natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Both branches are presented as bearing limited risk — in the case of Company [E], the branch is presented as a contract manufacturer, whereas in the case of Company [M], the branch is presented as a toll manufacturer, which is essentially the same activity — and the ruling requests specify that the raw material used would be owned by the head office.
Na podlagi teh elementov se lahko začetni dvomi Komisije, kot so navedeni v sklepu o začetku postopka, nadalje razvijejo ali obravnavajo.
In so far as the branches are the manufacturers, there is no contractual means to allocate such ownership to either the head office or the branch as they are the same legal entity.
Zato se je lahko analiza Komisije ob koncu tega postopka spremenila, kar pomeni, da se lahko končni sklep nekoliko razlikuje od sklepa o začetku postopka, ne da bi te razlike vplivale na zakonitost končnega sklepa [356].
Therefore, the branches of Company [E] and Company [M] are, in reality, described as bearing very similar risks and providing very similar functions and both branches are involved in invoicing.
Analiza Komisije se je v tem primeru nadalje razvila zaradi obsežnih pisnih odgovorov, ki sta jih Irska in skupina Apple predložili v zvezi s pomisleki Komisije o državni pomoči iz sklepa o začetku postopka.
In the case of both rulings, the taxable base of the branch is determined as a mark-up on operating costs of the companies' Irish branches [333].
V odgovor na zahtevo Irske, naj Komisija dodatno pojasni svojo presojo o državni pomoči ob upoštevanju teh elementov in trditve Irske, da je presoja Komisije temeljila na njenem napačnem razumevanju veljavnega nacionalnega prava, so službe Komisije 17. aprila 2015 Irski zaradi preglednosti poslale dopis, ki ga je ta posredovala družbi Apple.
However, in the case of the branch of Company [E] the remuneration agreed by Irish Revenue is a mark-up of 100 % of operating costs, whereas in the case of Company [M] the mark-up agreed by Irish Revenue is ten times lower, at 10 % of operating costs.
Vendar se predmet preiskave, ki jo je Komisija opravila o državni pomoči, po sprejetju sklepa o začetku postopka nikoli ni spremenil (metode razporejanja dobička, odobrene s spornima davčnima stališčema), prav tako pa se niso spremenili njeni glavni dvomi o skladnosti spornih ukrepov s pravili o državni pomoči (ali so te metode privedle do obdavčljivega dobička za družbi ASI in AOE, ki je skladen z neodvisnim tržnim načelom).
There is no explanation included in either ruling that could justify those different levels of remuneration, independently of whether the profit allocation methods being endorsed by those rulings reliably approximate a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
Irska je imela od dopisa z dne 17. aprila 2015 vsekakor dovolj priložnosti, da Komisiji izrazi svoje mnenje o stališču iz tega dopisa, to priložnost pa je dejansko večkrat izkoristila pisno in ustno [357].
Finally, in the rulings provided for Group [G] and Company [C1], a method for remuneration is accepted that resembles the method for remuneration accepted in the 2007 contested ruling regarding AOE.
Komisija v zvezi s skupino Apple opozarja, da lahko kot zainteresirana stran predloži samo stališča v odgovor na sklep o začetku postopka.
That method relies on a combination of a percentage of turnover, labelled as an ‘IP return’ in the respective rulings requests, with a percentage of operating costs.
Kljub temu je skupina Apple dobila priložnost, da Komisiji predloži stališča, kar je od dopisa z dne 17. aprila 2015, ki ji je bil predložen, dejansko večkrat izkoristila pisno in ustno [358].
That method does not correspond to a method presented in the OECD TP Guidelines.
Komisija zato meni, da so bile postopkovne pravice Irske in skupine Apple v tem primeru spoštovane.
The three rulings concern manufacturing in different sectors: […] for Company [G], […] for Company [C1] and personal computers for AOE.
VRAČILO
The Irish branch of Company [G] is described as ensuring a distribution function, whereas the Irish branches of Company [C1] and of AOE do not seem to ensure such a function.
OBVEZNOST VRAČILA
Nevertheless, the remuneration accepted for Company [G] in terms of percentage of turnover, labelled as an ‘IP return’, is the lowest at 0,8 %, compared to 1,6 % for the Irish branch of the Company [C1] and [1-5] % for AOE's Irish Branch.
Člen 16(1) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 določa, da je Komisija zavezana zahtevati vračilo nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči.
The percentage of costs retained for the calculation of the tax basis of the Irish branch of Company [G] of 15 % of operating costs is also lower than the percentage of 18 % of the operating costs accepted for Company [C1].
V tej določbi je navedeno tudi, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe za vračilo nezakonite pomoči, ki je razglašena za nezdružljivo z notranjim trgom.
Therefore, the agreed remuneration method and parameters for the Irish branch of Company [G] results systematically in a lower taxable base for the Irish branch, than the agreed remuneration method and parameters agreed by Irish Revenue with Company [C1], despite the fact that the Irish branch of Company [G] seems to ensure more functions than the Irish branch of Company [C1].
Člen 16(2) iste uredbe določa, da pomoč, ki jo je treba vrniti, vključuje obresti od datuma, ko je bila nezakonita pomoč na razpolago upravičencu, do datuma njenega vračila.
This difference cannot be explained by the descriptions provided in the respective ruling requests.
V Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 so podrobno opredeljene metode, ki jih je treba uporabiti za izračun obresti pri vračilu [359].
In particular, the parameters 0,8 %, 1,6 %, and [1-5] % for the IP returns, as well as the percentages of operating costs presented in the ruling requests of Company [G], Company [C1] and AOE, are not substantiated by any calculations.
Člen 16(3) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 pa nazadnje določa, da „se vračilo izvede nemudoma in skladno s postopki, določenimi v nacionalnem pravu zadevne države članice, če omogočajo takojšnje in učinkovito izvajanje sklepa Komisije“.
In conclusion, an examination of the profit allocation ruling practice of Irish Revenue demonstrates that no consistent criteria are applied to determine the allocation of profits to Irish branches of non-resident companies for the purposes of applying Section 25 tca 97.
NOVA POMOČ
That examination also confirms that the contested tax rulings were issued on the basis of Irish Revenue's discretion in the absence of objective criteria related to the tax system and that, therefore, those rulings should be considered to confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [334].
V skladu s členom 1(c) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 „‚nova pomoč‘ pomeni vso pomoč, to je sheme pomoči in individualno pomoč, ki ni veljavna pomoč, vključno s spremembami veljavne pomoči“.
ABSENCE OF JUSTIFICATION BY THE NATURE AND GENERAL SCHEME OF THE TAX SYSTEM
V skladu s členom 17 Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 imajo pooblastila Komisije zahtevati vračilo pomoči desetletni zastaralni rok.
A measure which derogates from the reference system may still be found to be non-selective if it is justified by the nature or general scheme of that system.
Zastaralni rok začne teči na dan, ko je nezakonita pomoč dodeljena upravičencu kot individualna pomoč ali kot pomoč v okviru sheme pomoči.
This is the case where a measure derives directly from the intrinsic basic or guiding principles of the reference system or where it is the result of inherent mechanisms necessary for the functioning and effectiveness of that system [335].
Kakršen koli ukrep glede nezakonite pomoči, ki ga sprejme Komisija ali država članica na zahtevo Komisije, prekine zastaralni rok.
Neither Ireland nor Apple has advanced a conclusive justification for the provision of the selective advantage by way of the contested tax rulings, although the burden of proof in that respect lies on the Member State.
Po vsaki prekinitvi začne rok teči znova.
Indeed, Ireland has not put forward any justification at all for the selective treatment, whereas Apple argues that the exercise of discretion is intrinsic to the Irish corporate tax system and that the rulings contributed to the effectiveness of the system and were proportionate [336].
Zastaranje se zadrži tako dolgo, dokler je sklep Komisije v postopku pred Sodiščem EU.
The Commission does not consider those arguments to justify the selective treatment of ASI and AOE in this case.
Kakršna koli pomoč, pri kateri je zastaralni rok potekel, pa se šteje kot veljavna pomoč.
First, the exercise of discretion by a tax administration, even if it is inherent in the application of certain fiscal rules, cannot in itself justify discrimination between taxpayers that find themselves in a similar factual and legal situation.
Davčno stališče iz leta 1991 je bilo izdano pred več kot 10 leti.
As the Court of Justice has held [337], the exercise of discretion by a tax administration in the application of its fiscal rules that is not based on objective criteria related to the tax system, gives rise to a presumption of selectivity and Apple has not succeeded at demonstrating that Irish Revenue's discretion in granting the contested tax rulings is based on objective criteria related to the tax system.
V obravnavani zadevi je bil zastaralni rok iz člena 17 Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 prekinjen 12. junija 2013, ko je Komisija Irski poslala dopis, v katerem je zahtevala, naj ji predloži informacije o njeni praksi v zvezi z izdajanjem davčnih stališč in predvsem informacije o stališčih, ki jih je Irska dodelila v korist družb AOI, ASI in AOE [360].
In any event, the Commission recalls that according to both its primary [338] and subsidiary [339] lines of reasoning, as well as its first alternative line of reasoning [340], it is not the exercise of discretion by Irish Revenue that leads to the grant of a selective advantage in favour of ASI and AOE, but the fact that the contested tax rulings grant ASI and AOE a reduction of their taxable base and thus their corporation tax liability, which is not available to economic operators in a comparable factual and legal situation.
To pomeni, da je treba vsako pomoč, ki je bila na podlagi davčnega stališča iz leta 1991 dodeljena pred 12. junijem 2003, šteti za „veljavno“ pomoč v smislu člena 1(b)(iv) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589.
By those lines of reasoning, it is the endorsement by Irish Revenue of the profit allocation methods proposed by Apple to determine the taxable profit of ASI and AOE in Ireland that gives rise to a selective advantage, not the exercise of discretion as such in endorsing those methods.
Nasprotno, vsaka pomoč, ki je bila po tem datumu dodeljena na podlagi davčnega stališča iz leta 1991 ali iz leta 2007, pomeni „novo“ pomoč v smislu člena 1(c) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589.
That the contested tax rulings also confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE due to Irish Revenue's exercise of discretion in that context which is not based on objective criteria related to the tax system, is a further alternative line of reasoning supporting the finding of a selective advantage in this case [341].
Irska trdi, da bi bila vsaka pomoč, dodeljena v tem primeru, lahko le veljavna pomoč, saj izhaja iz neuporabe neodvisnega tržnega načela s strani Irish Revenue, ki se na Irskem ni uporabljalo, ko je država 1. januarja 1973 pristopila k Uniji, in se od takrat naprej ni nikoli uporabljalo.
That line of reasoning is developed to address the claim made by Ireland and Apple that Section 25 TCA 97 is not governed by the arm's length principle and that the demonstration of a selective advantage must be made by comparing the contested tax rulings to Irish Revenue's administrative practice.
Irska meni, da je v oddelku 25 TCA 97 samo ponovljen oddelek 201 zakona o davku na dohodek iz leta 1967, ki je veljal, ko se je Irska pridružila Uniji, in da v nobeni določbi ni navedb o neodvisnem tržnem načelu ali okviru OECD.
Accordingly, with the exception of that final line of reasoning, the Commission's conclusion that the contested tax rulings confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE does not depend on whether the discretion afforded to Irish Revenue in granting those rulings is excessive or how Irish Revenue exercised that discretion, but follows from the fact that those rulings selectively reduce ASI's and AOE's Irish corporation tax liability as compared to economic operators in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Ker se pravna podlaga za razporejanje dobička k irski podružnici, odkar se je Irska pridružila Uniji, ni bistveno spremenila, pomeni ukrep, če gre za državno pomoč, veljavno pomoč v smislu člena 1(b) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 [361].
Second, even if the Commission's finding of a selective advantage was based on the exercise of discretion by Irish Revenue, the argument put forward by Apple that ‘the [tax rulings] derived from the intrinsic principles of Section 25 TCA97’ [342], without further explaining how this is to be understood or how this could justify the selective treatment, is insufficient to justify the selective treatment in this case.
Z drugimi besedami, pomoč, dodeljena s tema stališčema, se dodeli vsako leto, ko morata družbi ASI in AOE plačati davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ti družbi pa se za izračun dolgovanega davka zanašata na metode razporejanja dobička, odobrene s tema stališčema.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, an advantage granted to an undertaking must not only be consistent with the inherent characteristics of the tax system in question, but also as regards the manner in which that system is implemented [343].
Pomoč, ki je s spornima davčnima stališčema dodeljena družbama ASI in AOE ter skupini Apple, torej pomeni novo pomoč, ki se dodeli vsako leto [362].
Therefore, even if Irish Revenue's administrative practice under Section 25 TCA 97 were the correct reference system, which the Commission contests, the manner in which Irish Revenue has implemented Section 25 TCA 97 through the grant of individual tax rulings shows that its exercise of discretion is not based on objective criteria.
PRAVNA VARNOST IN LEGITIMNA PRIČAKOVANJA
Such treatment in favour of ASI and AOE can therefore not be justified by the logic or general nature of the tax system.
Člen 16(1) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 določa, da Komisija ne sme zahtevati vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava.
Third, a general reference to the ‘effectiveness of the tax system’ [344] to which the tax rulings allegedly contributed cannot justify a selective treatment of certain undertakings under that system.
Irska in skupina Apple trdita, da je Komisija kršila načelo pravne varnosti, ker je začela postopek formalne preiskave in po 22 letih izrazila dvome o skladnosti državne pomoči iz obeh davčnih stališč.
It is true that tax rulings in general are a valid and often-used means by tax administrations to provide legal certainty, but this fact does not exempt tax rulings from scrutiny under the State aid rules.
Irska meni, da morajo biti pravila o državni pomoči predvidljiva in da Komisija ne more razviti prava Unije tako, da razširi omejitve teh pravil na nov način ali s sklicevanjem na mednarodni razvoj, kot je okvir OECD [363].
In conclusion, the selective treatment offered to ASI and AOE under the contested tax rulings is not justified by the nature and general scheme of the tax system.
Komisija z uporabo neodvisnega tržnega načela in okvira OECD, predvsem smernic OECD iz leta 2010, naknadno nalaga zunanji referenčni okvir, ki takrat ni bil del irskega nacionalnega prava [364].
CONCLUSION ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE
Nazadnje, Irska trdi, da ker je Komisija retroaktivno uporabila današnja načela, zanjo velja standard, ki ga Irska (in skupina Apple) ob izdaji stališč ne bi mogla predvideti [365].
By endorsing methods for allocating profit to ASI's and AOE's Irish branches that depart from a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle, the contested tax rulings result in a lowering of ASI's and AOE's taxable base as compared to non-integrated companies whose taxable profit reflects prices determined on the market negotiated at arm's length.
V skladu s sodno prakso temeljno načelo pravne varnosti nasprotuje temu, da bi Komisija lahko neomejeno odlašala z izvajanjem svojih pooblastil [366].
The contested tax rulings therefore result in a reduction of ASI's and AOE's corporation tax liability as determined under the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Ireland, thereby conferring a selective advantage on those companies for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [345].
Vendar je za uporabo načela pravne varnosti treba, da Komisija od seznanitve s pomočjo dolgo ni ukrepala in da je položaj negotov.
Alternatively, by endorsing methods for allocating profit to ASI's and AOE's Irish branches that depart from a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle, the contested tax rulings result in a lowering of ASI's and AOE's taxable base as compared to other non-resident companies operating through a branch in Ireland.
Dolgo obdobje kot takšno ne zadostuje za sklicevanje na pravno varnost, zamudo pa je Komisiji mogoče pripisati šele od takrat, ko je izvedela za obstoj pomoči.
The contested tax rulings therefore result in a reduction of ASI's and AOE's corporation tax liability under Section 25 TCA 97, thereby conferring a selective advantage on those companies for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [346].
Ker Irska spornih davčnih stališč ni nikoli priglasila Komisiji ali jih drugače dala na voljo javnosti, je Komisija za ti stališči lahko izvedela šele, ko sta bili javno razkriti, kar je bilo prvič med zaslišanji senata ZDA.
CONCLUSION ON THE EXISTENCE OF AID
Ta zaslišanja so potekala 21. maja 2013, nato pa je Komisija 12. junija 2013 Irski poslala zahtevo za informacije.
In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the contested tax rulings issued by Irish Revenue in favour of ASI and AOE confer a selective advantage on those companies that is imputable to Ireland and financed through State resources, which distorts or threatens to distort competition and which is liable to affect trade between Member States.
Komisiji zato ni mogoče očitati, da je zaradi dolgotrajnega neukrepanja kršila načelo pravne varnosti, saj je Komisija od takrat, ko bi lahko izvedela za stališči (21. maja 2013), ukrepala v manj kot enem mesecu (12. junija 2013).
The contested tax rulings therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
V zvezi s trditvijo Irske, da je bilo načelo pravne varnosti kršeno, ker Komisija ravna v nasprotju s svojo prakso odločanja, v skladu s katero je edina veljavna referenčna točka nacionalni davčni sistem, Komisija opozarja, da so referenčni sistem, na podlagi katerega oceni obstoj selektivne prednosti, v tem primeru običajna pravila za obdavčitev dobička pravnih oseb na Irskem.
Since the contested tax rulings give rise to a reduction of charges that should normally be borne by ASI and AOE in the course of their business operations, the contested tax ruling should be considered as granting operating aid to ASI and AOE.
Opozarja tudi, da čeprav imajo države članice pri neposrednem obdavčenju davčno avtonomijo, mora biti vsak davčni ukrep, ki ga sprejme država članica, skladen s pravili Unije o državni pomoči, ki zavezujejo države članice in imajo prednost pred njihovo nacionalno zakonodajo [367].
BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTESTED MEASURES
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja, da člen 107(1) Pogodbe, kot ga razlaga Sodišče [368], prepoveduje davčni ukrep, ki integrirani družbi omogoča določitev obdavčljivega dobička na način, ki ne odraža dobička, ki bi nastal v pogojih svobodne konkurence, torej na podlagi cen, ki jih v primerljivih okoliščinah v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom izpogajajo neodvisna podjetja.
The contested tax rulings grant State aid to ASI and AOE within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija s sprejetjem tega sklepa uporablja člen 107(1) Pogodbe za sporni davčni stališči, za kateri meni, da privedeta do rezultata, ki odstopa od običajnih pravil za obdavčitev dobička pravnih oseb na Irskem, saj družbama ASI in AOE omogočata, da obdavčljivi dobiček določita na način, ki ne odraža dobička v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom.
However, ASI and AOE form part of a multinational corporate group, namely the Apple group, which is made up of numerous companies, all of which are ultimately controlled by Apple Inc.
V zvezi s trditvijo Irske, da Komisija nalaga mednarodne standarde in uporablja smernice iz leta 2010 za stališča, ki so bila izdana pred tem datumom, Komisija opozarja, da njena ugotovitev v tem sklepu temelji na kršitvi člena 107(1) Pogodbe, ki je del irskega pravnega reda od leta 1973, in ne na okviru OECD.
Separate legal entities may be considered to form one economic unit for the purpose of the application of State aid rules.
Komisija se v tem sklepu sklicuje na okvir OECD, ker ta okvir zagotavlja smernice za vrednotenje, ali metoda za določitev obdavčljivega dobička podružnice privede do zanesljivega približka tržno naravnanega izida, skladnega z neodvisnim tržnim načelom, ki so nastale kot plod razprav strokovnjakov v okviru OECD in zagotavljajo pojasnila o tehnikah za reševanje skupnih izzivov pri mednarodnem obdavčenju.
As the Court of Justice has previously held, ‘[i]n competition law, the term ‘undertaking’ must be understood as designating an economic unit […] even if in law that economic unit consists of several persons, natural or legal’ [347].
V stališčih [369] se je pri trditvi, da bi bilo v tem primeru težko količinsko opredeliti znesek pomoči, dodeljene s spornima davčnima stališčema, sklicevala tudi na sklep v zvezi z družbo France Télécom [370].
To determine whether several entities form an economic unit, the Court of Justice looks at the existence of a controlling share or functional, economic or organic links [348].
Vendar pa se država članica, katere organi so dodelili pomoč v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU, ne more sklicevati na legitimno pričakovanje prejemnika, da bi upravičila neizpolnitev obveznosti, da sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe za izvršitev sklepa Komisije, s katerim ji je odrejeno vračilo pomoči.
In this case, ASI and AOE are ultimately wholly-owned by Apple Inc.
Dopustiti tako možnost bi namreč pomenilo, da se določbam členov 107 in 108 PDEU odvzame polni učinek, ker bi se nacionalni organi lahko oprli na lastno nezakonito ravnanje, da bi sklepom Komisije, sprejetim na podlagi teh določb PDEU, odvzeli učinek [371].
[349] and the majority of the members of ASI's and AOE's boards are Apple Inc. employees [350], so that Apple Inc., which is the entity controlling the Apple Group, can also be said to control ASI and AOE through functional, economic and organic links.
Tako mora upravičeno podjetje, in ne država članica, uveljavljati obstoj izjemnih okoliščin, na katere je lahko oprlo legitimno pričakovanje, da bi ugovarjalo vračilu nezakonite pomoči [372].
Moreover, it is the Apple Group which took the decision to incorporate ASI and AOE in Ireland and the Apple Group which decided on the structure whereby ASI and AOE would be incorporated in Ireland and those companies' presence in Ireland would be limited to a single branch for each.
Ker se skupina Apple v nobenem od stališč, poslanih Komisiji, ni sklicevala na to načelo, je sklicevanje Irske na legitimno pričakovanje že samo iz tega razloga neutemeljeno.
Therefore, it is the Apple Group as a whole that benefits from the State aid Ireland granted to ASI and AOE by way of the contested tax rulings, since any favourable tax treatment afforded to ASI and AOE by Irish Revenue ultimately benefits the Apple group as a whole by freeing up additional financial resources that can be used to the benefit of the entire corporate group.
Vsekakor pa v primeru, ko je bil ukrep pomoči izveden brez predhodne priglasitve Komisiji, prejemnik pomoči ne more, razen v posebnih okoliščinah, imeti legitimnega pričakovanja, da je pomoč zakonita [373].