natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If a prima facie selective measure is justified by the nature or the general scheme of the system, it will not be considered selective and will thus fall outside the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement [200].
Vendar tristopenjske analize ne moremo uporabiti v nekaterih primerih ob upoštevanju praktičnih učinkov zadevnih ukrepov.
However, the three-step analysis cannot be applied in certain cases, taking into account the practical effects of the measures concerned.
Treba je poudariti, da člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP ne razlikuje ukrepov državnega posredovanja po njihovih vzrokih ali ciljih, ampak jih opredeljuje glede na njihove učinke in torej ne glede na uporabljene metode [201].
It must be emphasised that Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement does not distinguish between measures of State intervention in terms of their causes or aims, but defines them in relation to their effects, independently of the techniques used [201].
To pomeni, da v nekaterih izjemnih primerih ni dovolj proučiti, ali zadevni ukrep odstopa od pravil referenčnega sistema, kot ga opredeli posamezna država EGP.
This means that in certain exceptional cases it is not sufficient to examine whether a given measure derogates from the rules of the reference system as defined by the EEA State concerned.
Treba je oceniti tudi, ali so bile meje referenčnega sistema oblikovane dosledno ali pa, v nasprotnem primeru, očitno poljubno ali pristransko, da bi dajale prednost posameznim podjetjem, ki so v primerljivem položaju glede na logiko, s katero je utemeljen zadevni sistem.
It is also necessary to evaluate whether the boundaries of the system of reference have been designed in a consistent manner or, conversely, in a clearly arbitrary or biased way, so as to favour certain undertakings which are in a comparable situation with regard to the underlying logic of the system in question.
Tako je v združenih zadevah C-106/09 P in C-107/09 P [202], ki zadevata davčno reformo Gibraltarja, Sodišče ugotovilo, da je referenčni sistem, kakor ga je opredelila zadevna država EGP, sicer temeljil na merilih splošne narave, v praksi pa je razlikoval med podjetji, ki so bila v primerljivem položaju glede na cilj davčne reforme, kar pomeni selektivno prednost v korist offshore podjetij [203].
Thus, in Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P [202] concerning the Gibraltar tax reform, the Court of Justice found that the reference system as defined by the EEA State concerned, although founded on criteria that were of a general nature, discriminated in practice between companies which were in a comparable situation with regard to the objective of the tax reform, resulting in a selective advantage being conferred on offshore companies [203].
S tem v zvezi je Sodišče ugotovilo, da dejstvo, da offshore podjetja niso bila obdavčena, ni bila naključna posledica zadevne ureditve, temveč neizogibna posledica dejstva, da so bile osnove za odmero davka tako zasnovane zato, da offshore podjetja niso imela davčnih osnov [204].
In this respect, the Court found that the fact that offshore companies were not taxed was not a random consequence of the regime, but the inevitable consequence of the fact that the bases of assessment were specifically designed so that offshore companies had no tax base [204].
Lahko se izkaže, da je podobno preverjanje potrebno tudi v nekaterih primerih v zvezi s posebnimi dajatvami, kadar obstajajo elementi, ki kažejo, da je očitno, da so bile meje dajatve določene poljubno ali pristransko ter z namenom, da se posameznim izdelkom ali dejavnostim, ki so glede na logiko, s katero so bile utemeljene zadevne dajatve, v primerljivem položaju, omogoči prednost.
Similar verification may also be necessary in certain cases concerning special-purpose levies, where there are elements indicating that the boundaries of the levy have been designed in a clearly arbitrary or biased way, so as to favour certain products or certain activities which are in a comparable situation with regard to the underlying logic of the levies in question.
Sodišče je na primer v zadevi Ferring [205] menilo, da so dajatve, ki so naložene pri neposredni prodaji zdravil farmacevtskih laboratorijev, vendar se ne uporabljajo za prodajo na debelo, selektivne.
For instance, in Ferring [205], the Court of Justice considered that a levy imposed on the direct sale of medicinal products by pharmaceutical laboratories but not on the sale by wholesalers was selective.
Glede na posebne dejanske okoliščine, tj. jasen cilj ukrepa in njegove učinke, Sodišče ni preverilo le, ali bi zadevni ukrep lahko povzročil odstopanje od referenčnega sistema dajatev.
In the light of the particular factual circumstances – such as the clear objective of the measure and its effects – the Court did not simply examine whether the measure in question would lead to a derogation from the reference system constituted by the levy.
Primerjalo je tudi stanje pri farmacevtskih laboratorijih (ki so morali dajatev plačevati) in trgovcih na debelo (ki so bili izključeni iz sistema) ter ugotovilo, da se neuporaba davkov za neposredno prodajo trgovcev na debelo lahko obravnava kot dodelitev selektivne oprostitve davka prima facie [206].
It also compared the situations of the pharmaceutical laboratories (subject to the levy) and of the wholesalers (excluded), concluding that the non-imposition of the tax on the direct sales by the wholesalers equated to granting them a prima facie selective tax exemption [206].
Določitev referenčnega sistema
Identification of the reference system
Referenčni sistem je merilo, ki se uporablja za presojo selektivnosti ukrepa.
The reference system constitutes the benchmark against which the selectivity of a measure is assessed.
Referenčni sistem je sestavljen iz usklajenega niza pravil, ki na podlagi objektivnih meril splošno veljajo za vsa podjetja, ki spadajo v njegovo področje uporabe, kakor ga opredeljuje cilj sistema.
The reference system is composed of a consistent set of rules that generally apply – on the basis of objective criteria – to all undertakings falling within its scope as defined by its objective.
Običajno navedena pravila ne določajo le področja uporabe sistema, temveč tudi pogoje, v skladu s katerimi se sistem uporablja, pravice in obveznosti podjetij, za katera se uporablja, in tehnične podrobnosti o delovanju sistema.
Typically, those rules define not only the scope of the system, but also the conditions under which the system applies, the rights and obligations of undertakings subject to it and the technicalities of the functioning of the system.
V primeru davkov je referenčni sistem določen na podlagi elementov, kot so davčna osnova, davčni zavezanci, obdavčljivi dogodek in davčne stopnje.
In the case of taxes, the reference system is based on such elements as the tax base, the taxable persons, the taxable event and the tax rates.
Referenčni sistem bi lahko bil na primer opredeljen glede na sistem davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb [207], sistem DDV [208] ali splošni sistem obdavčevanja zavarovanja [209].
For example, a reference system could be identified with regard to the corporate income tax system [207], the VAT system [208], or the general system of taxation of insurance [209].
Enako velja za posebne (posamezne) dajatve, kot so dajatve za nekatere proizvode ali dejavnosti, ki imajo negativen vpliv na okolje ali zdravje in ki dejansko niso del širšega sistema obdavčenja.
The same applies to special-purpose (stand-alone) levies, such as levies on certain products or activities having a negative impact on the environment or health, which do not really form part of a wider taxation system.
Zaradi tega in ob upoštevanju posebnih primerov iz točk 129 do 131 zgoraj je referenčni sistem načeloma dajatev sama [210].
As a result, and subject to special cases illustrated in paragraphs 129 to 131 above, the reference system is, in principle, the levy itself [210].
Odstopanje od referenčnega sistema
Derogation from the system of reference
Ko je referenčni sistem določen, je naslednji korak v analizi preverjanje, ali zadevni ukrep razlikuje med podjetji in tako od tega sistema odstopa.
Once the reference system has been established, the next step of the analysis consists in examining whether a given measure differentiates between undertakings in derogation from that system.
Za ta namen je treba ugotoviti, ali ukrep lahko daje prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so v podobnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju, glede na cilj, ki je del referenčnega sistema [211].
To do this, it is necessary to determine whether the measure is liable to favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods as compared with other undertakings which are in a similar factual and legal situation, in the light of the intrinsic objective of the system of reference [211].
Države EGP se ne morejo sklicevati na zunanje cilje politike, kot so cilji regionalne, okoljske ali industrijske politike, da bi s tem utemeljile različno obravnavo podjetij [212].
External policy objectives – such as regional, environmental or industrial policy objectives – cannot be relied upon by the EEA State to justify the differentiated treatment of undertakings [212].
Struktura nekaterih posebnih dajatev (in zlasti njihove davčne osnove), kot so okoljski in zdravstveni davki, ki se uvedejo zaradi odvračanja od nekaterih dejavnosti ali proizvodov, ki škodljivo vplivajo na okolje ali zdravje ljudi, bo običajno vključevala opredeljene cilje politike.
The structure of certain special-purpose levies (and in particular their tax bases), such as environmental and health taxes imposed to discourage certain activities or products that have an adverse effect on the environment or human health, will normally integrate the policy objectives pursued.
V takšnih primerih različna obravnava dejavnosti ali proizvodov, katerih položaj se glede cilja, ki je lasten sistemu, razlikuje od položaja navedenih dejavnosti ali proizvodov, za katere se plačuje davek, ne pomeni odstopanja od sistema [213].
In such cases, a differentiated treatment for activities or products whose situation is different from the situation of those activities or products which are subject to the tax as regards the intrinsic objective pursued, does not constitute a derogation [213].
Če ukrep daje prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, ki je v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju, se bo štelo, da je ukrep selektiven prima facie.
If a measure favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods which are in a comparable legal and factual situation, the measure is prima facie selective.
Upravičenost zaradi narave ali splošne sheme referenčnega sistema
Justification by the nature or general scheme of the system of reference
Ukrep, ki odstopa od referenčnega sistema (selektivnost prima facie), je neselektiven, če je to upravičeno zaradi narave ali splošne sheme tega sistema.
A measure which derogates from the reference system (prima facie selectivity) is non-selective if it is justified by the nature or general scheme of that system.
Tak primer je, kadar ukrep izhaja neposredno iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel referenčnega sistema ali kadar je posledica mehanizmov, ki so lastni sistemu in ki so potrebni za njegovo delovanje in učinkovitost [214].
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 the system [214].
Nasprotno pa se ni mogoče sklicevati na zunanje cilje politike, ki niso lastni sistemu [215].
In contrast, it is not possible to rely on external policy objectives which are not inherent to the system [215].
Podlaga za morebitno utemeljitev bi lahko bila na primer potreba po boju proti goljufijam ali davčnim utajam, potreba po upoštevanju posebnih računovodskih zahtev, upravne izvedljivosti [216], načela davčne nevtralnosti [217], progresivne narave davkov od dohodkov in njenega porazdelitvenega namena, potreba po izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju [218] ali cilj optimizacije izterjave davčnih dolgov.
The basis for a possible justification could, for instance, be the need to fight fraud or tax evasion, the need to take into account specific accounting requirements, administrative manageability [216], the principle of tax neutrality [217], the progressive nature of income tax and its redistributive purpose, the need to avoid double taxation [218], or the objective of optimising the recovery of fiscal debts.
Države EGP pa bi morale uvesti in izvajati ustrezne postopke nadzora in spremljanja, da bi zagotovile skladnost ukrepov, ki odstopajo od sistema, z logiko in splošno strukturo davčnega sistema [219].
EEA States should, however, introduce and apply appropriate control and monitoring procedures to ensure that derogations are consistent with the logic and general scheme of the tax system [219].
Da bi bilo mogoče upravičiti ukrepe, ki odstopajo od sistema, z naravo ali splošno strukturo sistema, je treba zagotoviti tudi, da so navedeni ukrepi sorazmerni in da ne prekoračijo meja nujnega, kar pomeni, da zastavljenega legitimnega cilja ne bi bilo mogoče doseči z blažjimi ukrepi [220].
For derogations to be justified by the nature or general scheme of the system, it is also necessary to ensure that those measures are proportionate and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the legitimate objective being pursued, in that the objective could not be attained by less far-reaching measures [220].
Država EGP, ki uvede tako razlikovanje med podjetji, mora dokazati, da je to razlikovanje dejansko utemeljeno z naravo in ureditvijo zadevnega sistema [221].
An EEA State which introduces a differentiation between undertakings needs to be able to show that this differentiation is actually justified by the nature and general scheme of the system in question [221].
Načeloma samo ukrepi, ki se uporabljajo na celotnem ozemlju države EGP, niso zajeti v okviru merila regionalne selektivnosti iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
In principle, only measures that apply within the entire territory of the EEA State escape the regional selectivity criterion laid down in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Vendar, kakor je navedeno spodaj, za referenčni sistem ni nujno opredeliti celotne države EGP [222].
However, as outlined below, the reference system does not necessarily have to be defined as the entire EEA State [222].
Iz tega sledi, da niso vsi ukrepi, ki se uporabljajo le na nekaterih delih ozemlja države EGP, avtomatično selektivni.
It follows that not all measures that apply only to certain parts of the territory of an EEA State are automatically selective.
Kakor je bilo določeno s sodno prakso [223], je verjetno, da ukrepi z regionalnim ali lokalnim področjem uporabe niso selektivni, če so izpolnjene nekatere zahteve.
As established by the case-law [223], measures with a regional or local scope of application may not be selective if certain requirements are fulfilled.
Ta sodna praksa je do zdaj obravnavala le davčne ukrepe.
This case-law has so far only dealt with tax measures.
Ker pa je regionalna selektivnost splošen pojem, se načela, ki so jih sodišča EGP oblikovala glede davčnih ukrepov, uporabljajo tudi za druge vrste ukrepov.
However, as regional selectivity is a general concept, the principles set out by the EEA Courts as regards tax measures apply to other types of measures as well.
Pri presoji regionalne selektivnosti je treba razlikovati tri scenarije [224]:
In order to assess regional selectivity, three scenarios must be distinguished [224]:
Po prvem scenariju, katerega rezultat je regionalna selektivnost ukrepa, centralna raven države EGP enostransko odloči, da se na določenem geografskem območju uporablja nižja stopnja obdavčitve [225].
In the first scenario, which results in the regional selectivity of a measure, the central government of an EEA State unilaterally decides to apply a lower level of taxation within a defined geographical area [225].
Drugi scenarij ustreza simetrični decentralizaciji davčnih pristojnosti [226], tj. model razdelitve davčnih pristojnosti, v katerem imajo vsi poddržavni organi na določeni ravni (regije, občine ali drugi) v posamezni državi EGP enako pristojnost prostega določanja, v mejah dodeljenih jim pristojnosti, davčne stopnje, ki se uporablja na ozemlju, ki sodi v njihovo pristojnost, ne glede na centralno raven države.
The second scenario corresponds to symmetrical devolution of tax powers [226] – a model of distribution of tax competences in which all infra-State authorities at a particular level (regions, districts or others) of an EEA State have the same autonomous power in law to decide the applicable tax rate within their territory of competence, independently of the central government.
V tem primeru ukrepi, ki jih sprejmejo poddržavni države, niso selektivni, saj je nemogoče določiti normalno stopnjo davka, ki lahko predstavlja referenčni okvir.
In this case, the measures decided by the infra-State authorities are not selective as it is impossible to determine a normal tax rate capable of constituting the reference framework.
Pri tretjem scenariju, tj. pri asimetrični decentralizaciji davčnih pristojnosti [227], lahko davčne ukrepe, ki se uporabljajo na njihovem ozemlju, sprejemajo samo posamezni regionalni ali lokalni organi.
In the third scenario – the asymmetrical devolution of tax powers [227] – only certain regional or local authorities can adopt tax measures applicable within their territory.
V tem primeru je presoja selektivnosti obravnavanega ukrepa odvisna od tega, ali ima zadevni organ dovolj avtonomije glede na centralno raven države v državi EGP [228].
In this case, the assessment of the selective nature of the measure at stake depends on whether the authority concerned is sufficiently autonomous from the central government of the EEA State [228].
Organ je dovolj avtonomen, če so izpolnjena tri kumulativna merila: institucionalna, postopkovna ter gospodarska in finančna avtonomija [229].
This is the case when three cumulative criteria of autonomy are fulfilled: institutional, procedural and economic and financial autonomy [229].
Če so prisotna vsa ta merila avtonomije, ko se regionalni ali lokalni organ odloči sprejeti davčni ukrep, ki se uporablja le na njegovem ozemlju, geografski referenčni okvir tvori zadevna regija, ne pa država EGP.
If all of these criteria of autonomy are present when a regional or local authority decides to adopt a tax measure applicable only within its territory, then the region in question, not the EEA State, constitutes the geographical reference framework.
Institucionalna avtonomija se lahko ugotovi, če regionalni ali lokalni organ sprejme odločitev o davčnem ukrepu v okviru svojega ustavnega, političnega in upravnega statusa, ki je ločen od centralne ravni države.
The existence of institutional autonomy can be established where the tax measure decision has been taken by a regional or local authority with its own constitutional, political and administrative status that is separate from that of the central government.
Sodišče je v zadevi Azori ugotovilo, da so Azori na podlagi ustave Portugalske republike avtonomna regija s politično-upravnim statusom in vladnimi organi, ki so pristojni za izvrševanje lastnih davčnih pristojnosti in za prilagoditev nacionalnih davčnih predpisov regionalnim posebnostim [230].
In the Azores case, the Court of Justice observed that the Portuguese Constitution recognised the Azores as an autonomous region with its own political and administrative status and self-governing institutions, which also have their own fiscal competence, and the power to adapt national fiscal provisions to particular regional features [230].
Presoja, ali je to merilo izpolnjeno v vsakem posameznem primeru, bi morala zlasti vključevati pregled ustave in drugih ustreznih zakonov zadevne države EGP, da se preveri, ali ima posamezna regija dejansko samostojen politično-upravni status in lastne vladne organe, ki so pristojni za izvrševanje lastnih davčnih pristojnosti.
The assessment of whether this criterion has been fulfilled in each individual case should include, in particular, examination of the constitution and other relevant laws of a given EEA State so as to verify whether a given region indeed has its own separate political and administrative status and whether it has its own self-governing institutions which have the power to exercise their own fiscal competence.
Postopkovna avtonomija se lahko ugotovi, če je bila odločitev o davčnem ukrepu sprejeta, ne da bi centralna raven države lahko neposredno posredovala pri njegovi vsebini.
The existence of procedural autonomy can be established where a tax measure decision has been adopted without the central government being able to directly intervene in determining its content.
Bistveno merilo za določitev, ali postopkovna avtonomija obstaja, ni obseg pristojnosti, ki se priznava poddržavnemu organu, ampak sposobnost tega organa v okviru njegovih pristojnosti, da sprejme odločitev o davčnem ukrepu neodvisno, tj. ne da bi centralna raven države lahko neposredno posredovala pri njegovi vsebini.
The essential criterion for determining whether procedural autonomy exists is not the extent of the competence that the infra-State body is recognised as having, but the capability of that body, in view of its competence, to adopt a decision on a tax measure independently, that is to say without the central government being able to intervene directly as regards its content.
Dejstvo, da med organi centralne ravni države in regionalnimi (ali lokalnimi) organi lahko potekajo posvetovalni ali spravni postopki v izogib sporom, ne pomeni avtomatično, da poddržavni organ nima postopkovne avtonomije, pod pogojem, da ima zadnjo besedo pri sprejetju obravnavanega ukrepa ta organ, ne pa enota centralne ravni države [231].
The fact that a consultation or conciliation procedure exists between the central and regional (or local) authorities to avoid conflicts does not automatically mean that an infra-State body does not have procedural autonomy, provided that that body, and not the central government, has the final word on the adoption of the measure at stake [231].
Zgolj dejstvo, da so akti, ki jih sprejema poddržavni organ, predmet sodnega nadzora, samo po sebi še ne pomeni, da ta organ nima postopkovne avtonomije, saj je obstoj takšnega nadzora neločljivo povezan s pravno državo [232].
The mere fact that the acts which an infra-State body adopts are subject to judicial review does not in itself mean that that body lacks procedural autonomy, since the existence of such review is an inherent feature of the rule of law [232].
Ni treba, da je regionalni (ali lokalni) davčni ukrep popolnoma ločen od splošnejšega davčnega sistema, da ne bi pomenil državne pomoči.
A regional (or local) tax measure does not have to be completely separate from a more general tax system for it not to constitute State aid.
Zlasti ni nujno, da se pri zadevnem davčnem sistemu (osnove za odmero davka, davčne stopnje, pravila za izterjavo davkov in oprostitve) pristojnosti v celoti prenesejo na poddržavni organ [233].
In particular, it is not necessary that the tax system in question (bases of assessment, tax rates, tax recovery rules and exemptions) is fully devolved to the infra-State body [233].
Za decentralizacijo davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, omejeno na pristojnost za določanje različnih stopenj v okviru omejenega razpona brez možnosti spreminjanja osnove za odmero davka (davčne olajšave in oprostitve itd.), bi se lahko štelo, da izpolnjuje pogoj postopkovne avtonomije, če vnaprej določen razpon stopenj zadevni regiji omogoča izvrševanje pomembnih avtonomnih pristojnosti v zvezi z obdavčenjem, ne da bi centralna raven države lahko neposredno posredovala pri njegovi vsebini.