natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission considers that the ports do not conform to ‘particular operating principles which clearly distinguish them from other economic operators’ subject to corporate tax [77].
Brez izrecne in posebne oprostitve iz člena 180(2) CIR bi bila belgijska pristanišča – tako kot druge družbe rezidentke – dejansko samodejno zavezane za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb.
In particular, the fact that the ports do not seek a profit [78] is not sufficient to consider that they are in a different situation from that of other operators subject to corporate tax.
Odstopanje od referenčnega sistema, s katerim je uvedena različna obravnava gospodarskih subjektov, ki so glede na cilj referenčnega davčnega sistema v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju
In this scenario, the Belgian system would itself be selective [79].
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da člen 180(2) CIR pomeni odstopanje od splošnih pravil o obdavčitvi dohodkov „družb“ (tako glede na splošna pravila iz členov 1 in 2 CIR kot na manj splošna pravila iz člena 179 CIR) in uvaja razlikovanje med gospodarskimi subjekti, ki so glede na cilj referenčnega davčnega sistema v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.
Therefore, even if Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR constituted the legal basis for non-payment of corporate tax by the Belgian ports, this non-payment would be a measure which is prima facie selective with respect to the economic activities of the ports.
Ne glede na to, kateri referenčni sistem se upošteva (davek od dohodkov družb ali obdavčitev dohodkov pravnih oseb rezidentov na splošno), je namreč cilj davka od dohodkov obdavčiti dohodke, tj. cilj, glede na katerega so vsa podjetja, kar zadeva dobiček iz njihovih gospodarskih dejavnosti, v enakem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.
Assessment of selectivity if Article 180(2) of the CIR constitutes the legal basis for non-payment of corporate tax by the Belgian ports
To, da naj pristanišča ne bi imela pridobitnega namena ali da naj bi namenjala manjšo pozornost kratkoročni donosnosti naložb, te presoje v ničemer ne spremeni.
As results from the arguments developed above, the Commission considers that Article 180(2) of the CIR is the only legal basis for non-payment of corporate tax by the Belgian ports and that, in the absence of this provision, the ports would pay corporate tax like any other company or undertaking deriving taxable income from an economic activity.
Dejstvo je, da se davčna oprostitev v korist nepridobitnim podjetjem, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, na splošno šteje za selektivno, tudi če je odobrena glede na cilj nacionalnega zakonodajalca, da omogoči prednost organizacijam, ki se štejejo za družbeno koristne [81].
Reference system and derogation from the reference system
Dejstvo, da so belgijska pristanišča v lasti in pod nadzorom javnih organov ali – če pustimo gospodarske dejavnosti ob strani – da opravljajo negospodarske dejavnosti kot naloge v okviru izvajanja javnih pooblastil, ne pomeni, da so v drugačnem pravnem in dejanskem položaju, kar zadeva uporabo davka od dohodkov družb za dohodke, ki so jih ustvarila s svojimi gospodarskimi dejavnostmi.
The Commission considers that the reference system in the case at issue is constituted by the general tax rules arising from Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR.
Obravnavani ukrep je torej selektiven prima facie, kar zadeva gospodarske dejavnosti pristanišč.
Article 1 of the CIR establishes a dual system for the taxation of income for legal persons resident in Belgium: it subjects ‘companies’ to corporate tax and ‘legal persons other than companies’ to the tax on legal persons.
Upravičenost zaradi narave ali splošne sheme referenčnega sistema
Article 2 of the CIR comprises the criteria for the definition of ‘companies’ and therefore the determination of the legal persons to be subject to corporate tax and by elimination those whose income will be subject to the tax on legal persons.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je država članica tista, ki mora dokazati, da je ukrep upravičen zaradi narave ali splošne sheme referenčnega davčnega sistema.
Article 179 confirms that taxpayers subject to corporate tax are resident companies.
V zadnji fazi analize, izvedene v treh fazah, lahko samo notranje značilnosti referenčnega davčnega sistema upravičijo različno obravnavo.
Article 180(2) of the CIR constitutes a derogation from these general tax rules in so far as it exempts the ports from corporate tax unconditionally, without applying the general criteria for allocation between corporate tax and tax on legal persons defined in Articles 1 and 2, in other words without taking into account the status of ‘companies’ (or otherwise) of these ports [80].
Skladnost ukrepa z notranjim pravom sama po sebi ne more pomeniti upravičenosti zaradi splošne sheme sistema, če se ne dokaže, da ta upravičenost izhaja iz notranjih značilnosti referenčnega davčnega sistema [82].
In so far as, for the reasons set out in recital (86), the ports are ‘companies’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the CIR, the reference system for the taxation of the income of the ports can also be defined more narrowly as all the rules relating to corporate tax, namely Articles 1 and 179 of the CIR, which provide that resident ‘companies’ are subject to corporate tax which is defined as a ‘tax on the total income’.
V zvezi s tem sklep št. 151/2016 belgijskega ustavnega sodišča z dne 1. decembra 2016 nikakor nima pomena, ki mu ga želijo pripisati belgijski organi.
In terms of this reference system, Article 180(2) of the CIR explicitly constitutes a derogation (it is its raison d'être), since it removes the ports from the scope of Article 179 and corporate tax, even though the ports are then subject to the tax on legal persons by virtue of Article 220(2) of the CIR.
Navedeni sklep se namreč ne nanaša na oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb v korist pristanišč glede na zakonodajo o državni pomoči, temveč na zavezanost komunalnih služb, organizacij za sodelovanje in projektnih združenj za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb glede na načela enakosti in nediskriminacije, tako da neobstoj diskriminacije v nacionalnem pravu še ne pomeni neobstoja selektivnosti v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In the absence of the explicit, specific exemption provided for in Article 180(2) of the CIR, Belgian ports – like other resident companies – would in fact be automatically subject to corporate tax.
Ker je odločilno merilo za zavezanost za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb ali davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb to, ali zadevni subjekt „upravlja podjetje“ ali „se ukvarja s pridobitno dejavnostjo“ (glej člen 2 CIR), zatrjevana dejstva, da so pristanišča oproščena davka od dohodkov družb, ker ne izplačujejo svojega dobička, temveč ga reinvestirajo, da uresničujejo cilj, ki presega njihov individualni interes, da njihov statutarni cilj ni ustvarjanje dobička, da so del javnih oblasti in da opravljajo naloge splošnega pomena, ne zadostujejo za utemeljitev ugodnejše davčne obravnave od davčne obravnave drugih družb rezidentk glede na usmerjevalna načela davčnega sistema.
Derogation from the reference system introducing differentiation between economic operators in a comparable legal or factual situation in terms of the objective pursued by the reference tax system
Tako tudi druga podjetja reinvestirajo svoj dobiček, uresničujejo cilje ali ustvarjajo učinke nagospodarstvo, ki presegajo njihov individualni interes [83], ne da bi bila oproščena davka od dohodkov družb.
It results from the above that Article 180(2) of the CIR derogates from the general rules of the taxation of income of ‘companies’ (both by reference to the general rules under Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR and by reference to the less general rules under Article 179 of the CIR) and introduces differentiations between economic operators in a comparable legal or factual situation in terms of the objective pursued by the reference tax system.
Poleg tega so lahko subjekti, ki niso del javnih oblasti (kot so nepridobitna združenja), zavezani za plačilo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb pod pogojem, da spoštujejo splošno merilo iz člena 2 CIR, tako da tudi pripadnost javni sferi ni upoštevna glede na nacionalna pravila.
In fact, whichever reference system is adopted (corporate tax or taxation of the income of resident legal persons in general), the objective of income tax is to tax income, an objective in relation to which all undertakings are in the same factual and legal situation as regards the profits from their economic activities.
Tako so lahko ta združenja, čeprav so po svojem statutu nepridobitna, zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb v skladu s splošnimi merili iz člena 1 in 2 CIR, če „upravljajo podjetje“ ali „se ukvarjajo s pridobitno dejavnostjo“.
The fact that the ports do not pursue a profit motive or that they concentrate less on a short-term return on investment does not in any way alter this assessment.
Zatrjevano dejstvo, da sredstva pristanišč ne pokrivajo vedno njihovih stroškov, ne more biti utemeljitev za oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb, saj se v takem primeru, ko ni dobička, v skladu z običajnim sistemom obdavčitve dohodkov ne plača noben davek in ker se lahko izguba knjiži in odšteje od morebitnega prihodnjega dobička, ustvarjenega z gospodarskimi dejavnostmi, tako da je oprostitev odveč in ima posledico samo, če imajo pristanišča obdavčljiv dobiček.
It has been established that a tax exemption in favour of non-profit undertakings which engage in economic activities is in general regarded as selective, even if it is granted in the light of the national legislator's objective of favouring entities regarded as socially deserving [81].
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bil v obdobju 2004–2014 (enajst poslovnih let) rezultat pristanišč Anvers, Gand, Zeebruges in Ostende skoraj stalno pozitiven (negativen rezultat za Anvers za leto 2011 in negativen rezultat za Ostende za leto 2013), tako da je navedena utemeljitev teoretična, dejstva pa ji celo nasprotujejo.
The fact that the Belgian ports are owned and controlled by public authorities or – aside from economic activities – that they engage in non-economic activities, such as public authority tasks, does not imply that they are in a different legal and factual situation with respect to the application of corporate tax to the revenue generated by their economic activities.
Poleg tega ni za druge „družbe“ v primeru, ko njihova sredstva ne pokrivajo stroškov, predvidena nobena oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb, ki bi bila podobna tisti, do katere so upravičena pristanišča.
The measure at issue is therefore prima facie selective regarding the economic activities of the ports.
Na enak način tudi dejstvo, da se nekateri stroški, ki ne izhajajo iz poslovne dejavnosti nekega podjetja, v skladu s členom 49 CIR ne odbijejo od davka na dohodke družb, ne omogoča utemeljitve oprostitve davka od dohodkov družb za pristanišča.
Justification by the nature or general scheme of the system
Člen 49 CIR določa, da „se odbijejo stroški, ki jih davkoplačevalec ustvari ali utrpi v davčnem obdobju za to, da bi ustvaril ali ohranil obdavčljive dohodke“.
As indicated above, it is for the Member State to demonstrate that the derogation is justified by the nature or general scheme of the reference tax system.
Naprej, oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb, do katere so upravičena pristanišča, ni povezana s tem, da bi bila pristanišča finančno prikrajšana zaradi člena 49 CIR: oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb se nanaša na ves ustvarjeni dobiček in ni omejena na dobiček, ki izhaja iz morebitnega neodbitja nekaterih stroškov v skladu s členom 49 CIR.
In the final step of the three-step analysis, only the characteristics inherent in the reference tax system can justify differentiated treatment.
Oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb za pristanišča torej ni utemeljena z usmerjevalnim pravilom belgijskega davčnega sistema, tudi če predpostavljamo, da je člen 49 CIR tako usmerjevalno pravilo.
Conformity of a measure with national law cannot, as such, constitute justification by the scheme of the system unless it is shown that this justification results from characteristics inherent in the reference tax system [82].
Še več, ne belgijski organi ne zainteresirane strani niso pokazali, v čem naj bi taka določba – glede na cilj ukrepa [84] in njegovo ubeseditev – dejansko ovirala odbitje stroškov negospodarskih dejavnosti pristanišč, ki so splošnega pomena.
In this respect, Decision No 151/2016 of the Belgian Constitutional Court of 1 December 2016 in any case does not have the scope which the Belgian authorities try to assign to it.
Pristanišči Anvers in Zeebruges to težavo predstavljata samo kot tveganje in ne kot potrjeno dejstvo.
In fact, this decision does not concern the exemption from corporate tax in favour of the ports in relation to State aid, but the liability to corporate tax of intermunicipal associations, cooperation structures and project associations, in relation to the principles of equality and non-discrimination, which means that the absence of discrimination in national law does not prejudge the absence of selectivity within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Dejstvo, da naj bi oprostitev davka od dohodkov družb za pristanišča, tako kot oprostitev davka za dobrine v javni lasti ali v zasebni lasti nekaterih javnih oseb, dodeljene javni službi, izhajala iz splošnega načela prava in celo same belgijske ustave, če predpostavljamo, da je to dokazano [85], ni samo po sebi nujno tako, da bi to oprostitev upravičilo zaradi narave ali splošne sheme sistema, kolikor so lahko morebitni preudarki, ki jih upoštevajo constituant ali nacionalna sodišča, zunaj okvira dobrega delovanja davčnega sistema ali njegovih usmerjevalnih načel.
Likewise, since the decisive criterion for liability to corporate tax or to the tax on legal persons is the pursuit of a ‘business’ or ‘transactions of a profit-making nature’ by the entity concerned (Article 2 of the CIR), the arguments to the effect that the ports are exempt from corporate tax because they do not distribute their profit but reinvest it, that they pursue an objective beyond their individual interest, that they do not have the statutory objective of the pursuit of profit, that they are public authorities and that they carry out tasks in the general interest are not sufficient to justify more favourable tax treatment than that of other resident companies in relation to the guiding principles of the tax system.
Trditve belgijskih organov in zainteresiranih strani, ki se nanašajo na merila, razvita v okviru nacionalne sodne prakse za presojo, ali je neka pravna oseba „družba“ v smislu členov 1 in 2 CIR (med drugim neobstoj industrijskih in trgovinskih metod), so brez učinka pri dokazovanju upravičenosti ukrepa zaradi notranje logike davčnega sistema, če je njihov namen v resnici dokazati, da pristanišča niso „družbe“, pri čemer bi bila nezavezanost za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb selektivna zaradi same izbire meril, uporabljenih za določitev okvira referenčnega sistema (glej zgoraj), in ne zaradi odstopanja od tega referenčnega sistema, ki bi potencialno lahko bilo utemeljeno.
Other undertakings also reinvest their profit, pursueobjectives or generate effects on the economy beyond their individual interest [83] without being exempted from corporate tax on those accounts.
Da bi se ukrep štel za državno pomoč, mora vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami Unije in izkrivljati konkurenco ali groziti, da jo bo izkrivljal.
Likewise, entities which are not public authorities (such as not-for-profit associations) may be subject to the tax on legal persons provided that they respect the general criterion laid down in Article 2 of the CIR, which means that the fact of belonging to the public sphere is not relevant either in relation to the national rules.
Ti dve merili sta tesno povezani.
Hence, these associations, in spite of their non-profit-oriented statutory objective, may be subject to corporate tax pursuant to the general criteria provided for in Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR if they engage in a ‘business’ or carry out ‘transactions of a profit-making nature’.
V skladu s sodno prakso se izkrivljanje konkurence na splošno ugotovi, ko država odobri finančno prednost podjetju v liberaliziranem sektorju, v katerem obstaja ali bi lahko obstajala konkurenca [86].
The alleged fact that the resources of the ports do not always cover their costs cannot constitute a justification for exemption from corporate tax since, in this situation of absence of profit, no tax is due under the normal system for the taxation of income, and since a loss can be carried forward and charged against any future profits generated by economic activities, exemption is superfluous and has a consequence only where the ports make a taxable profit.
Ni sporno, da konkurenca v sektorju pristanišč obstaja in da jo povečujejo narava in lastnosti prometa, med drugim pomorskega prometa in prometa po plovnih poteh celinskih voda.
The Commission notes that, over the period 2004-2014 (eleven financial years), the results of the ports of Antwerp, Ghent, Zeebrugge and Ostend have been almost consistently positive (one negative result for Antwerp in 2011 and one negative result for Ostend in 2013), so the justification invoked is theoretical and even contradicted by the facts.
Prometne storitve, ki jih zagotavljajo pristanišča, vsaj nekoliko konkurirajo storitvam, ki jih zagotavljajo druga pristanišča ali ki jih zagotavljajo v drugih pristaniščih ter ki jih zagotavljajo drugi ponudniki prevoza v Belgiji in v drugih državah članicah.
Moreover, no provision for exemption from corporate tax similar to that benefiting the ports is made for other ‘companies’ in the event of their resources not covering their costs.
Tako so v okviru javnega posvetovanja zainteresiranih strani o osnutku uredbe na področju pristanišč „[v]se zainteresirane strani […] poudarile potrebo po stabilnih in enakih konkurenčnih pogojih za konkurenco med pristanišči […] v EU“ [87].
Similarly, the fact that certain costs not inherent in the object of an undertaking would not be deductible from corporate tax, pursuant to Article 49 of the CIR, does not provide any justification either for exempting the ports from corporate tax.
Poleg tega pristanišča, zlasti pristanišča na celinskih vodah in splošneje promet po vodnih poteh, s katerimi tvorijo verigo, konkurirajo drugim oblikam prometa.
Article 49 of the CIR provides that ‘the expenses incurred or borne by the taxpayer during the taxable period with a view to acquiring or retaining the taxable income shall be deductible’.
Poleg tega je konkurenca zlasti ostra med pristanišči na belgijski in nizozemski obali (v zvezi s tem se pogosto govori o območju Amsterdam – Rotterdam – Anvers).
First, the exemption from corporate tax in favour of the ports is unrelated to the fact that the ports would be financially disadvantaged by Article 49 of the CIR: the exemption from corporate tax concerns all the profits made and is not limited to the profits resulting from the possible absence of deductibility of certain expenses pursuant to Article 49 of the CIR.
Ker ukrep krepi položaj upravičencev v mednarodni trgovini, lahko torej vpliva na trgovino znotraj Unije in izkrivlja konkurenco.
The exemption of ports from corporate tax is therefore not justified by a guiding principle of the Belgian tax system, even assuming that Article 49 of the CIR constitutes such a guiding principle.
Poleg tega trditev, da v drugih državah članicah obstajajo podobni ukrepi državne pomoči, in ravnanje Komisije v zvezi s temi morebitnimi ukrepi ne vplivata na opredelitev zadevnega ukrepa kot državne pomoči, saj je posledica ukrepa iz člena 180(2) CIR, do katerega so upravičena belgijska pristanišča, ravno izboljšanje njihovega konkurenčnega položaja glede na referenčni položaj, v katerem bi bili obdavčeni v običajnih pogojih sistema davka od dohodkov družb [88].
Furthermore, neither the Belgian authorities nor the interested parties have shown, in the light of the objective of the measure [84] and its drafting, how this kind of provision would in fact be of a nature to impede the deductibility of the costs of the non-economic activities of general interests of the ports.
Tudi če bi se lahko štelo, da imajo pristanišča pravni monopol pri ponujanju storitev znotraj pristanišča, ki ga upravljajo, prometne storitve, ki jih ponujajo, vsaj nekoliko konkurirajo storitvam, ki jih ponujajo drugi ponudniki prevoza, med drugim pristanišča drugih držav članic.
The ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge for that matter only present this problem as a simple risk and not as an established fact.
Mnenje nizozemskega organa za konkurenco, ki ga omenjajo zainteresirane strani, ni upoštevno v okviru tega postopka o državni pomoči.
Again, the fact that the exemption of the ports from corporate tax, like the exemption from tax of the public or private property of certain public entities assigned to a public service, results from a general principle of law, or even from the Belgian Constitution itself, assuming this fact to have been established [85], is not as such necessarily of a nature to justify this exemption through the nature or general scheme of the system, in so far as any considerations taken into account by the authors of the Constitution or the national courts may be external to the smooth operation of the tax system or its guiding principles.
Ne nanaša se namreč na presojo sheme glede na člen 107 PDEU, ki zahteva posebno proučitev stanja v zvezi s konkurenco.
Finally, the arguments of the Belgian authorities and interested parties relating to the criteria developed by national case-law to assess whether a legal person is a ‘company’ within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR (in particular absence of industrial and commercial methods) are ineffective to demonstrate the justification for the measure by the logic inherent in the tax system, in so far as they aim in reality to prove that the ports are not ‘companies’, in which case the absence of liability to corporate tax would be selective due to the very choice of the criteria used to determine the limits of the reference system (see above) and not due to a derogation from this reference system which could possibly be justified.
Člen 25 flamskega pristaniškega odloka z dne 2. marca 1999 kaže, da tarife, ki jih uporabljajo pristanišča, vpliva na njihov konkurenčni položaj [89].
In order to be classified as State aid, the measure must affect intra-EU trade and distort, or threaten to distort, competition.
Obstoj konkurence med evropskimi pristanišči potrjujejo tudi pripombe nizozemskih javnih pristanišč.
Both criteria are closely linked.
Poleg tega sklicevanje na točke 211, 219 in 220 obvestila z dne 19. julija 2016 v tem primeru ni upoštevno, saj se te točke ne nanašajo na pristaniško infrastrukturo, ki pa je omenjena v točki 215.
According to case-law, a distortion of competition is generally established as soon as a State grants a financial advantage to an undertaking in a liberalised sector where there is, or could be, competition [86].
V tej točki je navedeno, da „pristaniška infrastruktura daje prednost gospodarski dejavnosti in je zato načeloma predmet pravil o državni pomoči“ ter da „pristanišča lahko konkurirajo med seboj, zato je tudi za financiranje pristaniške infrastrukture verjetno, da vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami“.
It is indisputable that there is competition in the port sector and that it is exacerbated by the nature and characteristics specific to transport, and especially maritime and inland waterway transport.
Poleg tega je v točkah 219 in 220 zgoraj omenjenegaobvestila navedeno, da pomoč za gradnjo zadevne infrastrukture ne vpliva nujno na trgovino znotraj skupnosti ali na konkurenco, medtem ko ukrep, obravnavan v tem postopku, ni pomoč za gradnjo infrastrukture, temveč pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, povezana z dobičkom, ustvarjenim v okviru njenega upravljanja.
The transport services offered by the ports are, at least to some extent, in competition with those offered by or in other ports and by other providers of transport services in Belgium and in other Member States.
SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE