natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Certain interested parties and the Belgian authorities also consider that the tax on legal persons is the reference system for the ports, which are not ‘companies’ within the meaning of Article 2 of the CIR, and that Article 180(2) of the CIR does not derogate from the general rules for the taxation of legal persons, but merely applies these general rules.
Opravljajo naloge javne službe, katerih stroški se v skladu s členom 49 CIR ne bi odbili od davčne osnove za davek od dohodka družb, kar bi v primeru zavezanosti za plačilo davka od dohodka družb pomenilo diskriminacijo glede na druga podjetja in zmanjšano naložbeno sposobnost pristanišč.
They therefore maintain that, even if Article 180(2) were deleted, the ports would not necessarily be subject to corporate tax since the administration would have to examine their situation individually in the light of the general criteria of Articles 1 and 2 of the CIR and, since the ports are not ‘companies’ within the meaning of Article 2 of the CIR, they would not be subject to corporate tax.
Belgijski organi navajajo, da je belgijsko ustavno sodišče v sodbi z dne 1. decembra 2016 [19] potrdilo odločitev zakonodajalca, da pristanišča oprosti davka od dohodkov družb.
The Walloon Region and the Walloon ports add that this duality (existence of two systems for the taxation of income: corporate tax and tax on legal persons) is essential and inherent in the income tax system and derives from the Belgian Constitution.
IZKRIVLJANJE KONKURENCE IN VPLIV NA TRGOVINO
Moreover, in their view, the Belgian Constitution does not require the legislator to subject certain activities to tax and, for the public administrations by definition (the State, communities, regions, provinces and municipalities), the public and private property assigned to a public service is exempt from taxation by virtue of a generally accepted principle of law.
Flamska pristaniška komisija trdi, da v drugih državah članicah, zlasti na Nizozemskem, iste dejavnosti pristanišč financirajo javni organi, tako da konkurenčni pogoji niso pristranski.
The Belgian authorities also point out that, according to the case-law of the national courts, public services, tasks and goods are not taxed unless expressly provided for by law.
Pristaniški organi v Anversu in Zeebrugesu se sklicujejo na točko 188 Obvestila Komisije o pojmu državne pomoči [20] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo z dne 19. julija 2016) in poudarjajo, da ima vsako pristanišče pravni monopol nad pristaniškim območjem, ta monopol pa ne izključuje samo „konkurence na trgu, ampak tudi konkurenco za trg“.
For the port authorities of Antwerp and Zeebrugge and the Belgian authorities, entities which, like the ports, do not distribute their profit but reinvest it or which pursue an objective beyond their own interests are subject to the tax on legal persons, which is in keeping with the logic of the system.
Iz tega sklepajo, da ukrep ne povzroča izkrivljanja konkurence.
They also maintain that they are in a different situation from that of other undertakings subject to corporate tax.
Omenjajo tudi mnenje nizozemskega organa za konkurenco [21], v skladu s katerim pristanišče Rotterdam ne konkurira upravljavcem drugih pristanišč, če pristaniške pristojbine pomenijo samo omejen del prevoznih stroškov ladjarjev, tako da zvišanje ali znižanje teh tarif ne bi vplivalo na pristaniški promet.
Although enjoying a certain autonomy and notwithstanding the possible existence of economic activities, the port authorities are public authorities and carry out tasks of general interest, on a non-profit basis, in accordance with their statutes.
Navajajo tudi, da se v skladu z obvestilom z dne 19. julija 2016, pri omrežni infrastrukturi različni elementi omrežja dopolnjujejo in si ne konkurirajo (točka 211 in opomba št. 311), tako da je izkrivljanje konkurence izključeno.
They do not use industrial or commercial methods and their actions are not guided by short-term returns on investments.
Pripominjajo, da Komisija v navedenem obvestilu to načelo uporablja za gradnjo železniške infrastrukture (točka 219) in gradnjo cestne infrastrukture, vključno s cestami, na katerih se plačuje cestnina (točka 220), vendar menijo, da se uporablja tudi za pristanišča.
The concession fees and port charges do not always cover the costs they incur.
Valonija in valonska pristanišča navajajo zlasti, da pristanišča na celinskih vodah, oproščena davka od dohodkov družb, ne konkurirajo drugim zasebnim pristaniščem na celinskih vodah, ki dajejo enako infrastrukturo na voljo javnosti.
They carry out public service tasks, the net cost of which would not be deductible from the corporate tax base pursuant to Article 49 of the CIR.
Zvezni organi dodajajo, da pristanišča na celinskih vodah, ki so majhna, dopolnjujejo druga pristanišča in konkurirajo samo cestnemu prometu.
If this net cost were subject to corporate tax, this would lead to discrimination in relation to other undertakings and to a reduction in the investment capacity of the ports.
Pristanišče Rotterdam navaja, da nizozemska javna pristanišča med drugim konkurirajo pristaniščem Anvers, Zeebruges in Gand.
The Belgian authorities point out that, in a judgment of 1 December 2016 [19], the Belgian Constitutional Court confirmed the choice of the legislator to exempt the ports from corporate tax.
ZDRUŽLJIVOST
DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE
Valonija in valonska pristanišča menijo, da je člen 106(2) PDEU ustrezna podlaga za združljivost ukrepa: pristanišča imajo zakonit mandat in ni mogoče ugovarjati, da izpolnjujejo vse pogoje, ki jih določa navedeni člen.
The Flemish Port Commission maintains that, in other Member States, and in particular the Netherlands, the same port activities are financed by the public authorities, so the conditions of competition are not distorted.
Poudarjajo, da je treba združljivost na podlagi člena 93 PDEU, ki v teh pogojih uporabe ne vključuje neobstoja učinka na trgovino, podrobno proučiti.
The port authorities of Antwerp and Zeebrugge, referring to paragraph 188 of the Commission Notice on the notion of State aid [20] (‘the Notice of 19 July 2016’), explain that each port has a legal monopoly over its port area, with this monopoly excluding not only ‘competition on the market, but also for the market’.
Pristaniški organi v Anversu in Zeebrugesu menijo, da Komisija ni dovolj argumentirano odgovorila na trditve, predstavljene v zvezi z združljivostjo ukrepa.
They conclude from this that the measure does not introduce any distortion of competition.
Dodajajo, da bi bilo mogoče člen 93 PDEU uporabiti kot podlago za združljivost ukrepa, saj morajo pristanišča financirati infrastrukturo, ki prispeva k vseevropskim prometnim omrežjem.
They also mention an opinion by the Dutch competition authority [21], according to which the Port of Rotterdam is not in competition with the operators of other ports since the port charges represent only a limited fraction of the transport costs of the shipowners, so that increasing or decreasing these tariffs would have no impact on port traffic.
POTREBA PO PREHODNEM OBDOBJU
They indicate that, according to the Notice of 19 July 2016, in a network infrastructure different elements of the network complement each other, instead of competing with one another (paragraph 211 and footnote 311), which rules out a distortion of competition.
Belgijski organi od Komisije zahtevajo prehodno obdobje za uvedbo davka od dohodkov družb za pristanišča.
They point out that, in this Notice, the Commission applies this principle to the construction of railway infrastructure (paragraph 219) and the construction of road infrastructure, including toll-roads (paragraph 220), but they consider that it also applies to ports.
Poudarjajo, da je rok, določen v sklepu o začetku postopka z dne 8. julija 2016 (uvedba davka od dohodkov družb za pristanišča s 1. januarjem 2017), prekratek, zlasti glede na rok, omogočen Nizozemski v okviru zadeve SA.25338.
The Walloon Region and the Walloon ports note in particular that the inland ports exempt from corporate tax are not in competition with other private inland ports making the same infrastructure accessible to the public.
Poudarjajo, da odprava člena 180(2) CIR pomeni zakonodajni postopek, ki traja „načeloma vsaj tri do šest mesecev“.
The Federal authorities add that the inland ports, which are small, are complementary to the other ports and are in competition only with road transport.
Po njihovem mnenju so potrebne spremembe zakonodaje, ki so veliko bolj zapletene od preproste odprave člena 180(2) CIR, saj (i) ta odprava ne bi nujno pomenila, da postanejo pristanišča zavezana za plačilo davka od dohodkov družb, (ii) pri oblikovanju novega sistema obdavčitve pristanišč je treba upoštevati ustavno načelo enakosti in (iii) belgijsko davčno pravo ne ureja izrecno prehoda pravne osebe z davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb na davek od dohodkov družb.
The Port of Rotterdam points out that the Dutch public ports are in competition in particular with the ports of Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ghent.
Dodajajo, da mora Komisija v primeru poteka sheme pomoči, ki se šteje za obstoječo, spoštovati legitimne interese države članice, da se upravičencem zagotovi pravna varnost.
COMPATIBILITY
Pristanišče Rotterdam zahteva, daKomisija odloži uvedbo davka od dohodka družb za nizozemska pristanišča, dokler se ne izvede sektorska raziskava in dokler ne bodo vsa pomorska pristanišča na severnem območju hkrati postala zavezana za plačilo davka, ali da vsaj hitro in sočasno uvede davek od dohodka družb za belgijska in francoska pristanišča.
The Walloon Region and the Walloon ports consider that Article 106(2) TFEU constitutes an appropriate basis for the compatibility of the measure: the ports have a clear legal mandate and the ports undeniably meet all the conditions laid down by that Article.
PRESOJA UKREPOV
They stress that compatibility in terms of Article 93 TFEU, which does not make the absence of an effect on trade a condition of its application, must be evaluated extensively.
OBSTOJ DRŽAVNE POMOČI V SMISLU ČLENA 107(1) PDEU
The port authorities of Antwerp and Zeebrugge consider that the Commission's response to the arguments presented concerning the compatibility of the measure is insufficiently reasoned.
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
They add that Article 93 TFEU could be used as a basis for the compatibility of the measure, since the ports have to finance infrastructure contributing to the trans-European transport networks.
Splošni preudarki
NEED FOR A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD
Po mnenju Sodišča je „gospodarska dejavnost vsaka dejavnost, ki obsega ponujanje blaga ali storitev na določenem trgu“ [22].
The Belgian authorities ask the Commission for a transitional period with respect to subjecting the ports to corporate tax.
Prav tako „pojem podjetje zajema vse subjekte, ki opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, ne glede na pravni status subjekta in način njegovega financiranja“ [23].
They stress that the time limit provided for in the opening decision of 8 July 2016 (subjecting the ports to corporate tax from 1 January 2017) is too short, especially in relation to the time limit allowed the Netherlands in the context of case SA.25338.
Poleg tega je Komisija v skladu s sodno prakso o gospodarski naravi upravljanja infrastrukture [24] v vrsti odločb ugotovila, da sta komercialno upravljanje in gradnja pristaniške infrastrukture gospodarski dejavnosti [25].
They emphasise that the deletion of Article 180(2) CIR would involve a legislative procedure lasting ‘generally speaking, at least three to six months’.
Na primer, komercialno upravljanje pristaniškega terminala, dano na voljo uporabnikom za plačilo dajatve, je gospodarska dejavnost [26].
In their view, legislative amendments which are far more complex than merely deleting Article 180(2) are required, since (i) this deletion would not necessarily result in the ports being made subject to corporate tax, (ii) the preparation of a new tax regime for the ports must take account of the constitutional principle of equality and (iii) the transition by a legal person from the tax on legal persons to corporate tax is not explicitly regulated in Belgian tax law.
Poleg tega je Sodišče implicitno, vendar jasno, že priznalo gospodarsko naravo nekaterih pristaniških dejavnosti, zlasti „operacij natovarjanja, raztovarjanja, pretovarjanja, skladiščenja in na splošno premikanja blaga ali kakršnega koli materiala v pristanišču“ [27].
They add that the Commission, in the case of expiry of an aid scheme presumed to be existing, must respect a Member State's legitimate interests in ensuring legal certainty for beneficiaries.
Komisija ta pravila uporablja ne samo za pomorska, temveč tudi za pristanišča na celinskih vodah [28].
The Port of Rotterdam asks the Commission to postpone subjecting the Dutch ports to corporate tax until a sector inquiry has been carried out and all the seaports in the North Range become subject simultaneously to the tax or, at the very least, to subject the Belgian and French ports to corporate tax rapidly and simultaneously.
V zvezi s tem in v nasprotju z belgijskimi organi ter nekaterimi zainteresiranimi stranmi Komisija meni, da bi se morala sodna praksa Sodišča glede letališč uporabljati za pristanišča, ki so samo druga vrsta infrastrukture.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES
Razlike med pristanišči in letališči, ki jih poudarjajo nekatere zainteresirane strani – med drugim razlike v pravni strukturi ali dejstvo, da so pristanišča nepridobitni subjekti javnega prava –, niso upoštevne glede na splošno merilo v zvezi s ponudbo blaga ali storitve na trgu, na katerem temelji sodna praksa Sodišča.
PRESENCE OF STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja, da sodišče v točki 90 sodbe Aéroports de Paris opozarja, da „je Splošno sodišče upravičeno ugotovilo, da so obravnavane komercialne dajatve nadomestilo za storitve upravljanja letaliških objektov“; zato ni pravilna trditev, da se navedena zadeva ni nanašala na zagotavljanje infrastrukturnih storitev, kot trdijo belgijski organi in nekatere zainteresirane strani.
According to Article 107(1) TFEU, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.
Da bi določili, ali so belgijska pristanišča podjetja, ni treba oceniti gospodarske ali negospodarske narave vsake njihove dejavnosti.
General remarks
Zadostuje ugotovitev, da subjekti, na katere se nanaša obravnavani ukrep, dejansko opravljajo eno ali več gospodarskih dejavnosti, zaradi opravljanja katere bi se šteli za „podjetje“.
According to the Court of Justice, an economic activity is ‘any activity consisting in offering goods and services on a given market’ [22].
V zvezi s tem dejstvo, da subjekt izvaja eno ali več državnih ali negospodarskih dejavnosti, ne preprečuje, da bi bil na splošno opredeljen kot „podjetje“.
Likewise, ‘The concept of an undertaking covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed.’ [23]
Belgijska pristanišča lahko opravljajo več vrst gospodarskih dejavnosti, ki ustrezajo zagotavljanju različnih storitev na različnih trgih.
In addition, in accordance with the case-law on the economic nature of the operation of infrastructures [24], the Commission has established, in a series of decisions, that the commercial operation and construction of port infrastructure constitute economic activities [25].
Prvič, pristanišča svojim uporabnikom (večinoma ladjarjem, splošneje pa vsem upravljavcem plovil) zagotavljajo splošne storitve s tem, ko plovilom za plačilo, na splošno imenovano „pristaniška pristojbina“, omogočajo dostop do pristaniške infrastrukture [29].
For example, the commercial operation of a port terminal by making it available to users against the payment of a fee constitutes an economic activity [26].
Drugič, nekatera pristanišča plovilom zagotavljajo posebne storitve, kot so pilotaža, dviganje, ravnanje s tovorom, privezovanje, in sicer tudi za plačilo [30].
Likewise, the Court of Justice has already implicitly, but definitely, recognised the economic nature of certain port operations, in particular the ‘loading, unloading, transhipment, storage and general movement of goods or material of any kind within the port’ [27].
Tretjič, pristanišča za plačilo dajejo določeno infrastrukturo ali nekatera zemljišča na voljo podjetjem, ki te prostore uporabljajo za lastne potrebe ali da plovilom zagotavljajo nekatere posebne storitve, omenjene zgoraj.
The Commission applies these rules not only to seaports, but also to inland ports [28].
Dejstvo, da tretja podjetja uporabljajo nekatera pristaniška zemljišča in infrastrukturo za ponujanje storitev ladjarjem ali plovilom, ne izključuje tega, da so dejavnosti upravljanja, ki jih izvajajo pristaniški organi in ki med drugim vključujejo oddajanje teh zemljišč in infrastrukture tem tretjim podjetjem v najem, prav tako gospodarske narave.
In this respect, and unlike the Belgian authorities and certain interested parties, the Commission considers that the case-law of the Court concerning airports must be applied to ports, which are simply another type of infrastructure.
Komisija poudarja tudi, da notranje belgijsko pravo samo vsebuje indice glede industrijske in/ali trgovinske narave pristaniških dejavnosti [31].
The differences identified by certain interested parties between ports and airports – and especially the differences in legal structure or the fact that the ports are public-law entities which are not profit-oriented – are not relevant in terms of the general criterion relating to the supply of goods or services on a market, which forms the basis for the Court case-law.
Zlasti uradna opomba v CIR nujno pomeni, da pristanišča upravljajo „kakršno koli industrijsko, trgovinsko ali kmetijsko podjetje“ [32] ali da – tudi če niso pridobitna – opravljajo „stalno poklicno dejavnost, ki vključuje […] dovolj pogosto ponavljanje, da pomeni ‚poklic‘, operacije industrijske, trgovinske ali kmetijske narave [in] izvajanje industrijskih ali trgovinskih metod“ [33] [34].
Likewise, the Commission notes that the Court, in paragraph 90 of the Aéroports de Paris judgment, recalls that ‘the Court of First Instance properly found that the commercial fees in issue constituted consideration for […] services as manager of the airport facilities’; it is therefore incorrect to assert that this case did not relate to the supply of infrastructure services, as the Belgian authorities and certain interested parties maintain.
Poleg tega Komisija ne nasprotuje temu, da so lahko nekatere dejavnosti pristanišč negospodarske, med drugim nekatere storitve kapitanij, kot sta nadzor in varnost pomorskega prometa [35] ali nadzor onesnaževanja [36].
In order to determine whether the Belgian ports are undertakings, there is no need to evaluate the economic or non-economic nature of each of their activities.
Vendar so v obravnavani zadevi dejavnosti, ki jih Komisija šteje za gospodarske, drugačne od teh (drugih) dejavnosti, navedenih v prejšnjem stavku.
It is sufficient to establish that the entities referred to by the measure at issue in fact engage in one or more economic activities, for which they will be regarded as an ‘undertaking’.
Komisija opozarja tudi, da imajo nacionalni organi sicer „široko polje proste presoje […] pri zagotavljanju, naročanju in organiziranju storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, in sicer čim bolj v skladu s potrebami uporabnikov“ [37], vendar to ne izključuje, da imajo navedene dejavnosti gospodarsko naravo.
In this respect, the fact that an entity engages in one or more sovereign or non-economic activities does not disqualify it altogether from being designated an ‘undertaking’.
Ustaljena sodna praksa je namreč, da sam pojem „gospodarska dejavnost“ izhaja iz dejstev, med drugim obstoja trga za zadevne storitve [38], in ni odvisen od nacionalne izbire ali ocene.
The Belgian ports may engage in several types of economic activity corresponding to the supply of various services on different markets.
Komisija torej utemeljeno šteje nekatere dejavnosti pristanišč za gospodarske, čeprav nacionalni organi menijo, da so te dejavnosti negospodarske storitve splošnega pomena.
First, the ports provide a general service to their users (mainly shipowners, more generally any operator of a vessel) by providing ships with access to the port infrastructure in exchange for a remuneration generally known as ‘port charges’ [29].
Naslednji preudarki sami po sebi ne morejo postaviti pod vprašaj gospodarske ali negospodarske narave izvajanih dejavnosti:
Second, certain ports provide particular services to ships, such as piloting, lifting, handling, mooring, also in exchange for remuneration [30].
Dejstvo, da so naloge pristanišč splošnega pomena in da jim jih naložijo ali jih nanje prenesejo javni organi: take so namreč vse storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena, ki pa so vseeno gospodarske storitve.
Third, the ports, for remuneration, make certain infrastructure or certain land available to undertakings, which use these areas for their own needs or to supply some of the aforementioned particular services to ships.
Splošneje „dejstvo, da se določena storitev opravlja interno, na splošno ni pomembno za gospodarsko naravo dejavnosti“ [39].
The fact that third-party undertakings use certain port land and infrastructure to provide services to shipowners or ships does not prevent the management activities carried out by the port authorities, consisting in particular in renting the land and infrastructure to these third-party undertakings, also being of an economic nature.
Splošni pomen pa se lahko po potrebi upošteva pri presoji združljivosti pomoči, ki jo država odobri podjetju, da bi podprla njegovo gospodarsko dejavnost.Dejstvo, da imajo pristaniški organi posebna pooblastila za opravljanje teh nalog [40]: taka posebna pooblastila ne izključujejo tega, da lahko pristaniški organi opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost s ponujanjem blaga ali storitev na trgu.
The Commission also points out that Belgian domestic law itself contains indications concerning the industrial and/or commercial nature of the port activities [31], In particular, the official administrative comments on the CIR necessarily imply that the ports operate ‘an industrial, commercial or agricultural undertaking of some kind’ [32] or that, even on a non-profit-making basis, they engage in ‘a permanent professional activity consisting of […] the repetition, which is sufficiently frequent to constitute an ‘occupation’, of operations of an industrial, commercial or agricultural nature the use of industrial or commercial methods’ [33] [34].
Taka pooblastila so lahko po potrebi instrument za ukrepanje na tem trgu.Dejstvo, da naj bi morali pristaniški organi v vse večjem obsegu sami financirati negospodarske dejavnosti, za katere so pristojne regije, tudi dejavnosti, ki niso povezane z upravljanjem pristanišč: taka značilnost dejavnosti pristanišč, ki obsegajo ponujanje blaga ali storitev na trgu, nikakor ne odvzame gospodarske narave.
Moreover, the Commission does not dispute the fact that certain activities of the ports may be of a non-economic nature, especially some of the services supplied by the harbourmasters, such as maritime traffic control and safety [35] or anti-pollution surveillance [36].
Dejstvo, da država ne povrne ali ne povrne v celoti stroškov v zvezi z negospodarskimi dejavnostmi, ki jih naloži pristaniščem, bolj potrjuje kot zanika, da pristanišča poleg nekaterih negospodarskih dejavnosti opravljajo tudi gospodarske dejavnosti.