natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
An appeal [3] was lodged against this letter on 3 August 2015, and rejected as inadmissible by order of the General Court of 9 March 2016 [4].
Belgijski organi so bili pozvani, naj zakonodajo spremenijo v roku 10 mesecev od datuma sklepa, sprememba pa se mora začeti uporabljati najpozneje za dohodke, ustvarjene z gospodarskimi dejavnostmi od začetka davčnega leta 2017.
PROPOSAL FOR APPROPRIATE MEASURES BY THE COMMISSION AND RESPONSE BY THE BELGIAN AUTHORITIES
Belgijski organi so bili pozvani, naj Komisijo v dveh mesecih po datumu prejetja navedenega sklepa pisno obvestijo, da Belgija v skladu s členom 23(1) postopkovne uredbe brezpogojno in nedvoumno sprejema te ustrezne ukrepe v celoti.
By letter dated 21 January 2016, the Commission reiterated its position that the corporate tax exemption granted to ports constituted a State aid scheme incompatible with the Treaty and proposed to the Belgian authorities, asappropriate measures, in accordance with Article 108(1) TFEU and Article 22 of the Procedural Regulation, the abolition of the corporate tax exemption laid down for the Belgian ports, in so far as they engaged in economic activities.
Zoper navedeni predlog ustreznih ukrepov je bila 18. marca 2016 vložena tožba [5], ki je bila kot nedopustna zavržena s sklepom Splošnega sodišča z dne 27. oktobra 2016 [6].
The Belgian authorities were requested to adapt the legislation within a period of 10 months from the date of the decision, with the amendment applying no later than to the income generated by economic activities from the start of the 2017 tax year.
Belgijski organi so v dopisu z dne 21. marca 2016 Komisiji predložili pripombe o predlaganih ustreznih ukrepih.
The Belgian authorities were requested to inform the Commission in writing of Belgium's unconditional and unequivocal acceptance of these appropriate measures, in their entirety, within 2 months of the date of receipt of the decision, pursuant to Article 23(1) of the Procedural Regulation.
ZAČETEK FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
An appeal [5] was lodged against this proposal for appropriate measures on 18 March 2016, and rejected as inadmissible by order of the General Court of 27 October 2016 [6].
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 8. julija 2016 odločila, da začne postopek, določen v členu 108(2) PDEU, z uporabo člena 23(2) postopkovne uredbe.
By letter of 21 March 2016, the Belgian authorities forwarded comments on the proposed appropriate measures to the Commission.
Sklep Komisije o začetku postopka je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [7].
OPENING OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Komisija je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu.
By letter dated 8 July 2016, the Commission decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Procedural Regulation.
Dne 24. avgusta 2016 je bil organiziran sestanek s predstavniki nekaterih belgijskih pristanišč, na katera se ukrep nanaša.
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [7].
Belgija je svoje pripombe predložila v dopisih z dne 9. septembra 2016 (zvezni minister za finance) in 16. septembra 2016 (Valonija in valonska pristanišča).
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.
Komisija je prejela pripombe naslednjih zainteresiranih strani: Sea Invest, uporabnika pristanišč Anvers, Gand in Zeebruges (14. september 2016), pristanišča Rotterdam, v imenu petih javnih nizozemskih pomorskih pristanišč (16. september 2016), pristanišča Bruselj (16. september 2016), flamske pristaniške komisije (Vlaamse Havencommissie) (19. september 2016) in – po podaljšanju roka za predložitev pripomb – pristanišč Anvers in Zeebruges (4. oktober 2016).
A meeting was organised on 24 August 2016 with representatives of certain Belgian ports concerned by the measure.
Komisija je te pripombe posredovala Belgiji in ji dala možnost, da nanje odgovori.
Belgium presented its comments by letters dated 9 September 2016 (Federal Ministry of Finance) and 16 September 2016 (Walloon Region and Walloon ports).
Dne 10. januarja 2017 je bil organiziran še en sestanek med zveznimi in regionalnimi belgijskimi organi, nekaterimi upravičenci ukrepa in Komisijo.
The European Commission forwarded those comments to Belgium, which was given the opportunity to respond.
LASTNIŠTVO IN UPRAVLJANJE PRISTANIŠČ V BELGIJI
It received comments from Belgium by letter of 14 November 2016.
V Belgiji je zemljišče, ki ga zasedajo pristanišča, del javnega prostora.
A meeting was organised between the Belgian authorities and the Commission on 19 December 2016, during which additional comments were communicated to the Commission.
V devetdesetih letih dvajsetega stoletja je bilo upravljanje glavnih belgijskih pristanišč preneseno na decentralizirane subjekte.
A further meeting was organised between the Belgian federal and regional authorities, certain beneficiaries of the measure and the Commission on 10 January 2017.
Nekatera pristanišča upravljajo avtonomne pristaniške komunalne službe (kot so pristanišča Gand, Ostende in Anvers); druga upravljajo pravne osebe javnega prava, kot so avtonomna pristanišča Port autonomes du Centre et de l'Ouest, Liège, Charleroi in Namur) ali v primeru pristanišča Zeebruges delniška družba javnega prava.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE AND ITS CONTEXT
Pristanišča upravljajo javni subjekti, pristaniški organi.
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF PORTS IN BELGIUM
Pravne osebe rezidentke, ki niso „družbe“, pa so zavezane za plačilo davka od dohodkov, imenovanemu davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb [10].
In Belgium, the land occupied by ports is part of public property (domaine public/openbaar domein).
Člen 2 CIR opredeljuje „družbo“ kot „vsako družbo, združenje, ustanovo ali kakršno koli organizacijo, ki je zakonito ustanovljena, ima pravno osebnost in upravlja podjetje ali se ukvarja s pridobitnimi dejavnostmi“.
Some ports are operated by autonomous municipal port authorities (such as the ports of Ghent, Ostend and Antwerp), while others are operated by legal persons under public law (such as the autonomous ports of the Centre and West, Liège, Charleroi and Namur) or by a limited liability company under public law for the port of Zeebrugge.
Člen 220(2) CIR določa, da so pravne osebe, ki niso zavezane za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb iz člena 180 CIR, zavezane za plačilo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb [12].
The ports are operated by port authorities, which are public entities.
Davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb se ne obračuna od celotnega zneska dohodkov ali dobička, temveč samo od določenih vrst dohodkov.
INCOME TAX RULES APPLICABLE TO PORTS (12) In accordance with Article 1 of the Income Tax Code (Code des Impôts sur les Revenus) of 1992 [8] ( ‘CIR’), resident ‘companies’ are subject to income tax in the form of corporate tax [9].
V skladu s členom 221 CIR so pravne osebe, zavezane za plačilo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, obdavčene samo za katastrski dohodek od nepremičnin v Belgiji ter dohodke in prihodke iz kapitala in premičnin [13].
On the other hand, resident legal persons other than ‘companies’ are subject to income tax in the form of a tax on legal persons [10].
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 8. julija 2016 ugotovila, da belgijski organi niso sprejeli časovnega načrta za izvajanje ustreznih ukrepov, ki jih je Komisija navedla v dopisu z dne 21. januarja 2016, in da ni videti, da bi belgijska vlada jasno sprejela samo načelo obdavčitve pristanišč z davkom od dohodkov družb niti da bi se obvezala odpraviti oprostitev davka, do katere so upravičena belgijska pristanišča.
Article 2 of the CIR defines a ‘company’ as ‘any company, association, establishment or body of any kind, duly constituted, which has legal personality and engages in a business or transactions of a profit-making nature’.
Komisija iz navedenega sklepa, da belgijski organi niso brezpogojno, nedvoumno in v celoti sprejeli ustreznih ukrepov, ki jih je Komisija predlagala 21. januarja 2016.
Article 180(2) of the CIR provides that a certain number of Belgian ports are not subject to corporate tax [11].
Ker je Komisija še vedno menila, da oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb v korist belgijskim pristaniščem, kadar opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, pomeni obstoječo shemo državne pomoči in ker je dvomila o združljivosti te sheme pomoči z notranjim trgom, se je odločila začeti postopek, določen v členu 108(2) PDEU, ob uporabi člena 23(2) postopkovne uredbe.
The tax on legal persons is not charged on the total amount of income or profits, but only certain types of income.
PODJETJA/GOSPODARSKE DEJAVNOSTI
Thus, in accordance with Article 221 of the CIR, for legal persons that are subject to this tax, tax is levied only on the cadastral income of property located in Belgium and the income and proceeds from investment capital and movable assets [13].
Belgijska pristanišča in belgijski organi menijo, da pristanišča niso „podjetja“ v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, če njihove naloge, med drugim upravno upravljanje javnega in zasebnega prostora, niso gospodarske narave.
In addition, the rates applicable to the various types of income subject to the tax on legal persons usually correspond to the rates of property tax or withholding tax [14] and are generally lower than the rates applicable for corporate tax (33,99 %).
Poudarjajo, da so to naloge splošnega pomena in da so jim jih naložili ali jih nanje prenesli javni organi, ki lahko prosto opredelijo obseg negospodarskih storitev splošnega pomena.
3.
Pripominjajo, da imajo pristaniški organi posebna pooblastila za opravljanje teh nalog, da jih nadzorujejo organi oblasti in da njihov cilj ni ustvarjanje dobička, saj se presežek reinvestira v pristaniško infrastrukturo, pri nekaterih pristaniščih pa izplača občini, ki je njihov delničar.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Pristanišči Anvers in Zeebruges ter belgijski organi menijo, da se sodna praksa Sodišča na področju letališč (zadeva C-82/01, Aéroports de Paris [15]) ne more uporabljati za pristanišča, ki so drugačna infrastruktura.
In its letter of 8 July 2016, the Commission considered that the Belgian authorities had not accepted the timetable for the implementation of the appropriate measures indicated by the Commission in its letter of 21 January 2016 and that the Belgian Government apparently did not clearly accept even the principle of subjecting the ports to corporate tax or undertaking to abolish the tax exemption in favour of the Belgian ports.
Zlasti navajajo, da monopol pristanišč izhaja iz upravne decentralizacije v korist subjekta javnega prava, ki si ne prizadeva za ustvarjanje dobička, medtem ko je upravljanje letališč dodeljeno zasebnim osebam v okviru izključne koncesije za gospodarsko dejavnost s prenosom operativnega tveganja gospodarske narave.
The Commission concluded from this that the Belgian authorities had not accepted the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission on 21 January 2016 unconditionally, unequivocally and in full.
Menijo tudi, da se tožba, ki jo je Sodišče obravnavalo v zadevi Aéroports de Paris, ni nanašala na zagotavljanje „infrastrukturnih storitev“, tako da primerjava z dajanjem pristaniškega prostora na voljo s strani belgijskih pristaniških organov ni ustrezna.
Since the Commission still considered that the corporate tax exemption in favour of Belgian ports, where they engaged in economic activities, constituted an existing State aid scheme and since it had doubts about the compatibility of this aid scheme with the internal market, it decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU, pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Procedural Regulation.
Večina zainteresiranih strani in belgijski organi ugovarjajo gospodarski naravi dejavnosti, ki jih Komisija navaja v sklepu o začetku postopka, in sicer med drugim dajanje pristaniške infrastrukture na voljo plovilom ter oddajanje zemljišč in infrastrukture v najem podjetjem, pri čemer pojasnjujejo, da so tarife za najem zemljišč, za koncesijo za infrastrukturo in za dostop do pristaniške infrastrukture (pristaniške pristojbine) javne, nediskriminatorne ter določene vnaprej enostransko s strani pristaniških organov, in ne na podlagi ponudbe in povpraševanja.
COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE INITIATION OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Navajajo zlasti sodbo belgijskega ustavnega sodišča z dne 19. novembra 2015 [16], v kateri to priznava, da so pristaniške pristojbine „čista plačila“ tretjih oseb za poseg pristaniških organov.
UNDERTAKINGS/ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
Sklicujejo se tudi na flamski pristaniški odlok z dne 2. marca 1999 o politiki in upravljanju pomorskih pristanišč [17] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: flamski pristaniški odlok z dne 2. marca 1999), ki določa, da morajo biti pristaniške pristojbine določene v „razumnem sorazmerju“ z vrednostjo zagotovljene storitve.
The Belgian ports and Belgian authorities consider that ports are not ‘undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, since their tasks, notably the administrative management of public and private property, are not of an economic nature.
Poleg tega navajajo, da so koncesijske dajatve sorazmerno nižje za zemljišča, s katerimi se ustvarja višja dodana vrednost, da temeljijo na objektivnih parametrih (v zvezi z zadevnimi zemljišči) in da izražajo notranjo vrednost, ki jo ustvarja zagotovljena storitev.
They stress that these tasks are of general interest and are imposed on or delegated to them by the public authorities, which are free to define the scope of non-economic services of general interest.
Poleg tega Valonija in valonska pristanišča menijo, da plačilo dajatev za uporabo infrastrukture ne kaže nujno na gospodarsko naravo dejavnosti pristanišč, pri čemer dejstvo, da te dajatve ne krijejo povrnitve vloženega kapitala, kaže na to, da so pristaniške dejavnosti storitve splošnega pomena.
They point out that the port authorities have special powers to carry out these tasks, are subject to the control of the authorities and do not have a profit-oriented objective, the surplus being reinvested in the port infrastructure and, in the case of some ports, paid to their shareholder municipality.
Po njihovem mnenju so glavne gospodarske dejavnosti v pristaniščih dejavnosti koncesionarjev, ki zagotavljajo ravnanje z blagom (natovarjanje in raztovarjanje), pri čemer so pristaniški organi povsem izključeni iz poslovnih pogodb, sklenjenih med družbami koncesionarji in ladjarji.
The ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge and the Belgian authorities consider that the Court of Justice case-law on airports (case C-82/01 Aéroports de Paris [15]) is not applicable to ports, which are a different form of infrastructure.
Pristanišč torej gospodarsko ne upravljajo pristaniški organi, temveč družbe, ki jim je infrastruktura oddana v koncesijo, to infrastrukturo pa morajo te družbe same nadgraditi z napravami in objekti (žerjavi, hangarji), potrebnimi za storitve ravnanja s tovorom.
They point out in particular that the monopoly of the ports results from administrative decentralisation in favour of a public-law entity which is not profit-oriented, whereas the management of the airports is entrusted to private persons under the exclusive concession of an economic activity with transfer of the economic operational risk.
Dodajajo, da morajo pristaniški organi v vse večjem obsegu financirati negospodarske dejavnosti, za katere so pristojne regije, tudi dejavnosti, ki niso povezane z upravljanjem pristanišč [18].
They also consider that the legal dispute examined by the Court of Justice in the Aéroports de Paris case did not relate to the supply of ‘infrastructure services’, so the analogy with the provision of the port infrastructure by the Belgian authorities is inappropriate.
Navajajo več sklepov Komisije in sodb Sodišča, ki po njihovem mnenju ugotavljajo, da dajanje odprte infrastrukture na voljo vsem morebitnim uporabnikom na pravičen in nediskriminatoren način ter upravljanje in uporaba zemljišč javne skupnosti za razvoj industrijskih in trgovinskih dejavnosti za zasebni sektor niso gospodarske dejavnosti.
The majority of interested parties and the Belgian authorities dispute the economic nature of the activities mentioned by the Commission in the opening decision, in particular making the port infrastructure available to shipping and renting land and infrastructure to undertakings.
Menijo, da so gospodarske dejavnosti pristanišč, kot sta dvigovanje (storitve žerjavov) in vleka, povsem pomožne narave.
They explain that the tariffs for land rental, infrastructure concessions and access to the port infrastructure (port charges) are public, non-discriminatory and fixed unilaterally in advance by the port authorities and are not determined by the interaction of supply and demand.
GOSPODARSKA PREDNOST, ODOBRENA IZ DRŽAVNIH SREDSTEV
They mention in particular a judgment by the Belgian Constitutional Court of 19 November 2015 [16] recognising that the port charges constitute ‘pure remuneration’, by third parties, for the intervention of the port authorities.
Flamska pristaniška komisija meni, da oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb ne pomeni prednosti, ker morajo pristaniški organi v vse večjem obsegu financirati negospodarske infrastrukture, za katere so pristojne regije.
They also refer to the Flemish Port Decree of 2 March 1999 on seaport policy and management [17] ( ‘Flemish Port Decree of 2 March 1999’), which provides that port charges must be set in ‘reasonable proportion’ to the value of the consideration received.
Pristanišče Rotterdam navaja, da dejanska stopnja obdavčitve pristanišč Anvers, Zeebruges in Gand znaša manj kot 1 % računovodskega dobička.
Moreover, they point out that the concession fees are proportionally lower for the sites generating higher added value, are based on objective parameters (relating to the sites concerned) and reflect the intrinsic value generated by the service provided.
Belgijski organi trdijo, da pogoj, da mora biti prednost odobrena iz državnih sredstev, ni izpolnjen, če pristanišča plačujejo davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb,
Likewise, the Walloon Region and the Walloon ports consider that the payment of charges for the use of the infrastructure does not necessarily point to the economic nature of the port activities, since the fact that these charges do not cover the reconstitution of the capital invested indicates that the port activities are services of general interest.
SELEKTIVNOST
In their view, the principal economic activities which take place in the ports are carried out by concessionaires which take care of the handling (loading and unloading) of goods, while the port authorities have nothing at all to do with the commercial contracts concluded between concession-holding companies and shipowners.
Večina zainteresiranih strani in belgijski organi menijo, da referenčni sistem na področju obdavčitve pravnih oseb ni davek od dohodkov družb (kot je navedeno v sklepu o začetku postopka), temveč člen 1 CIR, ki določa dva vzporedna sistema obdavčitve za pravne osebe rezidente (davek od dohodkov družb in davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb) glede na merila, opredeljena v členu 2 CIR (dejavnost pravne osebe, ki je ali ni „upravljanje podjetja“ ali „ukvarjanje s pridobitnimi dejavnostmi“).
The ports are therefore not operated commercially by the port authorities but by the companies to which the infrastructure concession is granted and on which these companies must themselves construct the superstructures (cranes, warehouses) necessary for the handling services.
Dodajajo, da je s členom 180 CIR, ki določa, da pristanišča niso zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb, zgolj natančneje opredeljen in uporabljen člen 1 CIR.
They add that the port authorities must increasingly finance non-economic activities coming within the remit of the regions, and even activities unrelated to the operation of the port [18].
Nekatere zainteresirane strani in belgijski organi menijo tudi, da je davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb referenčni sistem za pristanišča, ki niso „družbe“ v smislu člena 2 CIR, pri čemer se s členom 180(2) CIR ne odstopa od splošnih pravil o obdavčitvi pravnih oseb, temveč se z njim ta splošna pravila samo uporabljajo.
They mention several Commission decisions and Court of Justice judgments which, in their view, establish that neither making available infrastructure open to all potential users on a fair and non-discriminatory basis, nor the management and operation of sites of a public authority with a view to the development of industrial and commercial activities for the private sector constitute economic activities.
Trdijo torej, da pristanišča ne bi bila nujno zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb, tudi če bi bil člen 180(2) odpravljen, saj bi morala uprava proučiti njihov položaj individualno glede na splošna merila iz členov 1 in 2 CIR, in ker pristanišča niso „družbe“ v smislu člena 2 CIR, ne bi bila zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb.
Finally, they consider that the economic activities of the ports, such as lifting (crane services) and towing, are entirely ancillary in nature.
Valonija in valonska pristanišča dodajajo, da je ta dvojnost (obstoj dveh sistemov obdavčitve dohodkov, in sicer davka od dohodkov družb in davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb) bistvena in lastna sistemu obdavčitve dohodkov ter izhaja iz belgijske ustave.
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE GRANTED THROUGH STATE RESOURCES
Poleg tega naj belgijska ustava od zakonodajalca ne bi zahtevala, da za določene dejavnosti uvede davek, in za javne uprave (država, skupnosti, regije, province in občine) naj bi bile dobrine v javni lasti ali v zasebni lasti, dodeljene javni službi, oproščene davkov v skladu s splošnim načelom prava.
The Flemish Port Commission considers that, since the port authorities increasingly have to finance non-economic infrastructures coming within the remit of the regions, the corporate tax exemption does not constitute an advantage.
Belgijski organi navajajo tudi, da v skladu s sodno prakso nacionalnih sodišč javne storitve, naloge in dobrine niso obdavčene, razen če zakon tega izrecno ne določa.
The Port of Rotterdam points out that the ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ghent have a real tax rate below 1 % of accounting profit.
Po mnenju pristaniških organov v Anversu in Zeebrugesu ter belgijskih organov so subjekti, ki – tako kot pristanišča – ne izplačujejo dobička, temveč ga reinvestirajo, ali ki uresničujejo cilj, ki presega njihov lastni interes, zavezani za plačilo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, kar se sklada z logiko sistema.
The Belgian authorities maintain that, since the ports pay the tax on legal persons, the condition that the advantage must be granted from State resources is not met.
Poudarjajo tudi, da so v drugačnem položaju kot druga podjetja, ki so zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb.
SELECTIVITY
Pristaniški organi imajo sicer določeno avtonomijo in lahko opravljajo tudi gospodarske dejavnosti, vendar spadajo med javne oblasti in opravljajo naloge splošnega pomena, njihova narava pa v skladu z njihovimi statuti ni pridobitna.
Most of the interested parties and the Belgian authorities consider that the reference system with regard to the taxation of legal persons is not corporate tax (as stated in the opening decision), but Article 1 of the CIR, which establishes two taxation systems in parallel for resident legal persons (corporate tax and tax on legal persons) according to the criteria defined in Article 2 of the CIR (activity of the legal person consisting, or not, in a ‘business’ or ‘operations of a profit-making nature’).
Ne uporabljajo industrijskih in trgovinskih metod, vodilo njihovega ravnanja pa ni kratkoročna donosnost naložb.
They add that Article 180 of the CIR, which provides that the ports are not subject to corporate tax, merely clarifies and applies Article 1 of the CIR.
Koncesijske dajatve in pristaniške pristojbine ne pokrijejo vedno stroškov, ki jih imajo.