natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Firstly, it should not be overlooked, that in other state reorganisations, similar provisions to the contested Act were not adopted.
Najprej se ne sme spregledati, da se pri drugih državnih preoblikovanjih niso sprejemale določbe, podobne spornemu zakonu.
For example, when BaneTele AS [40] was established, the new limited liability company was not exempted from paying excise duties.
Ob ustanovitvi podjetja BaneTele AS [40] nova družba z omejeno odgovornostjo na primer ni bila izvzeta iz plačila trošarin.
The same applies when Secora AS [41] was established.
Enako je bilo ob ustanovitvi podjetja Secora AS [41].
In the case of the reorganisation of Statkraft, the Norwegian Government stated that the company should pay excise duties in accordance with the normal rules [42].Secondly, it would in any event be the case that tax legislation that treats reorganisations of state undertakings more favourably than those concerning restructurings of private undertakings would be selective within the meaning of Article 61(1).
Pri preoblikovanju podjetja Statkraft je norveška vlada izjavila, da mora podjetje plačati trošarine v skladu z običajnimi pravili [42].Nadalje bi v vsakem primeru veljalo, da bi bila davčna zakonodaja, ki bolj ugodno obravnava preoblikovanja javnih podjetij kot tista, ki zadevajo prestrukturiranje zasebnih podjetij, selektivna v smislu člena 61(1).
However, under the Act on Document Duty the starting point was that all transfer of titles between different entities release excise duty regardless of whether or not the new owner continues the same activity as the previous one.
Vendar pa je bilo v skladu z Zakonom o taksi za listine izhodišče tako, da je pri vseh prenosih lastninskih pravic med različnimi subjekti treba plačati trošarino, ne glede na to, ali novi lastnik nadaljuje isto dejavnost kot prejšnji.
As shown above, until July 2005, both the 1990-circular from the Ministry of Justice and a range of consecutive circulars from the Customs and Excise Directorate only contained one relevant exception to this rule.
V skladu z zgornjimi navedbami so do julija 2005 okrožnica Ministrstva za pravosodje iz leta 1990 in vrsta zaporednih okrožnic iz Direktorata za carine in trošarine vsebovale samo eno ustrezno izjemo od tega pravila.
Both sets of circulars unequivocally stated that it was only where ownership was transferred in the context of mergers between limited liability companies that continuity considerations implied that a registration with the new title holder could be done by a name change and not a change of title triggering excise duty.
V obeh sklopih okrožnic je bilo nedvoumno navedeno, da je preudarki o kontinutiteti pomenili, da se lahko registracija z novim lastnikom opravi s spremembo imena in ne s spremembo lastninske pravice, ki povzroči plačilo trošarine, samo če je lastništvo preneseno v okviru združitev med družbami z omejeno odgovornostjo.
In contrast, excise duty was triggered as a result of the registration or the transfer or ownership of title in the Real Estate Registry for demergers, conversions from one corporate form to another, transfers of ownership from joint ownership to a form of partnership and transfer of ownership from a municipality to a separate legal entity wholly owned by the municipality [43].
V nasprotju s tem je bilo plačilo trošarine posledica registracije ali prenosa lastninske pravice v zemljiški knjigi pri razdružitvah, preoblikovanjih iz ene oblike družbe v drugo, prenosih lastništva iz skupnega lastništva v obliko partnerstva in prenosu lastništva z občine na ločeno pravno osebo, ki je v celoti v lasti občine [43].
This was also made clear in the judgment from Frostating lagmannsrett, cited above, which held that excise duties should be paid where an unlimited liability type of company (‘kommandittselskap’) was converted to a limited liability company even if the same owners continued in the new company and the only real change was the form under which the company operated.
To je bilo razvidno tudi iz sodbe drugostopenjskega sodišča Frostating lagmannsrett, navedene zgoraj, ki trdi, da bi bilo treba trošarine plačati, kadar se družba z neomejeno odgovornostjo („kommandittselskap“) preoblikuje v družbo z omejeno odgovornostjo, tudi če v družbi ostanejo isti lastniki in je edina resnična sprememba le oblika delovanja družbe.
The Authority finds that the establishment of Entra cannot be said to be analogous with a merger.
Organ ugotavlja, da pri ustanovitvi podjetja Entra ni mogoče trditi, da gre za združitev.
It is much more similar to either a demerger, a conversion of one legal entity to another, or to a municipality’s separation of a given activity into a separate legal subject.
Precej bolj se zdi podobno razdružitvi, preoblikovanju ene pravne osebe v drugo ali občinski razdružitvi določene dejavnosti v ločene pravne osebe.
Thus, exemptions from excise duties similar to the one found in paragraph 3 of the contested Act were not, at the time of the establishment of Entra, open to the most comparable transactions.
Tako izvzetja iz plačila trošarin, podobna tistemu iz odstavka 3 spornega zakona, v času ustanovitve podjetja Entra niso bila na voljo pri večini primerljivih transakcij.
Therefore, paragraph 3 in the contested Act cannot be said to be an expansion of an already general (non-selective) rule regarding non-payment in relation to certain types of transfer of title in the Real Estate Registry.
Zato odstavek 3 spornega zakona ne more veljati za razširitev že tako splošnega (neselektivnega) pravila glede neplačila v zvezi z določenimi vrstami prenosa lastninske pravice v zemljiški knjigi.
Consequently, the measure was materially selective.
Posledično je bil ukrep materialno selektiven.
Is the exemption from paying excise duty justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system?
Je oprostitev plačila trošarine upravičena po naravi ali splošnem načrtu davčnega sistema?
According to the case law of the ECJ [44], it is possible to draw a distinction between:differentiated treatment that results from the application, to specific situations, of the same principles as those underlying the ordinary rules (no aid);
V skladu s sodno prakso SES [44] je mogoče razlikovati med:različno obravnavo, ki izhaja iz uporabe enakih načel, kot so tista, ki so podlaga za običajna pravila (ni pomoči), v posebnih okoliščinah;
differentiated treatment, which, favouring certain undertakings, departs from the internal logic of the ordinary rules (aid) [45].This distinction is also described in Chapter 17B.3.4(1) of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines on direct business taxation concerning the justification of a derogation by ‘the nature or general scheme of the system’: ‘The differential nature of some measures does not necessarily mean that they must be considered to be State aid.
različno obravnavo, ki zaradi dajanja prednosti določenim podjetjem odstopa od notranje logike običajnih pravil (pomoč) [45].Ta razlika je opisana tudi v poglavju 17B.3.4(1) smernic Organa o državni pomoči glede neposrednega davka na dohodek v zvezi z utemeljitvijo odstopanja zaradi „značaja ali splošnega načrta sistema“: „Razlikovalna narava nekaterih ukrepov ne pomeni nujno, da morajo veljati za državno pomoč.
This is the case with measures whose economic rationale makes them necessary to the smooth functioning and effectiveness of the tax system. However, it is up to the EFTA State to provide such justification.’
Tako je pri ukrepih, ki so zaradi gospodarske utemeljitve potrebni za nemoteno delovanje in učinkovitost davčnega sistema.
This latter rule of proof has been confirmed by the ECJ [46].The Norwegian authorities have argued that ‘even if the Authority deems the practice (with name changes as a procedure for transferring property title without releasing the obligation to pay the excise duty) to constitute an exemption from the main rule, it is justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system’.
Vendar pa mora država EFTE zagotoviti tako utemeljitev.“ Slednje pravilo dokaznega postopka je potrdilo SES [46].Norveški organi oblasti so trdili, da „je kljub mnenju Organa, da je postopek (s spremembo imena kot postopkom za prenos lastninske pravice brez povzročitve obveznosti plačila trošarine) izjema od glavnega pravila, ta upravičen z naravo ali splošnim načrtom davčnega sistema“.
In support of this position, the Norwegian authorities claimed that the continuity principle and the considerations for applying this principle with effect, inter alia, for excise duty purposes in the case at issue entailed that the exemption from the excise duty fell within the logic and nature of the relevant Norwegian legislation.
V podporo temu stališču so norveški organi oblasti trdili, da načelo kontinuitete in preudarki o uporabi tega načela za, med drugim, trošarinske namene v zadevnem primeru pomenijo, da je izvzetje iz plačila trošarine v skladu z logiko in naravo ustrezne norveške zakonodaje.
In their view, the contested Act reflected the continuity principle and was in line with the general rules governing restructurings.
Po njihovem mnenju sporni zakon odraža načelo kontinuitete in je v skladu s splošnimi pravili, ki urejajo preoblikovanja.
To this argument the Authority notes that, in the case at hand, the question is the scope of the continuity principle in relation to the obligation to pay document duties and not the scope of the continuity principle as such, hereunder its application in company law.
Ob tem argumentu Organ ugotavlja, da gre v obravnavanem primeru za vprašanje obsega načela kontinuitete v zvezi z obveznostjo plačila taks za listine in ne za obseg samega načela kontinuitete, in od tod se uporablja v pravu družb.
Based on the analysis of the rules pertaining to excise duties given above under point I.4, the Authority takes the view that while the continuity principle might have had a fundamental place in Norwegian law at the time of the establishment of Entra, it was not, at that time, an inherent and general part of the rules and practice on excise duties in connection with other types of reorganisations of companies.
Na podlagi analize pravil, ki veljajo za izvzetja iz plačila trošarin, navedenih pod točko I.4 zgoraj, Organ zagovarja mnenje, da bi kljub temu, da je imelo načelo kontinuitete v času ustanovitve podjetja Entra lahko temeljno vlogo v norveški zakonodaji, takrat ni bilo neločljiv in splošen del pravil in postopkov za trošarine v zvezi z drugimi vrstami preoblikovanj podjetij.
As already stated, until July 2005, it was only where ownership was transferred, in the context of mergers between limited liability companies, that continuity considerations implied that a registration with the new title holder could be done as a change of name and not a change of title, triggering excise duty.
Kot je že bilo navedeno, so do julija 2005 preudarki o kontinuiteti pomenili, da se lahko registracija z novim lastnikom opravi s spremembo imena in ne s spremembo lastninske pravice, ki povzroči plačilo trošarine, samo kadar je bilo lastništvo preneseno v okviru združitev med družbami z omejeno odgovornostjo.
In contrast, excise duty was triggered as a result of the registration or the transfer or ownership of title in the Real Estate Registry for demergers, conversions from one corporate form to another, transfers of ownership from joint ownership to a form of partnership, and transfer of ownership from a municipality to a separate legal entity wholly owned by the municipality [47].
V nasprotju s tem je bilo plačilo trošarine posledica registracije ali prenosa lastninske pravice v zemljiški knjigi pri razdružitvah, preoblikovanjih iz ene oblike podjetja v drugo, prenosih lastništva iz skupnega lastništva v obliko partnerstva in prenosu lastništva z občine na ločeno pravno osebo, ki je v celoti v lasti občine [47].
The Norwegian authorities have explained that the logic behind the exemptions to the general rule on excise duty can be found in the continuity principle.
Norveški organi oblasti so pojasnili, da je logiko izvzetij iz splošnega pravila o trošarini mogoče najti v načelu kontinuitete.
However, the authorities have not explained the logic behind the different treatment of the above listed types of transfers.
Vendar pa organi oblasti niso pojasnili logike različne obravnave zgoraj navedenih vrst prenosov.
On the contrary, the Norwegian Government has merely stated that it would in fact be more logical to treat mergers and certain other reorganisations alike.
V nasprotju s tem je norveška vlada zgolj navedla, da bi bilo dejansko bolj logično podobno obravnavati združitve in nekatera druga preoblikovanja.
Yet, only with effect from July 2005, approximately five years after the establishment of Entra, has the interpretation of the Act on Document Duty been changed so that the treatment of certain different situations has been aligned.
Vendar je spremenjena razlaga Zakona o taksi za listine, s katero so želeli poenotiti obravnavo nekaterih različnih okoliščin, začela veljati šele julija 2005, kar je pet let po ustanovitvi podjetja Entra.
On this basis, the Authority finds it difficult to establish any other logic behind the interpretation of the Act on Document Duty that prevailed at the time of the establishment of Entra than what follows from the quoted Circulars, namely that only mergers between limited liability companies would escape excise duties otherwise payable.
Zato Organ težko ugotovi kakršno koli drugo logiko razlage Zakona o taksi za listine, ki je veljala ob času ustanovitve podjetja Entra, kot to, ki izhaja iz navedenih okrožnic, in sicer, da bi se lahko izognile trošarinam, ki jih je sicer treba plačati, samo združitve med podjetji z omejeno odgovornostjo.
The application of the continuity principle in relation to the Act on Document Duty was limited to such cases and not to other cases as mentioned above.
Uporaba načela kontinuitete v zvezi z Zakonom o taksi za listine je bila omejena na take primere in ne na druge primere, kot je navedeno zgoraj.
As stated above under point 1.2.1, the Authority, in any event, finds the establishment of Entra much more similar to these situations where a registration in the Real Estate Register at the relevant time would have entailed excise duties than those in which it did not.
Kakor je navedeno v točki 1.2.1 zgoraj, Organ vsekakor meni, da je ustanovitev podjetja Entra veliko bolj podobna okoliščinam, v katerih bi bila posledica vpisa v zemljiško knjigo v ustreznem času plačilo trošarine, kot tistim, v katerih te posledice ne bi bilo.
On that basis, the Authority cannot see that the exemption in the contested Act can be justified by the nature and logic of the Norwegian rules pertaining to excise duty at the time the exemption was applied.
Na podlagi tega si Organ ne predstavlja, da bi lahko bilo izvzetje v spornem zakonu upravičeno z naravo in logiko norveških pravil, ki zadevajo trošarino v času, ko je bilo izvzetje uporabljeno.
It does not change the assessment that similar reorganisations of public commercial activities also have been exempted from excise duty.
To ne spremeni ocene, da so bila podobna preoblikovanja javnih komercialnih dejavnosti prav tako izvzeta iz plačila trošarin.
The pursuance of the underlying objectives of the continuity principle cannot justify that an exemption to the general rule on excise duties should be applicable to specific reorganisations if the most comparable private reorganisations are not subject to similar exemptions.
Upoštevanje temeljnih ciljev načela kontinuitete ne more upravičiti tega, da bi morala izjema od splošnega pravila o trošarinah veljati za določena preoblikovanja, če podobne izjeme ne veljajo za najbolj primerljiva zasebna preoblikovanja.
The ‘Italian case’
Italijanski primer
The Norwegian Authorities have referred to a decision from the European Commission and argued that the factual situation of this case is the same as in the Entra case.
Norveški organi oblasti so se sklicevali na odločbo Evropske komisije in ugovarjali, da so dejanske okoliščine tega primera enake kot v primeru podjetja Entra.
In the Commission Decision of 5 June 2002 [48], the Commission examined the Italian law which provided for a special tax regime for joint stock companies with a majority public shareholding set up under a specific law.
V Odločbi Komisije z dne 5. junija 2002 [48] je Komisija preučila italijansko zakonodajo, ki je predvidevala poseben davčni režim za delniške družbe z večinskim javnim deležem, ustanovljene v skladu s posebno zakonodajo.
In this regard the Italian law specifically provided for an exemption from all transfer taxes related to the conversion of special and municipal undertakings into joint stock companies (‘the transfer tax exemption’).
V zvezi s tem je italijanska zakonodaja posebej predvidela izvzetje iz plačila vseh davkov na prenos v zvezi s preoblikovanjem posebnih in občinskih podjetij v delniške družbe („izvzetje od davka na prenos“).
In the Italian legal system transfer taxes normally applied to the creation of a new economic entity or to the transfer of assets between different economic entities.
V italijanskem pravnem sistemu so se davki na prenos ponavadi uporabljali pri ustanavljanju novih gospodarskih subjektov ali pri prenosu premoženja med različnimi gospodarskimi subjekti.
However, the Italian authorities had explained that Italian law generally reflected the principle of tax neutrality (which means that no tax is applied) in the context of the conversion of the legal status of a company (i.e. ‘when the legal status of a firm changes but the firm remains the same from an economic viewpoint’) [49].
Vendar pa so italijanski organi pojasnili, da italijanska zakonodaja na splošno odraža načelo davčne nevtralnosti (kar pomeni, da se davek ne uporablja) v okviru preoblikovanja pravnega statusa družbe (in sicer „kadar se pravni status podjetja spremeni, podjetje pa ostane enako z gospodarskega vidika“) [49].
The Commission found that although it appeared as if the winding up of the municipal undertaking and the setting up of a ‘new’ joint stock company would be equivalent to creating a new economic entity, this was in appearance only due to legal technicalities.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je kljub temu, da je bilo videti, da je likvidacija občinskega podjetja in vzpostavitev „nove“ delniške družbe enaka ustanovitvi novega gospodarskega podjetja, to bilo samo navidezno zaradi pravnih formalnosti.
In reality the new joint stock company was the same economic entity as the municipal undertaking operating under a different legal status.
V resnici je bila nova delniška družba isti gospodarski subjekt kot občinsko podjetje, vendar deluje z drugačnim pravnim statusom.
In the light of this the Commission accepted that the general principle of tax neutrality in Italian law was similarly applied with regard to the situations falling within the special tax regime.
Ob upoštevanju tega je Komisija sprejela, da je bilo splošno načelo davčne nevtralnosti v italijanski zakonodaji podobno uporabljeno v zvezi z okoliščinami, ki se uvrščajo v posebni davčni režim.
Hence, no transfer tax had to be paid [50].
Zato ni bilo treba plačati davka na prenos [50].
The Authority understands the reasoning of the Commission to be that where the national law pertaining to stamp duties in connection with conversions made by private undertakings builds upon a general principle of tax neutrality — so that the focus is on the continuation of the same economic entity rather than on whether the legal subject used thereto is the same — it will be within the logic of such a tax regime to extend that principle also to cover situations whereby the State or a municipality separates an economic entity that has hitherto been driven as a part of the State or municipality into a separate legal entity.
Organ razume argumente Komisije, da bo ko nacionalna zakonodaja, ki zadeva plačilo taks s koleki v zvezi s preoblikovanjem, ki ga opravijo zasebna podjetja, temelji na splošnem načelu davčne nevtralnosti – tako da je poudarek na kontinuiteti istega gospodarskega subjekta, ne pa na tem, da je pravni subjekt, uporabljen za ta namen, isti – bo v skladu z logiko takega davčnega režima, da se to načelo razširi tudi na okoliščine, v katerih država ali občina preoblikuje gospodarski subjekt, ki je bil do takrat voden kot del države ali občine, v ločen pravni subjekt.
The Authority fully agrees with such an approach.
Organ se popolnoma strinja s takim pristopom.
However, the logic of each tax system must be assessed on its own merits.
Vendar pa je treba logiko vsakega davčnega sistema oceniti ločeno.
The Commission Decision relied on the fact that the Italian legal system provided for a possibility of exempting transfer tax in the context of the conversion from one corporate form to another.
Odločba Komisije se je opirala na dejstvo, da je italijanski pravni sistem predvideval možnost izvzetja iz davka na prenos v okviru preoblikovanja ene oblike družbe v drugo.
In contrast, Norwegian legislation, as interpreted and applied by the tax authorities, did not provide for such a possibility.
V nasprotju s tem norveška zakonodaja, kot so jo razlagali in uporabljali davčni organi, ni predvidevala take možnosti.
In fact, as already stated, comparable cases to Entra concerning private reorganisations (regarding demergers or conversion from one corporate form to another) were not exempted from paying the excise duties.
Pravzaprav, kot je že bilo navedeno, primeri, ki so primerljivi s podjetjem Entra, kar zadeva zasebna preoblikovanja (v zvezi z razdružitvami ali preoblikovanjem iz ene oblike družbe v drugo), niso bili izvzeti iz plačila trošarin.
In the view of the Authority, the factual situations of the two cases are therefore different.
Po mnenju Organa so dejanske okoliščine v teh dveh primerih torej različne.
That the continuity principle might have existed in other areas of Norwegian law, including most notably company law and the legislation pertaining to direct taxation of the entity concerned, cannot be given weight in the assessment of the similarity between the Italian and the Norwegian situations.
Dejstvo, da je načelo kontinuitete lahko obstajalo na drugih področjih norveške zakonodaje, predvsem vključno s pravom družb in zakonodajo, ki zadeva neposredno obdavčenje zadevnega subjekta, ne more imeti pomena pri oceni podobnosti med italijanskimi in norveškimi okoliščinami.
In conclusion, the measure must be considered to be selective in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and cannot escape that classification by reference to the nature and logic of the Norwegian rules on excise duties.
Ta ukrep mora torej veljati za selektivnega v smislu člena 61 (1) Sporazuma EGP in se ne more izogniti tej klasifikaciji s sklicevanjem na naravo in logiko norveških pravil o trošarinah.
The measure must confer an advantage to the recipients that reduces the costs they normally bear in the course of the business
Ukrep mora prejemnikom prinesti ugodnost, ki zmanjša običajne stroške pri opravljanju njihovega posla
According to the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) [51] and Chapter 17B.3.1(2) of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines ‘the measure must confer on recipients an advantage, which relieves them of charges that are normally borne from their budgets.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (SES) [51] in poglavjem 17B.3.1(2) smernic Organa o državni pomoči „mora ukrep prejemnikom prinesti ugodnost, ki jih oprosti dajatev, ki jih morajo običajno plačati iz svojih proračunov.
The advantage may be provided through a reduction in the firm’s tax burden in various ways, including:’ (…) ‘a total or partial reduction in the amount of tax (such as exemption or a tax credit)’.
Ugodnost se lahko zagotovi z znižanjem davčne obremenitve podjetja na več načinov, vključno z: (…) popolnim ali delnim znižanjem zneska davka (kot sta izvzetje ali dobropis za že plačane davke)“.
By the adoption of the statutory provision in paragraph 3 of the contested Act, Entra was relieved of the cost of excise duties for approximately NOK 81 million (close to EUR 10 million).
S sprejetjem zakonskega predpisa iz odstavka 3 spornega zakona je bilo podjetje Entra oproščeno plačila trošarin v vrednosti približno 81 milijonov NOK (približno 10 milijonov EUR).