natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Any doubt over the application of the Finance Act would benefit the taxpayer.
Potrdila je, da druga etapa potovanja ni bila samodejno izvzeta iz plačila takse.
Pursuant to Section 55(2)(c) of the Finance Act, the ATT becomes ‘due when a passenger departs from an airport on an aircraft’.
Po navedbah Irske se je taksa za drugo etapo potovanja lahko zaračunala ali ne, odvisno od uporabe razdelka 55 Zakona o financah v dejanskih okoliščinah, vključno s tem, ali je bil potnik transferni ali tranzitni potnik (enako je veljalo za prvo etapo potovanja).
In this respect, Ireland noted that:
Opredelitev pojma „letališče“ lahko izključuje tudi nekatera potovanja, saj se za odhod z letališča zunaj Irske taksa na letalska potovanja ni zaračunala.
the definition of ‘passenger’ excludes (subject to certain conditions) persons who are disabled, or under the age of two, or transfer or transit passengers.
Irska je tudi poudarila, da so izvzetja transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov običajna pri taksah na letalska potovanja, ki jih zaračunavajo druge države, na primer Združeno kraljestvo, Francija in Nemčija.
the definition of ‘airport’ also excludes some journeys, as no tax is due in respect of a departure from an airport outside Ireland and from certain airports with small passenger numbers.
Trdila je, da je treba pravila o posamezni taksi razlagati v kontekstu zadevne nacionalne zakonodaje.
the definition of ‘aircraft’ excludes aircraft which cannot carry more than 20 passengers, and also excludes aircraft used for State or military purposes.
Razlaga izvzetja transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov
In light of recital 50, Ireland considered that no ATT was due in respect of transfer and transit passengers, regardless of the leg of the journey concerned.
Irska je predložila pripombe v zvezi z odstavkom 88 sodbe v zadevi T-512/11, ki se nanaša na naslednjo navedbo iz uvodne izjave 20 sklepa iz leta 2011: „Kar zadeva neuporabo takse za tranzitne in transferne potnike, dejstvo, da se taksa nikoli ne zaračuna za prvo etapo celotnega potovanja, po navedbah irskih organov zagotavlja, da potnik ni kaznovan, ker njegov let do končne destinacije vključuje postanek“.
Ireland confirmed that the second leg of a journey was not automatically exempt from the tax.
Splošno sodišče je v zgoraj navedenem odstavku sodbe v zadevi T-512/11 navedlo, da čeprav Komisija ni imela nobenega razloga za dvom glede informacij iz dopisa Irske z dne 15. oktobra 2009, na katerem temelji odstavek 20 sklepa iz leta 2011, tudi ob upoštevanju razlage irskih organov, da je vsaka prva etapa potovanja, ki vključuje postanek, izvzeta iz plačila takse na letalska potovanja, primeri, predstavljeni v preglednici iz odstavka 9 sklepa iz leta 2011, te razlage niso mogli podpreti.
According to Ireland, the second leg of a journey might have been or might not have been taxed, depending on the application of Section 55 of the Finance Act to the facts, including whether the passenger was a transfer or transit passenger (the same applied to the first leg of a journey).
Splošno sodišče je poudarilo, da ni bilo jasno in Komisija ni obrazložila, zakaj potniki, ki so potovali iz New Yorka v Dublin s postankom v Shannonu, niso bili vključeni v plačilo takse na letalska potovanja za odhod z letališča postanka v Shannonu.
The definition of ‘airport’ might also exclude some journeys, as no ATT was due in respect of a departure from an airport outside Ireland.
Irska se je sklicevala na odstavek 13 svojega dopisa z dne 15. oktobra 2009, v katerem je navedla: „Izvzetje transfernih potnikov zgolj zagotavlja, da se taksa na letalska potovanja ne zaračuna za prvo etapo celotnega potovanja“.
Ireland also pointed out that the transfer and transit passenger exclusions are normal in air travel taxes implemented by other countries, for example the United Kingdom, France and Germany.
Opozorila je, da navedeni odstavek sledi opisu leta Dublin–New York s postankom v Shannonu in je pravilen v zvezi s takim potovanjem, ni pa pravilno ta odstavek obravnavati kot splošno pravilo, v skladu s katerim se taksa na letalska potovanja nikoli ne bi zaračunala za prvo etapo katerega koli potovanja.
Ireland contended that the rules for each tax must be read in the context of the relevant national law.
Irska je v zvezi s primerom, ki ga je Splošno sodišče navedlo v odstavku 88 sodbe v zadevi T-512/11, ki se nanaša na potovanje iz New Yorka v Dublin s postankom v Shannonu, pojasnila, da se na podlagi besedila Zakona o financah taksa na letalska potovanja ne zaračuna za nobeno etapo tega potovanja, pri čemer zlasti velja, da:
On the interpretation of the exemption of transfer and transit passengers
je prva etapa (iz New Yorka v Shannon) izvzeta, ker se taksa zaračuna le za odhode z irskih letališč,
Ireland commented on paragraph 88 of the judgment in Case T-512/1,1 which relates to the following statement contained in recital 20 of the 2011 Decision: ‘As to the non-application of the tax on transit and transfer passengers, the Irish authorities state that the fact that any first leg of an overall journey is not subject to the tax ensures that the passenger is not punished because a route includes a stopover in order to get to the final destination’.
je druga etapa (iz Shannona v Dublin) izvzeta, ker se potnik na letališču v Shannonu obravnava kot tranzitni ali transferni potnik v skladu z oddelkom 55(1) Zakona o financah.
In the abovementioned paragraph of its judgment in case T-512/11, the General Court had indicated that whilst the Commission had no reason to doubt the information contained in Ireland's letter dated 15 October 2009, on which paragraph 20 of the 2011 Decision is based, the fact remained that even following the Irish authorities' interpretation that any first leg of a journey including a stopover is exempt from the payment of the ATT, the examples produced in the table set out in paragraph 9 of the 2011 Decision were not capable of supporting that interpretation.
Irska je sklenila, da se na podlagi besedila iz Zakona o financah celotno potovanje iz New Yorka v Dublin s postankom v Shannonu izvzame iz plačila davka na letalska potovanja.
The General Court pointed out that it was not clear, and the Commission did not explain, why passengers travelling from New York to Dublin with a stopover in Shannon are not subject to payment of the ATT for the departure from the stopover airport of Shannon.
Po navedbah Irske naj bi razlage iz njenega dopisa z dne 15. oktobra 2009 pojasnjevale zakonodajo, niso pa zavezujoče.
Ireland referred to paragraph 13 of its letter of 15 October 2009, which reads ‘In respect of transfer passengers, the exemption merely ensures that the first leg of an overall journey isn't subject to ATT’.
Razlaga izvzetja tranzitnih in transfernih potnikov ter referenčni sistem, na podlagi katerega se to ocenjuje
Ireland pointed out that that paragraph follows on from a description of a Dublin-New York flight with a Shannon stopover and it was correct in the context of such a journey, but it was incorrect to characterise this as a general rule by which the first leg of any journey would never be taxed under the ATT.
Irska je v zvezi z razlogi za izvzetje transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov pojasnila, da ločeno zaračunavanje takse za posamezne lete ni ustrezno, če so ti leti dejansko del enega potovanja.
With respect to the example brought forward by the General Court in paragraph 88 of the judgment in Case T-512/11, involving a journey from New York to Dublin with a stopover in Shannon, Ireland explained that no ATT is due with respect to any of the legs constituting that journey because of the wording of the Finance Act, in particular:
V zvezi s tem se je Irska sklicevala na:
the first leg (New York to Shannon) is exempt because the tax is only levied on departures from Irish airports.
besedilo opredelitve pojma „transferni potnik“ ali „tranzitni potnik“ za namene takse na letalska potovanja v skladu z razdelkom 55(1) Zakona o financah (določba je navedena v uvodni izjavi 18),
the second leg (Shannon to Dublin) is exempt because at Shannon airport, the passenger qualifies as a transit or transfer passenger as defined in Section 55(1) of the Finance Act.
besedilo dopisa, ki ga je Irska 15. oktobra 2009 predložila Komisiji in v katerem je pojasnila, da je taksa na letalska potovanja namenjena obdavčitvi enega potovanja, tudi kadar je potovanje razdeljeno na več delov.
Ireland concluded that the overall journey from New York to Dublin with a stopover in Shannon would be exempted from ATT because of the wording of the Finance Act.
Irska se je zlasti sklicevala na hipotetični scenarij iz dopisa, ki ga je 15. oktobra 2009 poslala Komisiji, v katerem je naveden let iz Združenih držav Amerike v Dublin s postankom v Shannonu.
According to Ireland, the explanations in its letter dated 15 October 2009 were intended to clarify the law but they are not binding.
V dopisu je navedeno, da „gre očitno za let ZDA–Dublin in da postanek ne bi smel vplivati na obveznost plačila takse na letališka potovanja“.
On the rationale for the exemption for transit and transfer passengers and the reference system to use to assess it
Pri opisu leta v obratni smeri je v dopisu navedeno, da „je edini cilj izvzetja v primeru letov iz države, ki vključujejo postanek, preprečiti ločeno zaračunavanje takse za obe etapi potovanja“.
As regards the reasons for exempting transfer and transit passengers, Ireland explained that it was not appropriate to tax individual flights separately if in reality they were part of a single journey.
Po navedbah Irske to poudarja, da se je potovanje iz Dublina v Združene države Amerike obravnavalo kot eno potovanje, zato je bila taksa na letalska potovanja zaračunana samo enkrat, čeprav je potovanje vključevalo več odhodov.
In that respect, Ireland referred to:
Irska je to navedla kot razlog, da razdelek 55(1) Zakona o financah izrecno izključuje „transferne“ in „tranzitne“ potnike, kot so opredeljeni v navedenem razdelku, iz področja uporabe takse na letalska potovanja.
the text of the definition of ‘transfer’ or ‘transit passenger’ for the purposes of the ATT, pursuant to Section 55(1) of the Finance Act (the provision is cited in recital 18);
V zvezi z referenčnim sistemom, ki ga je Komisija predvidela v sklepu o začetku postopka, in sicer (i) takso, ki se zaračuna za vsak odhod, ali pa (ii) takso, ki se zaračuna za vsako potovanje, ki lahko vključuje več delov, je Irska navedla, da je bil namen takse na letalska potovanja enkratno plačilo takse za posamezno potovanje.
the text of Ireland's letter to the Commission, dated 15 October 2009, by which Ireland explained that the ATT was intended to tax a single journey, even if the journey was divided into different segments.
Po navedbah Irske bi bilo pravilneje, da bi se taksa na letalska potovanja obravnavala kot taksa na potovanja in ne kot taksa na odhode.
In particular, Ireland referred to the hypothetical scenario, provided in its letter dated 15 October 2009 to the Commission, of a flight from the United States which had a stopover in Shannon and then went on to Dublin.
Glede na razdelek 55(2) Zakona o financah zaračunavanje takse na letalska potovanja temelji na „odhodu“.
The text passage stated that ‘the flight is clearly US-Dublin, and the fact of the stopover shouldn't generate any ATT liability’.
Vendar opredelitve pojmov in razdelki Zakona o financah, opisani v uvodnih izjavah 18 in 19, dokazujejo, da je bila obdavčena storitev potovanje ter da je bil dejanski cilj obdavčiti potovanja in ne odhode.
In describing a flight going in the opposite direction, the text stated that ‘for flights leaving the country with a stopover, the only aim of the exemption is to ensure that both legs of the journey don't have to be taxed separately’.
Razlikovanje med letalskimi prevozniki od točke do točke in drugimi letalskimi prevozniki
According to Ireland, this underlined that the journey from Dublin to the United States was seen as a single journey and should thus only be subject to the ATT once, even if it involved several departures.
Irska je trdila, da se lahko ocena, ali so letalski prevozniki, ki zagotavljajo le storitve od točke do točke, in letalski prevozniki, ki zagotavljajo vmesne lete za zvezo, v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju z vidika cilja, določenega za davčni sistem zadevne države članice, uporabi le kot sekundarni razlog za zavrnitev pritožbe.
Ireland declared that this was the reason why Section 55(1) of the Finance Act explicitly excludes ‘transfer’ and ‘transit’ passengers, as defined in that section, from the scope of the ATT.
Primarna utemeljitev Irske je, da je bil namen takse na letalska potovanja obdavčiti potovanja in ne posameznih odhodov.
Considering the reference system envisaged by the Commission in the Opening Decision either as (i) a tax charged on every departure, or else (ii) a tax charged on every journey, which might involve several segments, Ireland suggested that the aim of the ATT was to tax each journey only once.
Na podlagi tega izvzetje transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov zgolj odraža dejstvo, da je lahko eno potovanje sestavljeno iz več „etap“.
According to Ireland, it would be more accurate to see the ATT as a tax on journeys rather than a tax on departures.
Irska je poudarila tudi, da taksa na letalska potovanja ni bila uvedena z namenom dajanja prednosti kateremu koli poslovnemu modelu ali njegovega kaznovanja.
Section 55(2) of the Finance Act refers to ‘departure’ as the trigger for the ATT.
Narava in splošna shema takse
The definitions and sections of the Finance Act described in recitals 18 and 19 demonstrate, however, that the service which was taxed was the journey and that the real objective was to tax journeys, not departures.
Irska je navedla, da če bi izvzetje transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov dodeljevalo prednosti nekaterim letalskim prevoznikom, bi to lahko izhajalo neposredno iz osnovnih in vodilnih načel irskega davčnega sistema, kot je izogibanje dvojnemu obdavčevanju ali davčna nevtralnost.
On the distinction between point to point airlines and others
Ob sklicevanju na pogoje iz dopisa z dne 15. oktobra 2009 je pojasnila, da je bil namen izvzetja preprečiti prekomerno uporabo takse na letalska potovanja.
Ireland held that assessing whether the airline operators providing only point-to-point services and those providing connecting flights are in a comparable factual and legal situation in light of the objective assigned to the tax system of the Member State concerned can be only a secondary reason for rejecting the complaint.
Namen je bil zlasti preprečiti diskriminiranje potnikov, katerih potovanje je vključevalo postanek.
Ireland's primary submission is that the ATT aimed to tax journeys, not individual departures.
Ta sklic na diskriminiranje nujno vključuje primerjavo (a) potnikov, katerih potovanje vključuje postanek, in (b) potnikov z direktnim letom.
As a result, the exemption for transfer and transit passengers merely reflects the fact that a single journey can be comprised of several ‘legs’.
Ker je bil namen enako obravnavanje vseh potnikov, to podpira sklepno ugotovitev, da je bil namen takse na letalska potovanja obdavčiti posamezno potovanje le enkrat.
Ireland also pointed out that the ATT was not designed to favour or penalise any specific business model.
Irska se je tudi sklicevala na to, da je treba preprečiti dvojno obdavčevanje.
On the nature and general scheme of the tax
Čeprav to načelo morda ni bilo navedeno v dopisu Irske z dne 15. oktobra 2009, sta v njem navedeni vprašanji pravičnosti in enake obravnave, na podlagi katerih se države izogibajo dvojnemu obdavčevanju.
Finally Ireland stated that if the exemption for transfer and transit passengers conferred advantages on certain airlines, it could result directly from the basic and guiding principles of the Irish tax system such as the avoidance of double taxation or tax neutrality.
Irska se je prav tako sklicevala na načelo davčne nevtralnosti.
Recalling the terms of its letter of 15 October 2009, Ireland explained that the exemption was intended to avoid over-application of the ATT.
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
In particular, it was intended to avoid discrimination against passengers whose journey involved a stopover.
Pripombe družbe Ryanair
Necessarily, this reference to discrimination involved comparing (a) passengers whose journey involved a stopover and (b) passengers who flew directly.
Družba Ryanair meni, da je ukrep selektiven in zato pomeni državno pomoč v skladu s členom 107(1) TFEU, ne da bi zanj veljala katera koli izjema iz člena 107(2) in (3) PDEU.
As the aim was to treat both in the same way, this supports the conclusion that the aim of the ATT was to tax each journey only once.
Letalska družba je poudarila, da bi bilo treba njene pripombe razlagati ob upoštevanju:
Ireland also invoked the need to avoid double taxation.
njene pritožbe Komisiji z dne 21. julija 2009 zoper dodeljevanje nezakonite pomoči s takso na letalska potovanja,
Although this principle may not have been cited in Ireland's letter dated 15 October 2009, that letter invoked issues of equity and equal treatment which cause States to refrain from double taxation.
njene tožbe v zadevi T-512-11, ki jo je 24. septembra 2011 vložila pri Splošnemu sodišču, in prilog k tožbi,
Similarly, Ireland invoked the principle of tax neutrality.
njenih drugih pisnih in ustnih stališč, ki jih je 24. septembra 2011 predložila Splošnemu sodišču v zadevi T-512/11, zlasti njenega odgovora z dne 17. januarja 2012.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Natančno področje uporabe takse na letalska potovanja, utemeljitev te takse ter razlogi za neuporabo te takse za transferne in tranzitne potnike
Comments from Ryanair
Družba Ryanair se strinja, da se izvzetje transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov v primeru leta Dublin–Shannon–New York nanaša na drugo etapo potovanja.
Ryanair is of the opinion that the measure is selective and therefore constitutes State aid pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, without falling under any of the exemptions set out in Article 107(2) and (3) TFEU.
V skladu s tem trdi, da bi morala skupna zaračunana taksa pred spremembo stopenj s 1. marcem 2011 znašati le 2 EUR (za let Dublin–Shannon) in ne 10 EUR, kot je navedeno v preglednici 1.
The airline pointed out that its observations should be read against the background of:
Poleg tega, tudi če Irska predloži dokaze, da je bila uporaba tega ukrepa v praksi v skladu z razlago, da je bila prva etapa potovanja izvzeta iz plačila takse na letalska potovanja, družba Ryanair meni, da to ne bi zadostovalo za odpravo izkrivljanja, izraženega v Zakonu o financah.
its complaint to the Commission dated 21 July 2009 against the granting of unlawful aid through the ATT;
„Običajni“ ali referenčni sistem obdavčitve
its application dated 24 September 2011 to the General Court in Case T-512/11, together with its annexes;
Družba Ryanair si do odločitve o pritožbi, vloženi pri Sodišču v zvezi s sodbo v združenih zadevah C-164/15 P in C-165/15 P, pridržuje svoje stališče glede opredelitve in pomembnosti „običajnega“ ali referenčnega sistema obdavčitve.
its other written and oral submissions dated 24 September 2011 submitted to the General Court in Case T-512/11 including, in particular, its reply dated 17 January 2012.
Trdi, da opredelitev Komisije v zvezi z „običajnim“ ali referenčnim sistemom obdavčitve ni v skladu z nekaterimi njenimi ugotovitvami v preostalem delu sklepa o začetku postopka.
On the precise scope of the ATT, the justification for the ATT, and the reasons for the non-application of the ATT in relation to transfer and transit passengers
Vprašanje, ali neuporaba takse na letalska potovanja za transferne in tranzitne potnike odstopa od referenčnega sistema
Ryanair agrees that the exclusion of transfer and transit passengers in the example of the Dublin-Shannon-New York flight would concern the second leg of the journey.
Ob sklicevanju na odstavek 44 sklepa o začetku postopka in navajanju tega odlomka besedila družba Ryanair izraža pomisleke, kako lahko Komisija na podlagi predhodne sklepne ugotovitve o referenčnem sistemu obdavčitve v odstavku 44 trdi, da „je cilj takse na letalska potovanja obdavčiti letalska potovanja, ki se začnejo na irskem letališču“, potem pa brez dodatne razlage ali analize oblikuje nesmiselno sklepno ugotovitev, da je z vidika tega cilja „morda primerno razlikovati med pravnim in dejanskim položajem letalskih prevoznikov, ki zagotavljajo le storitve od točke do točke, ter letalskih prevoznikov, ki zagotavljajo tudi transferne in tranzitne storitve na zadevnih letališčih“.
Accordingly, Ryanair argues that the total tax due before the change in rates with effect from 1 March 2011 should have only been the lower rate of EUR 2 (for Dublin Shannon) instead of the EUR 10 shown in Table 1.
Predhodna sklepna ugotovitev, na katero se sklicuje družba Ryanair, je navedena v odstavku 42 sklepa o začetku postopka, pri čemer je glede na predhodno mnenje Komisije referenčni sistem obdavčitve taksa, ki se zaračuna za vsak odhod potnika na letalu z irskega letališča.
Moreover, even if Ireland provides evidence that the application of this measure in practice was consistent with the interpretation that the first leg of a journey was exempt from the ATT, in Ryanair's views, this would not be sufficient to remedy the distortion reflected in the Finance Act.
Družba Ryanair meni, da je namen navedb iz odstavka 44 sklepa o začetku postopka utemeljiti razlikovanje med pravnim in dejanskim položajem letalskih prevoznikov, ki zagotavljajo le storitve od točke do točke, ter letalskih prevoznikov, ki zagotavljajo tudi transferne in tranzitne storitve na zadevnih letališčih.
On the ‘normal’ or reference system of taxation
Meni, da je to razlikovanje napačno in obžalovanja vredno, saj očitno ustvarja podlago za končni sklep, da ukrep, v zvezi s katerim je bil sprožen postopek preiskave, ne pomeni državne pomoči.
Ryanair reserves its position on the definition and relevance of the ‘normal’ or reference system of taxation, pending the outcome of the appeal before the Court of Justice in the judgment in Joined Cases C-164/15 P and C-165/15 P.
Družba Ryanair se v svojih pripombah sklicuje na odstavek 45 sklepa o začetku postopka, v katerem Komisija v skladu s prakso odločanja na področju nadzora združitev v Uniji pojasnjuje, da storitve, ki vključujejo transferne ali tranzitne storitve, za stranko pomenijo potovanje z izvornega letališča do namembnega letališča in ne dveh ločenih potovanj.
Ryanair contends that the Commission's definition of the ‘normal’ or reference system of taxation is inconsistent with some of the conclusions it draws in the remainder of the Opening Decision.
Družba Ryanair meni, da Komisija pri tem zamenjuje zelo omejen tehnični postopek opredelitve upoštevnih proizvodnih trgov v primerih združitev s pojmom „primerljivi dejanski in pravni položaji“ v primerih državne pomoči.
On the question of whether the non-application of the ATT in relation to transfer and transit passengers derogates from the system of reference
Družba Ryanair ob sklicevanju na sodno prakso Sodišča in sklep o začetku postopka navaja, da pojem „primerljivi dejanski in pravni položaji“ ni določen na podlagi zamenljivosti povpraševanja in ponudbe (ki je po navedbah družbe Ryanair merilo, ki se običajno uporablja v pregledih združitev in drugih zadevah s področja konkurence ter na katerem v obravnavanem primeru temeljijo navedbe Komisije), ampak je funkcija ciljev, v katere je usmerjena shema v obravnavi.