natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The first question established).
Prvo vprašanje mogoče opaziti �ele pri pretvorbi sredstev, nakazanih na račun družbe, v valuto države članice, v kateri ima družba sedež).
It can therefore be taken into account neither by the branch nor by the parent company.
Zato je ne more uveljavljati niti obrat niti matična družba.
It is settled caselaw that freedom of establishment entails the right of compan- ies formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their principal place of business within the Community to pursue their activities in another Member State, through a branch established there. 9
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je svoboda ustanavljanja družb, ki so bile ustanovljene v skladu s pravom države članice in imajo glavno poslovno enoto v Skupnosti, povezana s pravico do nadaljevanja dejavnosti v drugi državi članici prek obrata, ustanovljenega v njej 9.
By its first question the referring court asks essentially whether it is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48 EC for Member State A to treat a currency loss of a company established in its territory resulting from the repatriation of so-called startup capital granted to a branch in Member State B as being part of the branch’s profits and to exclude that loss, on the basis of an exemption under a double taxation convention, from the company’s basis of assessment, even though the currency loss cannot form part of the branch’s profits to be assessed for purposes of taxation in Member State B, with the result that it cannot be taken into account in either Member State.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je v nasprotju s členoma 43 ES in 48 ES, če država članica A negativno tečajno razliko družbe s sedežem na njenem ozemlju, ki izhaja iz povračila tako imenovanega dotacijskega kapitala, ki ga je podelila svojemu obratu v državi članici B, obravnava kot del dobička obrata in jo na podlagi oprostitve na podlagi Konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja izvzame iz davčne osnove družbe, čeprav negativna tečajna razlika ne more biti del dobička obrata, ki ga je treba ugotoviti zaradi obdavčenja v državi članici B, zaradi česar je ni mogoče upo�tevati v nobeni izmed držav članic.
Nor is it contentious that although the provisions concerning freedom of establishment are worded so as mainly to be aimed at ensuring equal treatment of foreign companies in a host Member State, those provisions also prohibit the State of origin from hindering the establishment in another Member State of a company incorporated under its legislation which comes within the definition contained in Article 48 EC. 10
Prav tako ni sporno, da čeprav je besedilo določb v zvezi s svobodo ustanavljanja v večji meri usmerjeno k zagotavljanju enakega obravnavanja tujih podjetij v državi članici gostiteljici, te določbe tudi nasprotujejo temu, da bi matična država članica ovirala družbo, ki je bila ustanovljena v skladu z njeno zakonodajo in ki izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 48 ES, pri ustanavljanju v drugi državi članici 10.
9 — Case C-141/99 AMID [2000] ECR I-11619, paragraph 20, citing Case 270/83 Commission v France [1986] ECR 273, paragraph 18; Case C-330/91 Commerzbank [1993] ECR I-4017, paragraph 13.
9 – Sodba z dne 14. decembra 2000 v zadevi AMID (C-141/99, Recueil, str. I-11619, točka 20, ki navaja sodbo z dne 28. januarja 1986 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, 270/83, Recueil, str.
10 — AMID, paragraph 21, citing Case 81/87 Daily Mail and General Trust [1988] ECR 5483.
10 – V opombi 9 navedena sodba AMID, točka 21, ki navaja sodbo z dne 27. septembra 1988 v zadevi Daily Mail and General Trust, 81/87, Recueil, str. 5483.
The problem arises because German law regards currency losses arising from the operation of a foreign branch of a German company — which includes losses arising from closing the branch — as related to the income from that branch.
Težava nastane, ker nem�ko pravo �teje, da je negativna tečajna razlika, ki izhaja iz poslovanja obrata nem�ke družbe v tujini – ki vključuje tudi izgube, ki izhajajo iz zaprtja obrata –, povezana z dohodkom tega obrata.
Where therefore such income is exempt from German tax pursuant to a double taxation convention, the currency loss cannot be brought into the company’s assessment to German tax.
Če je tak dohodek na podlagi Konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja opro�čen davka v Nemčiji, negativne tečajne razlike ni mogoče vključiti v sredstva družbe pri določitvi njene davčne osnove za obdavčenje z nem�kim davkom.
By definition the currency loss has no effect on the branch’s profits in Italy (since it only crystallises on conversion of funds transferred to the company into the currency of the Member State where the company is
Negativna tečajna razlika ne vpliva na dobiček obrata v Italiji (saj jo je
DEUTSCHE SHELL result of such operations would be deductible.
DEUTSCHE SHELL svojih stali�čih predlagale �tevilne druge hipotetične primerjalne skupine 11.
One way of approaching the reference for a preliminary ruling is to ask whether there is discrimination against parent companies in such a situation as compared with the treatment afforded to some appropriate compara- tor.
Eden izmed pristopov, ki so mogoči v zvezi s predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, je, da se ugotovi, ali so matične družbe, ki se znajdejo v takem položaju, diskriminirane v primerjavi z ustrezno primerjalno skupino.
A different, and perhaps more straightforward way of examining the same issue is to ask whether the German law constitutes a restriction on the right to freedom of establishment, and, if so, whether this is justified.
Drugačna in morda manj zapletena pot do preučitve iste težave je, da se ugotovi, ali pomeni nem�ko pravo omejitev pravice do ustanavljanja, in, če je tako, ali je ta upravičena.
The Commission takes the view that the German law results in discriminatory treatment.
Komisija meni, da vodi nem�ko pravo k diskriminaciji.
A loss for the parent company is not taken into account purely because that loss is a currency loss which has arisen from an establishment based abroad.
Izguba matične družbe se ne upo�teva zgolj zato, ker je to negativna tečajna razlika, ki je nastala pri obratu v tujini.
The fact that this problem will only arise in a crossborder situation is no justification for refusing to take such a loss into account.
S tem, da bo do te težave pri�lo zgolj pri čezmejnem položaju, ni mogoče upravičiti neupo�tevanja take izgube.
If anything, companies in that position should benefit from special protection.
Če sploh kaj, bi morale biti družbe v takem položaju upravičene do posebnega varstva.
In establishing whether the German law discriminates against Deutsche Shell in such a way as to infringe its right to freedom of establishment, it is necessary to identify an appropriate comparator.
Da bi se ugotovilo, ali nem�ko pravo diskriminira družbo Deutsche Shell tako, da kr�i njeno pravico do ustanavljanja, je nujno treba določiti primerjalno skupino.
The Finanzamt, Germany and the Netherlands have taken the view that the absence of true internal comparators shows that there is no discrimination in the application of the German law.
Finanzamt, Nemčija in Nizozemska menijo, da neobstoj resničnih notranjih primerjalnih skupin kaže na to, da uporaba nem�kega prava ne vodi k diskriminaciji.
11 — Thus Deutsche Shell takes as its model for comparison a German parent company with an establishment in Germany, which operates in more than one currency.
11 – Za primerjavo družba Deutsche Shell navaja nem�ko matično družbo z obratom v Nemčiji, ki posluje v več kot zgolj eni valuti.
It argues that fluctuations in the value of the second currency would be taken into account when calculating such a company’s taxable income in Germany.
Trdi, da bi bilo treba upo�tevati gibanja vrednosti druge valute pri izračunu obdavčljivega dohodka družbe v Nemčiji.
The Finanzgericht’s reference compares the position of the claimant (a German parent company which operates in DEM, which has set up an Italian establishment which operates in ITL) with the position of a hypothetical German parent company which operates in DEM, which has set up a German (sic) establishment which operates in ITL (or another currency).
Finanzgericht v predložitveni odločbi primerja položaj tožeče stranke (nem�ke matične družbe, ki posluje v DEM in je ustanovila italijanski obrat, ki posluje v ITL) s položajem hipotetične nem�ke matične družbe, ki posluje v DEM in je ustanovila nem�ki (sic) obrat, ki posluje v ITL (ali v drugi valuti).
The Finanzgericht states that the currency losses incurred as a
Finanzgericht ugotavlja, da bi bilo pri takih poslih nastale negativne tečajne razlike mogoče odbiti.
I recall that an analogous problem arose in AMID.
Opozarjam na to, da se je enaka težava pojavila v zadevi AMID 12. V tej zadevi je
It seems to me that, despite its considerable academic and intellectual interest, in the specific circumstances of this case a lengthy discussion of discrimination is unnecessary.
Menim, da glede na posebne okoli�čine zadeve, kljub znatni znanstveni in intelektualni zanimivosti, ni nujna dolga razprava o diskriminaciji.
For the Commission, the decisive factor in reaching an answer to the preliminary question referred by the Finanzgericht is not whether there has been discriminatory treatment, but whether the German national law produces a situation which has a restrictive effect on those who wish to exercise their freedom of establishment.
Komisija meni, da za pridobitev odgovora na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje ni odločilen dejavnik, kot je trdilo Finanzgericht, ali je pri�lo do diskriminacije, ampak ali nem�ko nacionalno pravo povzroča nastanek položaja, v katerem so tisti, ki želijo izvajati svobodo ustanavljanja, pri izvr�evanju svoje pravice omejeni.
Belgian undertakings which had a branch in another Member State were not in the same position as undertakings that had concentrated all their operations in Belgium.
Belgija trdila, da podjetja, ki so imela obrat v drugi državi članici, niso bila v enakem položaju kot podjetja, ki so vse posle opravljala v Belgiji.
The two categories of undertaking would always be in a different situation, so that the application of a tax system leading to different results would not necessarily constitute discrimination.
Ti vrsti podjetij naj bi vedno bili drugače obravnavani, tako da naj uporaba davčnega sistema, ki bi pripeljal do različnih izidov, ne bi nujno pomenila tudi diskriminacije.
The Court dismissed that argument, holding that those differences could not explain the difference in treatment between the two types of company. 13
Sodi�če je to trditev zavrnilo in je ugotovilo, da s temi razlikami ni mogoče upravičiti neenakega obravnavanja teh dveh vrst podjetij 13.
I agree.
S tem se strinjam.
Restriction on freedom of establishment
Omejitev svobode ustanavljanja
Deutsche Shell argues that a regime under which there is no possibility of taking into account a currency loss in either the Member State of origin of the parent company, or the Member State in which a branch is established, restricts the parent company’s freedom of establishment.
Družba Deutsche Shell trdi, da sistem, na podlagi katerega ni mogoče upo�tevati negativne tečajne razlike niti v državi članici izvora matične družbe niti v državi članici, v kateri ima obrat sedež, omejuje svobodo ustanavljanja matičnega podjetja.
The Commission likewise submits that the parent company has suffered a loss which cannot be deducted in either Italy or Germany.
Tudi Komisija uveljavlja, da je matična družba utrpela izgubo, ki je ni mogoče odbiti niti v Italiji niti v Nemčiji.
Such a loss constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment.
Taka izguba pomeni omejitev svobode ustanavljanja.
12 — Cited in footnote 9.13 — See paragraphs 25 and 28.
12 – Navedena v opombi 9.13 – Glej točki 25 in 28.
The Finanzamt, whilst strongly arguing that there is no discriminatory treatment,
Čeprav Finanzamt močno zatrjuje, da diskriminacije ni, pa vendar ne posku�a
DEUTSCHE SHELL does not seek to argue that there is no restriction. It confines itself to the contention that Deutsche Shell has suffered no real loss.
DEUTSCHE SHELL razlik med nacionalnimi davčnimi sistemi, in omejitve, ki nastanejo zaradi nujnosti razdelitve davčne pristojnosti med dvema državama članicama.
However, if the facts are as stated by the referring court, it would appear that Deutsche Shell has suffered a real disadvantage which would indeed restrict the exercise of the freedom of establishment.
Po mnenju generalnega pravobranilca kvazi omejitve ne bi smele biti povod za posredovanje sodnega organa.
argued that such quasi-restrictions arise merely as an inevitable consequence of the fact that two different legal systems exist side by side.
navesti, da omejitev ne obstaja. Pri tem se opira na trditev, da družba Deutsche Shell ni utrpela resnične izgube.
Two examples that he gave were where the restrictions appeared as a result of disparities between national tax systems, and where the restrictions appeared as a result of the necessity of dividing tax jurisdiction between two Member States.
Če pa je dejansko stanje tak�no, kot ga je predstavilo predložitveno sodi�če, se zdi, da je družba Deutsche Shell utrpela resnično neugodnost, kar bi dejansko omejilo izvajanje svobode ustanavljanja.
Where a real disadvantage arises for taxpaying companies, it is important to determine its cause.
Če nastane družbam, zavezanim za plačilo davka, resnična neugodnost, je nujno treba ugotoviti njen vzrok.
That necessarily involves evaluating the tax system which gave rise to the disadvantage and distinguishing between a restriction prohibited by Article 43 EC and one which emerges as an unfavourable but natural consequence of disparities between the tax systems of different Member States. 15
To nujno vključuje oceno davčnega sistema, ki je privedel do neugodnosti in razlike med omejitvijo, prepovedano na podlagi člena 43 ES, in omejitvijo, ki je manj ugodna, a naravna posledica razlik med davčnimi sistemi posameznih držav članic 15.
The possibility that a company can be disadvantaged because a loss arising from an adverse currency fluctuation affecting transactions between it and a crossborder establishment is not taken into account when computing tax liability arises only where that company engages in crossborder establishment.
Možnost, da je družba lahko v manj ugodnem položaju zaradi izgube, ki izhaja iz neugodnega gibanja menjalnih tečajev, ki vpliva na transakcije med njo in čezmejnim obratom, ker se ta ne upo�teva pri izračunu davčnega dolga, nastane zgolj takrat, ko ima družba čezmejni obrat
Both Germany and the Netherlands draw heavily on the Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in Case C-374/04 Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation.
Nemčija in Nizozemska se v veliki meri sklicujeta na sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Geelhoeda v zadevi Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group ITLi-gation (C-374/04) 16.
16At points 37 to 39 of that Opinion (which were not specifically followed by the Court, although the Court reached the same conclusion), Advocate General Geelhoed classified a certain number of circumstances having a restrictive effect as ‘quasi-restrictions’. He
Generalni pravobranilec Geelhoed je v točkah od 37 do 39 teh sklepnih predlogov (ki jih Sodi�če ni dosledno upo�tevalo, vendar pa je pri�lo do enake ugotovitve) uvrstil določene okoli�čine z omejujočim učinkom med „kvazi omejitve“.
It is also doubtful whether the present circumstances arise solely because of the need for cooperation between the German and Italian fiscal regimes.
Obstaja tudi dvom glede tega, ali niso te okoli�čine nastale zgolj zaradi nujnosti sodelovanja med nem�ko in italijansko davčno ureditvijo.
The disadvantage arises as a result of a currency loss that can be seen only in Germany. It can therefore
Neugodnost izhaja iz negativne tečajne razlike, ki se pojavi zgolj v Nemčiji, zato jo lahko upo�tevajo le nem�ki davčni organi; neugodnost, ki jo je utrpela družba
17 — See points 45 et seq. below, in particular points 49 and 50.
17 – Glej spodaj točko 45 in naslednje, �e posebej točki 49 in 50.
Justification be taken into account only by the German fiscal authorities.
Utemeljitev
Therefore the disadvantage suffered by Deutsche Shell is attributable to the decisions of the German authorities.
Deutsche Shell, je zato mogoče pripisati odločbam nem�kih organov.
These decisions are, it is true, carried out within the framework of the 1925 Convention, but it does not follow from that that the differences merely flow from the co-exist-ence of two tax systems.
Sicer je res, da se te odločbe držijo v okviru Konvencije iz leta 1925, vendar pa to ne pomeni, da nastanejo razlike zgolj zaradi hkratnega obstoja dveh davčnih sistemov.
It is settled caselaw that a restriction on the right to exercise one’s freedom of establishment may be justifiable in certain circumstances.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso velja, da je v določenih okoli�činah mogoče upravičiti omejitev pravice do izvr�evanja svobode ustanavljanja.
However, such a restriction is permissible only if it pursues a legitimate objective compatible with the Treaty and is justified by imperative reasons in the public interest.
Vendar pa je taka omejitev dopustna samo, če zasleduje legitimen cilj, ki je združljiv s Pogodbo in ga upravičujejo omejitve zaradi nujnih razlogov v splo�nem interesu.
Such a situation increases the risks faced by a company which wishes to create a branch in a Member State which uses a different currency.
Tak�en položaj povečuje tveganja, s katerimi se sooča družba, ki želi ustanoviti obrat v državi članici, v kateri velja drugačna valuta.
Not only does the parent company face the normal risks associated with the success of the branch; it will in such circumstances also have to face an increased level of risk in providing startup capital to the branch. 18
Matična družba se ne sooča zgolj z običajnimi tveganji v zvezi z uspehom obrata, ampak se bo v takih okoli�činah morala soočiti tudi z vi�jo stopnjo tveganja pri zagotavljanju dotacijskega kapitala svojemu obratu 18.
Furthermore, it must be shown that the application of the restrictive measure is appropriate in order to ensure the attainment of this legitimate objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective. 19
Poleg tega je treba dokazati, da je uporaba omejitvenega ukrepa primerna za dosego tega legitimnega cilja in ne presega tega, kar je nujno za dosego tega cilja 19.
In their observations, the parties to the present proceedings have suggested a number of possible justifications for the tax treatment here at issue.
Stranke v tem postopku so v svojih stali�čih navedle �tevilne mogoče utemeljitve za sporno davčno obravnavanje.
I will address each in turn.
V nadaljevanju bom preučila vsako izmed njih.
As a consequence of exercising its right to freedom of establishment, Deutsche Shell has suffered a loss which cannot be taken into account in the valuation of its global profits for the purposes of tax assessment.
Družba Deutsche Shell je zaradi izvajanja svobode ustanavljanja utrpela izgubo, ki je pri oceni njenih svetovnih dobičkov davčno ni mogoče upo�tevati.
This result indisputably makes the exercise of the right of establishment less attractive.
Ni sporno, da je zaradi tega uresničevanje pravice do ustanavljanja manj zanimivo.
I conclude that the circumstances of this case give rise to a restriction on freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 and 48 EC.
Ugotavljam, da je na podlagi okoli�čin v tej zadevi podana omejitev svobode ustanavljanja v smislu členov 43 ES in 48 ES.
18 — See, by analogy, the Opinion of Advocate General Lenz in Case C-1/93 Halliburton [1994] ECR I-1137, point 18 (although that was a clear discrimination case, the proposition is general).
18 – Glej po analogiji točko 18 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Lenza k sodbi z dne 12. aprila 1994 v zadevi Halliburton, C-1/93, Recueil, str. I-1137 (čeprav je �lo takrat za jasen primer diskriminacije, je ta izjava splo�na).
19 — Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, paragraph 35, referring to Case C-250/95 Futura Participations and Singer [1997] ECR I-2471, paragraph 26, and Case C-9/02 de Lasteyrie du Saillant [2004] ECR I-2409, paragraph 49. See also Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas [2006] ECR I-7995, paragraph 47. I - 1140
19 – Sodba z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, Zodl., str. I-10837, točka 35, ki se nana�a na sodbo z dne 15. maja 1997 v zadevi Futura Participations et Singer proti ADEMinistration des contributions, C-250/95, Recueil, str. I-2471, točka 26, in sodba z dne 11. marca 2004 v zadevi de Lasteyrie du Saillant, C-9/02, Recueil, str. I-2409, točka 49. Glej tudi sodbo z dne 12. septembra 2006 v zadevi Cadbury Schweppes in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, C-196/04, ZOdl., str. I-7995, točka 47. I - 1140
Balanced allocation of taxing powers proportionate application of Member States’ power to allocate fiscal competences between themselves.
Uravnotežena razdelitev davčnih pristojnosti članic in ki je ni mogoče upo�tevati kot „dohodek obrata“ v običajnem smislu tega izraza, ni sorazmerna uporaba pristojnosti držav članic za razdelitev davčnih pristojnosti med njimi.
Both Germany and the Netherlands draw the Court’s attention to the division of competences between the German and Italian tax authorities.
Nemčija in Nizozemska usmerjata pozornost Sodi�ča na razdelitev pristojnosti med nem�kimi in italijanskimi davčnimi organi.
Germany also invokes national sovereignty as a justification.
Nemčija v utemeljitev navaja tudi nacionalno suverenost.
It states that the arrangements put in place by the 1925 Convention are a logical way to partition German and Italian fiscal competences in crossborder situations.
Trdi, da sta bili s sporazumi, ki so bili sprejeti s Konvencijo iz leta 1925, logično razdeljeni nem�ka in italijanska davčna pristojnost v čezmejnih položajih. Ker je negativna tečajna razlika nastala v Italiji, je spadala v italijansko pristojnost in bi jo bilo treba upo�tevati v tej državi.
Germany and the Netherlands submit that the coherence of the German fiscal system might be compromised if Deutsche Shell were permitted to take a currency loss into account when calculating its global profits for taxation in Germany.
Nemčija in Nizozemska trdita, da bi bila lahko ogrožena skladnost nem�kega davčnega sistema, če bi se družbi Deutsche Shell dovolilo upo�tevanje negativne tečajne razlike pri izračunu njenega svetovnega dobička za določitev davčne osnove nem�kega davka.
However, as both Deutsche Shell and the Commission have highlighted in their observations, Italy operated in ITL in 1992 and all computations for tax purposes would, accordingly, have been carried out solely in ITL.
Kakorkoli že, družba Deutsche Shell in Komisija sta v stali�čih poudarili, da je v Italiji leta 1992 veljala ITL in da so bili v skladu s tem vsi izračuni davka opravljeni zgolj v ITL. Negativna tečajna razlika se je pojavila �ele ob pretvorbi zneskov iz ITL v DEM.
It follows that this argument is inherently flawed and must be rejected as a justification.
Iz tega izhaja, da ta trditev sama po sebi ni prepričljiva in jo je zato kot utemeljitev treba zavrniti.
Restrictive measures may be justified by the need to preserve the coherence of a national tax system.
Omejitvene ukrepe je mogoče upravičiti z nujnostjo varovanja skladnosti nacionalnega davčnega sistema.
However, in order to justify such a measure, there must be a direct link between the financial disadvantage suffered by a parent company, and a corres- ponding tax advantage, which offsets the disadvantage suffered by that company. 20
Vendar pa je za utemeljitev takega ukrepa potrebna neposredna vez med finančno neugodnostjo matične družbe in ustrezno davčno ugodnostjo, s katero se izravna neugodnost, ki jo je
Tax ‘advantages’ of the kind that are generated here are not true fiscal advantages, but are instead a double inequality.
Tovrstne davčne „ugodnosti“, ki nastanejo pri tem, pa niso resnične davčne ugodnosti, ampak pomenijo dvojno neenako obravnavanje.