natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this respect, the Lagmannsrett referred to the above mentioned circulars from the Ministry of Justice and the Customs and Excise Directorate and stated that it follows from the Act on Document Duty that duty should be paid unless directly stated in the act itself or provisions made pursuant thereto.
V zvezi s tem se je sodišče sklicevalo na navedene okrožnice Ministrstva za pravosodje in norveškega direktorata za carine in trošarine in navedlo, da iz Zakona o taksi za listine sledi, da je takso treba plačati, razen če je drugače določeno v samem zakonu ali določbah, sprejetih na njegovi podlagi.
As the new company was a different legal entity than the original one, it did not matter that it was the same owners who continued in the new company and thus that the only change in reality was the form under which the company was operated.
Ker novo podjetje ni bilo ista pravna oseba kot prvotno podjetje, ni bilo pomembno, da so bili v novem podjetju še naprej isti lastniki in da se je dejansko spremenila le oblika podjetja.
In addition, reference can be made to a case mentioned in Annex 1 of the Norwegian Government’s letter of 4 June 2002 in which the Norwegian authorities refused to exempt from duty a conversion from a ‘selveiende institusjon’ to a ‘allmenaksjeselskap’.
Poleg tega se je mogoče sklicevati tudi na primer, naveden v Prilogi 1 k dopisu norveške vlade z dne 4. junija 2002, v katerem so norveški organi oblasti zavrnili izvzetje iz plačila taks za preoblikovanje iz „selveiende institusjon“ v „allmenaksjeselskap“.
Transfer of ownership from a municipality to a separate legal entity wholly owned by the municipality
Prenos lastništva z občine na ločeno pravno osebo, ki je v celoti v lasti občine
At the meeting between the Norwegian Authorities and the Authority on 19 May 2005, the Norwegian Authorities indicated that it was most likely that under the circulars applicable at the time of the establishment of Entra, stamp duty would have incurred in connection to a reorganisation in which the ownership of a building was transferred from a municipality to a limited liability company owned by that municipality.
Na sestanku med norveškimi organi oblasti in Organom 19. maja 2005 so norveški organi oblasti dejali, da je zelo verjetno, da bi se v okoliščinah, ki so veljale v času ustanovitve podjetja Entra, obračunavala taksa v povezavi z reorganizacijo, pri kateri se lastništvo zgradbe prenese z občine na družbo z omejeno odgovornostjo, ki je v lasti te občine.
In contrast, it had for some time been the practice that no stamp duty would incur in relation to transfer of titles in connection with reorganisations pursuant to the Norwegian act of 29 January 1999 on inter-municipal companies [26].
Nasprotno pa je bila nekaj časa praksa, da se taksa ne obračunava v povezavi s prenosom lastninskih pravic, kadar gre za preoblikovanja v skladu z norveškim Zakonom z dne 29. januarja 1999 o medobčinskih podjetjih [26].
The practice after 1 July 2005
Praksa po 1. juliju 2005
As the registration of the name change in the Real Estate Registry took place in connection with the establishment of Entra, the rules described above form the relevant comparison with provision in paragraph 3 of the contested Act.
Ker se je v zvezi z ustanovitvijo podjetja Entra izvedla registracija spremembe imena v zemljiški knjigi, zgoraj opisana pravila oblikujejo ustrezno primerjavo z določbo odstavka 3 spornega zakona.
It should, however, be mentioned that on 21 June 2005, The Ministry of Justice adopted a new Circular (G-6/05) on the procedure of transfer of real estate in connection with mergers, de mergers and transformation of companies [27].
Vendar pa je treba omeniti, da je Ministrstvo za pravosodje 21. junija 2005 sprejelo novo okrožnico (G-6/05) o postopku prenosa nepremičnine v povezavi z združitvami, razdružitvami in preoblikovanjem podjetij [27].
The new circular introduced, with effect from 1 July 2005, a new practice with regard to situations where the designation of the title holder can be changed without it being considered a transfer of title.
Nova okrožnica je z veljavnostjo od 1. julija 2005 uvedla novo prakso v zvezi s situacijami, v katerih se imenovanje imetnika lastninske pravice lahko spremeni, ne da bi takšna sprememba veljala za prenos lastninske pravice.
According to the new Circular, registration in connection with de mergers based on the continuity principle will now be treated in the same way as mergers in relation to the rules on excise duties and thus no longer be subject to stamp duty.
V skladu z novo okrožnico se registracija v zvezi z razdružitvami, ki temeljijo na načelu kontinuitete, obravnavajo enako kot združitve v povezavi s predpisi o trošarinah in zato zanje ni treba več plačevati taks.
The same applies to conversions carried out on the basis of the rules in Chapters 13, 14 and 15 of the Limited Liability Company Act and the Public Limited Liability Company Act.
Enako velja za preoblikovanja, ki se izvedejo na podlagi predpisov iz poglavij 13, 14 in 15 Zakona o družbah z omejeno odgovornostjo in Zakona o delniških družbah.
In contrast, according to the new Circular, excise duty will still be payable when real estate is transferred according to a set of rules not based on continuity (for example a merger of general partnerships (‘ansvarlige selskaper’)).
Nasprotno pa se bo v skladu z novo okrožnico trošarina se vedno plačevala, kadar gre za prenos nepremičnin po sklopu pravil, ki ne temeljijo na kontinuiteti (na primer združitev družb z neomejeno odgovornostjo („ansvarlige selskaper“)).
A transfer from one form of company to another, for example from a general partnership to a limited liability company, will also continue to be liable to excise duty.
Trošarine se bodo plačevale tudi pri prenosih z ene oblike podjetja na drugo, kot na primer z družbe z neomejeno odgovornostjo na družbo z omejeno odgovornostjo.
Other reorganisations of public undertakings
Druge vrste preoblikovanj javnih podjetij
As stated in the letter dated 4 June 2003 from the Norwegian authorities, other reorganisations have contained provisions similar to the contested Act (Posten AS, NSB AS, Mesta AS, Avinor AS, Telenor AS and health enterprises) [28].
Kot je navedeno v dopisu norveških organov oblasti z dne 4. junija 2003, so ostala preoblikovanja vsebovala določbe, podobne spornemu zakonu (podjetja Posten AS, NSB AS, Mesta AS, Avinor AS, Telenor AS in zdravstvena podjetja) [28].
The Authority notes that other reorganisations have also taken place where a provision similar to the one contained in the contested Act was not adopted.
Organ poudarja, da so se ostala preoblikovanja izvajala tudi, kadar ni bila sprejeta določba, podobna določbi v spornem zakonu.
The reorganisations that the Authority has become aware of, where such a provision has not been adopted include the establishment of BaneTele AS, Secora AS and Statkraft AS.
Organ se je seznanil z naslednjimi preoblikovanji, pri katerih taka določba ni bila sprejeta: ustanovitve podjetij BaneTele AS, Secora AS in Statkraft AS.
BaneTele AS is a provider of a nationwide fibre broadband network.
Podjetje BaneTele AS je ponudnik nacionalnega optičnega širokopasovnega omrežja.
The limited liability company was established on 1 July 2001.
Ustanovljeno je bilo 1. julija 2001 kot družba z omejeno odgovornostjo.
Before this date, the activities carried out were a part of the National Rail Administration (‘Jernbaneverket’).
Pred tem datumom so se dejavnosti izvajale v okviru nacionalne železniške uprave („Jernbaneverket“).
BaneTele is a limited liability company 100 % owned by the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
BaneTele je podjetje z omejeno odgovornostjo v 100-odstotni lasti norveške države, ki jo predstavlja Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo.
The National Rail Administration is responsible for the management of the national railway network, on behalf of the Ministry of Transport and Communication.
Nacionalna železniška uprava je v imenu Ministrstva za promet in komunikacije odgovorna za upravljanje nacionalne železniške vozne mreže.
The proposal to establish the limited liability company BaneTele was presented to the Parliament in St.prp. nr. 80 (2000-2001) Omdanning av BaneTele til aksjeselskap [29] and Ot.prp. nr. 93 (2000-2001) Om lov om omdanning av Jernbaneverkets kommersielle televirksomhet til aksjeselskap [30].
Predlog za ustanovitev podjetja z omejeno odgovornostjo BaneTele je bil predstavljen parlamentu v St. prp. št. 80 (2000–2001) Omdanning av BaneTele til aksjeselskap [29] in Ot. prp. št. 93 (2000–2001) Om lov om omdanning av Jernbaneverkets kommersielle televirksomhet til aksjeselskap [30].
Ot.prp. nr. 93 (2000-2001) and the subsequent law (Law of 15 June 2001) do not contain any provision similar to paragraph 3 in the contested Act.
Ot. prp. št. 93 (2000–2001) in kasnejši zakon (Zakon z dne 15. junija 2001) ne vsebujeta nobenih določb, podobnih odstavku 3 spornega zakona.
Secora AS is a specialised contractor in the development of safe and efficient harbours and coastal waterways.
Podjetje Secora AS je specializiran izvajalec razvoja varnih in učinkovitih pristanišč in obalnih vodnih poti.
The limited liability company was established on 1 January 2005.
Ustanovljeno je bilo 1. januarja 2005 kot družba z omejeno odgovornostjo.
The activities were previously carried out by the production unit of the Norwegian Coastal Administration (‘Kystverket’).
Njegove dejavnosti je prej izvajala proizvodna enota norveške obalne uprave („Kystverket“).
Secora AS is 100 % owned by the Norwegian State represented by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs.
Podjetje Secora AS je v 100-odstotni lasti norveške države, ki jo predstavlja Ministrstvo za ribištvo in obalne zadeve.
The Norwegian Coastal Administration is the Norwegian national agency for coastal management, marine safety and communication.
Norveška obalna uprava je norveška nacionalna agencija za upravljanje obale, pomorsko varnost in komunikacije.
The proposal to establish Secora AS was presented in St.prp. nr. 1 (2004-2005) Om omdanning av Kystverkets produksjonsvirksomhet til statlig aksjeselskap m.m [31]. and in Ot.prp. nr. 20 (2004-2005) Om lov om omdanning av Kystverkets produksjonsvirksomhet til statsaksjeselskap [32].
Predlog za ustanovitev podjetja Secora AS je bil predstavljen v St. prp. št. 1 (2004–2005) Om omdanning av Kystverkets produksjonsvirksomhet til statlig aksjeselskap m.m. [31] in v Ot. prp. št. 20 (2004–2005) Om lov om omdanning av Kystverkets produksjonsvirksomhet til statsaksjeselskap [32].
Ot.prp. nr. 20 (2004-2005) and the subsequent law (Law of 17 December 2004) do not contain any provision similar to paragraph 3 in the contested Act.
Ot. prp. št. 20 (2004–2005) in kasnejši zakon (Zakon z dne 17. decembra 2004) ne vsebujeta nobenih določb, podobnih odstavku 3 spornega zakona.
Statkraft AS is the biggest producer of electricity in Norway.
Podjetje Statkraft AS je največji proizvajalec električne energije na Norveškem.
The limited liability company was established on 1 October 2004.
Ustanovljeno je bilo 1. oktobra 2004 kot družba z omejeno odgovornostjo.
The company was previously a state undertaking (‘Statsforetak (SF)’), and the state undertaking Statkraft SF still exists as the formal owner of Statkraft AS.
Pred tem je bilo državno podjetje („Statsforetak (SF)“). Državno podjetje Statkraft SF še vedno obstaja kot formalni lastnik podjetja Statkraft AS.
The first proposal to establish the limited liability company was presented to the Parliament in St.meld. nr. 22 (2001-2002) Et mindre og bedre statlig eierskap [33] and thereafter in St.prp. nr. 53 (2003-2004) Statens eierskap i Statkraft SF [34] and in Ot.prp. nr. 63 (2003-2004) Om lov om omorganisering av Statkraft SF [35].
Prvi predlog za ustanovitev družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo je bil predstavljen parlamentu v St. meld. št. 22 (2001–2002) Et mindre og bedre statlig eierskap [33] in kasneje v St. prp. št. 53 (2003–2004) Statens eierskap i Statkraft SF [34] in v Ot. prp. št. 63 (2003–2004) Om lov om omorganisering av Statkraft SF [35].
In St. prp. nr. 53 (2003-2004) the Government stated that the reorganisation would entail that Statkraft AS would have to pay excise duties (unofficial translation by the Authority) ‘in accordance with the normal rules of the act’ on excise duties and that the costs would reduce the surplus for the undertaking and thus also the basis for dividends.
V St. prp. št. 53 (2003–2004) je vlada navedla, da bi preoblikovanje pomenilo, da bi podjetje Statkraft AS moralo plačati trošarine (Organov neuraden prevod) „v skladu z običajnimi zakonskimi predpisi“ o trošarinah in da bi stroški zmanjšali presežek za podjetje in s tem tudi osnovo za dividende.
The excise duties were estimated to be NOK 1500 million (approximately EUR 188 million) [36].II.
Trošarine so bile ocenjene v višini 1500 milijonov NOK (približno 188 milijonov EUR) [36].II.
‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’
„Razen če ta sporazum ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica ES, država EFTE, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti določenim podjetjem ali proizvodnji določenega blaga, če to vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami, nezdružljiva z delovanjem tega sporazuma.“
To be considered as State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must fulfil all the following four criteria:
Da bi ukrep lahko veljal za državno pomoč v skladu s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, mora izpolnjevati vsa naslednja štiri merila:
The aid must be granted by the State or through State resources;
pomoč mora dodeliti država ali pa mora biti dodeljena iz državnih sredstev;
the aid must confer an advantage to the recipients that reduces the costs they normally bear in the course of the business;
pomoč mora prejemnikom prinesti ugodnost, ki zmanjša običajne stroške pri opravljanju njihovega posla;
the advantage must be specific or selective in that it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods;
ugodnost mora biti specifična ali selektivna, tako da daje prednost določenim podjetjem ali proizvodnji določenega blaga;
the aid must distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
pomoč mora izkrivljati konkurenco ali bi jo lahko izkrivljala in vplivati mora na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
Whereas the Authority, in its decision to open formal investigations, made the preliminary conclusion that all the said conditions were fulfilled, the Norwegian Government have argued that none of the conditions were fulfilled [37].
Organ je ob odločitvi o začetku uradnih preiskav prišel do predhodnega sklepa, da so bili izpolnjeni vsi navedeni pogoji, norveška vlada pa je trdila, da ni bil izpolnjen noben pogoj [37].
The Authority must therefore examine the exemption of excise duty in light of relevant case law to see whether it constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.1.1. The aid must be granted by the state or through state resources
Organ mora torej preučiti izvzetje iz plačila trošarin ob upoštevanju ustrezne sodne prakse, da bi ugotovil, ali gre za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.1.1 Pomoč mora dodeliti država ali pa mora biti dodeljena iz državnih sredstev
With regard to the first condition mentioned above, it is established case law [38] that this condition is fulfilled when a measure directly or indirectly entails some form of financial burden on public funds.In its decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Authority made the preliminary conclusion that the provision in paragraph 3 in the contested Act entailed that an excise duty otherwise payable was not paid.
V zvezi s prvim pogojem, navedenim zgoraj, je uveljavljena sodna praksa [38], da je ta pogoj izpolnjen, kadar ukrep neposredno ali posredno vključuje kakšno obliko finančnega bremena za javna sredstva.Organ je ob odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave sprejel predhodni sklep, da določba iz odstavka 3 spornega zakona pomeni, da trošarina, ki je sicer plačljiva, ni bila plačana.
This exemption from paying excise duty entailed a direct loss of tax revenue for the Norwegian State which was equivalent to the consumption of State resources.
To izvzetje iz plačila trošarine je imelo za posledico neposredno izgubo davčnih prihodkov za norveško državo, kar je enakovredno porabi državnih sredstev.
Therefore, the Authority drew the preliminary conclusion that the first condition was fulfilled.
Zato je Organ sprejel predhodni sklep, da je prvi pogoj izpolnjen.
In their comments to the opening decision, the Norwegian authorities, however, argued [37] Letter dated 16 September 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
V pripombah na uvodno odločbo pa so norveški organi trdili [37] Dopis z dne 16. septembra 2004 Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo.
that as the obligation on Entra to pay the document duty was never released (because ‘the transfer of title in the case at hand was done as a name change and not by transfer of title’), there had been no loss of tax revenue and hence, no consumption of State resources.
, da podjetje Entra ni bilo nikoli zavezano plačilu takse za listine (ker „je bil prenos lastninske pravice v zadevnem primeru opravljen kot sprememba imena in ne s prenosom lastninske pravice“) ni bilo izgube davčnih prihodkov in torej tudi ne porabe državnih sredstev.
The Authority cannot agree with that argument.
Organ se ne more strinjati s tem argumentom.
A benefit in the form of a tax exemption covered by Article 61(1) is typically made by way of an express exemption.
Ugodnost v obliki izvzetja iz plačila davkov, zajeta v členu 61(1), se ponavadi opravi z izrecnim izvzetjem.
However, as Article 61(1) focuses on the effect of, and not the formality behind, the national legal system, it also covers situations where a tax relief is brought about indirectly by reference to a particular legal notion (in casu‘name change’) the result of which is that no tax should be paid.
Ker pa se člen 61(1) osredotoča na učinek in ne na formalnost, ki izhaja iz nacionalnega pravnega sistema, zajema tudi okoliščine, ko je davčna oprostitev izvršena posredno s sklicevanjem na določen pravni pojem (v primeru „spremembe imena“), kar ima za posledico, da ni treba plačati davka.
In both situations, and with reference to the case at hand, the effect is that a registration in the real estate register could take place without triggering excise duties only because of the particular legislative provision.
V obeh okoliščinah in s sklicevanjem na obravnavani primer je učinek tak, da bi se lahko registracija v zemljiški knjigi opravila brez plačila trošarin samo zaradi posebne zakonske določbe.
No such tax-free registration could have taken place had it not been for the special provision.
Registracija, oproščena plačila davka, ne bi bila mogoča brez posebne določbe.
In the proposal to the Parliament [39], the Norwegian Government stated that it was highly uncertain if the transfer of the properties from Statsbygg to Entra would trigger the excise duty.
V predlogu Parlamentu [39] je norveška vlada izrazila dvom, da bi prenos premoženja z organizacije Statsbygg na podjetje Entra lahko sprožil plačilo trošarine.
However, as demonstrated below under point 1.2, the Norwegian Government has not convincingly shown that the registration of the transfer of properties from the State to Entra could have been exempted from excise duty in the absence of the particular provision in paragraph 3 of the Act of 18 February 2000.
Vendar pa, kakor je navedeno v točki 1.2 spodaj, norveška vlada ni prepričljivo dokazala, da bi bila registracija prenosa premoženja z države na podjetje Entra lahko izvzeta iz plačila trošarine v primeru neobstoja posebne določbe v odstavku 3 Zakona z dne 18. februarja 2000.
No other provision in Norwegian law explicitly prescribed that such a transaction was exempted from the general rule that registration of change of ownership triggers excise duty.
Nobena druga določba norveške zakonodaje izrecno ne predpisuje, da je tak prenos izvzet iz splošnega pravila, da registracija zamenjave lastništva sproži plačilo trošarine.
Moreover, the Authority cannot see how the reorganisation of Statsbygg — in the absence of Paragraph 3 in the Act of 18 February 2000 — could have been exempted under the Registration Act as it was then interpreted.
Poleg tega Organ ne razume, kako bi bilo preoblikovanje organizacije Statsbygg – če ne bi obstajal odstavek 3 Zakona z dne 18. februarja 2000 – lahko izvzeto v skladu s tedanjo razlago Zakona o registraciji.
The Authority therefore maintains that the first condition is fulfilled.
Organ zato trdi, da je prvi pogoj izpolnjen.
The measure must be specific or selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’
Ukrep mora biti poseben ali selektiven tako, da daje prednost „določenim podjetjem ali proizvodnji določenega blaga“
In its decision to open formal investigations, the Authority made the preliminary conclusion that the adoption of a special law exempting it from paying excise duty, (for one company only (Entra)), should be classified as a selective measure.
Organ je ob odločbi o začetku uradnih preiskav sprejel predhodni sklep, da je treba sprejetje posebnega zakona, ki podjetje izvzame iz plačila trošarin (samo za eno podjetje – Entra), opredeliti kot selektiven ukrep.
In contrast, with reference to its above presented arguments concerning the continuity principle, the Norwegian authorities have argued that the practice with name changes as a procedure for transferring property title did not constitute a de facto derogation from the common tax system.
V nasprotju s tem so norveški organi oblasti s sklicevanjem na svoje argumente o načelu kontinuitete, predstavljene zgoraj, ugovarjali, da postopek zamenjave imen kot postopek prenosa lastninske pravice ne pomeni dejanskega odstopanja od skupnega davčnega sistema.
It was, therefore, a general measure.
Zato gre za splošni ukrep.
The Authority makes reference to Chapter 17B.3.1 of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines on direct business taxation concerning the specificity or selectivity of tax measures, which reads:
Organ se sklicuje na poglavje 17B.3.1 smernic Organa o državni pomoči glede neposrednega davka na dohodek, kar zadeva specifičnost ali selektivnost davčnih ukrepov, ki se glasi:
‘Tax measures, which are open to all economic agents operating within the EFTA State, are in principle general measures.
„Davčni ukrepi, ki so na voljo vsem gospodarskim subjektom v državi EFTA, so načeloma splošni ukrepi.
They must be effectively open to all firms on an equal access basis, and they may not de facto be reduced in scope through, for example, the discretional power of the State to grant them or through other factors that restrict their practical effect.’
Biti morajo na voljo vsem podjetjem na podlagi enakega dostopa. Njihov obseg ne sme biti dejansko zmanjšan, na primer z diskrecijsko pravico države, da jih dodeli, ali z drugimi dejavniki, ki omejujejo njihovo uporabo.“
The contested Act applies only to a particular transaction between Statsbygg and Entra.
Sporni zakon se uporablja samo za določeno transakcijo med organizacijo Statsbygg in podjetjem Entra.
It is true that similar acts have been adopted when other state owned limited liability companies have been established (see Part I above).
Res je, da so bili podobni akti sprejeti, ko so bile ustanovljene druge družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo v državni lasti (glej del I zgoraj).
However, the fact that similar rules have been introduced in relation to a range of other state privatisations does not entail that the lex specialis at hand becomes non-selective.
Vendar pa dejstvo, da so bila uvedena podobna pravila v zvezi z mnogimi drugimi državnimi privatizacijami, ne pomeni, da razpoložljive specialnosti postanejo neselektivne.