natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission, therefore, committed itself to the stricter application of rules which already existed [41].
Komisija se je tako zavezala strožjemu izvajanju pravil, ki so že obstajala [41].
The Authority does not accept that the arguments put forward by the Liechtenstein authorities and third parties show that the criteria for establishing selectivity applied by the Commission (or the Authority) in its assessment of tax issues has changed since the adoption of the tax measures under investigation.
Nadzorni organ se ne more strinjati, da argumenti, ki so jih dali lihtenštajnski organi in tretje osebe, kažejo, da so se merila za ugotavljanje selektivnosti, ki jih Komisija (ali Nadzorni organ) uporablja pri oceni davčnih vprašanj, spremenila od sprejetja davčnih ukrepov, ki se preiskujejo v tej zadevi.
Further, in line with case-law, even if it could be established that there had been such a change of practice, the argument that the tax measures are existing aid still could not be accepted, for it fails to show that any change in the criteria for ascertaining selectivity applied by either the Commission or the Authority is attributable to the ‘evolution of the European Economic Area’ within the meaning of Article 1(b)(v) of Part II of Protocol 3 [42].The Authority does not accept, therefore, that the measures can be defined as existing aid implemented prior to an evolution of the EEA Agreement.
Tudi če bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti takšne spremembe v praksi, pa v skladu s sodno prakso ne bi bilo mogoče sprejeti argumenta, da so davčni ukrepi obstoječa pomoč, saj ni dokazano, da je mogoče spremembo meril za ugotavljanje selektivnosti, ki jih uporabljata Komisija ali Nadzorni organ, pripisati „razvoju Evropskega gospodarskega prostora“ v smislu člena 1(b)(v) dela II Protokola 3 [42].Nadzorni organ se tako ne more strinjati, da je mogoče ukrepe opredeliti kot obstoječo pomoč, ki je bila uvedena pred razvojem Sporazuma EGP.
In so far as the 10 year limitation period is concerned, the Authority accepts that aid paid prior to 15 March 1997 cannot be recovered by virtue of Articles 1(b)(iv) and 15 of Part II of Protocol 3.
Kar zadeva 10-letni zastaralni rok, Nadzorni organ priznava, da se pomoč, izplačana pred 15. marcem 1997 ne more izterjati v skladu s členom 1(b)(iv) in členom 15 dela II Protokola 3.
However the Authority does not accept that the mere fact that the relevant statutory provisions were implemented before 15 March 1997 means that all aid paid thereafter is existing aid.
Vendar Nadzorni organ ne more sprejeti dejstva, da že samo dejstvo, da so bile zadevne zakonske določbe izvedene pred 15. marcem 1997, pomeni, da je vsa izplačana pomoč obstoječa pomoč.
In cases where aid is paid repeatedly (such as a scheme or tax provision such as the case in hand), the limitation period begins on the day each individual aid is granted (as opposed to when the tax measure or scheme was first put into effect).
Če je bila pomoč izplačana večkrat (kot na primer pri shemah pomoči ali davčni določbi, ki je predmet te odločbe), se zastaralni rok začne z dnem, ko je bila dodeljena vsaka posamezna pomoč (in ne z datumom, ko je davčni ukrep ali shema pomoči začel veljati).
As stated by the Court of First Instance [43], ‘In the case of an aid scheme introduced more than 10 years before the first interruption of the limitation period, the unlawful aid incompatible with the common market granted under that scheme during the last 10 years is therefore subject to recovery’.
Kakor je navedlo Sodišče prve stopnje [43]: „V primeru programa pomoči, ki je bil uveden več kot deset let pred prvim pretrganjem zastaranja, velja za nezakonite in nezdružljive pomoči, dodeljene na podlagi tega programa v obdobju zadnjih desetih let, obveznost vračila“.
The Authority therefore concludes that the aid paid through special tax rules applicable to investment management companies is not compatible with the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ tako ugotavlja, da pomoč, izplačana v skladu s posebnimi davčnimi pravili, ki se uporabljajo za investicijske družbe, niso združljiva s Sporazumom EGP.
The Liechtenstein authorities and third party recipients of aid have argued that recovery of aid would breach fundamental principles of EEA law, arguing that actions of the European Commission created an expectation on the part of beneficiaries that the aid had been lawfully granted.
Lihtenštajnski organi in tretje osebe, prejemnice pomoči, so trdili, da bi izterjava pomoči povzročila kršitev temeljnih načel prava EGP, kar so utemeljevali z dejstvom, da so ukrepi Evropske komisije ustvarili pričakovanje pri upravičencih pomoči, da je bila pomoč dodeljena zakonito.
It has also been argued that when Liechtenstein became a party to the EEA Agreement the taxation of investment companies did not involve State aid, nor was it foreseeable.
Prav tako so trdili, da v času, ko je Lihtenštajn postal pogodbenica Sporazuma EGP, obdavčevanje investicijskih družb ni vključevalo državne pomoči, niti ni bilo mogoče predvideti, da bi jo lahko.
The Authority concludes that the Liechtenstein authorities have unlawfully implemented the aid in question in breach of Article 1(3) of Part I to Protocol 3.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so lihtenštajnski organi nezakonito izvedli zadevno pomoč in tako kršili člen 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
The aid is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement for the reasons set out above,
Pomoč zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP –
The aid measures implemented by the Liechtenstein authorities in favour of investment companies, and which were repealed with effect from 30 June 2006, are not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Ukrepi pomoči, ki so jih lihtenštajnski organi sprejeli v korist investicijskih družb in so bili razveljavljeni s 30. junijem 2006, niso združljivi z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
In view of the failure by the Liechtenstein authorities to comply with the requirement to notify the Authority before implementing aid in accordance with Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, the measures involved unlawful State aid.
Ker lihtenštajnski organi pomoči pred njenim izvajanjem niso priglasili Nadzornemu organu v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3, so ukrepi vključevali nezakonito državno pomoč.
The Liechtenstein authorities shall take all necessary measures to recover from the investment companies the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to the beneficiaries from 15 March 1997 until the date in which beneficiaries last benefitted from the tax exemptions following their repeal in 2006.
Lihtenštajnski organi sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe, da se od investicijskih družb izterja pomoč, ki je navedena v členu 1 in je bila upravičencem nezakonito dana na voljo od 15. marca 1997 do datuma, na katerega so bili upravičenci nazadnje deležni koristi od davčnih olajšav po njihovi razveljavitvi leta 2006.
Recovery shall be effected without delay, and in any event by 3 March 2011, and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.
Izterjava se izvrši nemudoma, najpozneje pa do 3. marca 2011, in v skladu s postopki po nacionalnem pravu, če ti omogočajo takojšnjo in učinkovito izvršitev te odločbe.
The aid to be recovered shall include interest and compound interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery.
Za zneske, ki jih je treba izterjati, se od datuma, ko so bili dani na razpolago upravičencu, do datuma dejanske izterjave zaračunavajo obresti in obrestne obresti.
Interest shall be calculated on the basis of Article 9 of the Implementing Provisions Decision.
Obresti se izračunajo na podlagi člena 9 Odločbe o izvedbenih določbah.
The Liechtenstein authorities shall inform the Authority, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Lihtenštajnski organi obvestijo Nadzorni organ v dveh mesecih od priglasitve te odločbe o ukrepih, ki so jih sprejeli za uskladitev z njo.
Only the English language version of this Decision is authentic.
Besedilo v angleškem jeziku je edino verodostojno.
Available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf
Na voljo je na naslovu: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf
OJ C 236, 1.10.2009 and EEA Supplement No 51, 1.10.2009.
UL C 236, 1.10.2009 in Dopolnilo EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije št. 51, 1.10.2009.
Liechtensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt 1961, Nr. 7, with subsequent amendments.
Liechtensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt (Uradni list Lihtenštajna) 1961, št. 7, kakor je bil pozneje spremenjen.
Section 2(1) of the 1996 Investment Undertakings Act.
Oddelek 2(1) zakona o investicijskih družbah iz leta 1996.
See Section 3(2) of the 1996 Investment Undertakings Act.
Glej oddelek 3(2) zakona o investicijskih družbah iz leta 1996.
See Section 3(3) of the 1996 Investment Undertakings Act.
Glej oddelek 3(3) zakona o investicijskih družbah iz leta 1996.
See Section 39(2) of the 1996 Investment Undertakings Act.
Glej oddelek 39(2) zakona o investicijskih družbah iz leta 1996.
The Liechtenstein authorities have stated that it is impossible to list these fees exhaustively as a fund direction (or the management side of the investment company) is free to levy fees at its own discretion.
Lihtenštajnski organi so navedli, da je nemogoče podati izčrpen seznam teh provizij, ker lahko uprava investicijskega sklada (ali uprava v investicijski družbi) provizije zaračunava po lastni presoji.
Private persons are subject to income tax (Erwerbssteuer) and property tax (Vermögenssteuer), which are not relevant for this investigation.
Fizične osebe morajo plačati dohodnino („Erwerbssteuer“) in davek na nepremičnine ( „Vermögenssteuer“), ki za to preiskavo nista pomembna.
The net profit is set in relation to the taxable capital.
Neto dobiček se določi v razmerju do obdavčljivega kapitala.
The tax rate is then set at half the percentage which the net profit constitutes of the taxable capital.
Davčna stopnja se nato določi v višini polovice odstotka, ki ga v razmerju do obdavčljivega kapitala pomeni neto dobiček.
However, there is a minimum level of 7,5 % and a maximum ceiling of 15 %, see Section 79(2) of the Tax Act.
Vendar lahko stopnja znaša najmanj 7,5 % in največ 15 %, kakor je določeno v členu 79(2) zakona o davku.
Section 88(d) of the Tax Act.
Člen 88d Zakona o davku.
Domiciliary companies are legal entities registered in the public register which only have their seat or an office in Liechtenstein, but do not exercise any commercial or business activity in Liechtenstein.
Domače družbe, ki večinoma poslujejo v tujini, so pravne osebe, registrirane v sodnem registru, ki imajo v Lihtenštajnu samo sedež ali pisarno, v tej državi pa ne izvajajo nobenih komercialnih ali poslovnih dejavnosti.
The tax derogation in favour of domiciliary companies pre-dates the entry of Liechtenstein to the EEA Agreement and is therefore not part of this Decision, which deals only with tax derogations introduced after 1.5.1995, the date of Liechtenstein’s entry to the EEA.
Davčno odstopanje v korist domačih podjetij, ki večinoma poslujejo v tujini, je veljalo že pred pristopom Lihtenštajna k Sporazumu EGP in zato ni vključeno v to odločbo, ki obravnava samo davčna odstopanja, uvedena po 1.5.1995, ko je Lihtenštajn vstopil v EGP.
Cf. Section 85(2) of the Tax Act in the form of the 1996 amendment, LGBL 1996 Nr. 88.
Glej člen 85(2) zakona o davku, kakor je bil spremenjen leta 1996, LGBL 1996, št. 88.
Sections 88(f), 88(g), 88(h)(3), 88(i)(2) of the 1961 Tax Act, which dealt with the coupon taxation of investment funds were repealed.
Člena 88f in 88g ter člena 88h(3) in 88i(2) zakona o davku iz leta 1961, ki so obravnavali obdavčevanje na obresti od kuponskih obveznic pri investicijskih skladih, so bili razveljavljeni.
Nr. 88 of 10.7.1996.
Kar zadeva začetek veljavnosti, glej zakon z dne 3.5.1996 o spremembi zakona o davku, LGBl. št. 88, 10.7.1996.
The Act was also the repeal of Section 84(5) and the insertion of a new Section 86(2), which provided that the managed assets of both types of investment undertakings were explicitly exempted from payment of the capital tax.
Z novim zakonom so tudi razveljavili člen 84(5) in vstavili nov člen 86(2), ki je določal, da so upravljana sredstva obeh vrst investicijskih družb izrecno izvzeta iz plačil davka na kapital.
Commission Decision of 22 September 2004, State aid N 354/04.
Odločba Komisije z dne 22. septembra 2004, državna pomoč N 354/04.
Commission Decision of 13 February 2008, State aid N 480/07.
Odločba Komisije z dne 13. februarja 2008, državna pomoč N 480/07.
The Court of First Instance has, for example, recognised that a fiscal measure does not lose its character as being selective just because it is based on objective criteria, see judgment of the CFI of 6.3.2002, T-127/99,T-129/99 and T-148/99, Diputación Foral de Álava e.a. v Commission [2002] ECR II-1275.
Sodišče prve stopnje je na primer priznalo, da fiskalni ukrep ne preneha biti selektiven samo zato, ker temelji na objektivnih merilih, glej sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6.3.2002 v zadevah T-127/99, T-129/99 in T-148/99, Diputación Foral de Álava e.a. proti Komisiji, Recueil 2002, str. II-1275.
Joined Cases E-5/04–E-7/04 Fesil and others v the Authority, cited above, paragraphs 82 et seq.
Združeni zadevi E-5/04 – E-7/04, Fesil in drugi proti Nadzornemu organu, navedeno zgoraj, točke od 82 naprej.
Both types of investment undertakings must keep the company’s own assets separate from the managed assets of the investors, held in the deposit bank; and in bankruptcy proceedings, the own assets are at the disposal of the creditors for both investment funds and investment companies.
Obe vrsti investicijskih družb morata ohraniti lastna sredstva družbe ločeno od sredstev, ki jih upravljata za vlagatelje in so shranjena v depozitni banki. Poleg tega so lastna sredstva v stečajnem postopku tako pri investicijskih skladih kot tudi pri investicijskih družbah na voljo upnikom.
Favourable tax rates for domiciliary companies have not been the subject of an investigation by the Authority as the provisions pre-dated the EEA Agreement.
Ugodne davčne stopnje za domače družbe niso bile predmet preiskave Nadzornega organa, ker so bile določbe sprejete pred Sporazumom EGP.
Quoted from an expert opinion submitted by the Liechtenstein authorities on the legal forms of investment undertakings and the respective taxation they were subject to (Section DII, b.ii.3).
Citirano iz mnenja strokovnjaka, ki so ga predložili lihtenštajnski organi, o pravnih oblikah naložbenih podjetij in zadevnem obdavčenju, ki je veljalo zanje (oddelek DII,b.ii.3).
The judgment was given in the area of taxation, however the Authority considers that the problem in question is the same under the State aid rules.
Sodba je bila izrečena na področju obdavčenja, vendar Nadzorni organ meni, da gre pri pravilih o državni pomoči za enako vprašanje.
See also Commission Decision of 6 September 2005 on the Italian scheme for collective investments in transferable securities (OJ L 268, 27.9.2006, p. 1) (hereafter Italian collective investment scheme).
Glej tudi Odločbo Komisije z dne 6. septembra 2005 o italijanski shemi pomoči za kolektivne naložbe v prenosljive vrednostne papirje (UL L 268, 27.9.2006, str. 1) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: italijanska shema pomoči za kolektivne naložbe).
See also Commission Decision of 6 September 2005 on the Italian scheme for collective investments in transferable securities (OJ L 268, 27.9.2006, p. 1) and Case T-445/05 Associazione Italiana del risparmio gestito, e.a. v Commission, paragraphs 127 ff.
Glej tudi Odločbo Komisije z dne 6. septembra 2005 o italijanski shemi pomoči za kolektivne naložbe v prenosljive vrednostne papirje (UL L 268, 27.9.2006, str. 1) in zadevo T-445/05, Associazione Italiana del risparmio gestito, e.a. proti Komisiji, točka 127 in naslednje.
Case T-214/95 Vlaamse Gewest v Commission [1998] ECR II-717, paragraph 46.
Zadeva T-214/95, Vlaamse Gewest proti Komisiji, Recueil 1998, str. II-717, točka 46.
Case T-424/05, Italy v Commission, judgment of 4 March 2009, paragraphs 154 ff.
Zadeva T-424/05, Italija proti Komisiji, sodba z dne 4. marca 2009, točka 154 in naslednje.
See Italian collective investment scheme, paragraph 45, upheld by the Court of First Instance in Case T-445/05 Associazione italiana del risparmio gestito v Commission cited above, and T-424/05 Italy v Commission.
Glej točko 45 italijanske sheme pomoči za kolektivne naložbe, ki jo je potrdilo Sodišče prve stopnje v zgoraj navedeni zadevi T-445/05, Associazione italiana del risparmio gestito proti Komisiji, in v zadevi T-424/05, Italija proti Komisiji.
See Case T-424/05, cited above, paragraph 156.
Glej zadevo T-424/05, navedeno zgoraj, točka 156.
In line with case-law (see Case T-424/05, cited above, paragraph 160), the Authority need not demonstrate that all investment companies operate in international markets.
Po sodni praksi (glej zgoraj navedeno zadevo T-424/05, točko 160) Nadzornemu organu ni treba dokazati, da vse investicijske družbe delujejo na mednarodnih trgih.
It is sufficient in the assessment of aid schemes to assess their general characteristics without examining each individual application.
Pri oceni shem pomoči je dovolj, če oceni njihove glavne značilnosti ne da bi preučil vsako posamezno uporabo sheme.
Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709.
Zadeva 173/73, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1974, str. 709.
Case 248/84 Germany v Commission [1987] ECR 4013.
Zadeva 248/84, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1987, str. 4013.
See, among others, Case C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España SA v Ayuntamiento de Valencia [1994] ECR I-877.
Glej med drugim zadevo C-387/92, Banco Exterior de Espańa SA v Ayuntamiento de Valencia, Recueil 1994, str. I-877.
Joined Cases T-346/99, T-347/99 and T-348/99 Territorio Histórico de Álava and others v Commission, paragraph 84.
Združene zadeve T-346/99, T-347/99 in T-348/99, Territorio Histórico de Álava in drugi proti Komisiji, točka 84.
Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Hôtel Cipriani v Commission, Judgment of the Court of First Instance, 28.11.2008 (citing joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01 Government of Gibraltar v Commission [2002] ECR II 2309, paragraph 130).
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 28. novembra 2008 v združenih zadevah T-254/00, T-270/00 in T-277/00, Hôtel Cipriani proti Komisiji (citat iz združenih zadev T-195/01 in T-207/01 Government of Gibraltar proti Komisiji, Recueil 2002, str. 2309, točka 130).
Case C-5/89, Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 14; Case C-169/95, Commission v Spain [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 51; Case C-24/95, Land Rheinland-Pfalz v Alcan Deutschland GmbH [1997] ECR I-1591, paragraph 25.
Zadeva C-5/89, Komisija proti Nemčiji, Recueil 1990, str. I-3437, točka 14; zadeva C-169/95, Komisija proti Španiji, Recueil 1997, str. I-135, točka 51; zadeva C-24/95, Land Rheinland-Pfalz proti Alcan Deutschland GmbH, Recueil 1997, str. I-1591, točka 25.
Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 14 and Regione Autonoma della Sardegna v Commission [2005] ECR II-2123, paragraph 64.
Zadeva C-5/89, Komisija proti Nemčiji, Recueil 1990, str. I-3437, točka 14 in zadeva T-171/02, Regione Autonoma della Sardegna proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2005, str. II-2123, točka 64.
Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-3437, paragraph 14, Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 51.
Zadeva C-5/89, Komisija proti Nemčiji, Recueil 1990, str. I-3437, točka 14, zadeva C-169/95, Španija proti Komisiji 1997, str. I-135, točka 51.
Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P Demesa and Territorio Histórico de Álava v Commission [2004] ECR I-10609, paragraph 51.
Združeni zadevi C-183/02 P in C-187/02 P, Demesa in Territorio Histórico de Álava proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2004, str. I-10609, točka 51.
Case T-290/97, Mehibas Dordstelaan v Commission [2000] ECR II-15 and Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, Belgium and Forum 187 ASBL v Commission [2006] ECR I-05479, paragraph 147.
Zadeva T-290/97, Mehibas Dordstelaan proti Komisiji, Recueil 2000, str. II-15, in zadevi C-182/03 in C-217/03, Belgija in Forum 187 ASBL proti Komisiji, ZOdl. 2006, str. I-05479, točka 147.
According to the report to the Liechtenstein Parliament regarding the EEA Agreement (Bericht und Antrag der Regierung an den Landtag des Fürstentums Liechtenstein betreffend das Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum vom 2. Mai 1992) the Liechtenstein authorities acknowledge that in principle tax reductions constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and that a notification of tax measures in Liechtenstein may be necessary under certain circumstances (page 134).
Lihtenštajnski organi glede na poročilo lihtenštajnskemu parlamentu o Sporazumu EGP (Bericht und Antrag der Regierung an den Landtag des Fürstentums Liechtenstein betreffend das Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum vom 2. Mai 1992) priznavajo, da načeloma davčne olajšave pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP in da je lahko potrebno v nekaterih okoliščinah davčne ukrepe v Lihtenštajnu priglasiti (stran 134).
See also explanations in the report to the Liechtenstein Parliament regarding the participation in the European Economic Area (Bericht und Antrag der Regierung an den Landtag des Fürstentums Liechtenstein betreffend die Teilnahme am Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum (EWR) 2. Teil, Nr. 1995/1), page 168.
Glej tudi pojasnila v poročilu lihtenštajnskemu parlamentu o sodelovanju v Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (Bericht und Antrag der Regierung an den Landtag des Fürstentums Liechtenstein betreffend die Teilnahme am Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum (EWR) 2.Teil, Nr. 1995/1), stran 168.
The coupon tax on the distribution of profits generated from the fund capital was also abolished in 1996 [15].3.2.2. The taxation of the own assets of the management company
Tudi davek na obresti od kuponskih obveznic v zvezi z izplačilom dobička, ustvarjenega iz kapitala sklada, je bil ukinjen leta 1996 [15].3.2.2 Obdavčenje lastnih sredstev družbe za upravljanje
The Authority consequently considers that management companies carry out economic activities in the form of asset management and are thus undertakings within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement [27].1.3. Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da družbe za upravljanje opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti v obliki upravljanja premoženja in so zato podjetja v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP [27].1.3 Izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino med pogodbenicami
The principles only apply, however, in exceptional circumstances and an undertaking cannot normally entertain legitimate expectations that aid is lawful unless it has been granted in accordance with the procedure for notifying the aid to the Authority (or the European Commission as the case may be [44]).
Vendar pa ti načeli veljata samo v izjemnih primerih in podjetje običajno ne more ustvariti legitimnega pričakovanja, da je pomoč zakonita, razen če je bila dodeljena v skladu s postopkom za priglasitev pomoči Nadzornemu organu (ali Evropski komisiji, odvisno od posameznega primera [44]).