natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In 1987 [56] the Court explicitly stated that a loss of tax revenue was equivalent to consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure.This approach is also reflected in decisions of the Authority prior to the implementation of the Liechtenstein Tax Act, where it concluded that exemptions from the tax payable by undertakings was (incompatible) State aid in Finland in 1994 [57] and in Norway in 1995 [58] and 1997 [59].
Sodišče je leta 1987 [56] izrecno navedlo, da je izguba davka enaka porabi državnih sredstev v obliki davčnih izdatkov.Tak pristop se kaže tudi v odločitvah Nadzornega organa pred uvedbo lihtenštajnskega davčnega zakona, v katerih je ugotovil, da oprostitve davka, ki ga morajo plačati podjetja, pomenijo (nezdružljivo) državno pomoč na Finskem leta 1994 [57] ter na Norveškem v letih 1995 [58] in 1997 [59].
Furthermore, on 1 December 1997, following a wide-ranging discussion on the need for coordinated action at Community level to tackle harmful tax competition, the European Council of Ministers adopted a series of conclusions and agreed a resolution on a code of conduct for business taxation [60].
Poleg tega je Ekonomsko-finančni svet 1. decembra 1997 po obširni razpravi o potrebi po usklajenih ukrepih na ravni Skupnosti za preprečevanje škodljive davčne konkurence sprejel vrsto sklepov in resolucijo o kodeksu ravnanja za obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka [60].
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 podali lihtenštajnski organi in tretje strani, 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.
The Commission’s notice on business taxation, and the Authority’s corresponding guidelines, are based on the long-established case-law of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance, and confirm that Articles 107 and 108 TFEU and Article 61(1) EEA (respectively) apply to tax measures.
Obvestilo Komisije o obdavčitvi ustvarjenega dohodka in ustrezne smernice Nadzornega organa temeljijo na ustaljeni sodni praksi Sodišča in Sodišča prve stopnje ter potrjujejo, da se člena 107 in 108 PDEU ter člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP uporabljajo za davčne ukrepe.
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 [65].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 [65].Nadzorni organ se tako ne more strinjati, da je mogoče ukrepe opredeliti kot obstoječo pomoč, ki je bila uvedena pred razvojem Sporazuma EGP.
The measure is therefore new aid which was not notified to the Authority.
Ukrep je zato nova pomoč, ki Nadzornemu organu ni bila priglašena.
The Liechtenstein authorities did not, therefore, comply with their obligations under Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.
Lihtenštajnski organi tako niso izpolnili svojih obveznosti v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
Support measures designated as State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are generally incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, unless one of the exemptions in Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement applies.
Podporni ukrepi, ki so v skladu s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP določeni kot državna pomoč, na splošno niso združljivi z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, razen če se uporabi katera od izjem iz člena 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma EGP.
The derogation of Article 61(2) is not applicable to the aid in question, which is not designed to achieve any of the aims listed in this provision.
Odstopanja iz člena 61(2) ni mogoče uporabiti za zadevno pomoč, ki ni namenjena doseganju nobenega od ciljev iz te določbe.
Nor do Article 61(3)(a) or Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement apply.
Prav tako ni mogoče uporabiti člena 61(3)(a) ali člena 61(3)(b) Sporazuma EGP.
The aid in question is not linked to any investment in production capital.
Zadevna pomoč ni povezana z naložbo v proizvodni kapital.
It merely reduces the costs which companies would normally have to bear in the course of pursuing their day-to-day business activities, and is consequently to be classified as operating aid.
Pomoč samo znižuje stroške, ki bi jih družbe običajno morale nositi med običajnim poslovanjem, zato jo je treba opredeliti kot pomoč za obratovanje.
Operating aid is normally not considered suitable to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain regions as provided for in Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.
Pomoč za obratovanje se običajno ne šteje za primerno za pospeševanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij, kakor je določeno v členu 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
Operating aid is only allowed under special circumstances (for example for certain types of environmental or regional aid), when the Authority’s Guidelines provide for such an exemption.
Pomoč za obratovanje je dovoljena samo pod posebnimi pogoji (na primer za nekatere vrste okoljevarstvene ali regionalne pomoči), če smernice Nadzornega organa dovoljujejo takšno izjemo.
None of these Guidelines apply to the aid in question.
Nobena od teh smernic se ne uporablja za zadevno pomoč.
The Authority therefore concludes that the special tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies are not compatible with the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ tako ugotavlja, da posebna davčna pravila, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice v Lihtenštajnu, niso združljiva s Sporazumom EGP.
LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS AND LEGAL CERTAINTY
LEGITIMNA PRIČAKOVANJA IN PRAVNA VARNOST
The fundamental legal principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty can be invoked by beneficiaries of aid to challenge an order for recovery of unlawfully granted State aid.
Na temeljni pravni načeli legitimnih pričakovanj in pravne varnosti se lahko sklicujejo upravičenci do pomoči, kadar izpodbijajo naloženo povračilo nezakonito dodeljene državne pomoči.
The Authority is also conscious of the approach taken by the European Commission in the early 2000s on the issue of legitimate expectations when disallowing similar tax measures [78].
Nadzorni organ se zaveda tudi pristopa, ki ga je v zgodnjem začetku tega stoletja sprejela Evropska komisija v zvezi z vprašanjem legitimnih pričakovanj, ko je zavrnila podobne davčne ukrepe [78].
In view of the Commission’s practice, therefore, and in order to ensure a uniform approach to this issue across the EEA, the Authority concludes that beneficiaries may have had legitimate expectations that the tax measures did not constitute State aid when they were introduced.Any such expectations could not, however, have continued indefinitely given the developments in the State aid assessment of tax measures during this period.
Tako glede na prakso Komisije in za zagotovitev enotnega pristopa k temu vprašanju na celotnem EGP, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so upravičenci lahko imeli legitimna pričakovanja, da davčni ukrepi niso pomenili državne pomoči, ko so bili uvedeni.Vendar pa takšnih pričakovanj niso mogli imeti neomejeno dolgo glede na dogodke pri ocenjevanju davčnih ukrepov glede državne pomoči v tem obdobju.
The Commission opened the formal investigation procedure into tax exemptions in favour of captive insurance companies in Åland, Finland, on 11 July 2001 [79], communicating its doubts that the measures could be compatible with the State aid rules.
Komisija je 11. julija 2001 začela formalen postopek preiskave o davčnih oprostitvah v korist lastnih zavarovalnic na Ålandskih otokih na Finskem [79], pri čemer je izrazila dvom, da so ukrepi lahko združljivi s pravili o državni pomoči.
This investigation resulted from the notification of the measure by the Finnish authorities on 15 July 1998 — seven months after the implementation of the Liechtenstein measures.
Do te preiskave je prišlo, ker so finski organi 15. julija 1998 priglasili ukrep – sedem mesecev po uvedbi lihtenštajnskih ukrepov.
The Finnish authorities put the introduction of the tax measures on hold pending the Commission’s decision.
Finski organi so uvedbo davčnih ukrepov začasno zaustavili do odločitve Komisije.
A decision specifically concluding that tax exemptions to captive insurance companies were incompatible State aid followed on 10 July 2002.
Odločitev, s katero je bilo izrecno ugotovljeno, da davčne oprostitve za lastne zavarovalnice niso s predpisi združljiva državna pomoč, je sledila 10. julija 2002.
Given that the Liechtenstein tax measures are substantively the same as those proposed for captive insurance companies based in the Åland Islands, Finland, the Authority considers that all beneficiaries [80] should have been aware by the date of publication of the decision to open a formal investigation into the similar tax measures in Åland on 6 November 2001 at the latest, that the measures were likely to involve incompatible State aid.
Glede na to, da so lihtenštajnski davčni ukrepi v glavnem enaki predlaganim ukrepom za lastne zavarovalnice na Ålandskih otokih na Finskem, Nadzorni organ meni, da bi se morali vsi upravičenci [80] najpozneje do dne objave odločitve o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave o podobnih davčnih ukrepih na Ålandskih otokih 6. novembra 2001 zavedati, da ukrepi verjetno vključujejo nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
The clear doubts expressed by the Commission as to the compatibility of specific tax exemptions in favour of captive insurance companies negated any legitimate expectations captive insurance companies benefiting from the Liechtenstein tax exemptions may have entertained.
Jasni dvomi, ki jih je izrazila Komisija v zvezi z združljivostjo posebnih davčnih oprostitev v korist lastnih zavarovalnic, so izničili vsa legitimna pričakovanja, ki so si jih morda ustvarile lastne zavarovalnice, ki so bile upravičene do lihtenštajnskih davčnih oprostitev.
The Authority concludes, therefore, that beneficiaries may have held legitimate expectations that the tax exemptions applicable to captive insurance companies in Liechtenstein did not constitute State aid from their introduction on 1 January 1998 until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the Commission Decision opening the formal investigation into the Åland captive insurance scheme on 6 November 2001, but not thereafter.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da so upravičenci morda imeli legitimna pričakovanja, da davčne oprostitve, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice v Lihtenštajnu, niso bile državna pomoč, od njihove uvedbe 1. januarja 1998 do objave odločbe Komisije o začetku postopka preiskave sistema Ålandskih otokov za lastne zavarovalnice v Uradnem listu 6. novembra 2001, po tem datumu pa ne več.
Finally, the Authority does not accept that any arguments relating to legal certainty can be valid in this case given the jurisprudence of the court and the wide ranging applicability of Article 61 (of the EEA Agreement) and Article 107 (TFEU).
Nadzorni organ se prav tako ne more strinjati, da bi lahko bila glede na sodno prakso Sodišča in široko uporabo členov 61 (Sporazuma EGP) in 107 (PDEU) v tem primeru tehtna katera koli od utemeljitev v zvezi s pravno varnostjo.
A conclusion that the tax measures under investigation could involve State aid was clearly foreseeable at all times.
Ugotovitev, da bi davčni ukrepi, ki so bili predmet preiskave v tej zadevi, lahko vključevali državno pomoč, je bilo mogoče ves čas nedvomno predvideti.
The Authority considers that the special tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies under Articles 82a and 88d(3) of the Liechtenstein Tax Act implemented on 18 December 1998 constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ meni, da posebna davčna pravila, ki se uporabljajo za lastne zavarovalnice v Lihtenštajnu v skladu s členom 82a in členom 88d(3) lihtenštajnskega davčnega zakona, sprejetega 18. decembra 1998, pomenijo državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
For the abovementioned reasons, these measures cannot be considered compatible with the State aid rules of the EEA Agreement.
Zaradi prej omenjenih razlogov teh ukrepov ni mogoče šteti za združljive s pravili o državnih pomočeh v Sporazumu EGP.
The Authority also considers that the contested aid measures have been implemented in breach of Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 and therefore constitute unlawful aid.
Nadzorni organ prav tako meni, da so bili sporni ukrepi pomoči sprejeti v nasprotju s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 in zato pomenijo nezakonito pomoč.
In accordance with Article 14 of Protocol 3, where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Authority shall decide that the EFTA State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiaries.
V skladu s členom 14 Protokola 3, po katerem se v primeru nezakonite pomoči sprejme negativna odločitev, Nadzorni organ odloči, da mora zadevna država Efte sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenci vrnejo pomoč.
The Authority shall not require recovery if it would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law.
Nadzorni organ ne zahteva vračila, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava EGP.
Given the uncertainty regarding the State aid assessment of intra-group tax measures, the Authority accepts that undertakings could have entertained certain expectations that the tax measures in Liechtenstein may not entail aid.
Glede na negotovost v zvezi z ocenjevanjem davčnih ukrepov znotraj skupin glede državne pomoči se Nadzorni organ strinja, da so podjetja morda lahko imela določena pričakovanja, da davčni ukrepi v Lihtenštajnu morda ne vsebujejo pomoči.
These expectations could no longer be maintained after the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure regarding the tax measures in favour of captive insurance companies in Åland.
Ta pričakovanja več niso bila mogoča po tem, ko je Komisija začela formalne postopke preiskave v zvezi z davčnimi ukrepi v korist lastnih zavarovalnic na Ålandskih otokih.
For this reason, the Authority only requires recovery from the date of publication of the Commission’s decision in the Official Journal on 6 November 2001.
Zaradi tega Nadzorni organ zahteva samo vračilo pomoči za obdobje od dneva objave odločbe Komisije v Uradnem listu 6. novembra 2001.
The amount of aid to be recovered should be calculated by assessing the income, capital and coupon tax liabilities of captive insurance companies had specific rules not applied to them, less the amounts of capital tax already paid by the beneficiaries,
Znesek vračila se mora izračunati tako, da se ocenijo davčne obveznosti od dobička, kapitala in obresti od kuponskih obveznic, ki bi jih imele lastne zavarovalnice, če se zanje ne bi uporabila posebna pravila, od tega pa se odšteje znesek davka na kapital, ki so ga upravičenci že plačali –
ADOPTS THIS DECISION:
SPREJEL NASLEDNJO ODLOČBO:
The aid measures which the Liechtenstein authorities have implemented in favour of captive insurance companies under Articles 82a and 88d(3) of the Tax Act implemented on 18 December 1998 constitute unlawful State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement which is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Ukrepi pomoči, ki so jih lihtenštajnski organi sprejeli v korist lastnih zavarovalnic v Lihtenštajnu v skladu s členom 82a in členom 88d(3) davčnega zakona, sprejetega 18. decembra 1998, pomenijo nezakonito državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, ki ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Liechtenstein shall repeal the measures referred to in Article 1 such that they do not apply from the fiscal year 2010 (inclusive) onwards.
Lihtenštajn razveljavi ukrepe, navedene v členu 1, tako da ne veljajo od proračunskega leta 2010 (vključno s tem letom) naprej.
The Liechtenstein authorities shall inform the Authority of the legislative steps which will be taken to abolish the measure by 30 June 2010.
Lihtenštajnski organi do 30. junija 2010 obvestijo Nadzorni organ o zakonodajnih ukrepih, ki bodo sprejeti za razveljavitev ukrepov.
The Liechtenstein authorities shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to them, from 6 November 2001 to 31 December 2009.
Lihtenštajnski organi sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe, da se od upravičencev izterja pomoč, ki je navedena v členu 1 in jim je bila nezakonito dodeljena od 6. novembra 2001 do 31. decembra 2009.
The amount of aid to be recovered should be calculated by assessing the income, capital and coupon tax liabilities of captive insurance companies had specific rules not applied to them, less the amounts of capital tax already paid by the beneficiaries.
Znesek vračila pomoči se izračuna tako, da se ocenijo davčne obveznosti od dobička, kapitala in obresti od kuponskih obveznic, ki bi jih imele lastne zavarovalnice, če se zanje ne bi uporabila posebna pravila, od tega pa se odšteje znesek davka na kapital, ki so ga upravičenci že plačali.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which the tax reductions were applied to the given undertaking until their actual recovery.
Znesek, ki ga je treba vrniti, vključuje obresti od datuma, ko se je za danega upravičenca začela uporabljati davčna olajšava, do datuma njegovega vračila.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Article 9 in the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 195/04/COL, as amended by Authority’s Decision No 789/08/COL of 17 December 2008, on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 of Part II of Protocol 3.
Obresti se izračunajo z obrestnoobrestnim računom v skladu s členom 9 iz Odločbe Nadzornega organa Efte št. 195/04/COL o izvedbenih določbah iz člena 27 dela II Protokola 3, kakor je bila spremenjena z Odločbo Nadzornega organa Efte št. 789/08/COL z dne 17. decembra 2008.
Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be effected without delay, and in any event by 30 September 2010, and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.
Vračilo pomoči iz člena 1 se izvede nemudoma in v vsakem primeru do 30. septembra 2010 ter v skladu s postopki nacionalnega prava, če ti omogočajo takojšnjo in učinkovito izvršitev te odločbe.
This Decision is addressed to the Principality of Liechtenstein.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Kneževino Lihtenštajn.
Only the English language version of this decision is authentic.
Besedilo v angleškem jeziku je edino verodostojno.
Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19 January 1994 (OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1, and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1).
Smernice o uporabi in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP ter člena 1 Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, ki jih je Nadzorni organ sprejel in izdal 19. januarja 1994 (UL L 231, 3.9.1994, str. 1, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 32, 3.9.1994, str. 1).
The updated version is available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines
Posodobljena različica je objavljena na spletni strani: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/.
Consolidated version available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf
Prečiščena različica je objavljena na spletni strani: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf.
OJ C 75, 31.3.2009, p. 45, and EEA Supplement No 17, 26.3.2009, p. 1.
UL C 75, 31.3.2009, str. 45, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 17, 26.3.2009, str. 1.
By virtue of Act of 18 December 1997 on the amendment of the Liechtenstein Tax Act, Law Gazette 1998 No 36.
Na podlagi zakona z dne 18. decembra 1997 o spremembi lihtenštajnskega zakona o obdavčenju, Uradni list 1998 št. 36.
Translation made by the services of the Authority.
Zakon so prevedle službe Nadzornega organa.
This was confirmed in a letter dated 30.5.2007 from the Liechtenstein authorities.
To je bilo potrjeno v dopisu lihtenštajnskih organov z dne 30. maja 2007.
In this respect Company A refers to cases 118/85 [1987] ECR 2599, paragraph 7 and C-35/96 [1998] ECR I-3851, paragraph 36 (both Commission v Italian Republic); case C-222/04 Ministero dell’Economica e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA [2006] ECR I-289; and the Authority’s Decision No 349/07/COL of 18 July 2007 concerning the Norwegian Road Administration Møre and Romsdal District Office (OJ C 310, 20.12.2007, p. 35, and EEA Supplement No 61, 20.12.2007, p. 35).
V zvezi s tem se družba A sklicuje na zadevo 118/85, Recueil 1987, str. 2599, točka 7, in zadevo C-35/96, Recueil 1998, str. I-3851, točka 36 (obe Komisija proti Italijanski republiki); zadevo C-222/04, Ministero dell’Economica e delle Finanze proti Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA, ZOdl. 2006, str. I-289, ter Odločbo Nadzornega organa št. 349/07/COL z dne 18. julija 2007 o pritožbi v zvezi z Norveško upravo za javne ceste, okrajnim uradom Møre in Romsdal (UL C 310, 20.12.2007, str. 35, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 61, 20.12.2007, str. 35).
Commission Decision of 22 September 2004, State aid N 354/04, referred to again below.
Odločba Komisije z dne 22. septembra 2004, državna pomoč N 354/04, znova navedena v nadaljevanju.
Commission Decision of 13 February 2008, State aid N 480/07, referred to again below.
Odločba Komisije z dne 13. februarja 2008, državna pomoč N 480/07, znova navedena v nadaljevanju.
Commission Decision of 8 July 2009 C 4/07 (ex N 465/06), referred to again below.
Odločba Komisije z dne 8. julija 2009 (C 4/07 (ex N 465/06)), znova navedena v nadaljevanju.
Commission Decision of 10 July 2002 on the aid scheme implemented by Finland for Åland Islands captive insurance companies (OJ L 329, 5.12.2002, p. 22).
Odločba Komisije z dne 10. julija 2002 o shemi pomoči, ki jo je Finska uvedla za lastne zavarovalnice z Ålandskih otokov (UL L 329, 5.12.2002, str. 22).
Authority Decision No 349/07/COL of 18 July 2007 concerning the Norwegian Road Administration Møre and Romsdal District Office, for publication reference, see footnote 7.
Odločba Nadzornega organa št. 349/07/COL z dne 18. julija 2007 o pritožbi v zvezi z Norveško upravo za javne ceste, okrajnim uradom Møre in Romsdal, za podatke o objavi glej opombo 7.
Commission Decision of 22 September 2004 in Case N 354/04 (OJ C 131, 28.5.2005, p. 10).
Odločba Komisije z dne 22. septembra 2004 v zadevi N 354/04 (UL C 131, 28.5.2005, str. 10).
Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on the aid scheme for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ L 282, 30.10.2003, p. 25).
Odločba Komisije z dne 17. februarja 2003 o shemi pomoči za centre za usklajevanje s sedežem v Belgiji (UL L 282, 30.10.2003, str. 25).
Further reference to this decision is made at Section 4 below.
Sklicevanje na to odločitev je mogoče najti tudi v razdelku 4.
Reference was made to case C-222/04 Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA [2006] ECR I-289.
Sklicevali so se na sodbo v zadevi C-222/04, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze proti Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA, ZOdl. 2006, str. I-289.