Nizozemski organi menijo, da so sprejeli primerne ukrepe z dne 2. maja 2013 ter da poteka postopek sprejetja potrebnih ukrepov.
KLIQ NV (2002);
Zato ne vidijo razloga, da bi se odzvali na vsebino ocene Komisije, navedene v sklepu o začetku postopka.
Bank Nederlands Gemeenten (2005);
Nizozemski organi menijo, da za zdaj za evropska pristanišča ne obstajajo enaki konkurenčni pogoji.
Nederlandse Waterschapsbank NV (2005);
Niso pa predložili pripomb na vsebinske pripombe zainteresiranih strani v zvezi z oceno državne pomoči.
ABN AMRO Group NV and SNS REAAL NV, after their nationalisation.
Nizozemska je v dopisu z dne 10. septembra 2015 navedla, da če bi nadaljnja oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za zainteresirana morska pristanišča pomenila nezdružljivo državno pomoč, bi bilo treba določiti prehodno obdobje za odpravo ukrepa.
Indirect public undertakings that are not listed in Article 2(7) of the Wet Vpb 1969 and do not fall within Article 2(3) are not liable to corporate tax.
Prvič, priprava otvoritvene bilance stanja za zainteresirana morska pristanišča za davčne namene bi bil zelo kompleksen in dolgotrajen postopek.
Examples of such undertakings are De Nederlandse Bank NV, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV, NV Luchthaven Maastricht, Twinning Holding BV, NV Noordelijke Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij, NV Industriebank LIOF, NV Brabantse Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij, Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Oost Nederland NV and Holland Casino.
V bilanci stanja za računovodske namene so bili sredstva in obveznosti vrednoteni po izvirnih vrednostih, za davčne namene pa so bili vrednoteni po pošteni tržni vrednosti.
Exemption for public undertakings under the Wet Vpb 2015
Določitev poštene tržne vrednosti sredstev in obveznosti je bila zahtevna in zamudna.
The Wet Vpb 2015 aims in principle at subjecting public undertakings to corporate tax in the same manner as private undertakings.
Razlog za to je, da je bila večina sredstev morskih pristanišč netržnih postavk, ki so bile predmet zapletenega sistema premoženjskih razmerij in lastninskih pravic do uporabe med različnimi pravnimi osebami.
In particular, it amends Article 2 of the Wet Vpb 1969 in order to make liable to corporate tax legal persons governed by public law that conduct a business and businesses conducted by the State.
Vprašanje vrednotenja bi lahko na primer zadevalo sredstva, kot so pomoli, ceste, vodne poti, železnica, doki, stavbe s posebnimi funkcijami ali ureditve za privez.
However, as already explained in recital 15, the Wet Vpb 2015 contains certain exceptions:
Pristanišč, ki so zavezana davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb – manjše marine ali ribiška pristanišča –, ne bi bilo mogoče upoštevati kot merilo, saj se njihove dejavnosti močno razlikujejo od dejavnosti večjih morskih pristanišč, ki predvsem opravljajo dejavnosti pretovarjanja blaga ali upravljanja infrastrukture.
The Wet Vpb 2015 inserts a new Article 6c into the Wet Vpb 1969.
Drugič, Nizozemska je navedla, da ni jasnega razlikovanja med gospodarskimi in negospodarskimi dejavnostmi pristanišč ter da bi morala Komisija zagotoviti nadaljnja navodila v zvezi s tem.
The provision expressly maintains the exemption from corporate tax for a number of Dutch public seaports and for bodies whose activities consist mainly of the management, development or operation of a seaport, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled.
Nizozemski organi in morska pristanišča so z veliko težavo določili, katere dejavnosti je treba razvrstiti kot gospodarske in katere kot negospodarske.
The provision exempts teaching entities or entities that conduct research, provided the cost of the teaching or research is met from public resources, from legally required university education fees or from the university education fees referred to in Chapter 7, title 3, paragraph 2 of the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act, from tuition fees of the kind referred to in Article 3 of the Tuition and Course Fees Act, from foreign payments which are by their nature and purpose equivalent to university education fees and tuition fees, or from payments by institutions of general interest for which no contractual consideration is sought.
Tretjič, nizozemski organi so menili, da mora Komisija nujno zagotoviti enake konkurenčne pogoje za vsa konkurenčna pristanišča.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Med evropskimi morskimi pristanišči ni poštene konkurence: nizozemski organi so Komisijo pozvali, naj zagotovi, da bodo vsa evropska pristanišča ali vsaj tista, ki konkurirajo nizozemskim morskim pristaniščem, zavezana davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
The Commission received a joint submission from six interested parties, namely six Dutch seaports operators: Groningen Seaports NV, Havenbedrijf Amsterdam NV, Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV, Havenschap Moerdijk, Port of Den Helder NV and Zeeland Seaports NV (‘the interested seaports’).
Nazadnje, nizozemski organi so predlagali, naj bo 1. januar 2017 določen kot datum, ko za nizozemska morska pristanišča na podlagi kraljevega odloka ne bo več veljala oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
The interested seaports claim that the decision to initiate the procedure is unlawful, since the Netherlands unconditionally accepted the appropriate measures and committed to adopt legislation within 18 months in order to ensure that public undertakings would be subject to corporate tax in the same way as private undertakings.
RAZLOGI ZA ZAČETEK FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
Since the non-acceptance of a Commission proposal for appropriate measures is a precondition for initiating the formal investigation procedure, the decision to initiate the procedure ought not to have been adopted.
Nizozemski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo, da Komisija ni imela pravice začeti formalnega postopka preiskave.
The interested seaports also claim that by failing to give reasons for its decisions the Commission breached a fundamental principle of Union law codified in Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Komisija se s to trditvijo ne strinja.
According to the interested seaports, Dutch seaports are in direct competition with other European seaports, in particular those in the Hamburg-Le Havre range, which benefit from various forms of public support.
Imela je vso pravico in celo dolžnost, da začne formalni postopek preiskave, saj Nizozemska ni sprejela primernih ukrepov v skladu s členom 19(1) postopkovne uredbe, pomisleki glede konkurence, navedeni v sklepu s predlaganimi primernimi ukrepi, pa niso bili v celoti odpravljeni.
The fact that the Commission’s investigations into the taxation of ports in Europe have been proceeding at different paces and have started at different times entails the risk of granting a competitive advantage to the ports of those Member States which are at an earlier stage of investigation.
Ker so nizozemski organi določili, da je sprejetje odvisno od odobritve parlamenta, in ker so v dopisu z dne 24. maja 2013 izrazili namen in ne zaveze, dopis ni pomenil brezpogojnega in nepreklicnega sprejetja za namene člena 19(1) postopkovne uredbe.
This is contrary to the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality.
Člen 19(2) postopkovne uredbe določa, da Komisija začne formalni postopek preiskave, če država članica ne sprejme predlaganih primernih ukrepov in Komisija po tem, ko je upoštevala razloge zadevne države članice, še vedno meni, da so navedeni ukrepi potrebni.
The interested Dutch seaports claim that they are willing to comply with State aid rules, but only on the strict condition that a level playing field applies for all seaports in all European countries.
Iz osnutka zakonodajnega predloga je bilo jasno, da Nizozemska oprostitve davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb ne namerava odpraviti za vsa javna podjetja.
The interested seaports claim that all seaports in the Netherlands are subject in the same manner to the current Dutch legislation on corporation tax.
Komisija je zato imela utemeljene razloge za sum, da Nizozemska zakona ne bo povsem uskladila s pravili o državni pomoči.
Therefore, the exemption from corporate tax applicable to ports does not confer a selective advantage, is not discriminatory and does not distort competition at national level.
Komisija v zvezi z argumentom Nizozemske, da je ni ustrezno obvestila o tem, da njenega odgovora ne šteje za sprejetje v smislu člena 19(1) postopkovne uredbe, poudarja, da je bil dopis z dne 11. marca 2014 poslan pristojnemu nacionalnemu organu, da ga je organ tudi prejel ter da so Komisija in nizozemski organi razpravljali o njem.
According to the interested seaports, there are significant differences when it comes to the amount of public support granted to the different seaports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range.
Nizozemska je bila seznanjena z oceno Komisije in se ne more opirati izključno na formalne argumente, povezane z naslovnikom dopisa.
The tax exemption does not lead to a preferential treatment of the Dutch seaports but, at most, to a slightly less disadvantaged position for the Dutch seaports compared with other European seaports.
Komisija je začela formalni postopek preiskave, ker je imela pomisleke, da imajo javna podjetja, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, zaradi davčne oprostitve prednosti v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so zavezana davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb na Nizozemskem.
Therefore, there is no distortion of competition on a European level either by the corporate tax regime that is the subject of this Decision or under the new law.
Kar zadeva cilja nizozemskega zakona o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb, tj. zavezanost podjetij davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb, so javna in zasebna podjetja v podobnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.
The Dutch authorities put forward only procedural arguments and did not make comments on the substantive State aid assessment in the decision to initiate the procedure.
Podjetja
The Netherlands contends that the Dutch authorities have accepted the appropriate measures in accordance with Article 19(1) of the Procedural Regulation.
Po ustaljeni sodni praksi „pojem podjetja označuje vsak subjekt, ki opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, ne glede na njegov pravni status in način financiranja“.
According to the Netherlands, the Procedural Regulation does not expressly require that the appropriate measures be accepted ‘unconditionally’ and ‘unequivocally’, and does not exclude a proviso that parliamentary approval has to be secured.
Pri ugotavljanju, ali je subjekt podjetje, dejstvo, da njegov cilj ni dobiček, pri tem ni odločilno.
The Dutch authorities refer to Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union, which stipulates that the European Union shall respect the fundamental constitutional structures of the Member States.
Tudi nepridobitni subjekti lahko ponujajo blago in storitve na trgu.
According to the Dutch authorities, the Commission could draw the conclusion that the appropriate measures have (de facto) not been accepted only after the government has submitted a draft law to Parliament or when Parliament fails to approve the draft.
Nizozemski organi niso zanikali, da lahko javna podjetja, tudi javna pristanišča, poleg običajnih nalog javnega pooblastila ponujajo tudi blago in storitve na trgu.
Only then can there be justification for initiating the formal investigation procedure.
Nizozemski organi so priznali, da javna podjetja vse več opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti.
The Dutch authorities claim that this was not the case on 9 July 2014.
Poleg tega so zainteresirane tretje strani izrecno priznale, da so se v zadnjih letih dejavnosti pristanišč razvile v popolnoma gospodarske dejavnosti.
In the Dutch authorities’ view the Commission did not formally indicate that it did not consider the reply of the Netherlands to be an acceptance of the appropriate measures.
Zato je mogoče javna podjetja, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, razvrstiti kot podjetja v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Dutch authorities consider that the letter sent by the Commission on 11 March 2014 is not a formal letter for purposes of the present procedure.
V zvezi z oprostitvijo izobraževalnih ali raziskovalnih ustanov, določeno v členu 6b zakona Wet Vpb 1969, kakor je bil spremenjen z zakonom Wet Vpb 2015, je v odstavkih 26 do 28 sporočila o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena navedeno, da se v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso „sistem javnega izobraževanja, ki se organizira v okviru nacionalnega sistema izobraževanja ter ga financira in nadzira država, lahko obravnava kot negospodarska dejavnost“.
It was signed by the Deputy Director-General and addressed to the Deputy Director-General for Taxation in the Dutch Ministry of Finance.
Dejstvo, da je morda potreben prispevek v obliki zneska za poučevanje ali vpis, ne vpliva na negospodarsko naravo sistema javnega izobraževanja.
It was sent not via the official channel of the Permanent Representation, but by email.
Člen 6b zakona Wet Vpb jasno določa, da se strošek za izobraževanje ali raziskave krije iz javnih sredstev ali zneskov šolnin, ki jih določa zakon.
On the substance, the Dutch authorities observe that in their view the desired European level playing field does not exist at the present time.
Zato izobraževalnih ustanov na podlagi negospodarske narave izobraževalnih ali raziskovalnih storitev ni mogoče razvrstiti kot podjetja v smislu člena 107 PDEU.
The Dutch authorities also state that the position of Dutch seaports vis-à-vis those of neighbouring Member States is of the greatest importance.
V zvezi z raziskovalnimi ustanovami je v odstavku 29 sporočila o storitvah splošnega gospodarskega pomena navedeno, da raziskovalne dejavnosti univerz in osnovne dejavnosti raziskovalnih organizacij ne spadajo na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči.
The Dutch authorities consider that they have accepted the appropriate measures of 2 May 2013 and that they are in the process of taking the steps necessary.
Uporaba državnih sredstev
Therefore, the Dutch authorities do not see any reason to respond in substantive terms to the Commission’s assessment in the decision to initiate the procedure.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU mora ukrep dodeliti država ali pa mora biti v kakršni koli obliki dodeljen iz državnih sredstev.
The Dutch authorities replied by letter of 3 November 2014.
Kot je Sodišče Evropske unije razsodilo v zadevi Banco Exterior de España, ukrep, s katerim organi nekaterim podjetjem odobrijo davčno oprostitev, zaradi katere so osebe, za katere oprostitev velja, čeprav ne vključuje prenosa državnih sredstev, v ugodnejšem finančnem položaju kot drugi davkoplačevalci, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Dutch authorities share the interested seaports’ view that the Netherlands has accepted the appropriate measures.
Nizozemski organi se s tem, ko javna podjetja, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, vključno z javnimi pristanišči, oprostijo plačila davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, odrekajo prihodkom, ki pomenijo državna sredstva.
The Dutch authorities also endorse the interested seaports’ view that a level playing field for ports in Europe is crucial.
Zato Komisija meni, da oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za nizozemska javna podjetja, vključena v zakon Wet Vpb 1969, pomeni izgubo državnih sredstev in je posledično ukrep, ki ga država dodeli iz državnih sredstev.
According to the Dutch authorities, there is not a level playing field for ports in Europe at the present time.
Podobno tudi oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za nekatera nizozemska morska pristanišča, ohranjena v zakonu Wet Vpb 2015, pomeni izgubo državnih sredstev in posledično ukrep, ki ga država dodeli iz državnih sredstev.
The Dutch authorities did not comment on the interested parties’ substantive comments on the State aid assessment.
Tega niso izpodbijali niti nizozemski organi niti zainteresirane tretje strani.
By letter dated 10 September 2015 the Netherlands submitted that if the continued corporate tax exemption for the interested seaports were to be considered incompatible State aid, a transitional period for the abolition of the measure would be justified.
Obstoj prednosti
They argued that it was not possible to make the Dutch public seaports liable to corporate tax by 1 January 2016.
Poleg tega mora ukrep pomeniti tudi finančno prednost za prejemnika.
They presented three arguments to justify a transitional period.
Pojem prednosti ne obsega samo pozitivnih koristi, ampak tudi posredovanja, ki v različnih oblikah znižujejo stroške, ki običajno bremenijo proračun podjetja.
First, establishing an initial balance sheet for the interested seaports for tax purposes would be a very complex and lengthy operation.
Nizozemski organi niso zanikali, da nadaljnja oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za nekatera javna podjetja slednjim podeljuje gospodarsko prednost.
In the balance sheet for accounting purposes assets and liabilities were valued at historical cost, but for tax purposes they were valued at fair market value.
V skladu z Wet Vpb 1969 so javna podjetja načeloma oproščena plačila davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, zasebna podjetja pa so načeloma zavezana temu davku.
Determining the fair market value of assets and liabilities was a difficult and time-consuming exercise.
Zato imajo javna podjetja, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, očitno davčno ugodnost.
This was because most of the seaports’ assets were non-marketable items which were subject to a complex system of property relations and rights of use between different legal entities.
Komisija poudarja, da novi zakon (Wet Vpb 2015) izrecno ohranja oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za nekatera nizozemska javna morska pristanišča, za katera bo še naprej veljala davčna ugodnost.
The problem of valuation might for example concern assets such as quaysides, roads, waterways, railways, docks, buildings with specific functions or mooring arrangements.
Davčna oprostitev zmanjšuje obveznosti, ki so običajno del stroškov obratovanja podjetja, ki opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost.
The ports currently liable to corporate tax — small-scale marinas or fishing ports — could not be taken as a benchmark, since their activities differed significantly from larger seaports, which were engaged mainly in activities such as freight transhipment or management of infrastructure.
Posledično daje tem javnim podjetjem gospodarsko prednost v primerjavi s podjetji, ki so zavezana davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki pa te davčne ugodnosti nimajo.
Second, the Netherlands argued that there was no clear distinction between economic and non-economic activities of ports, and that the Commission should provide further guidance in that respect.
Izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino
It was a difficult task for the Dutch authorities and the seaports to determine which port activities should be classified as economic activities or non-economic activities.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU mora ukrep, ki naj bi se štel za državno pomoč, vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami ter izkrivljati ali morda izkrivljati konkurenco.
In addition, there was no consistent line from the Commission and no certainty at European level as to which port activities were to be considered economic activities and which were to be considered public tasks.
V zadevnem primeru so lahko javna podjetja, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti in ki so upravičena do davčne oprostitve, udeležena v trgovini znotraj Unije.
Third, the Dutch authorities considered that it was essential that the Commission should ensure a level playing field between competing ports.
Javna morska pristanišča, ki so na podlagi zakona Wet Vpb 1969 še naprej oproščena plačila davka – tudi po spremembi, ki jo je prinesel zakon Wet Vpb 2015 –, so očitno javna podjetja, udeležena v trgovini med državami članicami.
There was no fair competition between European seaports: they requested the Commission to ensure that all ports in Europe were subject to corporate tax, or at least those that competed with Dutch seaports.
Zato zakon Wet Vpb 1969, ki določa davčno oprostitev za javna podjetja, nujno vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco.
Finally, the Dutch authorities suggested that the date on which the corporate tax exemption for Dutch seaports should cease to operate, by Royal Decree, should be 1 January 2017.
Podobno oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ohranjena v zakonu Wet Vpb 2015 za zainteresirana morska pristanišča, vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami in izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco.
The seaports would become liable to corporate tax on the first day of the tax year starting after 1 January 2017.
Zainteresirana morska pristanišča navajajo, da ni izkrivljanja konkurence na evropski ravni, niti na podlagi ureditve davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki je predmet tega sklepa, niti na podlagi novega zakona.
In practice this would mean that Dutch seaports would be liable to corporate tax as of 1 January 2018.
Trdijo, da morska pristanišča med Hamburgom in Le Havrom prejemajo drugačno javno pomoč.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Zato tudi trdijo, da davčna oprostitev ne pomeni, da so nizozemska morska pristanišča obravnavana ugodneje, temveč kvečjemu pomeni, da so v primerjavi z drugimi evropskimi morskimi pristanišči v nekoliko manj neugodnem položaju.
Both the Dutch authorities and the interested third parties submit that the Commission was not entitled to open the formal investigation procedure.
Komisija se z argumenti zainteresiranih tretjih strani ne strinja.
The Commission does not agree with that view.
Za ukrep, ki ga dodeli država, se šteje, da izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco, kadar izboljša konkurenčni položaj prejemnika v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so njegovi konkurenti.
The Commission was fully entitled, if not indeed obliged, to open the formal investigation procedure, because the Netherlands had not accepted the appropriate measures in accordance with Article 19(1) of the Procedural Regulation and the competition concerns raised in the decision proposing appropriate measures had not been fully removed.
Zato zadostuje, da pomoč prejemniku omogoča ohranitev boljšega konkurenčnega položaja, ki pa ga prejemnik brez pomoči ne bi imel.
Given that the Dutch authorities made their acceptance subject to the approval of Parliament, and the letter of the Dutch authorities of 24 May 2013 stated an intention and not a commitment, the letter did not constitute an unconditional and unequivocal acceptance for purposes of Article 19(1) of the Procedural Regulation.
Zato dejstvo, da nekatera evropska morska pristanišča morda prejemajo državno pomoč, ne pomeni, da oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb za javna podjetja na splošno in zlasti za javna pristanišča ne izkrivlja konkurence.
Article 19(2) of the Procedural Regulation stipulates that where the Member State concerned does not accept the proposed appropriate measures and the Commission, having taking into account the arguments of the Member State concerned, still considers that those measures are necessary, the Commission is to open the formal investigation procedure.
Selektivnost